,
15 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Thoughts on @SpeakerPelosi argument against impeachment by @qjurecic. Jurecic speaks to the substance of whether impeachment proceedings are merited. She’s not wrong. And the political argument against impeachment doesn’t make sense either.
Jurecic’s @lawfareblog associate @marty_lederman tries to articulate this argument; it boils down to the risk that an impeachment in the House would be rejected summarily by Republicans in the Senate, Trump would be vindicated, & there’d be a substantial risk he’d be re-elected.
Really? Let’s get out of the way the obvious: there are unknowns in an impeachment proceeding. There are also unknowns in a 2020 campaign if impeachment never happens. Why could Trump not claim triumphant vindication if Democrats shrink from impeachment?
Trump has, indeed, already done so, after Atty Gen. Barr released his bogus summary of Robert Mueller’s conclusions earlier this spring. The triumphalism faded after Mueller repudiated Barr; post-Mueller, who is going to repudiate Trump in the absence of impeachment?
It isn’t going to be @SpeakerPelosi, with her big, empty talk about how she’d like to see Trump in prison. That’s just so much hot air; coincidentally, it sounds an awful lot like Trump’s own hot air about locking up Hillary Clinton. You don’t draw a campaign contrast that way.
What about the Senate Republicans? No, they will never give the House the permission @SpeakerPelosi wants to begin impeachment proceedings. No, they will never vote against Trump, no matter what evidence is made public about obstruction, corruption, or anything else.
This represents more opportunity than risk for Democrats as far as an impeachment proceeding is concerned. Senate Republicans, including those up for re-election next year, have given up their room to maneuver: every one of them will campaign as a Trumper. No matter what.
That’s comfortable enough in mostly Republican states when the most damning material about Trump is contained in a 450-page document most voters will never read (sorry, Mr. Mueller. They won’t. Ever.). How about after months of televised impeachment hearings?
I submit that setting aside the idea of Republican Senators as reliably impartial judges of impeachment evidence in favor of treating them as Trump’s co-conspirators is the path of political opportunity, in addition to being simple common sense.
What I fear observers like @marty_lederman fail to recognize is the nature of the moment we’re living in now. This period is about a test of power — constrained somewhat by familiar habits and the electoral calendar, but only somewhat.
Trump and his people are now conducting themselves with ever more brazen effrontery, denying Congressional authority to pursue oversight of the Executive at all.
This isn’t unconventional legal theory. It’s 2020 campaign politics. A strong economy and a strong President: that’s the whole Republican platform. GOP voters tend to associate strength with pushing Democrats around, humbling them. This is what is happening now.
The way to impair Republican enthusiasm for Trump is to cut the legs out from under his image of strength. Impeachment is the way to do that. Televised impeachment hearings aren’t going to make Trump look better. They’ll make him look like a crook.
Like @qjurecic, I see impeachment as justified on the merits; if this Constitutional procedure is not used now, it may never be again. But of course politics are a factor — & the politics of impeachment favor Democrats. Surrender on impeachment is a gift to Trump’s GOP. [end]
Addendum: Michigan Congressman @RepAndyLevin comes to a similar conclusion, raising in this thread the additional, common sense point that a stonewalling Trump administration can run out the clock on normal Congressional investigations.
