The Certainties of Impeachment

Now that Special Counsel Mueller has spoken publicly about his findings, the time has come for a discussion about what know. While the understanding of what we know and don’t know might become clearer as we move forward, a number of facts have been pretty thoroughly established. For example, we know the Trump campaign courted assistance from a hostile foreign power, and we know that behavior did not rise to the level of a chargeable conspiracy. We also know that Trump obstructed justice so egregiously that his office is the only thing that saved him from being charged with multiple felonies. These things are known, and unchallenged in legitimate circles. And with no additional information of any kind, we have enough to form the strongest case for impeachment in American history. The second-best case is miles behind, yet even though three different presidents have been impeached previously, today’s House seems to want nothing to do with it. I believe their reticence has to do with a misunderstanding of the certainties involved.

The argument against impeachment seems to hinge on a few key beliefs. The first is that impeaching the president, only to have the Senate acquit him, will grant him leverage in the next election, perhaps even enough to win. This argument is not without merit, as this is a real risk, but to believe it is the likely outcome, we must believe that after hours and hours of must-see testimony in the House, all of it painting a vivid and irrefutable picture of the most lawless president in American history, that every single Senator in the GOP will deny the obvious and abandon all reason just to back a president that virtually none of them ever wanted. We would also have to believe that the impeachment proceedings in totality would have less persuasive power than the president’s eventual exoneration narrative – that the American people would lift him up and re-elect him even after being forced to see him for precisely what he is, a two-bit mobster. It’s possible, but not nearly as likely as many claim today, and the price the GOP might pay for blind party loyalty could just as easily be a boon for Democrats at the polls. It all hinges on the strength of the case brought before the American people, and that case looks stronger and stronger with each passing millisecond.

But these are the certainties we know. They are not the certainties we have not yet considered. For example, we are certain that Trump will do anything, legal or otherwise, to save himself. He’ll lie, cheat, steal, weaponize his office and those under him, engage hostile foreign powers to aid him, perhaps even go to war. The only relevant certainty when it comes to predicting Trump’s behavior is that we can be certain that there is nothing he will not do. Those weighing the potential harm that might be done by a divisive impeachment process fail to recognize that this harm could pale in comparison to what might happen should we pass on impeachment and give Trump another year and a half to sow fear and hate with impunity. And let us not forget – at the start of the 2016 election cycle, democrats were pretty much in the same place they are now, roughly 10 points ahead of a buffoon, and certain that they have him right where they want him. The stage is set.

That said, the scariest certainties are yet to come. We know there is nothing Trump will not do to save himself, and there is no price the rest of us might have to pay that will matter to him at all. We know there are no less than 14 investigations into his criminality, and we can be nearly certain there are charges coming. What other certainties can we draw from what we know?

Would he manufacture an investigation into his opponent, perhaps even charge her with a crime at the most politically opportune moment? Might he start a war to get a bump in the polls? Could he re-establish his relationship with Russian hackers to help him leverage deep fakes and increasingly clever new forms of fake news? Will our media fall down the same rabbit hole they did in 2016, when they abandoned journalism for ratings? Could Congress and the American people really let all of this happen a second time?

Certainly.

Contributing Editor: Brett Pransky

Brett Pransky is a rabid humanitarian with a sharp pen and a graduate degree in Rhetoric - a truly dangerous animal. His natural habitat is the halls of Ohio University, but he can be found on Twitter now and again as well, @BrettPransky.

4 Comments

  • Kristen
    Posted June 9, 2019 12:59 am 0Likes

    Whoa! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It’s on a entirely different topic but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Outstanding choice of colors!

    I really like what you guys are usually up too. This kind of
    clever work and exposure! Keep up the superb works guys I’ve incorporated you
    guys to my own blogroll. Whoa! This blog looks just like
    my old one! It’s on a entirely different subject but it has
    pretty much the same layout and design. Outstanding choice of colors!
    http://Foxnews.net/

  • Pingback: Homepage
  • TgEGS2
    Posted June 14, 2019 11:50 pm 0Likes

    539225 71008For anyone one of the lucky peoples, referring purchase certain products, and in addition you charm all of the envy of all the the numerous any other individuals around you that tend to have effort as such make a difference. motor movers 115441

  • George Michael Sherry
    Posted June 24, 2019 1:53 am 0Likes

    For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure only TWO presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) have been impeached. The most likely to be erroneously counted as the third is probably Richard Nixon. The House had taken steps toward impeaching him (a committee had voted in favor of it) but had not completed the process before he resigned, thus he was never actually impeached.
    Other than that, excellent essay. I agree there is nothing Trump would not do, both to prevent conviction after impeachment (which is what I thought you meant, at first) AND to win reelection (which is what you actually meant). I had not thought of his having his opponent falsely indicted for a crime, but of course he would (and his current AG probably would help). We’re up against someone with no moral limits, either way.

Add Comment