So over the past week, we've basically begun to see the endgame in the Russian investigation of Donald Trump. What we know is that a number (14) of Trump's campaign staff had contacts with Russia, that Russian trolls ginned up support for Trump on social media, and that hackers employed by the Russian government hacked the DNC, and provided what it found to Wikileaks, which promptly published the emails.
What we also know is that while this was ongoing, Donald Trump's personal lawyer/fixer, Michael Cohen, was paying off various women who Trump had affairs with shortly after his current wife, and First Lady, gave birth. Cohen paid off these women, and then got reimbursed by the Trump campaign, and perhaps Trump personally, in order to hide the affairs from the public during the election. And when I say, this is what we know, I say that because Trump basically admitted to the payments and the reimbursement to Cohen over Twitter.
What we also know is that the FBI began to investigate the Russian interference with the 2016 campaign as a COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE investigation, and that Donald Trump fired the Director of the FBI in an attempt to stymy the investigation. We know this because Trump admitted that this was his plan to Lester Holt on national television.
What is also known is that the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York (under the supervision of a Trump appointee, no less), has basically accused Trump of multiple felonies involving the political process. And it is generally believed that the only reason Trump is not indicted for these felonies is because he's a sitting President.
If that sounds like a lot, it's because it is. Mueller's investigation as Special Counsel has indicted more people, and gotten more convictions than any Special Counsel in modern memory. Ken Starr, who had way more independence and funding, spent almost 7 years investigating Bill Clinton, and didn't garner a single conviction. Mueller, in 18 months, has one conviction, a half dozen or so guilty pleas, and another 20 some odd indictments. This isn't even counting the stuff out of the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). And keep in mind that we haven't even reached the endgame here. Nor are we talking about the emoluments stuff (where Trump may be taking money from foreign nations for favorable treatment).
So, with the incoming Democratic majority in the House, what should the Democrats do? While some argue caution, I am of a completely different mindset - if, the House Democrats come to believe that Trump has committed felonies, particularly with regard to the charges out of the SDNY, they have to impeach him.
Now, for those of you who weren't paying attention in your civics class, removal of a President goes as follows: the House of Representatives votes for impeachment. If the majority of the House votes for impeachment, the President is "impeached." Then the issue goes up to the Senate, who must vote whether or not to remove the President from office (by a 2/3rds margin), in a form of trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
And it's this trial in the Senate that gives most pro-impeachment folk real pause. After all, since Republicans form the majority of the Senate, it would be impossible for Trump to be removed. This was similar to the issues surrounding Bill Clinton in 1998. The GOP controlled the House, but lacked the votes for removal in the Senate. Ultimately, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was seen as a Congressional overstep, and a couple of Congressmen lost their seats (namely San Diego Congressman Brian Bilbray). But that was pretty much it.
The reason for this is pretty simple - most people at the time viewed the attacks on Bill Clinton as personal attacks. Although the affair with Monica Lewinsky took place in the White House, it seemed like a consensual affair (though the disparity in power was immense and now gives a lot of us pause), and the Republicans focused on the salacious details. Ken Starr's report told everyone exactly when, and how Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky conducted their affair, describing sexual acts at length. Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler, immediately offered Ken Starr and his team writing gigs for his magazine (I am not kidding about that). In the meantime, every single Speaker of the House during the Clinton Impeachment was later found out to have engaged in sexual improprieties during the impeachment proceedings (Gingrich was having an affair, Livingstone was having an affair, and Dennis Hastert was pedophile rapist who was paying off his victims [again, I am not kidding about that]). So, most of us viewed this as a personal failing of the President, but hardly affecting his work in office.
For the Democratic Party, meanwhile, the impeachment of Bill Clinton had long-ranging repercussions. For one, Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for President in 2000, was limited in his attacks on George W. Bush, and had to figure out how to embrace the Clinton legacy (an amazing economy that benefitted everyone), while also distancing himself from Clinton's behavior. Hillary Clinton was able to win a Senate seat, but the spectre of her husband's impeachment, definitely had an effect on her 2016 campaign. It may not have been a big effect, but remember, she lost by a very small margin.
Anyway, back to the question of impeachment of Trump. Should the Democrats impeach Donald Trump? The answer is yes for a few reasons.
First, unlike Bill Clinton, and similar to what Nixon was caught doing in Watergate, the crimes alleged against Donald Trump relate to the democratic process of electing a President of the United States. Trump didn't just pay off Stormy Daniels, etc., to hide the affair from his wife, but he did it to hide the affair from the American people in order to influence the election. His campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power to influence an election which installed him as President. He used his powers as President of the United States to stymy a counter-intelligence operation. He used and continues to use his office as a way of receiving bribes from foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, who just murdered a writer for the Washington Post with a bonesaw - literally dismembering him while he was still alive - a act Trump will not condemn. That's not even getting to his horrifically inhumane treatment of people seeking legal asylum. All of these crimes have one thing in common - they all relate back to Trump running for President or being President. In short, if Trump can't be impeached for his crimes, no one can.
Second, unlike Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is wildly unpopular. His approval ratings average around 42% and his disapproval ratings are over 52%. Second, unlike Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is seeking reelection, and the only reason Trump isn't under indictment right now is because he is the President of the United States. His freedom depends upon winning reelection. As such, he will go to every extreme possible to win. By impeaching the President, and making him undergo a trial at the Senate, his position will be weakened.
The third reason for impeachment is that it will make every Republican officeholder in the country state their support or opposition to impeachment. This is especially true in the Senate. Will Senators up for reelection in 2020 really want to take a position on Trump's lawlessness? Of course not, but a trial will force them to do so.
By the way, one argument against impeachment relates to Presidential succession - if Trump is impeached, then Mike Pence will just take over as President. While that is true, I'm not as concerned about that because if Trump is removed from office, everyone in his Administration will be tarnished with the same brush.
No comments:
Post a Comment