Now that the Senate has voted not to remove president Trump from office it appears the 2019 impeachment saga is finally over and, as Republicans have repeatedly argued, it’s up to voters to decide whether Trump should remain as president.
The 2020 election season is kicking into high gear now, and just in time the impeachment trial comes to an end. There is plenty of time for other events to intervene and take the edge off the bitterness, anger, frustration, or disappointment some voters feel about the impeachment votes taken by vulnerable senators.
There is one big problem with this scenario: Donald J. Trump. At least three investigations of his misbehavior in office have concluded with no formal negative consequences. The Mueller report concluded with a major hint to Congress that the only remedy available for the misbehavior of the Trump campaign and administration was impeachment, but the house leadership did not want to take up that task when collection of so much of the potential evidence had been stymied by the administration’s non-cooperation. Although it could be that eventually court cases will open the door for Congress to collect testimony from the likes of Don McGahn, it’s anybody’s guess at this point when that case will be concluded and what Congress might learn from him. Then came the administration’s attempts to extort investigations of the Bidens from Ukraine. This case was so clear it basically forced the house leadership’s hand. Nonetheless, the Republicans in the Senate played their “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” part and let Trump get away with it. Finally, a federal court this week threw out a case charging Trump with violations of the emoluments clause in the constitution. This is another obvious violation, so obvious that I was calling for Trump’s impeachment for this very reason in 2017. According to the court, the plaintiffs did not represent a majority of either the house or the senate and therefore had no standing.
How will Trump respond to his success so far at dodging negative consequences for misbehavior? According to Senator Susan Collins, he’s learned his lesson: “He was impeached, and there has been criticism by both Republican and Democratic senators of his call,” Collins said in a CBS interview. “I believe that he will be much more cautious in the future.”
This would be really funny if we weren’t talking about our president. Trump’s opinion of his extortion campaign? “I did nothing wrong.” “It was a perfect call.” Yeah, he learned something alright; he learned that the rest of the Republican party either loves him for violating constitutional norms or is so intimidated by him that they’ll let him get away with it. I guarantee you, Trump will do something, probably multiple things, even more out of bounds in the coming months. The general public is likely to learn more about these inevitable “high crimes and misdemeanors” before the November election than we learned about his misbehavior in the 2016 election because the white house staff is not as competent as it was then and because Trump is less likely to keep quiet about what he is doing.
Whether this leads to another impeachment is hard to say at this point; it depends on when the misbehavior is discovered, how severe are the violations and how imminent the danger to the country. The house leadership is not likely to undertake a second impeachment unless Trump’s misbehavior is a dire and imminent threat to the country and impeachment is the fastest and safest way to ensure the threat is removed. If that happens the Senate will be under immense public pressure to remove him from office and there is a good chance they will. Donald Trump may not be on the presidential ballot this November and if that happens he will have nobody to blame but himself.
This post is also the first in a series and an open invitation to anyone of my friends, relatives, or acquaintances who disagrees with my take on the upcoming election to engage in an ongoing discussion. Only registered users have discussion privileges on this topic. Feel free to register and discuss!
Jim. Every president in recent memory was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and could have been impeached for them had congress had the will and the votes to do so. Keep in mind, impeachment is a political process and “high crimes and misdemeanors” can mean whatever congress decides it means, regardless if the framers of the constitution had some historical/traditional understanding of what that covers. You might be right that Trump is taking the power of the presidency to places it hasn’t seen in our lifetimes, but I’m not so convinced. Reagan had Iran/Contra and had Ollie not fallen on the sword for him, it might have done him in. JFK was in the back pocket of the mob, and in another time, the bay of pigs might have taken him down. GW, weapons of mass distraction. Total lies. Clinton, pick any number of things. Obama, fast and furious comes to mind…
I’m not defending Trump, and I too, am concerned about that way the republicans have fallen in line… but that is politics. Trump holds sway with a lot of voters and he gets his base excited.
The Dems are in for real trouble in November if they don’t come up with a viable candidate that can speak to the middle of the country. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening and Bernie is to blame.
Well, that’s a novel argument. In fact, it’s the opposite of the president’s legal team’s argument. , They insisted Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment, and therefore shouldn’t be removed from office. You are arguing that he shouldn’t be removed from office because 1.) every presidential action is worthy of impeachment. Congress can remove a president for whatever reason they see fit, and since there is no other standard than what congress can get away with we can dismiss any claims they make about the dangers of the president’s actions because at bottom it’s all just a congressional power grab; and 2.) by virtue of point 1 every other recent president committed an impeachable offence, and since they weren’t removed from office, neither should he. In short, “bothsiderism” on steroids.
