House Democrats may be balking at impeaching President Donald Trump for now, but doing so would mean Senate Republicans would have to face the evidence of his crimes before they vote while the nation watches, which Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe says makes it worth the risk.
The risk, of course, is that Democrats would suffer 2020 Election losses similar to how Republicans suffered losses after trying to impeach former President Bill Clinton.
But that’s not exactly what happened. House Democrats should remember that Republicans would capture the presidency in 2000, a year after the impeachment failed. Republicans also held the majority in the House after losing just two seats.
If anything, Democrats are risking their majority by not impeaching Trump, whose high crimes and misdemeanors are listed by the Mueller report for all to see regardless of the redactions.
Democratic leadership also seems convinced that the Senate will automatically acquit Trump in the resulting impeachment trial.
But that may not be true either. While some Republicans will refuse to abandon Trump, some privately agree with Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that Trump should be impeached. They are just too scared to come out publicly and say it.
As Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe explained on Twitter Saturday, impeaching Trump would lay out his various offenses for the whole country to see, including those Republicans who privately support impeachment.
An impeachment inquiry can & should be structured to end not only with a referral to the Senate but with a VERDICT on whether the president COMMITED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES. If the House finds him guilty, nothing the Senate does or fails to do will remove the stain.@DonnyDeutsch
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 1, 2019
The Senate’s “sole power to try impeachments” means that only it can formally convict & remove a president. But the House’s “sole power to impeach” can include a full airing of the facts both for and against a finding of guilt, giving POTUS a full opportunity to defend himself.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 1, 2019
I’m aware this would be a somewhat novel use of a House impeachment inquiry, but novelty isn’t a fatal objection, especially when the Senate is led by a uniquely unprincipled enabler of the president and when that president poses an unprecedented threat to the rule of law.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 1, 2019
In today’s environment. IMPEACHMENT would inevitably mean more than simply charging the president with high crimes and misdemeanors. It would necessarily represent a decision that POTUS had committed severe offenses against the nation. My proposal simply recognizes that reality.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 1, 2019
The Nixon history refutes any idea that the constitutional functions of impeachment and trial are as neatly separated between the House and Senate as the roles of grand jury charge by indictment and petit jury trial to verdict and sentencing would suggest. Just ask @JohnWDean!
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 1, 2019
Defending the Constitution and the rule of law is always worth it. Senate Republicans who failed to uphold their oaths of office despite the mountain of evidence would be the ones getting punished at the ballot box, not the Democrats. That is, unless Democrats fail to do their duty, then they lose support from their own voters and create the very electoral nightmare they wanted to avoid into a reality.
Featured Image: Screenshot
