Tulsi Gabbard is right: Impeachment would ‘tear apart’ the country

“It’s important that Donald Trump is defeated,” Gabbard insists. “I believe I can defeat him in 2020. But it’s the voters who need to make that choice, unequivocally.”

She is completely correct.

After the release of the full transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, it is clear that there was no clear quid pro quo in relation to Trump’s offer of assistance in investigating potential corruption involving Americans — specifically, the Biden clan. Trump never told Zelensky he must have Joe Biden investigated or risk losing U.S. defense funding, and in fact, his extensive discussion of how Europe is failing to do enough for Ukraine is at least consistent with his after-the-fact explanation that this was behind any delay in approved funding.

In absence of clear evidence of a quid pro quo, any impeachment over requesting the investigation of clearly shady conduct by an American in a foreign country is just not substantial enough to justify the intense political polarization impeachment would bring. And it’s certainly not enough to warrant stripping away the right of the people in 2020 to decide for themselves what they think of Trump’s conduct.

One can look at Trump’s actions and view them as reprehensible and irresponsible without justifying impeachment. Impeachment is a political calculus, and Gabbard is right that if you put the interests of the American people first (not your party or tribe), there’s simply not enough here to justify what would no doubt tear the country apart along political lines, only to get rid of him a couple of months before the voters have their say.

Impeachment might also be the best thing for Trump’s reelection. Polls taken just this past weekend show minimal political support for impeachment among the broader public and intense division along partisan lines. Just 36% support impeachment: nearly 70% of Democrats, but just 5% of Republicans and 33% of independents. It’s an explosively partisan, divisive issue if there ever was one.

Some conservatives, like my Washington Examiner colleague Quin Hillyer, feel that even in the absence of explicit quid pro quo, Trump’s conduct is impeachable. I understand why someone might feel that way (and no doubt, Trump’s conduct is exhaustingly immoral), but this approach fails to understand the full political ramifications of impeachment. This would be Russiagate on steroids. It would starkly divide the public like nothing we’ve seen in decades and lead to unprecedented levels of political hostility and tribal division — again, all to get rid of Trump a few months before the voters get to decide anyway.

The 30% of the country firmly in President Trump’s camp would see it as a deep state coup d’état, and in their eyes, it would call into question the very legitimacy of our electoral system. Meanwhile, Democratic activists would be rewarded for their persistent desire to overturn the results of an election they don’t like, encouraging more Russia-gate nonsense and endless investigations in the future.

This is simply not worth undertaking with an election rapidly approaching anyway, given the lack of concrete evidence of a crime by the president. Voters, as Gabbard notes, will have a chance in November 2020 to decide for themselves whether or not they want to keep Trump in the Oval Office. And his suspect dealings with Ukraine are now a matter of public record that they can factor into their decision.

Unless clear, irrefutable evidence of criminal wrongdoing or a quid pro quo emerges that shows Trump putting personal interests ahead of any justifiable national interest, voters must not be deprived of their right to decide Trump’s fate for themselves. Gabbard is right that Democrats ought to come to their senses and focus on beating Trump at the ballot box in 2020.