During the month of January, the possibility of impeaching Donald Trump drew increased attention in the media. The idea of impeachment has inevitable appeal for those of us who thought from the outset that Trump was manifestly unfit for the presidency and have seen that assessment confirmed every week since his inauguration. But impeachment does not come easily, and a successful impeachment, resulting in a conviction by the Senate and removal from office, is even more difficult. And that is as it should be, taking as it does the drastic step of overturning our most important electoral decision. Even the commencement of impeachment proceedings should be initiated only for compelling reasons well beyond political beliefs, however passionately held.
The most recent discussions of impeachment began with a lengthy piece by David Leonhardt in the New York Times Sunday Review on January 5, “The People vs. Donald J. Trump.” It was followed by a considerably longer argument by Yoni Appelbaum in a widely noted cover article in the January 25 Atlantic, “Impeach Donald Trump”. In the meantime Michael Hayden and Neal Katyal argued in the Washington Post, on January 19, “The House should investigate impeaching Donald Trump”.
A case against impeachment was presented by Michael Tomasky in the New York Times on January 13, “What’s the Best Way to Dump Trump?” Other such arguments were made by by Yascha Mounka in Slate on January 23, “The Case Against Impeachment,” and by Ross Douthat in the New York Times on January 27, “A Case Against Impeachment.”
The writers arguing against impeachment made it clear that they are not supporters of Trump and indeed would welcome his departure from office; at least for now, however, they found impeachment inappropriate. Trump’s supporters have not joined the current discussion, believing no doubt that Trump’s tweet on January 4 was a complete answer:
How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%?
Trump’s statement of the case will not be persuasive to many outside his base, but the fact that it, or something like it, is believed by that base is a factor that cannot be ignored in considering the feasibility of impeachment.
Much of David Leonhardt’s piece appeared to lay out a bill of particulars for impeachment. Without addressing the still unresolved issue of collusion with Russia, he assembled facts and arguments under the following headings:
Trump has used the presidency for personal enrichment.
Trump has violated campaign finance law.
Trump has obstructed justice.
Trump has subverted democracy.
Leonhardt seemed impatient, asking “What are we waiting for?” and arguing that despite the trauma of overturning an election, “The cost of removing a president from office is smaller than the cost of allowing this president to remain.” In the end, however, Leonhardt acknowledged the difficulty of persuading Republican Senators to vote for conviction and cautioned against proceeding hastily:
Democrats won’t persuade [Republican Senators] by impeaching Trump. Doing so would probably rally the president’s supporters. It would shift the focus from Trump’s behavior toward a group of Democratic leaders whom Republicans are never going to like. A smarter approach is a series of sober-minded hearings to highlight Trump’s misconduct. Democrats should focus on easily understandable issues most likely to bother Trump’s supporters, like corruption.
Yoni Appelbaum, on the other hand, saw no reason to wait. He presented his own summary of grounds for impeachment and argued that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. He acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining a conviction in the Senate but argued that impeachment hearings would be beneficial in restraining Trump’s conduct during their pendency and that “even when [impeachment] fails to remove a president, it severely damages his political prospects.”
Hayden and Katyal made it clear that they were not calling for Trump’s impeachment, but only for the House to investigate whether impeachment was appropriate by addressing a fundamental question:
Is Trump obeying his oath to support and defend the Constitution and take care that the laws be faithfully executed? The time has come for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty and seek the answer.
Offering a contrary perspective, Michael Tomasky argued that while he finds a strong case for impeachment, an electoral defeat would be more widely accepted. He also favored an electoral defeat on the ground that “It will do more long-term damage to the Republican Party.” As to that, I disagree with both his conclusion and his aspiration. No one knows what will become of the Republican party when Donald Trump leaves the scene, but those of us who hope for reform would like to get on with it–and to repair the Trump damage–whenever and however he departs. Like Tomsky, Yascha Mounka, expressed his belief in a strong case for impeachment but concluded that:
[I]mpeachment would be the wrong means toward a noble end: Designed to contain the damage a dangerous president can wreak, it may turn out to help Trumpism survive even after Trump is forced to leave the White House.
Ross Douthat, in stating his case against impeachment, acknowledged the dangers of keeping Trump in office until 2020, but deemed Trump is so weak and unpopular, and hemmed in by legal and political restraints, that despite his alarming rhetoric, he is not “meaningfully threatening democracy.” Douthat further argued the need for a stronger case to justify removal:
If you want Trump gone, the existing case for impeachment will not do it. You must either prove him — not Stone or some other hanger-on, but him— guilty of conspiracy, or accept that he will depart only when he is beaten at the polls.
As things stand now, those who counsel against impeachment have the stronger case. Impeachment by the House without a conviction by the Senate would be enormously divisive and essentially pointless. To suggest that impeachment without conviction would still be damaging to Trump politically is at best speculative; it is just as easy and credible to speculate that Trump would be strengthened by such a course of action. Moreover, I would suggest that inflicting political damage is not a proper purpose for invoking the drastic constitutional remedy of impeachment.
