“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
–George Orwell
It’s finally happened. Trump’s crimes have led the media to criticize the Democrats. I’m not talking nutty right-wing, but the mainstream. Not that I ever care what Nicole Wallace says, but she’s calling Democrats “as cowardly as the Republicans”:
“If impeachment were politically popular, I promise you the attack on Democrats would be that they were pursuing it because it was politically expedient. If she believes that crimes were committed and that Mueller unearthed them in the second volume of the obstruction report, I don’t understand why the fact that impeachment is polarizing is some sort of — it makes them just as cowardly as the Republicans.”
Instead of covering the narrative of Trump’s misdeeds, or the damage of his presidency, tasks that might actually fall within duty of the press, Wallace she calls for the Democrats to act. Her assumption–I’m guessing–is that it is Democrats’ individual, electoral self-interest that is preventing them from impeachment. This is a common assumption of people in the media. Wallace’s guest, Professor Eddie Glaude, agrees:
“It is incumbent on the Democratic Party — the party that runs the House, the House of the people — to be the standard bearer of the Constitution, our democracy.”
That’s right. Democrats must be the “standard bearer of the Constitution.” What does that even mean? Beware of people who offer abstractions as reasons for actions.
Even the inestimable Charlie Pierce is in on the game. In his Esquire piece, he bemoans Jerry Nadler’s admittedly not very forceful statements about impeachment:
I think Nadler is a decent chairman. I don’t think he has any illusion about the ferocity of the forces arrayed against him. But, dammit, he holds the majority on the House Judiciary Committee and there is power in that.
Robert Reich piles on, though he actually acknowledges that impeachment won’t affect anything. He claims, wrongly I think, that the Framers of the Constitution foresaw a president like Donald Trump and have a “duty” to impeach. Correct me if I’m wrong, but “duty” is something that one must do, not the power to do something. The Constitution does not require Congress to impeach.
I’m not arguing that Trump should not be impeached. I’m very familiar with his crimes. In fact, I was pointing out his compromised position with regards to Russia and his general criminality here, a month after he was inaugurated. But the idea of “duty” is a canard. Power doesn’t imply duty. And the Framers didn’t anticipate the almost complete capture of the federal government by a political party. My guess is that the punditry sees something extreme happening and believe an extreme response is required. And instead of doing an effective job presenting a clear, narrative context for viewers to understand the damage to American democracy and the import of Trump’s crimes, and they bloviate about Democratic courage and duty. (Rachel Maddow is the admirable exception to the media’s failure in this regard).
Reich is, at least honest, when he says nothing. He may be wrong. It would be nice to believe that impeachment would convince the electorate not to elect Trump, which Reich admits that’s unlikely. It would be nice to believe the GOP could be shamed into convicting our clearly criminal president but they lost their sense of shame long ago. It would be nice if Congress, carrying out its alleged “duty” as a standard-bearer could bring back a healthy, functioning democracy. But it won’t.
Instead of the glittering generalities and half-thoughts of the pundits, I’d like to suggest a question to answer as the Democrats decide to impeach:
What, if anything, will impeachment accomplish?
That’s not a rhetorical question. Democrats need to ask it, answer it to the best of their ability, and decide.
And one factor to consider–something that matters much more than a dutiful, standard-bearing impeachment–is Democratic control of the federal government after 2020. If we lose Congress, we may lose the country. And that is far more important than an empty exercise in Congressional ceremony.
(NOTE: I’m more concerned with the way we evaluate impeachment, not whether Congress impeaches Trump.)
I want to push back on your comments about duty.
Let me offer a hypothetical from various training programs aimed at helping participants clarify values. Suppose you witness a bad-guy seize a child from its mother and begin to drag the child towards his waiting get-away car. You are holding a legally-issued and licensed handgun — you have the power to stop the abduction. In this scenario, do you have a proactive duty to intervene?
Under your argument, I hear you answering “no”. I disagree.
In fact, the framers arranged the structure of our government so that ONLY congress has the ability to remove a president. Not the executive or judicial branch. ONLY congress. We must assume this was intentional.
My read of history is that by putting that power solely in the hands of Congress, the framers created an implied duty of Congress to remove a President who appears to have committed treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It appears to me that there is compelling evidence of all three.
Since Congress is the only entity that has the power to remove a sitting president (excluding for now the 25th Amendment), the consequence of not acting is to ignore the offenses. In my scenario, the bad-guy shoves the kidnapping victim in the car and drives away.
In my view, that is an immoral outcome.