I love you brother, but I call BS on your first sentence. Neither Truman, Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, G H W Bush, nor Clinton did anything worthy of impeachment. Sure, they did some bad things, but the framers clearly didn’t put the impeachment clause into the constitution so subsequent congresses could remove administration officials for whatever actions congress didn’t like just because congress can get away with it. To keep this comment from becoming too long, I’ll refer you to this helpful article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/ for background. No way does the impeachment clause give congress the right to remove officials for any arbitrary action congress happens not to like.
Trump should be removed from office because he’s tried twice now to corrupt the electoral process for his own benefit and there is zero evidence that he won’t continue to try to cheat his way into a second term. That’s beside his administrations’ routine violations of the emoluments provisions, which should have been enough by themselves to have him removed from office. There has not been another president this corrupt. He ought to have been out of there in 2017.
I could complain all day long about the policies pursued by his administration, but my complaints about his policies would not lead me to call for his removal. He needs to be removed because he is corrupt. He was corrupt before he became president, he is corrupt now, and he will likely be corrupt after he’s out of office.
Jim,
One of the challenges of replying on my phone is that I am limited by the method to framing my thoughts and arguments in an abbreviated form because I hate typing on my phone. Additionally, as much as I might want to spend a great deal of time crafting a well-reasoned argument, I neither have the patience, nor the brain power to do so.
However, since you have called BS on my first sentence, I feel that I have to respond to in order to further elucidate my position so as to rectify the abuse I now feel.
First, I will agree that my statement was hyperbolic. Certainly, if you are going to include Eisenhower and Truman (I would probably include Truman’s actions in the impeachable category for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, but that’s not an argument I am interested in pursuing here.), Ford, Carter and G H W Bush, then there are a few that would probably escape justifiable impeachment. I see that you had no argument with JFK, Reagan, GW, or Obama, so at least on those few, we possibly agree. I know you don’t think Clinton should have been impeached, but he actually committed a crime. His impeachment was justifiable, but I agree with the Senate that for that he should not have been removed.
I had actually read that Atlantic article not long after it was published, and I have read a little bit on “high crimes and misdemeanors”, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept. However, there is nothing limiting in the constitution from removing the president merely for the will of the congress to do so, for any perceived “high crime or misdemeanor” – it comes down the votes. If they have the votes to convict, the president is removed from office. The article even states.
“ The beauty of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” from the perspective of the men of 1787 was that it provided both flexibility and some measure of guidance. Flexibility because it plainly pointed to the parliamentary practice of defining impeachable conduct on a case-by-case basis. Guidance because it incorporated, by reference, 400 years of prior practice on which one could rely in identifying the kinds and degrees of misbehavior that ought to be impeachable.”
Now, I know that you are reading the guidance part and saying, but, but, but…
In the end, it still comes down to the votes of congress. They can define the crime or misdemeanor, try it and convict. Whether the courts then step in to prevent that from happening, I don’t know, but I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I haven’t played one on TV.
Second, I did not make that case to state that Trump should or shouldn’t be impeached, merely that I am not convinced that Trump’s actions were substantially worse that other presidents that have not been brought through the process. Yes, Trump is corrupt. Trumps corruption is obvious, in your face, bold, brash, without shame. He’s a narcissist above all narcissists. But he’s not more corrupt than most, it’s just more obvious because he doesn’t give a damn. The rest of them, are like the dogs from Pink Floyd’s Animals album. Just waiting for you to turn your back on them so they can stick the knife in.
So, let’s remove Trump, but then we better be prepared to start removing every corrupt politician that uses his office to enrich his family members, and himself. Every politician that uses outside resources to get dirt on their opponent, that uses technology to publish false stories, every politician that tries to steal an election (hanging chads, dead voters, giving votes to non-citizens and illegal immigrants, ….)
I’m sympathetic, but cynical.
Thanks for replying! I didn’t mean to be abusive, but I don’t want to sugar-coat the disagreement either. We are apparently farther apart on this issue than I though we would be, or at least it seems that way. When you say “I did not make that case to state that Trump should or shouldn’t be impeached, merely that I am not convinced that Trump’s actions were substantially worse than other presidents” I can appreciate that there were other cases where impeachment may have been worth considering. Iran-Contra and Obama’s overzealous (IMHO) use of executive orders come to mind immediately. You summarized the unique nature of Trump’s offenses nicely, but left out the part where he has issued across-the-board do not testify orders to his administration. And therefore, we have good reason to believe he is more corrupt. There is also his history, which is uniquely colored by corruption. Which other presidents ran corrupt schemes like Trump University before entering office?
