Does a resolution to censure or an actual censure of a sitting House member have any teeth? In 2019, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) authored a resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Schiff had grossly mischaracterized a phone call between Donald Trump and the President of Ukraine and helped initiate an impeachment inquiry.
This was just one of the frivolous investigations that Schiff has led or participated in regarding Trump while he was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Indeed, Schiff already knew that there was nothing illegal about the phone call, but he persisted in wasting taxpayers’ money and time. However, the resolution to censure didn’t pass in the House.
Fast forward to June 2023, and another motion to censure Schiff was put forth by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.). This censure effort revolved around an impeachment attempt based on the fraudulent Steele dossier. The Democrats knew that their Russia/Trump collusion narrative to interfere in the 2016 election was based on disinformation, yet they plowed ahead.
The House initially voted 225-196 to table the resolution on June 14. It was notable for Californians because five of the twenty Republicans who voted to table were from this state. Why did they seem to let Schiff off the hook again by voting with the Democrats to end the formal rebuke? One could understand the Democrats’ desire to circle the wagons around Schiff regardless of his behavior.
But on June 21, the House advanced the resolution and voted 213 to 209 to censure Schiff. He now faces the consequences of a formal admonition. It’s common knowledge that Schiff has often targeted conservatives based on flimsy or non-existent evidence and misled Americans regarding events on Jan. 6, 2021, so censuring him seems appropriate.
However, some House members still clearly believe that morality can’t be legislated, and censures are minimally effective. On the other hand, they might think passing censure reprimands only sets up a pattern of left and right (no pun intended) vendettas down the road. One wonders what voters think about the guidelines surrounding congressional censures and expulsions.
Along with Eric Early (R), Barbara Lee (D), Katie Porter (D), and Lexi Reese (D), Schiff has thrown his hat in the ring to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in 2024. Will the voters want to elect a dishonest Schiff to become one of the two senators in this state? Will they vote for members of Congress who took steps to protect corrupt behavior within Democratic ranks?
Republicans shouldn’t escape scrutiny either. Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) wildly inflated his career resume and was involved in prior illegal activities. Shouldn’t he have been censured or perhaps even expelled from the House? However, it may be best for both sides of the aisle to police their own members instead of unleashing the politics of personal destruction.
The role of Congress is to write up laws that defend liberty, strengthen equal justice under the law, and enhance national security. Members are supposed to represent the will of their constituents by adhering to fiscal accountability, constitutional principles, and transparency. They are elected to uphold the national interest instead of eroding the rule of law.
Finally, censures have been utilized in both private and public sector organizations as a means to curb conflicts of interest, corruption, and other forms of moral turpitude. Even the threat of censure equally applied ought to give any politician a cause for reflection. Will a successful censure resolution alter the behavior of a defiant Adam Schiff? Time will tell, but don’t hold your breath as it might take a miracle.