Elsewhere today I saw it laid out like this: “If I am an elected Representative and I believe there is evidence of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, then I MUST impeach. I believe that is a proactive duty.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s perceived to be good or bad politics. It is a matter of basic ethics.
This is close to the opposite of what I’m saying.
It matters if impeachment harms Democrats electorally. It matters if it accomplishes nothing and harms the Democrats.
If there’s one thing we should recognize from watching the Republicans, there’s no virtue in losing. In a better world, we’d have opponents who cared about the truth and the body politic. We don’t. We have to be careful before taking action.
The problem I see with your analogy is that Congress doesn’t have the power to stop Trump. It has the power to try.
I think a more appropriate analogy is the decision to prosecute: is it worth indicting someone who can’t be convicted? The answer may be yes, but I want to see a clear argument not a bunch of abstractions.
Indeed, let’s strive for clear argument and avoid a bunch of abstractions.
In that spirit the following seems at best abstract:
“It matters if impeachment harms Democrats electorally. It matters if it accomplishes nothing and harms the Democrats.”
In addition to being abstract, it also pre-supposes what it’s trying to show.
I don’t think either of us knows whether impeaching will hurt or harm Democrats electorally. My point is that even if there is short term harm, there are long-term benefits that outweigh that short-term harm.
Similarly, “It matters if it accomplishes nothing and harms Democrats” only restates what you’re attempting to show. How would your sentence change if we stipulate that it accomplishes a lot and helps Democrats? Would you also say “It matters if it accomplishes a lot and helps Democrats”? The point here is that attaching “It matters if …” to some stipulation doesn’t add meaning.
It appears to me today’s Trumpist GOP is powerful precisely because they have been taking “losing” positions for decades while using those losses to cement and expand their base, going all the way back to their reaction to the landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater. They did not abandon their core values (as bereft of value as those are). They instead lost national elections in 1968, 1972 (Richard Nixon was anathema to the conservative John Birch wing of the GOP), and 1976 They came roaring back with the victory of Ronald Reagan, and have been dominant ever since.
The bystander with a gun might miss. The gun might jam. I suggest that if the power to try is all you have in a situation like that, then the moral imperative is to TRY.
“I think a more appropriate analogy is the decision to prosecute: is it worth indicting someone who can’t be convicted?”
Again, you assume the outcome you’re arguing. What do you mean “can’t be convicted”?
If you are a prosecutor with a compelling case that in your opinion demonstrates the guilt of a defendant in a serious crime beyond reasonable doubt, then I argue you MUST present your case even if you fear the jury is biased against you.
Consider the OJ Simpson case. There is very strong evidence, in retrospect, that that jury intentionally returned a “not guilty” verdict in the face of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Do you argue that the issue there is the decision of the prosecution to bring the case? In my view, the OJ Simpson jury did the wrong thing, and it is that jury that should be faulted.
Donald Trump CAN be convicted. Richard Nixon was MUCH more popular than Donald Trump when his impeachment began. He had just won a landslide victory. By your argument, those impeachment proceedings should never have begun. After all, Richard Nixon couldn’t be convicted. Right?
The rule of law demands that prosecutors who have compelling evidence bring the best case they can. Period. There is always a chance that a jury will bring an improper verdict. So what.
I hope I’ve been more concrete and less abstract.
I’m not assuming the outcome, quite the opposite. The people I cited assume that impeachment will do something. I’m not. Assumptions for either side are equally valid. I’m protesting the punditry’s assumptions as the only assumptions. I want them recognized as assumptions. Then we can marshal support for those.
“What, if anything, will impeachment accomplish?”
It may accomplish the removal of an impostor, traitor, and criminal from office.
It helps voters see the difference between a party of dogma, lies and illusion and a party that upholds the rule of law.
Most importantly, it models courage. There was a time when political courage mattered. If we value political courage, then we must act like it.
It MAY result in the loss of all three branches of the federal government. It may result in Trump getting re-elected.
So far, the voters don’t give a shite. If and when they do care, impeachment will become much more useful.
Sad to say, we’re not living in a country where political courage matters.
Perhaps.
I think you’re arguing, in essence, that the American experiment in democracy has failed.
If that turns out to be correct, then I don’t see the value of perpetuating that failed system.
I don’t see the value either, Tom. If one individual can put together a coalition that renders our legislative and judicial branches impotent as they take full authoritative control of the presidency, one that is completely and unabashedly above the Constitution, we no longer exist as a constitutional republic.
We are on the brink. If you don’t see the value in trying to prevent American democracy, I guess that’s it. I don’t think that’s what you mean.