One may argue, as Katyal and Hayden do, that it is proper simply to investigate impeachment without having reached any foregone conclusion. But if such an inquiry is begun, it is likely to unleash political appetites that are difficult to control and give rise to proceedings less deliberative than Katyal and Hayden would hope for. Conversely, almost all aspects of Trump and his administration can be investigated without placing them in a bundle that bears the inflammatory “impeachment” label. Solid grounds for impeachment may emerge from various Congressional investigations, or more likely, the Mueller report once it has been completed and becomes available (as it is almost certain to become available, one way or another).
What are “solid grounds for impeachment”? Under prevailing circumstances, such grounds would be evidence of misconduct that is sufficiently serious and clearly established to create a reasonable prospect of conviction by the Senate. In an ordinary criminal case, a prosecutor will not proceed against a target unless the prosecutor is convinced not only that the target is guilty but that a jury can be persuaded of that fact. Given the consequences of impeachment, there is even more reason to adopt that same standard. In this case, it may also be necessary, as a matter of political reality, for the grounds for impeachment to be persuasive to at least a significant portion of Trump base—a base that is largely shared by Republican Senators.
Some observers have suggested that Republicans in the Senate should follow the example of those Senate Republicans whose visit to Richard Nixon in August, 1974 triggered his resignation. There are, however, important differences. In that case, the “smoking gun” tape provided clear evidence of misconduct, both serious and indisputable, that is so far lacking in Trump’s case. Second, while Nixon initially enjoyed far broader support than Trump, that support had dwindled precipitously among Republicans as well as the general electorate by August 1974. And those who remained in support of Nixon lacked the unique fervor of the Trump base. It is quite unlikely that the sleep of any elected Republican was troubled by worries that his failure to support Nixon would draw opposition in a primary election.
In short, the best advice for Democrats and Republicans alike concerning impeachment may be to wait and see what develops, but get prepared to deal with Trump in 2020.
A bracing dose of reality, Doug. As much as I would like to see Trump gone, I think we still are some distance away from that. I don’t quite remember the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, but I do remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Many people (not the esteemed readers of Rinocracy) forget it is a two-step process: impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate. The former is possible; the latter is vastly improbable in a Senate which has no spine and seems to have lost its moral compass. The prospect of Trump resigning if approached by Republican leaders is about as farfetched as them finding the courage to confront him. His boundless ego would not allow that. The result? More patience, as distasteful as that is and await the results of Mueller and Congressional investigations.
It seems to me that the Republican party would be better served if the Senators dumped Trump before his first term is up. Even though I agree he a paper tiger and a seriously weakened president after two years of utter chaos under his “leadership.”
The Mueller report, House investigative hearings or Trump himself (his own worst enemy) may decide his fate in the near term.
In any case, it is imperative that Trump not be elected to a second term. The GOP would do well to nominate someone else to run in 2020. My hunch is that senate majority leader Mitch McConnel and many other prominent Republicans are already working on this.
I keep agreeing with you. Tom
A fascinating discussion of the pros and cons of proceeding at this time with the impeachment attempt which Trump so fully deserves, in my view, for his destructive, divisive, self-serving actions during his first two years as President. I agree with the conclusion that it may be better to wait for more conclusive evidence to emerge that might sway the Senate to support impeachment, than proceed with a losing effort, adding to the divisiveness and anger that already grips the nation. It is interesting to note that, while Bill Clinton’s failed impeachment did weaken his remaining years as president, and also weakened the Democrats position in the approaching election, Trump’s presidency, his backers, and the apparent ethical standards of the nation are currently such an anomaly that there is no certainty Trump would be weakened by a failed attempt.
Doug: sober thoughts indeed. My view is that all patriots should place as their highest value the welfare of the nation. So what best serves the welfare of the nation: a divisive impeachment attempt that may end in frustration? Or preventing two more years of Trump?
As usual, Doug, your arguments are sensible, rational and practical. But my biggest problem is that using the probability of persuading at least 20 GOP Senators (few of whom have displayed much backbone to date) to act on principle as the primary test for even beginning an impeachment inquiry leaves open the question: if the kind of manifest misconduct displayed on an almost daily basis by this president does not warrant an impeachment inquiry, then what would?
I agree with my husband (Mike Smith, commentator above). Seems to me that some Republicans are at long-last showing a little backbone only in the wake of Nancy Pelosi’s success in demonstrating that standing-up to an ignorant bully works. But this means (to me, anyway) that they would only resist another shut-down and perhaps Trump’s threat to declare a “National Emergency;” i.e., not that they would support impeachment.
besides, there’s pence….
So who is doing the singing here? Traditional story says its a women Could her name be Nancy? Who is the sailor and where are the rocks? We love myths because of their certitude always end the same way but in this case no one knows how it will end but if it be done then let it be done quickly.
Comments are closed.