The Perils of Impeachment

Avatar

gabriel conroy

Gabriel Conroy [pseudonym] is an ex-graduate student. He is happily married with no children and has about a million nieces and nephews. The views expressed by Gabriel are his alone and do not necessarily reflect those of his spouse or employer.

Related Post Roulette

38 Responses

  1. Avatar gabriel conroy
    Ignored
    says:

    I have to work soon, so I may not be able to engage comments right away. But I’ll try to read (and perhaps respond) later.Report

  2. Avatar Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    One of the dangers of the trial is that it gives thousands of Trump supporters a reason to congregate in Washington daily, provoking a large response in terms of fences and razor wire and lots of National Guard. Not a good look for a party that’s pinning its hopes on a “return to normalcy.”Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      IMO, this is a feature not a bug.
      If the Republican Party wants to rebuild its image as the party of normalcy, the best thing the Democrats can do is inflame and provoke the MAGAs into a frothing rage.Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Part of the problem is that there aren’t a lot of really good options.

    There are a lot of really good *OUTCOMES*. Trump vanquished, humiliated, and frogmarched to prison! His tax returns released! We find out whether he’s really a billionaire! Future Trumps dissuaded!

    “Will Impeachment do that?”
    “Um. No.”

    What Impeachment will do is give Trump an L. An unprecedented L.

    Hurray!, we could say. He got an L!

    Now we just have to ask “what will that cost?” and take into account the whole thing where we’re not particularly good at measuring costs.

    What would be an acceptable outcome? Trump goes away and is as quiet as Dumbya managed to be. (Maybe we can have The New Yorker or CNN do a story about Trump’s new painting hobby in a decade.)

    What would it take to make Trump just go away and be quiet? What would the price of that be?Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      We know the price of not opposing him. We have 4 years of data on that.

      And don’t forget – he’s both subject to further potential trial jeopardy in the City and State of New York, and he HATES being a loser. Its why he’s making noises about ginning up his own political party. SO the up sides to adding his Big L is still huge.Report

      • Avatar North in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Personally I think Trump would be a fool to try and start his own party. Maybe the grifting opportunities would be greater if he did, but I doubt it. Starting a party would require a lot of focus, ideas, skills and perseverance- none of which are qualities that Trump and his clown squad are known for having much of. Meanwhile it’d alienate him from his existing political party which he has tolerable odds of dominating going forward.Report

        • Avatar JS in reply to North
          Ignored
          says:

          You’re under the impression Trump would be doing the work. If he wants to start a Tea Party-esque internal GOP movement or his own party, there are plenty of people willing to do the work for him while he just does rallies and goes on TV.

          After all, there’s serious money to be made grifting Trump’s die-hard supporters, and Trump is perfectly content to let other people do the work while he basks in the adulation of his fans.

          The problem is mostly his attention span, although I will note the one thing Trump is notorious for never forgetting is a grudge.Report

          • Avatar North in reply to JS
            Ignored
            says:

            Not at all, but even if someone else is doing the work then they need supervision by the figurehead or some reliable minion of the figurehead. Whether he’s starting his own party or trying to dominate the GOP a certain amount of work and competence is needed. I submit that he’d need more of both to start his own party.

            Starting his own party is, however, a fools errand considering Trumps priorities; He wants money, adulation and influence- roughly in that order. All of these things are easier to get as a figure within the GOP ecosystem. If he starts his own party then there’s a profound risk that whoever succeeds him within the GOP will suck institutional attention and support away from him. The low info Republican votes, for instance, are pretty much automatically lost if Trump starts his own party.

            What are the upsides for Trump to actually starting his own party? He can create the policies, principles and culture of that party from scratch? So the fish what? Trump doesn’t give a damn about any of those things.

            What are the downsides? He could end up failing as every new party since the GOP has done. That’d hit him right in the big three he desires. Threatening to start a new party? That’s totally a clever move for Trump, but actually doing it? That’s idiocy that I doubt even he’d descend to.Report

            • Avatar JS in reply to North
              Ignored
              says:

              You are using a cost/benefit analysis that makes sense to yourself.

              That does not mean that rubric is makes sense to Trump.

              For instance, one obvious reason Trump might start his own party: He absolutely likes putting his name on things. It’s literally his entire business model. Slap his name on something, be the figurehead, let other people do the work.

              His kids, their spouses, whomever.