Don’t you see that your own argument ends with the conclusion that Trump shouldn’t be removed from office? “So, let’s remove Trump, but then we better be prepared to start removing every corrupt politician…” which you follow with a list of items that either weren’t the evidence of corruption you make them out to be (“hanging chads”) or hardly ever happen, or in other cases actually do get politicians removed from office, as should happen. In short, because politicians are often tempted to be corrupt and many of them act on it, therefore, we shouldn’t try to remove the ones that do something corrupt from office because (I guess) they’ll just be replaced by someone just as bad or worse. This is a self-defeating argument. Are you sure you want to make it?
Yes, Trump was corrupt before he was elected, he is corrupt now, and he will likely be corrupt when he leaves office. I can’t speak for all the other politicians, but I suspect that many of those that got into corrupt dealings while president were probably into corrupt dealings before they were president – they just weren’t on anyone’s radar or, it was swept under the rug. Taken Uncle Joe, for example. He’s been corrupt for most of his political career.
My point is, if you take Trump out, don’t then go back to hiding your head in the sand, go after them all. Either we drain the swamp or we swim in it. You seems to be positing that corruption is ok, as long as you’re not TOO corrupt. If you’re TOO corrupt, you have to go. Apparently, Trump is TOO corrupt. Actually, I agree with you there. He is TOO corrupt. What I’m pissed about is that he’s not the only one, but we only care about TRUMP, and once TRUMP is taken care of, then we can get back to politics as usual. Sorry, not good enough.
Where’s the line?
I vacillate between an idealism that we can have a generally non-corrupt government run by people of integrity and a stern cynical pragmatism that finds such idealism is rooted in a fantasy that will never exist. So, if you detect conflict in my position, then you will understand.
I have to say, one of the things I found appealing about Pocahontas was her early unrelenting anti corruption position. Had she not tried so hard to out Bernie Bernie, she might still be a front runner. Unfortunately, she pandered to every fringe constituency out there and the central theme of her campaign got lost in the confusion. I saw your earlier post about how many dems are running in this cycle and you were glad there were so many. Do you still feel the same way? It’s killing their chances. If they don’t cull the herd to at most 3 candidates by Super Tuesday, they have no chance in November. They need to start campaigning on issues, not on who is better able to defeat Trump (especially now that Biden has decreed that even Mickey Mouse could beat Trump.).
Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. A few long days at work and extra duties at home kept me busy. Today I spent some time adding a WordPress plugin that allows users to subscribe to have replies to their posts and comments emailed to them, similar to what Disqus allows for its users. Would you like to be a guinea pig? There should be a checkbox on the page that allows you to subscribe to having replies emailed to you.
Anyway, to your point. Corruption is always wrong and ought always to be opposed. People being people, it happens anyway. And of course people in positions of power have more opportunities to get away with it and sometimes they “beat the rap” when their corruption is uncovered. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying. Somehow, you managed to twist my position around to this: “if you take Trump out, don’t then go back to hiding your head in the sand.” What, have you found some post of mine somewhere defending Rob Blagojevich that I don’t know about ? Or arguing that Bill Clinton never cheated on Hillary until the Lewinsky affair? I wasn’t posting comments about Dick Cheney because I wasn’t posting comments about or sharing my opinions on politics at all until 2015. Before then I was still busy using my free time to exorcize the demons of Reformed orthodoxy.
Or maybe you mean that generically, as in “Democrats only care about corruption when it’s committed by Republicans.” There’s enough truth in that to sting, but the problem isn’t specific to Democrats and it is unfair — and given the way the Republican Senators handled the impeachment trial, downright dangerous — to suggest otherwise. Political parties attract different kinds of people; there are bad apples in both parties who have more in common with each other than with the more principled members of either party.
As for the primaries, it is still early. I’m more worried about who will end up as the nominee than about how long it will take for the eventual nominee to seal the deal.
So, it appears that Trump stepped in it again. Asking the AG to intervene when his hitman buddy gets a heavy sentence recommendation from the prosecutors. Yup, Trump is corrupt. Then again, he could just pardon Stone after the sentencing, which he might do regardless of the sentence. Now we will have another round of the Nancy, Adam, and Jerry show. Investigations, hearings, talking heads… , and to what end?