Here are some scenarios:
1. Congress impeaches Mr. Trump and the Senate removes him prior to the 2020 elections. An interesting question is whether Mr. Trump can still run in 2020 and if so whether he will be re-elected
2. Congress impeaches Mr. Trump and the Senate trial is in progress during the 2020 elections,
2a: Mr. Trump wins. He can still be convicted afterwards, but the bar will be high. Senators will argue that the voters had the evidence and voted for him anyway.
2b: Mr Trump loses. Mr. Trump is removed from office.
3. Congress does not impeach Mr. Trump before 2020. Mr. Trump wins the 2020 election, and Congress impeaches him after 2020.
3a: Mr. Trump is removed from office
3a: Mr. Trump is not removed from office
4. Congress does not impeach Mr. Trump before 2020. Mr. Trump loses the the 2020 election.
In scenario number 4, I argue that the effect is to normalize the abuses of Mr. Trump and his administration. I suggest that the takeaway will be “Even Donald Trump wasn’t impeached.”
In any of the other three scenarios, I think America is a better place than in scenario 4.
I assume removal would include a prohibition on ever again holding office of trust or profit under the United States, so no, he could not be elected in 2020 if removed.
I appreciate your reasoning, Tom. If I’m moving the goal posts now, I apologize. The next step in the weighing of options is the likelihood of various scenarios. Still pretty deep uncertainty on both sides.
Here’s another scenario:
What needs to happen, and where, I think, the Democrats have failed, is in telling a coherent story about Trump. Right now they play into the tit-for-tat news pattern. Warren, whom I’m supporting for President, says “Impeach.” If there’s no deep reasoning provided, no unifying story, much of the public, which is heartily sick of politics and the daily bullshit, will stay tuned out.
My point in my post is that the punditry isn’t helping by whipping the Democrats, who now hold the fate of American democracy on their shoulders. I know you appreciate the responsibility, but I think it’s unfair for people not to consider its weight.
So long as the Democrats continue to flagrantly pander to political expediency, they should be whipped.
I think Ms. Warren provides more reasoning for her position than anything I’ve heard from Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Nadler, or any other member of the Democratic leadership.
I need to say, again, that appealing to political expediency is different from reasoning. A statement that says “we could do that, and it would be wrong” IS reasoning.
I realize there’s a fifth scenario:
5. Congress impeaches Mr. Trump before the 2020 elections, and the Senate trial is delayed until after the elections.
5a: Mr. Trump wins the election, is cleared by the Senate, and continues to serve the remainder of his term.
5b: Mr Trump wins the election, is convicted by the Senate, and is removed from office.
5c: Mr. Trump loses the election. The trial is mooted, and does not occur. The evidence against him is still, however, entered into the private record.
I also note that in the scenarios where Mr. Trump leaves office without impeachment, he is subject to indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment like any other individual. I’m not sure what his exposure is if he is removed by impeachment. I think the Nixon pardon is strong evidence that a President removed by impeachment can be subsequently prosecuted for various criminal acts including those that caused the impeachment.
Too bad. Damn the torpedoes – full speed ahead, is my attitude at this point.
If the 5 years or so have taught us anything, it is that the potency of self evident assumptions tells us little about what’ s actually going to happen… A la,
— It’s so clearly obviously, undeniably true that the people of America won’t elect a demonstrably lying, clearly compromised, hopelessly retarded, reality tv star as President…
— Clearly obvious, part 2, of course, once the lying, compromised, retarded SOB is in the job, people will see him for who he is and his support will tank, in the Senate and across the country….
— Of course, how stupid would the people of the UK hafta be to vote to leave the EU….
— Of course, part 2: the EU will bend solicitously to each and every demand that the mighty UK makes, causing Brexit to be a mere formality of a polite divorce…
— It’s patently obvious that Robert Mueller will pull back what tatters of curtain remain, revealing Trump to be the worst human since Cain went upside Abel’s head…
— Patently obvious, part 2, having revealed the Trump perfidy in all its unholy gory, any reticence to act upon Muellers burnt offering is clearly weakness on the part of Democrats…
We all carry these sort of narratives in our heads: such and such should happen based upon this principle and that precedent and those morals, leading to an outcome that should be predictable and sane; failure, on the part of reality, to follow through on this narrative causes a rage that is as powerful as it is infantile. However… our rage, unlike that of the opposition, is righteous and true… or didn’t you attend to the part about the principles, precedents and morals? So we are twice doubled over with rage, as reality doubles down on failing to fulfill both our narrative and our meta-narrative.
