Democrats face dilemma on impeachment

At least not yet.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal is bombarded by similar lines of questioning in her Seattle district: “How can you impeach? Why hasn’t he been in impeached and how do we move forward impeachment?”

The freshman progressive voted in favor of impeaching Trump last December, but she doesn’t promise her voters they’ll get what they want. It’s a process, she says.

The reality is impeaching a president historically comes at great cost to the party tasked with carrying it out. Instead of joining their base in the rallying cry, Democrats are adhering to an unspoken code: Don’t talk about impeachment and don’t campaign on impeachment. If Democrats win the majority it won’t suddenly flip a switch.

The ultimate question for Democrats isn’t whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses — most of them believe he has — but whether impeaching Trump is wise and necessary. It would be highly unlikely that Democrats move to impeach Trump without Republican support. A two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to actually convict the president and remove him from office and it’s widely expected that Republicans will maintain control of the upper chamber.

“Impeachment is always a political issue,” Jayapal said. “I’ve been trying to explain to my constituents you can’t move forward on impeachment unless you have people on the other side who are willing to vote for it.”

A House under Democratic control would hold hearings on a laundry list of potential abuses by Trump, from possible emoluments violations to conflicts of interest and payments ahead of the election to silence women engaged in alleged affairs with Trump. Democrats would likely launch their own investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 election and whether Trump is compromised.

Those hearings will happen, Jayapal said. But slapping Trump with subpoenas, a power afforded to the majority party, to prove the president is profiting off of the presidency in a possible violation of the Constitution is very different than holding a hearing on articles of impeachment. And so far, Democrats have demonstrated they would proceed with caution unless special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation produces a smoking gun or Trump does something that breaks Republicans’ unwavering support for him.

“[Republicans] want to fuel the flames because they believe they can win if people think Democrats are trying to impeach Trump but it’s just not real,” Jayapal said. “It just doesn’t happen like that.”

But there are those in the Democratic Party who want it to happen like that.

The base and the billionaire

In 2014, former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer wanted the midterm elections to be about climate change. In 2018, Steyer wants them to be about impeaching Trump. He’s poured millions into the impeachment effort to the frustration of House Democrats, who grumble that it’s a self-serving, futile exercise.

But Steyer is just getting started.

“Democrats can focus on the economy and removing Donald Trump from power at the same time,” said Kevin Mack, lead strategist for Steyer’s Need to Impeach campaign.

In focus groups conducted by Need to Impeach with disaffected Democrats and frustrated progressives, Mack said, voters are saying they can’t trust the Democratic Party.

“The Democratic base voters have been beat down for so long that they’re finally standing up and saying we’re looking for something new, something different,” Mack said. “If [they] can’t trust so-called leaders in Washington to do the right thing on impeachment, how can [they] trust them on issues like the environment, education, healthcare and other things?”

Need to Impeach isn’t coordinating with Democratic lawmakers, but Mack said members have reached out behind the scenes to express support.

“There are more Need to Impeach members than there are NRA members in this country,” said Mack, boasting that 5.4 million have signed on.

But the reality is that in Congress, those who are vocal about impeachment are few in number. Sixteen Democrats have signed on to articles of impeachment, including Rep. Barbara Lee, a Californian who is running to be the fourth-ranking Democrat as caucus chair. And Democratic Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn, the South Carolinian who is the third-ranking Democrat, was the only member of leadership to vote in favor of impeaching Trump on a symbolic resolution in December.

Trump’s refusal to stand with U.S. intelligence agencies as he stood alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin last month set off another round of impeachment rallying cries. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., who represents a Trump district, demanded the president resign. Progressive sensation Cynthia Nixon, who is running to oust New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary, called for Trump’s impeachment a day later. But the majority of Democratic lawmakers, especially those who would be in charge of such proceedings, didn’t budge.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Trump’s comments “disgraceful” but maintained her position that Democrat aren’t looking into impeachment. Democrats found their footing on Russia, and began to openly ask what compromising information Putin might have on Trump. Some went so far as to call Trump’s actions “treasonous,” but they didn’t take the next step toward demanding impeachment. And most liberal outside groups held their fire. Rather than focus on ousting Trump, groups such as Indivisible, SwingLeft, and Justice Democrats are telling voters that if they want to stop family separations, reform Immigration and Customs Enforcement, pass Medicare for All, and provide a check on Trump, then they have to vote for a Democrat.

“If you want to hold Trump accountable for siding with Russia, plan to spend your nights and weekends the next few months knocking on doors and reminding voters about the GOP health care repeal,” tweeted Ben Wikler, president of MoveOn.

Voters will make their decision based on healthcare and other kitchen table issues, said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.

“That’s inside baseball in terms of what Steyer’s doing,” Khanna said. “He’s a citizen activist. I’m a member of Congress who’s going to have to vote on this so I want to see the [Mueller] report, but if Tom wants to help mobilize people to ensure that we in Congress are doing our constitutional duty, then more power to him.”

Waiting for Mueller

After Helsinki, Democrats seized the upper hand on national security, hammering Republicans in press conferences, chanting “USA” on the House floor, and calling for a symbolic vote rebuking Trump.

But again they steered clear of impeachment.

“Just because the president is an idiot and doesn’t know that he basically has compromised U.S. foreign security does not make it an impeachable offense yet,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz. “So that’s why we have to wait and see what the report says.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member on House Intelligence Committee, cautioned Democrats not to get ahead of Mueller in an May op-ed published in the New York Times.

