What are the risks of *not* impeaching Trump?

What are the risks of not impeaching Trump?

by digby

My Salon column this morning:

The president of the United States blew up an epic tweetstorm this past week-end hitting on subjects from the trade talks with China to his son's subpoena from the Senate Intelligence committee and a number of others in between. It was a manic performance that returned repeatedly to one subject, however. He continues to publicly vent his spleen about the Russia investigation and the Mueller Report even taking the risky step of contradicting his former White House Counsel Don McGahn:

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2019

He was clearly glued to his television all weekend and worked himself up into a frenzy, finally culminating with this final series late on Sunday evening:

“Even Director James Clapper admits that the FBI actions against the Trump Presidential Campaign do in fact meet the definition of spying, perhaps FBI Director Christopher Wray will be the next to do so.” @LouDobbs
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 13, 2019

....and the Democrat National Committee-The Democrat Party apparatus-has been caught using donor Dollars to Collude with Russian Intelligence to attack a domestic political opponent (me). The FBI has no leadership. The Director is protecting the same gang.....that tried to....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 13, 2019

His last tweet said:
....overthrow the President through an illegal coup. (Recommended by previous DOJ)

In other words, he's not only blaming the last administration, he's now turned his aim at the current FBI Director Christopher Wray, who said last week that he didn't consider what the FBI did during the last campaign to be "spying." So now he is accused of protecting people who tried to overthrow the president through an illegal coup.

We've long since come to the point at which the media just figuratively rolls its eyes at Trump's comments and twitter feed, as if its some kind of primal scream therapy for the man. Much of the country probably does the same thing. But the people who follow him take this seriously and they have been convinced that the Special Counsel's investigation wasn't just a "witch hunt" but an attempted coup. And anyone in government who says otherwise will soon be in the crosshairs.

This is a president who has already been named as an unindicted co-defendant in a felony for which his former lawyer is now serving time in a federal prison. The Mueller investigation found that he and his campaign welcomed the sabotage of his opponent in the 2016 election which falls under the category of grossly unethical even if it isn't strictly illegal. And there is little doubt that he repeatedly obstructed justice during that probe. The Special Counsel, precluded from bringing charges by DOJ policy, clearly meant for his report to be a "roadmap" for the House of Representatives to consider an impeachment inquiry.

So far the Democratic majority has balked at doing that because they believe it presents too big a risk. Some are fighting the last war, believing that the Clinton impeachment worked against the Republicans and would do the same to them. (This will come as a surprise to President George W. Bush.) Others believe they will be punished for "over-reaching" and that Trump will garner sympathy from people who don't currently support him. A few contend that this is a big trap laid by the master strategist Trump who knows he will become much more popular if he's engaged in an impeachment fight. But the most common excuse is that impeachment would simply be too divisive and the country just can't deal with that.

All of these reasons are based upon the simple calculation that since Republicans are so blindly partisan there is no chance to convict Trump in a Senate trial, which requires a 2/3rds vote to remove him. This means that an impeachment proceeding will result in a failure to remove the president, which Democrats think people will interpret as more evidence of his omnipotence. And that could happen, no doubt about it. Trump will certainly spin it that way and the GOP seems ready to echo all of his ridiculous boasts. It's a risk.

As Martin Longman at The Washington Monthly pointed out in this post, the problem is a result of a mistake by the founders: the failure to properly reckon with factionalism, a tendency they desperately wanted to avoid, after having observed centuries of civil wars in Europe. But they clearly failed. Political parties emerged almost immediately and have been part of the system ever since. There have been terrible periods of partisan strife but with the exception of the immediate post civil war presidency of Andrew Johnson, there were no presidential impeachment proceedings until 40 years ago. Perhaps that was a function of working norms of political behavior that kept presidents and their partisan opposition in the congress from pushing that envelope. If so, it's clear those norms are gone.
We are seriously contemplating a third impeachment out of the last eight presidencies. T

In all the recent cases it was one faction, the Republicans, that busted the norms. Nixon committed high crimes, the Clinton impeachment was a GOP farce which the public rejected in massive numbers and now we have Trump. In all the cases, however, no president has yet been convicted. (Nixon resigned but you have to wonder if he might have been able to tough it out after all.) What all these failed impeachments demonstrate is that as long as a president can hold one-third of the Senate plus one, they are immune from removal or legal punishment. The point is that our system has an extremely poor mechanism for removing a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors.

Donald Trump has decided to push that weakness to the limit. He isn't just exercising executive privilege. He's defying all congressional oversight. The White House has refused to respond to any requests from the House of Representatives at all since the new Congress was sworn in. He and his henchmen have surmised that the Democrats will flail about impotently, demanding witnesses and issuing subpoenas and the public will reward Trump for his strength and defiance.

If that's true, we have a much bigger problem. And it raises the question: what are the risks if the Democrats don't impeach?

On a political level, consider whether or not Trump's criminal behavior and defiance of congressional oversight results in nothing but delayed court cases and handwringing in the press. Will he not get just as much credit from his base for resisting the Democrats' demands as he would for fending off an impeachment conviction by the good graces of Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? He technically "wins" either way but I think it's debatable as to which benefits him more.

But the stakes are much bigger than just the short term political considerations. If Republicans are able to demonstrate that Democrats won't move even in the face of a president like Trump, I think we can be very sure that further Republican presidents will no longer even bother to observe the law much less the norms and rules that have governed us since the beginning. They've been heading this way for some time.

 Regardless of whether or not the Senate can protect the president from conviction, the risk of failing to impeach Trump is greater than the risk of doing it. If the Democrats refuse to even open an impeachment inquiry with all the evidence they have at hand, it's pretty clear that the entire concept is dead. At that point we will have shown that a president is literally unimpeachable and is therefore above the law. Trump won't be the last to take advantage of that fact.