Here are a few of the things we know. We know that “Trump-gate” is worse than Watergate.
Richard Nixon’s offenses were leading a break-in of the Democratic Party’s office files to steal information about their campaign, lying about it, and then trying to stop the investigation (obstruction). Donald Trump’s offenses were leading a collaboration with an adversary, Russia, who broke into the Democratic Party’s computer, lying about it, and then trying to stop the investigation (obstruction).
Working with an enemy country that interfered in the presidential election to hurt Hilary Clinton and help Donald Trump appears treasonous. One federal judge asked the prosecutors in the Michael Flynn case whether they had considered a charge of treason for Trump’s national security advisor, who by the way, was always defended by Trump.
We know the demographic that received the most attention by the Russian internet disinformation campaign were black Americans, causing me to wonder whether this is why 13 percent of black men who voted in the 2016 election voted for Donald Trump, despite his racist campaign.
We know that William Barr campaigned for the position of Attorney General, a position Trump defined as a person who should be loyal to Trump, and not necessarily loyal to the country. Last June Barr campaigned for the position by writing a lengthy memo to the Trump administration criticizing the Special Counsel (Mueller) investigation as bogus and inappropriate. Barr’s memo consisted of made up facts (lies) and legal mumbo-jumbo that was widely criticized as such. Trump had asked for an Attorney General who would protect him, and he finally succeeded when he got Barr.
We know that Mueller found evidence of obstruction by Trump, much of which we had already seen in the public. However, as he stated in the report, Department of Justice (DOJ) rules state that, “a sitting President may not be prosecuted.”
This is a DOJ rule, but not settled law, and it should not be. It is not in the Constitution. It is not a law. It is not even a regulation. How is it that our so-called most significant democracy in the world is one that has a president above the law. If no one is above the law, then the president must be indictable. Other democracies indict presidents.
Ken Starr, the special prosecutor who led the investigation of President Clinton on Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, disagrees with the DOJ policy. He argues that a president can be indicted. And this is what he and his team were set to do in the Bill Clinton case.
So what do we do now? The Democrats in the House of Representatives should pursue impeachment. However, Democrats, led by the estimable Nancy Pelosi, are demurring, saying they will only move to impeachment if the Republicans in Congress agree. I object to that approach.
I agree with the television host Chris Matthews who says this is a flip-flop. For two years Democrats have argued that they were operating on principle, not on partisan politics in supporting the Mueller probe and pushing Republicans to do their duty and hold hearings, all the while claiming the high road, principle. Now they are saying they will, in effect, abandon principle because that might not be politically expedient. In other words, appearing to attack trump with no help from Republicans might cost them in the next election.
While admitting that reality, I think principle should still be the operating guide. If impeachment is warranted on its face—without Republicans—then impeachment should be pursued.
A second reason for going ahead with impeachment is that Democratic leaders should lead and understand that inattention to the many outrageous transgressions of Donald Trump is dangerous for the future of the country. Without a demonstration of the importance of the rule of law a president in the future might do even worse.