Or, to put another way, and to address your point: the way we evaluate impeachment is to assume the need for it is so patently obvious, so clearly needed and so comprehensively righteous that no sane person could possibly object…
It’s entirely possible that the impeachment is all those things: needed, urgent, obvious and righteous… but that doesn’t mean others see it that way… and those others are the ones who’ve already demonstrated they’ll be all too happy to bring a hand grenade to a knife fight. Doesn’t make them right. Doesn’t make them righteous. …Also doesn’t mean we can ignore them.
I don’t think we’re there yet, and though I worry about the ones who bring the hand grenade to a knife fight, I worry more about those who change the channel to Wheel of Fortune when the fight gets reported on.
We are in no danger of bringing a hand grenade to a knife fight.
The image that I see, over and over, regardless of the gender of the Democrat speaking, is of the impotent mother wagging her finger at her spoiled child and saying “You better stop that or I’ll tell your father when he get’s home”.
We aren’t bringing hand grenades. We haven’t even shown up at the fight. We’re instead standing on the sidelines and yelling “You better watch out or I’m gonna get really mad.”
The other side ignores it and keeps doing what it’s doing.
Impeachment accomplishes putting it all out there and putting the people’s representatives on record as judging that Trump is unfit. I’m with Sen. Warren – there’s no political expediency exception to Congress doing it’s job. Yes, I know full well the Senate is unlikely to remove, though I’m mindful that the process in the case of Nixon itself increased popular calls for his removal.
We’re a long way from Nixonland. The GOP is like MRSA: it has mutated since then and is now immune to what once would have killed it.
But they may still be responsive to heavy pressure from voters.
I don’t think we’re as far away from Nixonland as you assert.
To the extent that we are wracked by a dread disease, I suggest that it is an excessive attachment to belief in the face of compelling evidence and facts to the contrary. That disease will not be cured by any electoral process.
Elections are lagging indicators. We must cure the disease, and the healing of our electoral process will follow.
As I’ve tried to make clear, I’m not opposing impeachment here. It turns out Just Security has been running a series on the topic. Here’s one piece of evidence in support of impeachment’s efficacy:
It may be time for another post on the thoughtful voice that are looking at the legal AND political evidence in favor of impeachment.
I actually think everyone here laid out good arguments, this is why the issue is so difficult and why decisions are hard for the Democratic House.
Mark makes a lot of good points in particular. His approval ratings have not really been affected by these investigations, in fact they are higher than ever. There is also a segment of voters who will change the channel to Wheel of Fortune-some of whom will be needed to elect a Democratic President.
Tom is also right. The worst look is Congress does nothing and he’s re-elected. So what’s the best way to avoid this? I’m not sure. It seems that impeachment hearings are the best way to start the discovery phase and get passed the executive privileges and redactions.
I think we need to look outside the political process for the solution here.
I think impeachment is absolutely demanded if we are to continue to be a nation governed by the rule of law.
The current wave of extreme anti-abortion legislation, combined with the corrupt packing of the Supreme Court, demonstrates the passion of the GOP and Trumpists to completely dismantle the rule of law.
Refusing to impeach Mr. Trump will cement that collapse. I suggest that America is unlikely to EVER regain the rule of law once lost.
This is where I have problems: “I think impeachment is absolutely demanded if we are to continue to be a nation governed by the rule of law.” This is a fallacy. A hasty generalization.
What does this mean: “If we are to continue to be a nation governed by the rule of law”? That if we don’t impeach Trump no laws will matter? I don’t think you mean this.
If we don’t impeach Trump, some people will be above the law? He’s already above the law. He is guilty of obstruction, yet the DOJ says Presidents are above the law when they are in office. The remedy, if there is one, implied by Mueller, is political. Definitively, inherently, and constitutionally political: impeachment. And while enshrined in the Constitution, impeachment is not the rule of law.
As I get older, my belief is this: if you’re going after a poisonous snake, you better cut its head off. If you can’t cut its head off, you need to look at the alternatives. Generalizations about courage, duty, standard-bearing and hasty generalizations about the death of the rule of law all sound good, but they don’t kill the snake. They just end up shifting the blame to the people who have to take the risk to kill the snake.
I think James said it best when he said we’re both right. I’d quibble and say more specifically that neither of us is wrong. Aside from building a strong case in the media (where the court of public opinion presides), I don’t pretend to know what the best course of action is. My guess is that events will overtake things, and the Democrats won’t have a choice but to impeach. It depends on the courts. Trump and the GOP’s strategy is to delay, muddle, and cheat. If the courts don’t resolve the lack of info coming from the administration, impeachment, I believe, will be an inevitability.