              Starting a party sounds like an awful idea to me, but it might sound like a great idea to Trump. Who, mind you, has also been wanting to start his own TV network or propaganda outlet. Again, slapping his name on something and playing figurehead. They do the work, he makes the money. The last 20+ years of his life, effectively.

              You ask about principles and culture of the party —- why would he care about those? Those are for people who have an ideology and a drive for success. Trump doesn’t care what his name’s on — only that whatever it is is popular. So it’s ideology and culture would be “What Republicans who really liked Trump like”. Successful of failure he doesn’t care, he rakes in his cut from rallies and books and appearances and again — someone else does the work.

              Would he do it? I don’t know. But I do know you can’t predict Trump like he’s a rational, political actor. He doesn’t use the same calculus as Dubya, or Obama, or Mitch McConnell, or anyone else.

              Honestly, my best guess? He’ll happily sign onto his own party if his kids convince him there’s money to be made and he’s the face of it, even if he doesn’t run for anything. And his kids will do that if there’s money in it.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                So stipulated- Trump can’t be relied on to persue his own best interests; this is correct and bedvils any Trumpinology conversations you and I have.

                Really I don’t disagree with your points per say. I think your last paragraph sums it up pretty well.

                I just think there’s more money in sticking with a party that already has a deep tradition and long of wide ranging graft and grift from a credulous and vast audience: the Republican Party. I think Trump and those closest to him will recognize that and keep a separate party as a threat rather than an initiative.

                Lord (Lady?) knows Trump has surprised me before though.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        I think that finding him guilty in the Senate is probably a necessary pre-req to going away and being quiet. Let NYC and NYS do their thing afterwards… (though I admit to suspecting that the NYC/NYS charges were blown out of proportion).

        Because that’s the goal, right? Like, Trump not going to Gab or anything like that, just spending his autumn years painting.

        I can easily imagine a divorce or something and that turning into tabloid fodder for the next thousand years… but, politically, we want him to not have existed. Like, the Semiquincentennial is coming up. We want Bush and Obama sitting in the box and waving to people, we want Joe to be there, and maybe Kamala… But that’s it and nobody talking about the elephant in the room.Report

  4. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Even if he lost the trial and was barred, even it everyone in the states and elsewhere didn’t put him on the ballot, he’d could still campaign for his guy, they guy Trump endorses.

    Anyone consider that? Maybe he doesn’t want to do that. But what if he did?Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s also another dynamic swimming under everything. Trump was good for the attention/outrage economy. He was a Gold Rush.

    And, much like the original Gold Rush, the real money was in selling equipment to the Miner 49’ers.

    The gold mines are tapped, now.

    The impeachment might be the last vein.

    After this, it’s cold turkey.Report

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    How about the perils of not impeaching? Which would be a normalizaton of political violence and an end of democracy.

    A lot of people seem to think that because some Republicans stood up to Trump, because the insurrection was unsuccessful, and because Biden was sworn in on time that we are free and clear from democracy ever being threatened by an authoritarian ever again. This is wrong. The thing about coup d’etats is that they seem comical until they succeed. Napoleon III allegedly blabbed so much about his coup that he became a running joke until it succeeded.

    I think it is more likely that not that several members of congress aided and abetted the insurrectionists. Among them at least Boebert (Q-Colorado), potentially Greene (Q-Georgia), Hawley, and Cruz. Last week we found out that Trump wanted to oust the acting attorney general and replace him with an obscure DOJ official in Georgia named Jeffrey Clark who was willing to overturn the results. Jeffrey Clark is long-involved in the Federalist Society. We also found out that a PA Republican Rep named Scott Kelly directed Trump’s attention to Mr. Clark. The only thing that stopped this is a mass revolt from career DOJ lawyers. The Arizona Republican party decided to censure their governor, AG, and Cindy McCain for not being sufficiently pro-Trump.

    I don’t see how not impeaching does anything but encourage people to try more violence. There cannot be unity without accountability. Time and time again in history, it seems that people respond to failed right-wing fascist coups by quaking in fear and soft peddling on the consequences for the fascists. This does not teach them to stop.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I know I keep beating a dead horse, but too many Americans see Democrats a flaccid Not-Fighters. While we can spend days debating the psychology of it all, Republicans (many in the Trumpian camps) succeed in no small measure because they are perfectly willing to do what appears to the unwashed as “fighting” to get their way. Democrats have to stop rolling over and demanding more statistics and more commissions and more reports.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Impeaching and holding the insurrectionists accountable is fighting.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        It is pure psychology. Yesterday, I heard two young women complain about the Democratic Party is doing nothing with their power while the Republicans would run rampshod over us all if they had this power. They had to be young because they clearly don’t remember the do nothing Republican trifecta from 2016 to 2018. The Democratic Party wants to govern and that requires taking things serious rather than putting on a show. Also legislation is a lot harder to do than executive action but more permanent, so when we go for big laws it looks like a long laborious process to idiots.Report

