Shortage of principle makes this impeachment different

Republicans argue the present impeachment process is nothing like Watergate. At that time there was growing bipartisan alarm at President Richard Nixon’s conduct, while the impeachment votes Friday in the House Judiciary Committee were strictly along party lines.

Indeed, some Democrats may vote against impeachment in the full House while Republicans will be united, practically smothering President Donald Trump in their embrace. Some will argue the opposition to impeaching Trump is more bipartisan than the effort to oust him.

“This is the fastest, weakest, thinnest, MOST PARTISAN impeachment in American presidential history,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz, retweeted by the president.

Yet that is, I think, a misreading of history. The essential difference between Nixon and Trump lies not in their misconduct or in their unsuitability for office but in the grim refusal of today’s Republican Party to notice wrongdoing and its determination to stand by Trump come what may.

What’s different today is not the abuse of power by a rogue president but his party leaders’ shortage of principle. That in turn flows partly from the pernicious influence of Fox News, which enables a Trumpian ecosystem that is largely impervious to facts.

Democrats dominated the impeachment process until now and unearthed important new information implicating Trump — yet the polls barely budged. Indeed, one new poll shows Trump improving in the crucial states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And when the impeachment effort reaches the Senate, it will be Republicans in the driver’s seat.

Put aside the politics and look at the merits of the impeachment cases, and everything looks different.

Republicans said the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was different because he committed perjury, even if only about sex. But that’s not clear: A 33-page article in 2004 in the Chicago-Kent Law Review concluded Clinton misled a grand jury but may have managed through brilliant lawyering to avoid the technical offense of perjury.

Republicans made much of the argument that Clinton’s misconduct made him morally unfit for the presidency. But if that’s the standard for impeachment, then what do we make of a president who is a serial liar, apparently committed tax fraud, has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 25 women, and paid a porn star $130,000 in hush money to keep their affair from voters? Or who was forced to pay $2 million after “a shocking pattern of illegality” involving the use of his charity to promote his own interests?

The big difference is that Trump, shielded by congressional Republicans, has been more successful than Nixon in his stonewalling of investigators.

Another difference from Watergate is Nixon’s abuses did not directly damage national security or cost lives. In contrast, Trump’s suspension of vital military assistance may have added to the Ukrainian death toll and certainly helped Russia.

After the Watergate break-in, there was no immediate epiphany about its seriousness. Nixon was re-elected that fall by a huge margin. A year later, more Americans said they were more concerned by Chappaquiddick (where a young woman in Edward Kennedy’s car drowned) than by Watergate. It wasn’t until just before Nixon’s resignation that a majority favored his removal from office.

Yet now we regard Nixon’s behavior with widespread revulsion, and someday I believe we will feel similarly about Trump’s.