Congressman Schiff, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been in sync with Speaker of the House Pelosi in resisting the impeachment of President Trump. (As he says in the video clip, “There is no chance of our persuading the Senate — the Senate Republicans — in an impeachment trial. They have shown their willingness to carry the President’s baggage no matter how soiled its contents.”)
“But if the president is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader into doing something illicit — that is, providing dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign — then that may be the only remedy that is coequal to the evil that that conduct represents.”
If Trump (and Giuliani — and others in the Executive Branch) have done what has been alleged (and Trump and his personal attorney have come close to admitting it), then the President has used the powers of his office to undermine the upcoming election. That’s a fundamental assault on our democracy. (“This seems different in kind,” in Schiff’s words.)
I agree with Tom Nichols that “If this isn’t impeachable, nothing is,” though there were ample grounds for impeachment before this came to light. David Leonhardt provides an impressive checklist.
But the fundamental calculus of whether or not to impeach hasn’t changed.
I have resisted arguments for impeachment chiefly because there is no chance of persuading Senate Republicans to put the country and the Constitution above partisanship and the GOP. Impeachment by the House followed by acquittal in the Senate would fail to hold Trump accountable. The man will be booted from the White House, if at all, through defeat in November 2020. (As Adam Schiff has stated previously, “2020 is unquestionably the only way he gets removed from office.”)
November 2020 is critical. Doing whatever we can to defeat Trump is a moral imperative. The primary question is, as it has always been (since Senate Republicans will not do the right thing): Does impeachment make Trump’s defeat more or less likely?
Brian Beutler has written, “The only defensible case against impeaching a president like Trump is a prudential one.” An advocate for impeachment, Beutler is decidedly unconvinced by the prudential case.
But at this stage we have no reason to believe there are enough votes in the House to approve articles of impeachment. A failure in that chamber would spell disaster. If the latest transgressions by Trump, or further off the rails activities going forward, lead to unanimous, or near-unanimous agreement among House Democrats to impeach, that will shift the calculus. And Nancy Pelosi will shift accordingly.
It would still be a risk, since Senate Republicans have shown no signs of shifting, for the House to impeach. But with Democratic unity, it might be a risk worth taking. We’re hardly there yet. The public opposes impeachment. Many House Democrats, hardly unreasonably, are sensitive to the opinions of their constituents.
In the meantime, if Nichols, Leonhardt, Beutler, most of the Democratic candidates for president, and many other Americans are successful in their advocacy, an ample majority of House Democrats will find their way on board.
Whether or not that day comes, November 3, 2020 looms large.