Thread by @LarryGlickman

@GeorgeWill makes a remarkably strong case for moving forward on impeachment in his column that attempts to make the case against it. 1/

https://twitter.com/postopinions/status/1135143589393178624

His lead argument, drawn from an incoherent op ed a few days ago that argues against impeachment on prudential grounds, is that impeachment should not be retrospective but is designed “to protect the public against future acts of recklessness or abuse.” /2

But the only way that we have to think about the future is to examine past actions, Especially in the case of someone like Trump, whose behavior—as a grifter, a narcissist, a bully, a racist, a bad deal maker, etc.—has been remarkably consistent throughout his career. /3

We know who Trump is and we have every reason to believe that his actions thus far in the White House—documented not only in the Mueller Report but in journalistic reports, his tweets, statements, and actions— will continue, and, likely, will intensify./4

This is not about exacting “vengeance.” It is about removing a dangerous president who does not believe in the rule of law, at least as it applies to his actions. /5

It seems to me that it is the opposite of “prudence” to ignore Trump’s dangerous patterns of behavior. Part of what impeachment hearings would do would be to catalog those things and to reckon with the consequences of allowing him to continue in office./6

Will, still drawing on the dubious prudential arguments of Greg Weiner, next says that impeachment would mark a denial of the will of the people since millions of Americans enjoy his boorishness and voted for him knowing full well that this is who Trump is./7

There are at least two responses to this claim. First, since Trump lost the popular vote by many millions, arguments about his popular mandate are specious. If we’re going in that direction, shouldn’t we also take account of the will of the 66 million who voted against him? /8

But more importantly the issue at hand is not Trump’s undeniable “boorishness”; it is whether he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Have his actions risen to that level? His boorishness is irrelevant here but his actions, documented by Mueller and elsewhere, are material./9

What about the ten episodes that Mueller's team documented that show potential obstruction of justice by the president? Keep in mind that obstruction of justice was one of the three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. /10
vox.com/policy-and-pol…

Will then pivots to the plausible claim that the Republican Party, which is comparable to the Communist Party of the USA in the late 1930s, will never support impeachment and therefore that the Senate, controlled by the GOP, will not vote to impeach. /11

But is the reality of the moral cowardice and sevility of the contemporary GOP sufficient grounds to reject of delay impeachment proceedings? Wouldn't that abdication of duty encourage the "future acts of recklessness and abuse" that Will warns about earlier in his column? /12

To recap Will's arguments: 1) impeachment should be prospective not retrospective; 2) it is about public actions not personal character 3) Trump's boorishness has a popular mandate; 4) the GOP, having demonstrated servility to Trump, will never vote to impeach. /13

There are good responses to all four of these arguments, a number of which seem to me to be better arguments in favor of rather than against impeachment. /14

Let's take them in turn. 1) The say that past actions convince us of the likelihood of "future acts of recklessness or abuse" is not to indulge in "vengeance" but, dare I say it, prudence. /15

2)Trump's character flaws are not in themselves enough to warrant impeachment. His actions, however, to quote Federalist 65, "relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." They warrant a close examination of whether he has violated the oath of office. /16

3) Given Trump's popular vote defeat and his historically low approval ratings, it is problematic to claim that impeaching Trump is "overturning an election" or the will of the people. /17

Moreover, impeachment is, almost by definition, a process that, in some sense, "overturns" election results. (Andrew Johnson is an exception since he wasn't elected.) Nixon won one of the most overwhelming victories ever in 1972. That didn't stop Congress from doing its job. /18

Finally, in relation to Will's point that the servile GOP Senate will never vote to impeach, I have two responses. First, note that this, unlike Will's other argument is purely pragmatic and not based on first principles. /19

By this logic, no president who has a loyalty majority in the Senate should ever be impeached, no matter how egregious their crimes. This is a recipe for the evasion of the mandate of the U.S. Constitution. /20

Finally, impeachment is a process, not an outcome. There are good reasons to embark on the process. Indeed, that impeachment is the only forum to adjudicate the charges against Trump seems to be the implicit message of both the Mueller Report and his press conference. /21

So, although impeachment might not result in Trump's removal from office, this doesn't necessary mean it would be a "debacle," as Will calls it. There may be other strong arguments against impeachment, but the four he adduces don't hold up to scrutiny. /22