Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Former Sun reporter’s book explores possible future effects of ‘botched’ Trump impeachments
Will Republicans take control of Congress? The question is at the top of mind just days away from the 2022 midterms. Furthermore, will Republicans, if they gain control of the U.S. House, try to impeach Democratic President Joe Biden and members of his Cabinet, as some have said they intended to do?
“Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump,” a recently released book co-authored by a former Las Vegas Sun reporter Karoun Demirjian, sheds light on how congressional oversight might function in the future.
“We don’t know how congressional power, in any given circumstance, is going to hold up next time,” Demirjian tells the Sun. “But we know that there was this recent history, which will be precedent for the next time.”
Demirjian, who was the Sun’s Washington correspondent from 2010 to 2014 and now writes for The Washington Post, and co-author Rachael Bade, a former Post reporter now with Politico, covered both of Trump’s impeachment proceedings, as he became the first president to twice be impeached — once for an abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in interfering with the 2020 presidential election; and again for inciting the deadly Jan. 6 attack of the U.S. Capitol.
The book authors collected more than 250 interviews with sources who witnessed what took place outside of the public eye when the impeaching trials were underway. They uncovered a more nuanced, at times, contradictory story to the official narrative that came out of Congress.
“They always say, journalism is the first draft of history. But we felt like there was an incomplete accounting of this really significant historical period,” Demirjian said. “There’s been so much scrutiny on Trump, and very little in comparison on the Congress that had two opportunities to bar him from ever pursuing political office again.”
We talked with Demirjian about the biggest takeaways from her reporting, and what her findings could mean for the future of checks and balances between Congress and the executive office.
How did you and your colleague decide to write a book about the impeachments?
At the time, I was on the (Post’s) national security team covering those issues on Capitol Hill. (Rachael) was on politics covering congressional leadership. And we became, basically, the frontline reporters when things turned toward impeachment and then into impeachment. I think midway through the first impeachment investigation, we both just kind of realized that this was moving so fast.
It was one of the most heavily covered periods. And yet, there was all this stuff happening that we didn’t have time to report out. At the time, we were hearing publicly (why) certain decisions were made and why certain investigative paths were being prioritized, and others were being kind of ignored. (That) did not match what we were hearing from people who were not ready to talk on the record or even on background … the grumblings and frustrations that we were hearing from both Democrats and Republicans about how the leaders of their party were handling this.
You started writing the book before the pandemic and before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. How did these events affect the writing process and the contents of the book?
We thought (the book) was going to be about one impeachment (trial), but the pandemic hit … We ended up finishing our manuscript around the end of 2020. And then, January 6 happened. Rachael had just taken a job at Politico (and) I was still working for the Post.
Watching the shocking events, we were texting each other asking, “Are they going to fix all the mistakes of the past? Are they going to actually be able to convict Trump, this time?” As it turned out, a lot of the same sorts of problems that plagued the first impeachment – most of them having to do with political objectives trumping the (objective) to protect the power of congressional oversight – ended up becoming dominant and hamstringing the second impeachment in similar ways.
You talk about how partisan politics got in the way of Congress’ constitutional authority to hold the sitting president accountable. How did this play out among the parties?
The GOP had a moment of really being willing to throw the book back at Trump but was given too much time to think, basically, and ended up becoming consumed with their political objectives – fear of crossing Trump and finding excuses (we chronicle this with Rep. Kevin Mccarthy and Sen. Mitch Mcconnell) to be able to wiggle out of what they knew was the right thing. They wanted to convict.
Democrats, meanwhile, failed to take advantage of a moment that they had, frankly, on January 6, to run at Trump with impeachment charges (at a time) where they would have gotten more GOP backing … that could have influenced enough people to potentially convict the president at that time. But (Democratic leaders) were afraid of doing it because they were afraid of taking the limelight away from Biden, whose presidency was just in its nascent stages during the trial. And so, they squelched efforts from their own party members who were prosecuting the second trial, (from) actually (running) with things to the full extent.
They let politics be their guide for how they carried out the impeachment and how they carried out the pushback to the impeachment. That meant Republicans willingly handed over their oversight authority, in deference to protecting Trump.
What do Trump’s impeachment trials and their outcomes mean for future impeachments?
You’ve got this recent, potent legacy of what impeachment is for the future. (It’s) the only oversight power that the Constitution gives Congress. And it says, Impeach over “treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” But it doesn’t tell you how to do it … It’s all based on precedent.
The gold standard that people always hold up is the Watergate impeachment … where you had Democratic and Republican buyin at the beginning. And you also had a slow, painstaking case that was built up over months and months where they ran down subpoenas and they took them to the courts. And eventually you got people who said they’d never vote against (President Richard) Nixon to change their minds in such high numbers. And Nixon left office before he could actually suffer the blow up of that impeachment vote. (President Bill) Clinton’s engagement – super political, totally different subject matter. But they actually followed almost exactly the same procedure … Now, all that stuff is kind of out the window.
The book lays out how Democrats dropped the ball when they had their “best chance” to hold Trump accountable and “turn the American public and voters away from Trump for good.” And Republicans still rallied behind him after his supporters attacked the Capitol. Are these politicians responsible for letting Trump skirt accountability for the offenses he was charged with?
We didn’t write a book that is casting judgment on anybody’s intent. We’re just saying – because of decisions that were made — at the end of the day, you’ve got impeachment that is less of a constitutional fail-safe and has turned more into a political weapon that’s ripe for more abuse, going forward.
We’re in a situation now – we’re just (days) away from the midterm election – because we know that the GOP is going to try to impeach Biden … And now, there’s a precedent for doing it without minority buy-in, without the approval of the court saying, “Yes, your subpoena is legitimate.”
It says something about the future of congressional oversight … (It) means that, next time, the power is a little bit less durable and less apolitical. It’s a little bit less of a way to get out a tyrant than it is a way to express political animus of the highest order … When you weaken that structure, you also weaken the ability to convince the public that your case and your cause is just.