The End of Impeachment (From The New Republic)

The worst thing that could happen to the power of the Congress
to impeach a president and remove him from office appears to be happening now.
If it hasn’t already occurred. It’s become politicized—in a way that robs what
should be a solemn process of its seriousness, even its legitimacy. Impeachment may have already become defunct as
an effective instrument for dealing with a crooked or out-of-control president.

This is as constitutionally serious as one political party’s efforts to prevent
a significant number of the other’s voters from casting a ballot in elections,
which has in fact defined the outcome of races in some states. Each form of getting around the rules is a
subversion of the basics of the American democratic system.
 

Opposed as I am to the “both sides” tendency of much of the press
and many political observers, it has to be said that members of both parties
are, perhaps unintentionally (as if that matters much), destroying the
possibility of a fair and dispassionate use of the impeachment power—one so
important to the Founders that they cited it first in Article II, which
established the presidency, before they listed presidential powers.

The Democrats who are most passionate about their possible
opportunity to impeach Donald Trump are making such a process less likely and
more feckless. Inevitably, their impeachment rhetoric gets Republicans’ backs up—that is,
those Republicans who are currently unready to evict the president from the
White House (which is by far most of them), no matter what he has done thus far.
That means that even if the Democrats succeed in taking over the House of
Representatives in November and quickly go for impeachment, they’ll have a
rough partisan fight on their hands. And even if they win the necessary
majority of the House to pass some
Articles of Impeachment and,
though it’s less likely, a majority of the Senate, they’re unlikely to win the
67 votes necessary to convict the president—which would remove him from office.
What would be the point of a partisan impeachment of the president that goes
nowhere? 

As Jonathan Martin reported recently in The New York Times, Republicans are twisting the Democratic impeachment talk into a stratagem for raising money and
mobilizing the base for the November races. The Republicans are telling
their possible  voters—not without
a basis—that if the Democrats take over the House their first order of business
will be to impeach the president. The sense that Democrats are eager to
impeach Trump could be used against them in the short term and over the longer run
could also undermine even a more considered impeachment proceeding in the House. This
is why Democratic House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have tried
to discourage moves to impeach Trump before at least special counsel Robert Mueller issues his report.

This is more a matter of tactics than of principle. The
Democrats’ hope has been that Mueller’s report would provide solid grounds and
therefore legitimacy to a House impeachment proceeding. The Republican
response, as well as the president’s, has been quite obviously to undermine
Mueller by attacking the work of the FBI, Justice
Department officials, and Mueller’s own team. (Mueller’s reputation for
rectitude is such that it blunts an attack on him personally.) In fact, at any moment the lathered-up president, beside himself over the FBI raid
on the office and residences of his personal attorney Michael Cohen, might
order the firing of principals in the investigation, perhaps leading to the
ousting of Mueller himself. It’s been apparent for some time that Trump would
like Mueller gone. 

The difference between the impeachments of Richard Nixon and
Bill Clinton spells the difference between an impeachment that’s widely
accepted by the country and one that is largely written off as a useless partisan
exercise. In 1974 Peter Rodino, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, and his
top aides made a point of seeking bipartisan agreement on whether Nixon should
be impeached; and however they actually felt they proceeded with an outward
attitude of more in sorrow, squeezing out the committee Democrats who were
openly enthusiastic about impeaching Nixon. They also ruled out Articles of Impeachment
based on policy differences—for example, the U.S. expansion of the Vietnam War
into Cambodia—and focused instead on the president’s obstruction of justice and
contempt of the Judiciary Committee itself, and a series of actions carried out by
Nixon aides that formed a “pattern or practice” that threatened citizens’ privacy and liberties (by, for example, wiretapping or siccing
the IRS on specified “enemies” of the president).  

This tempered approach on the part of the Democratic leaders
of the House Judiciary Committee
enabled Republicans to also vote for Nixon’s impeachment. If Mueller’s report doesn’t lead to a
radically changed view of the president on the part of Republicans and a
substantial number of those who voted for him in 2016 (this can’t be ruled
out), such a bonding of Republicans with Democrats over impeaching Trump and
driving him from office is inconceivable. 

And unless there’s a major political shift on the part of
Trump’s backers, the Republican-led pursuit of the ouster of Bill Clinton will
stand as the transitional nexus of past impeachments and the putative one to
come. Led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, the House impeachment of Clinton was a
nakedly partisan exercise, based on a lie the trapped Clinton told a grand jury.
It wasn’t admirable (nor was his sexual behavior literally in the Oval Office
and the study next door), but it didn’t rise to the level of an
impeachable offense, and in the Senate the vote to strip Clinton of the
presidency fell well short of the necessary two-thirds. 

The internal division within the Democratic Party
was on display on CNN on Monday night, when former Obama adviser David Axelrod
debated Tom Steyer, a California billionaire, who like several of his kind
equates money with wisdom, over the wisest course on impeachment for their
party. Axelrod that day had tweeted:

Steyer had replied: 

Then, in a live debate presided over by Anderson Cooper,
Axelrod argued that the Democrats should wait for Mueller’s report and that they
ought to proceed with care, “so that half the country doesn’t think that it’s a
bloodless coup.” He said, “When you ask candidates in advance, ‘Will you vote
for the impeachment of the president?’ And you say, ‘We’re going to make this the first order
of business of a Democratic Congress,’ you’re tainting that process and making
it necessarily partisan, and I think that is very bad for the country.”

“We do take the impeachment process extremely seriously,
Anderson,” Steyer replied. But he argued that the citizens have “a reckless and
dangerous president,” adding, “It’s not a question of partisanship here; it’s a
question of being patriots.” But then Steyer went into circularity, arguing
that impeachment “cannot happen without Republican voters and without people of
the United States thinking that it’s necessary.” That was Axelrod’s point.

The problem is that impeachment doesn’t depend on the
proving of criminal acts; an impeachable offense need
not be a statutory crime, and not all crimes are impeachable offenses. But for
all intents and purposes, as a result of the partisanship rending the country,
the distinction between impeachable offenses and crimes has been all but
erased. And unless Mueller—if he is allowed to complete his task—comes up with charges of horrendous and criminal behavior in 2016 on the part of Trump and his aides and allies, including that they conspired with Russians in order to obtain victory, it’s unlikely that
an impeachment effort will end in his removal.

What’s also at stake now is whether impeachment will ever
again be the effective barrier against tyranny that the Founders intended it to
be. 

Politics

via The New Republic http://bit.ly/2mvRCvv

April 10, 2018 at 12:15PM