That said, my reason for objecting to that wasn’t the usual reason why a true member of the Democratic base might not have wanted Trump impeached. Many objected out of the simple concern that Vice President Pence, who would become President if such an impeachment were actually followed by a conviction, might be an even worse president than Trump. I found such reasoning unpersuasive, however, because in that scenario, we as a nation could cross that bridge when we got to it – and Pence would have been the first President ever to sit in the oval office after there had been a demonstration of the President not being above the law, a demonstration that would have no clearer form than the impeachment and subsequent conviction of someone like Trump.
So if I was not convinced by this reason to refrain from impeaching Trump, what was my reason for being at the time among the many voters in the Democratic base who objected to the idea of impeaching Trump? Well, it was not concerns about what would happen if such an impeachment actually resulted in conviction, but rather, realization that the chances of impeachment being followed by conviction were slim. No, this is not out of any doubt that in a fair trial, Trump would have been convicted. Rather, it was out of the realization that he would be tried in front of a jury heavily biased in Trump’s favor that there would be no way to constrain.
Remember when I mentioned at the start of this article that the Senate had remained firmly under Republican control, and therefore was a rubber-stamp for Trump’s will? Well, that same Senate will serve as the jury in an impeachment trial in the event that Congress impeaches him. It is nearly inevitable that Trump will be acquitted by such a Trump-loyalist Senate, no matter how strong he evidence against him. If this happens, he will remain in office as President, possibly even stronger after an impeachment failed to remove him.
But while I maintain that it was wise for Congress to have avoided impeaching Trump up till now for this reason, I strongly believe that now the time has finally arrived that they ought to impeach him. What has changed? Trump has crossed a rubicon that completely changes what is at stake in the event of impeachment, whether he is acquitted or convicted.
The other week, after a lengthy budget negotiation that included the longest government shutdown in US history, our Federal Legislature was able to produce a compromise budget to get the government moving as it should. This compromise budget did not give Trump all the money that he wanted for building a wall at the US Mexico border. According to the Constitution, that should be the end of the story. He asked for the money, Congress said no, so he shouldn’t get it.
Instead, Trump chose to circumvent the legislative decision by declaring a national emergency at the border, thereby allowing him to use emergency Presidential powers to appropriate the funds that he wants. While some previous Presidents have used emergency powers to allocate funds for truly unforeseen emergencies, this phony emergency is totally different. Aside from the fact that by no objective sense does there exist any emergency at the US Mexico border warranting a wall, this is the first time that a President has used emergency powers to allocate funds that Congress had specifically deliberated on and refused. This move is a complete violation of the separation of powers that is at the very core of the structure of the American Republic.
We’ve heard talk for a while about a looming Constitutional Crisis. I would argue that a Constitutional Crisis has been not just looming, but actually here, for quite a while. But at this point, anyone who thinks that a Constitutional Crisis is merely a possible eventuality and not a present reality clearly has their head in the sand. But even worse – this Constitutional Crisis is so severe that if the President gets away with it, our Republic is over. History has shown over and over that the chief of state using an emergency declaration to usurp power is the death-blow of any Republic.
At this point, the only way that we can keep the American Republic is if Trump is impeached, and the impeachment trial results in a conviction. While previously, we had to worry about an impeachment making him stronger if a conviction could not be secured, now we must contend with the reality that our Republic is just as much done for if he isn’t impeached as if he is impeached and acquitted.
If Trump is impeached, his conviction is far from certain (due, once again, to jury bias) but whatever chances there are of convicting him are greater than zero, which is the chance that we have if he isn’t impeached. But furthermore, even if he is acquitted, there will now still be something to be gained by impeaching him.
The Roman Empire lasted for centuries after Augustus dealt the final blows that finished off the Roman Republic. However, these days, dictatorships tend not to have the same longevity that they had in those days. Even if we lose our Republic here, there is a high probability that we will have a chance to restore it within a decade. When that opportunity comes, any evidence that can be used to hinder those who might seek to undermine its restoration will be useful. This is why Trump’s impeachment trial can be useful to a free America of the future, even if he is acquitted.
Enough corrupt Senators willing to do anything to support Trump can’t be stopped from acquitting Trump at an impeachment. However, they can’t do such a thing without putting themselves on the record as having done so. This record might be the very evidence that we need when we restore the Republic to limit the influence that people like them might have with which to undermine the process.
And who knows! Maybe fear of having such a record used against them when the dust all settles might be exactly the pressure that is needed to get some of these Republican senators to at long last do their job and convict Trump when the evidence dictates that they must!
According to the New York Times, as of Monday, sixteen states had filed suit against Trump for his use of emergency powers to build the border wall. However, civil suits are not enough. This act is a blatant aggression against the structure set up in the Constitution, and it requires impeachment.
I like the rationale you explain at the conclusion of this article.