2 questions:
1) Should the Ds go through with impeachment because it is warranted?
2) Should the Ds go through with impeachment given the political calculus?
My thoughts:
1) I think fundamentally impeachment is warranted here. You can quibble all you want over whether Trump actually broke any laws or would be found guilty in a court, but that's not the standard the Constitution gives. We had a president who not only welcomed and tried to coordinate with a foreign adversary to win a US election, but he tried to obstruct justice. As a nation, we can't simply ignore a President who coordinates/colludes with a foreign adversary to win and then tries to prevent an investigation into it. What kind of precedent does that send? Those thinking we shouldn't, would you have been okay with Obama or Bernie working with Iran to win the election then subverting justice to prevent a fair investigation? Prior to Trump, I don't think any party on either side would have disagreed impeachment is warranted.
2) That said, I'm not sure it makes political sense to pursue. The obligation to the country is impeach, IMO, but politically the Ds open themselves up to a rash of accusations (e.g. vindictive obstructionists more bent on personal issues than national ones). There is also the calculus that it will never pass the Senate (though doing the right thing should be justification enough). In the end, the Ds have little to gain by pursuing impeachment over simply continuing to investigate everything and airing it out.
Ultimately, I think 1 wins out over 2. While it's true the moral loser is still the loser, we need to move past tribalism and party politics to restore some reasonableness to our government, so short term pain to the Ds should be surpassed by the obligation to have a functioning government. In my opinion, allowing a President to get by scot-free with what Trump has done essentially creates a precedent for a President that is antagonistic to the foundations and principles of our country.
1) Should the Ds go through with impeachment because it is warranted?
2) Should the Ds go through with impeachment given the political calculus?
My thoughts:
1) I think fundamentally impeachment is warranted here. You can quibble all you want over whether Trump actually broke any laws or would be found guilty in a court, but that's not the standard the Constitution gives. We had a president who not only welcomed and tried to coordinate with a foreign adversary to win a US election, but he tried to obstruct justice. As a nation, we can't simply ignore a President who coordinates/colludes with a foreign adversary to win and then tries to prevent an investigation into it. What kind of precedent does that send? Those thinking we shouldn't, would you have been okay with Obama or Bernie working with Iran to win the election then subverting justice to prevent a fair investigation? Prior to Trump, I don't think any party on either side would have disagreed impeachment is warranted.
2) That said, I'm not sure it makes political sense to pursue. The obligation to the country is impeach, IMO, but politically the Ds open themselves up to a rash of accusations (e.g. vindictive obstructionists more bent on personal issues than national ones). There is also the calculus that it will never pass the Senate (though doing the right thing should be justification enough). In the end, the Ds have little to gain by pursuing impeachment over simply continuing to investigate everything and airing it out.
Ultimately, I think 1 wins out over 2. While it's true the moral loser is still the loser, we need to move past tribalism and party politics to restore some reasonableness to our government, so short term pain to the Ds should be surpassed by the obligation to have a functioning government. In my opinion, allowing a President to get by scot-free with what Trump has done essentially creates a precedent for a President that is antagonistic to the foundations and principles of our country.