        • Avatar Philip H in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          Republicans did exactly what they set out to do – cut taxes and install judges. They accomplished their goals and had no compunction about running over anyone who tried to stop them. Yes, they did it by bottling up lots and lots of legislation, but McConnell didn’t care, and he and trump’s surrogates managed to keep the story alive that it was Democrats who were the do-nothings.Report

    • Avatar gabriel conroy in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m writing about the perils of impeaching. Not the perils of not impeaching. Others have written that.Report

  7. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Seconding my brother on this one. Not impeaching is much more dangerous than impeaching. The Republicans began their usual power games as soon as the Democratic Party resumed power on January 20th. State Republican politicians are planning to introduce new voting restricting legislation. The Republicans as a whole must be taught a lesson because a lot of them seem to be developing a dangerous taste for minority rule.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Thirding.

      There are a lot of comments about how Trump was just a warning sign of worse things to come. If this is true then logic holds that the peril of not impeaching is certainly worse than impeaching.

      If Trumpism is a cancer, then any treatment short of death is preferable.Report

    • Avatar gabriel conroy in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      I think not impeaching is more dangerous than impeaching only if the impeachment (and trial and conviction and removal) happen during his tenure. Afterward he leaves office, impeachment/conviction by itself is a slap on the wrist (assuming it succeeds).

      The Republicans began their usual power games as soon as the Democratic Party resumed power on January 20th. State Republican politicians are planning to introduce new voting restricting legislation. The Republicans as a whole must be taught a lesson because a lot of them seem to be developing a dangerous taste for minority rule.

      And yet none of those things are impeachable offenses. I don’t see how impeaching someone who did what Trump did will bar people from doing the things for which Trump wasn’t impeached.

      It won’t “teach the Republicans” a lesson. At best, it would teach future presidents that if they foment an attempted coup, the *might* be reprimanded after they leave office and not permitted to run again.Report

  8. Avatar InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    I wish they had found a way to force it through before inauguration and I get the drawbacks of how this is likely to play out. However if there was ever a place to draw a line I think we saw it. Even if Trump probably couldn’t be convicted in a criminal prosecution for his conduct Jan 6 there’s a principle here about the political process that’s worth defending.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      The 50-50 senate with Harris as the tiebreaker did not come into power until last week. Forcing this before then would have let Republicans hold it up in the Senate. A later trial allows for a better presentation of the evidence.Report

      • Avatar InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        This may be where my blinders come on but I’m not sure how much evidence anyone open to voting for a conviction needs to see. Quite a few if not all of them were witnesses to what happened.Report

        • Avatar KenB in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I don’t know how much the details matter to anyone, but the specific charge in the impeachment article is that Trump incited an insurrection — Trump’s done plenty to earn impeachment, but the support for this specific charge is pretty thin (see Em C.’s post) and makes it more difficult for Republicans to go along. There are even folks on the right who wonder whether this is one of those 11-dimensional chess moves where the Dems decided that the politics worked out better with less GOP involvement and wrote it this way on purpose.Report

  9. Avatar PD Shaw
    Ignored
    says:

    “I realize Mr. Trump has already been impeached . . .”

    Probably? There was a debate last year when it appeared that the House was going to hold the articles of impeachment indefinitely as to whether Trump had been impeached. Noah Feldman, a Professor of Law whom Democrats called to testify before the House in favor of impeaching Trump, argued there was no impeachment until presentment to the Senate. Pay-walled Bloomberg article Under this view, the power to impeach is the power to charge a public official to a competent body. This is an academic point most of the time, but it does recognize that until the charges are made, the House can retract or amend the articles of impeachment, or use a modicum of leverage to push for favorable process in the Senate.

    There are other opinions on this, so he’s probably been impeached, but that will be up to each Senator to decide when they decide whether they can convict a former President.Report

  10. Avatar DavidTC
    Ignored
    says:

    Let the electors run, win, and vote for whomever–and let Congress count the votes. We might hear calls for a special commission coming from unwonted corners.

