How GOP can avoid Trump impeachment
Attacking credibility of witnesses won’t do it
Republicans might want to think twice before taking comfort in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that impeaching President Donald Trump is “just not worth it.”
Whatever Pelosi’s view, ongoing congressional investigations are the beginning of a process that will inevitably answer the question of whether the president committed impeachable offenses. Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s promise to introduce articles of impeachment by the end of the month is a reminder that the Democratic leadership is accountable to a restive caucus.
The GOP strategy to fight impeachment appears to center on discrediting Trump’s critics rather than defending his conduct. In drawing attention to the past indiscretions and alleged opportunism of Trump critics, from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to former FBI officials, Republicans are failing to recognize the crux of the matter. It’s not the propriety of Trump’s accusers on trial. It is whether they are providing credible testimony on the alleged crimes and fitness of the president.
Cohen might not have provided a smoking gun on the Russia collusion question. But he broadcast to millions evidence and allegations that Trump committed crimes and ethical lapses in his campaign finance disclosures, business dealings and cooperation with federal investigations. Cohen’s portrayal of Trump’s win-at-all-costs mindset did little to quell suspicions that he is putting his personal interests in Russia ahead of the country.
If Republicans cannot offer a coherent defense of the president, or at least a case for why impeachment is inappropriate, they will need to deliver knockout blows against one witness after another. Attacks on their credibility might satisfy Republicans — 79 percent do not believe that the president committed a crime in office — but this approach faces longer odds if consistent, incriminating evidence keeps coming.
Pelosi acknowledged that her view on impeachment would change if new developments provoke “compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan” condemnation of the president. The odds of this are increasing in light of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler’s demand for materials from “81 agencies, entities and individuals.” And that is in addition to the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller, federal prosecutors in at least three districts and state attorneys general.
Impeachment skeptics cite the politically divisive Whitewater investigation into Clinton real estate investments in Arkansas. They note that the results not only absolved President Bill Clinton but also turned public opinion in his favor. Yet Mueller has already indicted more than twice as many people as those convicted in Whitewater, and many are far more intertwined with Trump than any Whitewater figure was with Clinton.
Trump’s resilience fuels a belief that a sizable contingent will remain behind him no matter his transgressions. This ignores another side of the president’s political position: After Cohen’s public testimony, a Quinnipiac University poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans believe Trump did not commit crimes before taking office. A Monmouth University poll showed independents going from 26 percent to 40 percent support for impeachment.
To prevent a premature end to the Trump presidency, the Republican leadership will need to indicate a genuine commitment to fact-finding and a willingness to sanction the president if warranted; raise legitimate, principled concerns about prosecutorial overreach; and pressure Trump to forgo his re-election bid — giving the Republicans a reset and reducing Democratic incentives to prolong investigations.
Continued character assassination might avoid short-term confrontation with Trump, but it will also turn public opinion against him and increase the odds he’ll end up like Richard Nixon. When Republicans unexpectedly turned against him in the summer of 1974, he had little choice but to fight a losing battle in a Senate trial — or resign with the possibility of a pardon.