“That if we don’t impeach Trump no laws will matter?”
Indeed, that’s exactly what I mean — at least when it comes to Republicans. It’s actually worse than that. Some laws, such as those criminalizing abortion that are currently sweeping the south, will matter a great deal.
The religious extremists who dominate the Trumpist GOP are doing all in their power to impose their own “Christian” counterpart to Sharia Law.
The New York Times today reports that Mr. Trump is preparing to pardon convicted war criminals. One of the potential men is Edward Gallagher, whose platoon was found guilty of :
I think your third paragraph is splitting hairs about the meaning of “the rule of law”. I think Mr. Barr demonstrates why the founders took the process of removing a corrupt president out of the executive branch and put it in the hands of Congress. Impeachment IS the law.
When we Democrats ignored the war crimes that were ordered by the George W. Bush administration, we essentially authorized every future administration to do the same. If the perpetrators of those war crimes and the chain of command up to and including Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush had been prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for their crimes against humanity, I think that Mr. Trump would be MUCH less likely to be pardoning subsequent criminals who did the same.
When we make torture, kidnapping, abuse, and murder OK, we should not be surprised when more torture, kidnapping, abuse, and murder occurs. When we make corruption, obstruction of justice, bribery, and working on behalf of hostile adversaries OK, we should not be surprised when subsequent presidents do all those things.
We are in a titanic struggle between the Vandals and Civilization. When we have tools that we can at least attempt to use to stop or slow the advance of the Vandals, then we MUST use them.
In order to kill the snake, we must swing the blade in our hands. We might miss, and that means we might have to await the next time. But the snake is in our grasp at the moment, and the axe is in our hands.
We MUST swing it.
[Sic]
The case for impeachment continues to strengthen. The case for doing so Monday? I’m not sure. The case that Democrats are cowards? No.
The proceedings — scheduled hearings, witness lists, and so on — should begin Monday so that any impeachment resolutions that result will be well-grounded in fact, carefully researched, and meticulously prepared and worded. Those carefully prepared resolutions should ready for vote prior to the November 2020 elections.
What is the inverse of courage? You have argued that my demand for political courage is an anachronism of a bygone age. That may be so, but I suppose the same criticism can be made of me.
I demand political courage from Democrats, and from the Democratic leadership in particular. I don’t see it.
I’m receptive to other words besides “cowards” to describe leaders who walk away from this test of courage.
My feeling has been since the Democrats gained control of the House that they want to be pushed into impeachment, especially knowing that the Senate, at present, will almost certainly not find Trmp guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” simply along party lines.
Pelosi, I believe, has been following a “don’t throw me in that briar patch” strategy by downplaying impeachment while mentioning impeachment at every opportunity. She seems to want the House to proceed as deliberately and correctly as possible, dotting all i’s and crossing all t’s, so that when the time comes no one can credibly claim that there was a rush to judgment by Democrats. It also seems to me that she wants the public, the people to force the House to act so that impeachment will be seen less as an act of the Democratic House but more of a demand by the voting public. I also think that she is waiting for Trmp’s poll numbers to drop below 40% before proceeding so that there is at least a slim chance that popular pressure can make some Republicans in the Senate turn against their President.
I still believe that it will be an impeachment summer and will almost certainly happen when Trmp’s taxes become public and Trmp’s tax records WILL become public either through House subpoena, his accounting firm, the NY legislation to release his state tax records now happening, or some other method or leak.
On the other hand, Trmp could stage a tactical release of some of his tax information to muddy the waters and confuse the issue but my guess is that is not going to be very effective when more complete information comes out.
But, again, I could be wrong (and often am).
I agree with you, not because I thought this before, but because it makes sense now that you say it.
The Democratic leadership is not stupid, and I think they are carefully walking a fine line that the pundits, who pay no price for being wrong, don’t recognize. The burden of our country and our future rest on their shoulders. As Hamlet said, “The time is out of joint. O cursèd spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!”
FWIW Justin Amash became the first Republican to push for impeachment hearings.
Interesting.
The District’s PVI is R+6. It’s been in GOP hands for a long time. McCain won there by only one point. It also looks like the PVI has shrunk over the years. But it sounds like Amash may be acting on principle.
He is a libertarian. A very “principled” libertarian:
Justin Amash stood alone opposing Flint water federal aid bid
He also opposed Trump from the beginning and many of Trump’s actions.
I think Gmoke is right: it’s going to be a crazy summer.