They are killing themselves. The Trump mantra of the “do nothing democrats” resonates so well with so many, that he’s going to have a landslide win in November. Although anecdotal, know some long time democrats who are so sick of their inability to get anything done while soley focused on getting rid of Trump, they are going to vote for Trump in November.
I think the election is the right way to get rid of him. I just don’t see it happening. I know you don’t want incrementalism, but your best shot of getting rid of Trump right now is Pete or Amy, and then, only if Bernie doesn’t go on a “it’s all rigged against me” rant for the remainder of the election cycle. Since he’s really not a democrat, I don’t think he will be able to help himself.
Hm, well apparently you don’t believe Trump “stepped in it,” because in your account it will lead to “another round of the Nancy, Adam, and Jerry show. Investigations, hearings, talking heads… , and to what end?”
If “they are killing themselves,” then Trump is a tactical genius. The farther he steps out of line, the more blowback he provokes, the more likely it is he will win re-election. I don’t read it that way, but I certainly think Trump is playing to the part of his base that really likes it when he “owns the libs.” These are the types I deal with in the comment section on thehill.com. (But then, that site’s comment section is full of left and right-wing trolls, bots and idiots who think that posting 500 one-liner comments a day is some kind of accomplishment, so it’s not the type of place you’re likely to meet shining examples of the best humanity has to offer :^( ).
As for Trump’s mantra resonating with people, it could only resonate if they are not paying any attention to what is going on in congress. You can’t blame it all on Democrats unless a.) you have no idea how congress works, b.) your only source of news is right-wing media, in which everything is always the fault of Democrats, liberals, leftists, etc., c.) you are a Republican in government, in which case you know it’s not all the Democrats fault but it is in your political interests to convince everyone else it is their fault. Look, the Democratic majority in the house is going to pass bills that mostly favor Democratic priorities. The Republicans in the Senate will likely do the reverse. Since both parties have moved in opposite directions there is less room for compromise. McConnell has further to deal with Trump, who is notoriously mercurial about what bills he will sign.
Seriously, you know supposedly long time democrats who are “so sick of their inability to get anything done while soley focused on getting rid of Trump, they are going to vote for Trump in November?” That kind of thinking is insane. You can tell them I said so. In fact, please tell them I said so. Tell them that if they want Democrats to get something done, how about electing more Democrats? Tell them that Senator McConnell is sitting on over 250 bills that were passed in the Democratically-led house. They have been getting things done even during impeachment, but the bills go to the Senate to die. Whose fault is that? Seriously, are Democrats supposed to roll over and give Republicans everything they want so that it can look like congress is getting something done? Why is it always Democrats who have to be reasonable and compromising but Republicans can keep pushing farther and farther to the right, refusing to compromise? Why is it that “moderate” Republicans routinely get called “RINOs” and are primaried out of office by right-wing nuts? How about emailing McConnell and the other members of the Senate Republican leadership and giving them hell for refusing to debate bills sent them by the house? How about demanding that they sit down in conference with house leadership and work out a genuine compromise on bills the Republican majority finds too left-wing?
What Democrats need is a candidate who articulates clearly and fights boldly for Democratic priorities. I don’t have a settled position on incrementalism vs structural revolution. I think that tactical decision is best decided on a per-issue basis. Some problems are better addressed incrementally; in other cases the only way to effect lasting change is to make disruptive structural changes. The main thing is, fight for our priorities. That will get our people to the polls, and then we — and Republicans despite themselves — win.
Seriously, I do know dems that are voting for Trump. It’s not many, and perhaps not the most sophisticated voters, but that is happening. It doesn’t make me want to vote for him any more than I already don’t. I’m just saying that there are Dems that are sick and tired of the constant calls for impeachment, justified or not. Can’t be ignored.
Uh, well in fact, both parties are guilty of using primaries to get rid of party undesirables. AOC? Hello? She’s threatened to primary many dem candidates. Both parties are moving to the extremes and the middle is slowly being abandoned. I don’t know if it is going to last, if there will be a new middle, but there extremes are gaining a foothold in both parties. It’s been happening for a much longer time in the republican party. In my political memory, I think it started with the imMoral Majority. But the speed at which the socialists have gained momentum in the democratic party is pretty incredible since 2016.
I more or less agree with your last paragraph, but I have a question: What are “our priorities” and who are “our people”? A you talking Social Democrats?
I don’t want to ignore Dems switching to Trump, I want to change their minds.
