Thread by @Richard_Primus

And now, a thread about something that the present post-election craziness says about the Trump impeachment trial, which seems like centuries ago, but which actually occurred this year.

Yes, this year. (1/17)

As you’ll remember, Trump was impeached because he used his office to try to undermine the fairness/integrity of the presidential election process, by pushing a foreign government to throw (made-up) mud on Biden. (2/17)

At the time, many people said that the President shouldn’t be impeached & removed for that; that instead, the voters should pass judgment on it in the election that was soon to come. (3/17)

Impeachment and removal, they said, breeds mistrust and damage downstream, because pro-Trump Americans will think their guy was unjustly sacked. Elections, they said, are cleaner and more authoritative and provide better resolution. (4/17)

That was always a terrible argument, for lots of reasons, including first that if a president does something for which he should be removed, he should be removed; and second… (5/17)

…that it’s especially weak to say that the remedy for tampering with an election should be the election itself. If he is trying to tamper with the election, the election might not be a reliable remedy.

So far, this is old news. Here’s the new point: (6/17)

The idea that we could avoid the pain of impeachment/removal and deal with Trump’s misconduct at the ballot box presumed that if he lost the election, he’d be out of office without the pain/crisis of impeachment/removal. And that was always naïve, as we’re now seeing. (7/17)

A president who doesn’t care about the future of his country or his party, and who is willing to commit impeachable offenses to stay in power, is also likely to be willing to break all kinds of rules to stay in office after losing an election. (8/17)

Including by fanning distrust among his supporters and otherwise doing lasting damage to the country and its electoral system. (9/17)

Nobody should have thought “Trump lies/cheats/breaks things to tamper with the election in advance, but he’ll play by the rules once he’s lost.” He was never going to do that. Removing him by election was always going to involve the pain/damage/distrust we’re seeing now. (10/17)

The point here isn’t that Trump will manage to stay in office despite losing the election. I don’t think he will. His days are numbered. (11/17)

The point is that it was never reasonable to think the country could minimize the pain/damage/distrust attending his exit by showing him the door after an election rather than with an impeachment. (12/17)

Because the guy who needs to be impeached for the stuff Trump was impeached for is also the guy who won’t go gracefully after he loses an election. He’ll burn the house down around him. As everyone should have known. (13/17)

If he’d been removed in February, there would have have pain/trauma/distrust to get through. But it wouldn’t have been worse than what we’ve got now. Right now millions of Americans are being told the election was stolen. (14/17)

Impeachment/removal would not have brought 11 weeks of a dangerous/desperate lame-duck President still giving orders. And it’s hard to bring totally baseless claims of voter fraud against an electorate of 100 Senators voting publicly. (15/17)

And if he’d been removed in February, the country would have stood up for the principle that presidents are accountable. (To say nothing of the difference for COVID, among other things.) (16/17)

Not removing him in February at best delayed the pain. Because what’s happening now is at least as damaging as what would have happened then. And everyone should have known it. (17/17)(end)