USA TODAY International Edition

How to impeach Trump: A guide

Obstructin­g, abusing power, cashing in

- Tom Nichols and Philippe Reines

The Trump administra­tion has created some unusual realignmen­ts among Americans, and we are Exhibit A. We have spent very different lives in and around national politics, one for years as a ( now former) Republican, the other as a Democrat. We haven’t agreed on very much, and we still don’t. We both voted for Hillary Clinton — but for very different reasons and without remotely the same level of enthusiasm.

But we have both long argued that President Donald Trump should be impeached, and we both have concerns about how that process might unfold.

We are realists, adults without illusions, who have worked in Washington and who know the chance of Trump being removed from office is, as of this writing, close to zero. But we both see Trump’s impeachmen­t as a constituti­onal duty, and we are relieved that the House Democrats finally decided, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in quoting Thomas Paine, that “the times have found us” for impeachmen­t.

Impeachmen­t serves more purposes than removal and should proceed without the certainty of a slam- dunk conviction in the Senate. Indeed, the process has more, rather than less, legitimacy if the outcome is not entirely predetermi­ned by partisansh­ip. And circumstan­ces can change quickly. If we have learned anything in the age of Trump, it is never to say “never.”

Negligence and perfidy

It is reasonable to believe that voters who gave Democrats a record midterm win last year did so with the belief Trump would finally be held accountabl­e for actions the Republican­s all too willingly condoned. And so Pelosi and her fellow leaders now face searing choices as they embark on a journey that no matter the outcome will inflict significant, lasting pain on our country. As she put it last week on a call with House Democrats, Trump is “almost not worth it … but the Constituti­on is.”

It would be reckless to try to bring the president to account for all of his potentiall­y impeachabl­e offenses. Republican­s think the right number of charges is “none,” while Democrats — rightly — could come up with dozens.

We believe the House should pursue a limited, but varied, set of articles revolving around abuse of power and obstructio­n of justice. Impeachmen­t should serve as a reminder that there are many more offenses against the Constituti­on than outright treason or bribery. The Founders inserted a broad category of “high crimes and misdemeano­rs” to capture what James Madison called “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.”

Trump should be impeached for abuse of his office, obstructio­n of justice, breaking campaign finance laws and violation of the Constituti­on’s emoluments clauses. The primary articles will bring into sharp relief that this president endangered the nation for his own self- serving purposes, while the emoluments charges should be a reminder of a sacred principle to which we seem to have somehow become numb: The president can never monetize his or her time in office.

Prudence over passion

The exchange with the Ukrainian president, in which Trump subjugated the national interest and national security to his own political impulses, is a strikingly obvious and impeachabl­e abuse of power. Trump, anticipati­ng this, is already making the argument — echoed by his congressio­nal minions — that it is reckless to impeach him for one phone call. We are confident that other such incidents will be uncovered.

This is why the Democrats should proceed with more than one article under the abuse of power. It should include Trump telling the Russians he doesn’t care that they interfered in the 2016 election ( assuming Congress can confirm this reporting with documents or witnesses). Admitting that privately to the Russians violates Trump’s oath to protect and defend the United States, and implicitly grants permission for the Kremlin to do it again in 2020 — an invitation Russian President Vladimir Putin gleefully accepted.

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Trump has urged China to investigat­e Joe Biden, because he did it in public Thursday in front of the White House. This is another impeachabl­e offense.

There is little value in relitigati­ng former special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that the Trump campaigned “welcomed” Russian help — a conclusion that would have doomed any other president in any better time. But the multiple instances of obstructio­n that followed once Trump was in office, part of a pattern of executive abuses, are eminently impeachabl­e.

Likewise, the House should remind Americans that the president is, in effect, an unindicted co- conspirato­r in the violation of multiple campaign finance laws. The fact remains that he paid off women for their silence as a means of furthering his campaign, and he signed these hush money checks after being sworn into office.

Democrats and disaffected independen­ts must, at this point, exhibit prudence over passion. ( There are so few disaffected Republican­s that they are not worth discussing, but we can still hope that at least some GOP senators will, at long last, rediscover their decency when their country needs it most.) It is tempting to impeach Trump merely for being Trump, exercising the power to remove him, in Benjamin Franklin’s words, merely because he has “rendered himself obnoxious.”

Don’t embolden Trump

But impeachmen­t is not a remedy for aesthetic differences or boorishnes­s.

This is only the fourth time in U. S. history that impeachmen­t proceeding­s have been initiated against a president, and in our view, it is certainly the most deserved. Even more than Andrew Johnson’s obstinance, Richard Nixon’s panicked cover- up or Bill Clinton’s personal misconduct, no chief executive has placed the United States in more peril for less reason than Trump. No president has so flagrantly continued to commit the same transgress­ions despite his previous acts being brought to light.

Refusing to confront Trump serves only to embolden him. It should be a lesson that the call to Ukraine’s president on July 25 occurred the day after Trump declared victory over and vindicatio­n from the Mueller report. When a crime is tolerated, it is repeated.

Finally, there is the question of a timeline for the House process. The three House committees tasked with conducting the inquiry under the speaker’s leadership have proceeded expeditiou­sly yet painstakin­gly. That balance should be continued without undue considerat­ion of the calendar. We both have faith that the public will support a genuine search for the truth.

Whether it fails or succeeds in the Senate, the House should impeach Trump to restore our civic health. Americans must confront, yet again, the potentiall­y dangerous nature of their own institutio­ns of government if those institutio­ns are allowed to function without some kind of commitment to public spirit, patriotism and trust from the people who occupy them.

Tom Nichols is a national security expert, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributo­rs and author of “The Death of Expertise.” Philippe Reines, a former deputy assistant secretary of State and senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, co- hosts the “UNREDACTED” podcast and is a visiting lecturer at Tufts University.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States