    We don’t need a special commission. Congress does have a job in this. They really do have the last, definitive say about who becomes president…a fact Republicans just tried to take advantage of. (Although the VP is not a factor in that decision!)

    Now, what happened this January 6th was nonsense, Congress can’t throw out votes because vague handwaves about ‘bad voting’. Well, they can, in a legal sense, no one can stop them, but that’s not a _justification_ to overturn an election.

    But they can throw out an ineligible person. There’s not another point at the Federal level where someone who was ineligible for the office of president would be officially thrown out anyway. That’s the only place it can happen. So on January 6th, not only does Congress have to officially decide who won, but also whether or not that person passes the Constitutional qualifications, and that includes the question ‘Did we, as Congress, bar this person from holding office?’.

    At that point, the actual Constitutional Crisis shows up: Should Congress do this by counting all the votes, and if someone ineligible wins they should instead pick their VP? Or should they do it by refusing to count that person’s votes?

    And if they do that, do the non-votes count towards the total votes cast, which could mean the other candidate doesn’t have the majority required to win. Or do those votes not get tallied in, which means the other candidate has 100% of the votes. (Either way, the other guy wins…in the case of no majority win, Congress is only allowed to pick one of the top 3 EC winners.)

    Now, in reality, we shouldn’t ever get to this point. Ineligible people are blocked from running by simply not being allowed on the ballot in various states. Every state has a ‘To run for an office, you have to be eligible to hold the office’ law.

    And this would happen to Trump. A large chunk of states would decide he’s ineligible to be on the ballot. _Including the primary ballots_, so it doesn’t matter if only blue states decide that…if Trump can’t take the delegates of blue states, which weirdly was where he was most successful (Because Republican parties in blue states are often gibbering pools of nonsense because they don’t have to do anything useful, unlike red states that they do have to govern in some manner.), he’s basically screwed.Report

    • Avatar gabriel conroy in reply to DavidTC
      Ignored
      says:

      My reference to a “special commission” was to what the Republicans were claiming they wanted this time around and to the thing that happened in 1876/1877. But you’re right, the Congress could (and should) refuse to count votes for a person made ineligible by impeachment. That said, the Congress might not, in that situation.

      I do admit that’s a longshot once it gets that far. But who knows what could happen.Report

  11. Avatar Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    In a month or two, I’d really like to have immigration reform. I’d even be happy if it took 6-12 months.

    An impeachment trial that takes a day or week is probably fine. Convict him and move on. I don’t think that’s what we’re looking at. A second impeachment that let’s Trump take all the oxygen out of the capital for a few months probably means not getting immigration reform.

    This 2nd impeachment will… throw him out of office? Inform people as to what happened? Unify the nation?

    My expectation is this is a waste of time. We’re not going to embarrass Trump because that’s impossible. His followers are already not dealing with reality so that’s unlikely to change here. I doubt this keeps out of office because I don’t think he can get back into office no matter what we do.

    If you want to hurt him, you need jail time or threats against his business. Anything else is just a waste of time.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      An impeachment trial that takes a day or week is probably fine. Convict him and move on. I don’t think that’s what we’re looking at. A second impeachment that let’s Trump take all the oxygen out of the capital for a few months probably means not getting immigration reform.

      This is a fiction promulgated by Mitch McConnell. Just like the Filibuster is a quaint tradition now honored in its breach for everything but legislation, the “inability” of the Senate to do anything substantive is purely a choice. Notice the Senate approved a Supreme Court Justice quite swiftly when it felt so inclined.

      We’re not going to embarrass Trump because that’s impossible.

      This is also a lie – Trump is very much and ego driven person, narcissistically so, and being mocked as a twice impeached and once convicted former President will indeed burrow its way into his skin and eat him up from inside.

      Never mind reports that now that he’s a loser again memberships to Mar-A-Lago are plummeting.Report

      • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        This is a fiction promulgated by Mitch McConnell. Just like the Filibuster is a quaint tradition now honored in its breach for everything but legislation, the “inability” of the Senate to do anything substantive is purely a choice.

        You’re comparing an imaginary body to the actual one and calling the actual one “fiction”. The Senate, as it exists right now, can be expected to behave in expected ways. For example they “couldn’t” meet while Trump was still in office because one Senator disagreed.

        being mocked as a twice impeached and once convicted former President will indeed burrow its way into his skin and eat him up from inside.

        He’s a Troll. He thrives on attention, even negative attention. Not feeding him is the worst thing we can do.

        I want this session of Congress to be about Immigration reform and not Trump.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *