Lawrence O’Connell interview Elizabeth Drew last night, in part talking about the two possible courses for drafting articles of impeachment. I think we all recognize that the things related to the July 25 phone call produce three articles that don’t require the heavy lifting of understanding the Mueller report or contextualizing all of the lawlessness that began 1/21/2017. (The three are abuse of power in the request of the phone call, obstruction in attempting to quash the Intel inspector general’s handling of the complain, and some mixture of both in Trump’s threatening remarks since Friday toward the whistleblower). But Drew also makes the goodf point that ignoring everything else seems to accept everything else.
So what to do?
I would argue to use the indichment Jefferson drafted to justify indepdnence. Declare evenly that it isn’t simply that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but that he poses a clear and present danger if allowed to remain in office. List particulars, and only include the ones that the submitting committee can agree on. But don’t simply have one or two articles and ignore everything else.
We focus on Nixon’s pardon as fomenting the cynicism of Americans toward government after 1974, but I think it was as big a deal that the House Judiciary simply ignored several of Nixon’s abuses. In Trump’s case, it needs to be firmly rejected that he has ignored the emmuluments clause of Article II from day one, that he has held the government in stalemate to pursue a crime against humanity on our border, and that he has defied both statutory and Constitutional oversite of the executive branch.
The House needs a Jefferson right now, a congenial writer who can drive home the various Adamses’ valid arguments in a way that will enhance them and result in removal without a civil war.
The danger of not removing him needs to be included in the general indictment, and the specifics need to be framed not so much as criminal charges as things we simply can’t have a president doing.