Impeach, Walk Away or ??
Terry H. Schwadron
April 23, 2019
It seems clear that beginning this week, Democrats formally have started wrestling with the idea of impeaching President Donald J. Trump.
Since Republicans in Congress don’t even want to acknowledge that there are questions about presidential behavior, this debate appears to pit the emotional proponents for immediate and sure justice by more activist-leaning Democrats, now including presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, against the pragmatic thinking of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership council.
All these Democrats can agree that the Trump depicted in such unflattering light through the Mueller Report is unfit for office. But the question at hand is whether, in a practical sense, it makes sense to spend most of the next 18 months — the same time it will take to arrive at Election Day 2020 — on the ins and outs of an impeachment vote and trial in the Republican-controlled Senate, where there is a distinct uninterest in unseating the president.
In the meantime, of course, Democrats will put the details of the report and other overreaches of the Trump administration under the spotlight of unwanted review pretty much every month until the election.
It seems frustrating to simply accept that Trump face no public rebuke, yet the practicalities of collecting and keeping a two-thirds majority of the Senate to win a trial also seems beyond grasp. An impeachment is a risky prospect, not only for its result, but because it will only further divide this highly split nation.
Relatively speaking, voting out Donald Trump in November, 2020, is a better chance for change without further split.
For his part, Trump and his defenders simply deny that the Mueller Report is true — other than the topline finding of no criminal charges. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, actually argued that he would have preferred a trial where he could rebut the “truth” of the report.
Pelosi has set out an interesting standard before the Mueller Report hit: She would support impeachment proceedings if the misdeeds uncovered there or in a number of outstanding Justice Department investigations still working their way to court — and, if these misdeeds drew the approbation of a substantial number of Republicans in Congress. It is important, she said, for any successful impeachment effort to include Republicans, as well as the practical side of vote-counting.
Yesterday, Pelosi held a conference call for her Democratic colleagues to explore the paths ahead, and confirmed that there is a sharp split in the ranks of the we-want-Trump-gone adherents. At least all agreed that they need to push the subpoena power of the majority to turn allegations into provable fact, whether as the basis of impeachment or something other.
In that regard, I was pleased to read an analysis by Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post, a colleague in years past, that outlines the argument this way:
“As I’ve traveled with a number of the Democratic candidates in the early states, I have been struck by how infrequently the subject of the Mueller investigation has come up. The crowds are large and enthusiastic, eager for the contest to get underway, but seem far more interested in hearing about issues such as health care, jobs and the environment, which have a more direct impact on their own lives. This is the debate that needs to happen — and that would be smothered if the election becomes a referendum on impeachment.”
“Both in his public behavior and the behind-the-scenes accounts in the Mueller report, under pressure (Trump) becomes more erratic and reckless, prone to pushing legal boundaries and making policy pronouncements by tweet.
“None of this is to argue that Trump should not be held accountable for his actions, or that Congress — which has a constitutional duty to provide oversight of the executive — should do nothing in the wake of Mueller’s devastating report. But there is another option: Either house, could, with a majority vote, formally censure Trump, something that has not happened to any chief executive since the Senate censured Andrew Jackson in 1834.”
“While this would be dismissed in some quarters as merely a symbolic act, it would be a historic rebuke of the Trump presidency — and would, properly, leave it to the voters to decide whether they have had enough of it.”
Meanwhile, the president, congressional Republicans like Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mike Meadows of North Carolina and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, and Atty. Gen. William P Barr see the next step in a wholely different direction — another investigation, this time of what they see as the unfounded start of the Mueller probe by poor decisions and bias among select then-FBI leaders and intelligence community members.
Intelligent action seems to hang on our ability to take in information, see the context, and sort through rational possibilities towards a healing path for the future. Even if you happen to disagree, let’s try using that formula in devising our next steps in these matters.
##
www.terryschwadron.wordpress.com