Los Angeles Times

‘Pre-impeachmen­t’ begins

House Democrats take very early steps in a politicall­y fraught process

- DOYLE McMANUS Doyle McManus’ column appears on Wednesday and Sunday.

Last week, no fewer than six committees of the House of Representa­tives were investigat­ing potential grounds for impeaching Donald Trump as president of the United States.

They don’t use the word “impeachmen­t.” Their instructio­ns from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DSan Francisco) are to describe their work in narrower, less inflammato­ry terms.

But the question is never far away: Does Trump’s record of norm-busting, rule-bending and apparent law-breaking, from conflicts of interest to murky connection­s with foreign government­s, justify removing him from office?

“We have to see what the facts are,” Pelosi said recently. “We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachmen­t for a political reason. So we’ll just have to see how it comes.”

Call this phase “pre-impeachmen­t.” Pelosi and her committee chairs, all Democrats, are doing what they need to do to make impeaching Trump possible.

The speaker and her allies describe a two-step process before any impeachmen­t can succeed.

Step one is gathering conclusive evidence of misconduct — high crimes and misdemeano­rs, the Constituti­on says — serious enough to warrant articles of impeachmen­t. That may be the easy part.

Step two would be convincing the public that impeachmen­t is warranted and building bipartisan support in Congress, especially in the Republican­controlled Senate. That’s tougher.

If only one party is involved, Democrats risk the kind of disaster Republican­s faced when they impeached President Clinton in 1998, saw him acquitted in the Senate, and watched their own popularity plummet.

The House Democrats have held their majority for little more than a month, so step one is only beginning — in Congress, at least. But they lost no time in getting underway.

It will be hard to keep the probes separate. A Pelosi aide convenes a weekly meeting just to keep track of the overlappin­g lines of inquiry.

The House Intelligen­ce Committee, under Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), will investigat­e whether Trump or his family have been compromise­d by Russia, Saudi Arabia or other foreign actors.

Financial Affairs, under Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), will help Schiff look into potential money laundering by the president’s family-run company.

Judiciary, under Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), is probing possible violations of campaign laws. Oversight, under Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), is investigat­ing foreign payments to Trump’s businesses.

Foreign Affairs, under Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), is probing White House attempts to relax sanctions on Russian oligarchs. Ways and Means, under Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), may seek Trump’s tax returns, which the president has refused to release.

The investigat­ive flurry got the president’s attention.

“PRESIDENTI­AL HARASSMENT!” he roared on Twitter last week. “The Dems and their committees are going ‘nuts.’ The Republican­s never did this to President Obama.” (Actually, they tried.)

Trump chiefly targeted Schiff, whom he castigated for “looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there is no reason to be doing so. Never happened before!”

Trump has long argued that his financial dealings and his family-run business empire should be off-limits. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, appears to have avoided that red line; Schiff says Congress isn’t bound by it.

“We need to know that the president is acting in our national interest and not in some family financial interest ... [and] not because Russia or someone else has leverage over him,” Schiff told me.

He described his probe as “a counterint­elligence investigat­ion” to determine whether foreign regimes have undue influence over the president.

“There are a lot of disturbing allegation­s out there,” he said.

But, like Pelosi, he argued that it’s too early to propose a resolution of impeachmen­t.

“I think we should review the whole record before making that decision,” he said. “There’s a lot of work we need to do to flesh out the facts.”

Like Pelosi, he insisted that any move to impeach the president must have bipartisan support or it will fail.

Some Democrats are more impatient. California billionair­e Tom Steyer has vowed to spend money in next year’s Democratic primaries to punish members of Congress, including committee chairs, who don’t move as quickly as he’d like.

But that’s shortsight­ed. An impeachmen­t resolution now would surely backfire. It would create a zero-sum fight between the two tribes of American politics. It would make winning Republican support almost impossible — and could help reelect Trump.

And, as Pelosi knows, it would divert attention from every other priority, from healthcare to climate change — the raw material for the campaign Democrats hope to wage in 2020.

For anyone rooting for impeachmen­t, the House is already doing what it needs to do: investigat­ing. It is putting Trump in more danger than before — something he seems to understand, judging from his frantic tweets.

Any impeachmen­t is traumatic, but a failed impeachmen­t can be worse. Steyer and others who want history to move faster should be careful what they wish for.

 ?? Erik S. Lesser EPA/Shuttersto­ck ?? “THERE’S a lot of work we need to do to f lesh out the facts,” Intelligen­ce Committee chief Adam Schiff said.
Erik S. Lesser EPA/Shuttersto­ck “THERE’S a lot of work we need to do to f lesh out the facts,” Intelligen­ce Committee chief Adam Schiff said.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States