The Impeachment Debacle

Andrew Johnson was one of our worst American presidents ever. Perhaps, even the worst! He probably deserved to be removed from office. But not on the grounds for which he was impeached, which is why his acquittal - by one vote - has been so celebrated. One unfortunate consequence of Johnson's impeachment and acquittal was to turn him into a somewhat sympathetic figure for about a century after. (That was how he was presented when I was taught American history in elementary school in the 1950s.) 

In the case of the second president to be impeached, Bill Clinton, the unjustified partisan motivation behind the impeachment was transparently obvious. He was, of course, acquitted, and deservedly ended his term so popular that, had the constitution allowed it, he would probably have easily been reelected (which would, of course, had spared the country the calamitous reign of his successor).

The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion (a.k,a The Mueller Report) has for many suggested sufficient grounds in the present president's behavior to warrant at least the opening of an impeachment inquiry. But to what end? To what benefit? A cui bono?

It seems to this concerned citizen and onetime political scientist that the one person who stands to benefit the most from an impeachment proceeding is President Trump himself, which may explain his increasingly provocative and obstructive behavior towards Congress, as if he were practically provoking the House to move toward impeachment.

What the House Speaker certainly seems to understand, but what some in her caucus (presumably those in "safe" districts) and too many in the Democratic party's extreme "base" seem unwilling to understand is that there is probably nothing that would better guarantee Trump's reelection in 2020 (and perhaps also Republican control of both houses of Congress) than an obviously partisan impeachment led by the Democratic House, however theoretically justified by the President's alleged behavior.

Even most of those who advocate impeachment seem to accept the political reality that conviction by two-thirds of the Senate seems completely beyond reach. Indeed, it is actually an open question whether the Senate would even try the case. It could, conceivably do as it did with the nomination of Merrick Garland and do nothing at all! But, even if a trial were to take place, the President would almost certainly be acquitted, with the vote breaking down, more or less, along party lines. This would, of course, confirm the President's contention that the process was a purely partisan "witch hunt," while his acquittal would exonerate him more effectively and more definitively than the Attorney General's distorted interpretation of the Mueller Report did. Claiming exoneration, Trump would likely sail to easy reelection, while the electorate, disgusted by the partisan charade, would probably penalize the Democrats in the House. (Democrats should remember that their control of the House depends on Democrats holding onto districts which Trump carried in 2016, not just the "safe" Democratic Districts  like AOC's, where the only danger to the incumbent is a primary challenge from someone even farther to the left.) 

All of which suggests that the Democrats would do better (1) to investigate but not impeach, (2) to legislate more than investigate, and (3) to nominate a successful candidate and evict Trump from the White House the old fashioned way by winning a mandate from the American electorate.