As for “our people,” the Democratic party is much more diverse than the Republicans but there are some basics we pretty much all agree on. For example, there is broad agreement that the decades-long rise in economic inequality is a bad thing and at least partly a consequence of government actions that should be reversed. There is also broad agreement that publicly-funded education is a good thing and ought to be supported, and furthermore that the way it is funded ought to enable roughly equal opportunity for all citizens, regardless of their background, race, locale, etc.etc.etc. There is broad agreement that it is bad for the country that large numbers of its citizens can’t get decent healthcare and government can and should do something to make it affordable. There is broad agreement that the wealthy and connected have too much influence on government policy and it is government’s responsibility to correct this. There is broad agreement that climage change is a major crisis that needs immediate and dramatic action. There is broad agreement that our country’s infrastructure is in serious decline due to decades of neglect and underfunding and government should invest to fix it. There is broad agreement that immigration is generally a good thing and the Trump administration’s approach to reducing immigration is wrong-headed, immoral, and counter-productive. I may be forgetting some others. That’s already a long list and trying to encapsulate it in something as simple and direct as “It’s the economy, stupid” is not in my wheelhouse.
BTW, notice what Trump did with Blagojevich, Milken and a few others.
Ok, I can broadly agree with most of those items. Maybe not how to achieve them, but the devil’s in the details, right?
Where I might disagree is on Climate (not sure it is such an urgent issue. I suspect that there are a lot of “bets”, counter to oil interests, that are driving the climate narrative. I agree that we need to be environmentally prudent and that reducing reliance on Oil is a good thing, as long as there are suitable alternatives.)
Does this mean I could be a Democrat?
I did notice his pardons! Further proof of his corruption. I don’t recall what other president’s have done specifically, but I do recall gafawing more than once.
What say you about a possible Bloomberg / Clinton ticket?
Please no. Erika thinks Bloomberg picking Clinton as a Vice President is a stroke of genius. I think it’s ridiculous. It will stir up the Republican base like nothing else. There is an outside chance Bloomberg could get some Republicans to vote for him, to make up for the many progressives who would not vote for him, even if it meant Trump is re-elected. I don’t have anything good to say about that type of progressive in this election. But if Clinton is on the ticket, no Republican will switch over. I mean none, zero, nada, fuggedabotit.
Frankly, I don’t want Bloomberg to be the nominee. Billionaire vs. billionaire? What is happening to our country?
LOL.
I figure Bloomberg’s campaign slogan could be, “Because the last billionaire president worked out so well.”
ROFL!
Ok. I’ll grant you that the Republicans may be equally to blame for the do nothing Congress. I guess this has been going on for a long time and is one of the reasons Presidents have increasingly resulted to executive orders to get stuff done. Congress has been largely derelict of duty for decades due to an inability to pass bi partisan legislation. Maybe the system is irreparably broken if the only way to get anything done is for one party to have both houses of Congress and the presidency, which has never worked out well.
As you state: “The farther he steps out of line, the more blowback he provokes, the more likely it is he will win re-election. I don’t read it that way, but I certainly think Trump is playing to the part of his base that really likes it when he “owns the libs.” ”
Is that tactical genius, or just playing to the audience? Either way, it is smart politics because it works. What’s nuts about Trump is that here’s an Ivy League educated east coast billionaire who is pandering to a constituency that all reasonable logic says shouldn’t work, but it does. Genius or dumb luck? I don’t know.
Did you see the Carville interview? (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville) Worth the read.
I read it after you linked it. Thanks! I agree with some of his criticisms but I’m not as worried as he is about the prospects of having a reprise of 2018 this year. There is plenty of time for Trump to drive the Republican Party further off the cliff and every indication that the bulk of the Republicans in the Senate as well as the House will follow him off that cliff.
Carville is big on message discipline, and he’s right that it’s needed. It’s also still early.
Did you watch the Nevada debate? In my mind, there are only two candidates with a shred of integrity. Sanders and Klobuchar. I wish they could settle on those two and let them duke it out. Personally, I’d rather see Klobuchar than Bernie, but I’m afraid neither of them would do well against Trump unless he totally implodes. You’re right, it is still early and that gives Trump a lot of run way continue spewing stupid stuff. It also give Bloomberg time to let his money work and for him to get rid of his elitist sneer and try to become less Hillaryesque in his obvious disdain for the other candidates and pretty much everyone else in humanity. It would be terrible (or terribly entertaining) to see two supreme narcissists go at it again.