“Given the evidence that is already public, I can well understand why the president fears impeachment and seeks to use the false claim that Democrats are more interested in impeachment than governing to rally his base,” Schiff wrote. “Democrats should not take the bait.”

The subtext is key: Neither Gallego, Schiff nor Pelosi are entirely taking impeachment off the table. Democrats know it’s the question that will take center stage if they win the majority.

Instead, Schiff and Pelosi argue Democrats should refrain from talking about impeachment until more is known. And if Mueller’s report unleashes a trove of wrongdoings that constitute impeachable offenses, then as a last resort Democrats may take the step to remove him.

Even those in the Democratic caucus who are loathe to talk about impeachment say Mueller’s final report could change everything.

“If [Mueller] shows that there’s wrongdoing then we have to deal with it,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill. “The American public expected us to deal with it if it’s revealed that he’s done anything illegal that’s hurt our country. I have faith in Bob Mueller.”

The risk

There’s a reason Republicans want to make the 2018 election about Pelosi, abolishing ICE and impeachment: These are short, catchy talking points that enrage Trump voters. They’re also misleading.

Democrats may consider Trump deserving of impeachment but the only surefire way to oust him is at the ballot box in 2020. The first step to making that a reality is rebuilding after years of devastating losses and winning back the House. If Democrats are able to overcome their sizable deficit in the House and win the 24 seats needed to secure the majority, it will be the biggest tangible sign they can battle Trump and win.

“It just reinforces how we have to run these hyperlocal campaigns,” said Bustos, who drew in a deep breath when asked about the topic.

Bustos asks constituents one question when she’s in her hometown supermarket: “What do you want me to know before I fly back out to Washington?”

“That is what guides me, and it is not impeachment, it is not Russia,” Bustos said. “It is healthcare, it is ‘I’m not making the kind of money I was a decade ago, I’m working two jobs, I don’t have a retirement plan.’ ”

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who testified during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, defended Democrats’ delicate dance.

“Saying we shouldn’t have too much impeachment talk is very different than saying we shouldn’t have too much impeachment understanding,” Tribe told Crooked Media in a June interview.

But after Trump’s Helsinki performance, Tribe told the Washington Examiner Congress should appoint a select bicameral committee with “subpoena power” to “investigate what happened during the two-hour closed meeting between Trump and Putin, and to explore all aspects of Trump’s peculiar stance toward the Russian Federation.”

It should be “a minimum first step even before the midterms,” Tribe said. But creating such a committee requires Republican buy-in. And it’s not something Democrats have called for in the aftermath of Trump’s cozy meeting with Putin.

“I don’t want to see the prospect of a Democratic majority equated into automatic impeachment,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who sits on the House Oversight Committee.

If that happens, Connolly said, Democrats will “lose some races we otherwise might win.”

“You can be a Trump voter and still agree with the proposition that he needs adult supervision,” Connolly said. “Let’s not make that harder for Trump voters.”

The risks associated with impeachment don’t go away if Democrats win the majority, they only compound. Democrats could boost Trump in the eyes of the electorate if they jump-start impeachment hearings, shifting the attention onto themselves rather than the president.

Impeachment proceedings would “consume the entire two years” Democrats are in power, said Princeton University Historian Julian Zelizer.

“There’s always risks to the majority conducting the process,” Zelizer said. “It could backfire very easily and that’s what Republicans certainly learned with Bill Clinton in 1998, and so that’s going to be on their minds.”

During impeachment, Clinton’s approval rating rocketed to 73 percent. And the speaker of the Republican-controlled House, Newt Gingrich, resigned following the midterm elections.

Not only would running on impeachment hurt Democrats ahead of 2018 but setting it in motion could also jeopardize their chance to beat Trump in 2020.

“In my life I’ve seen two impeachments, the Nixon impeachment and Clinton impeachment,” said Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif. “The Nixon impeachment was serious; it became bipartisan because people had a reverence for the process and the Clinton impeachment was a joke.”

If Democrats aren’t careful, impeachment proceedings could end up demeaning Congress, Peters said.

It starts in Judiciary

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was serving his third term when Clinton was impeached. In 2019, he’ll enter his 27th year in office, and if Democrats win the majority, he’ll be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

If Nadler gets the gavel, he’s expected to hit Trump and administration officials with subpoenas requesting documents related to Trump’s financial dealings, communications with Russia and more.

“Why are Republicans so intent on destroying public confidence in the Justice Department and in the special counsel’s investigation?” Nadler said during former FBI agent Peter Strzok’s testimony to the Judiciary Committee. “The obvious answer is because they are scared; because President Trump is scared; because the special counsel’s investigation is operating at a breakneck pace and has already produced five guilty pleas and criminal charges against 23 individuals and entities; because accountability is coming, one way or another.”

Nadler is in lockstep with Democratic leaders, refusing to engage extensively on questions about impeachment, which he says are premature. But he revealed some of his thinking on the role the Judiciary Committee could play after Trump nominated conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Nadler argues that Kavanaugh’s writings on presidential accountability are suspect because Kavanaugh claims a president shouldn’t be subject to a subpoena, testimony or have to submit documents.

“Saying the president can’t be subject to a subpoena in criminal and civil cases is saying in effect he’s above the law,” Nadler told the Washington Examiner. “What’s the remedy for the monarchical president in that case? Well, impeachment.”

But if Kavanaugh “prevent[s] the president from being subject to civil or criminal process, if he can’t be subpoenaed then you’re restricting the ability of getting the evidence in which Congress might or might not choose to do an impeachment.”

Following Kavanaugh’s logic, Nadler said, Nixon would never have been subject to impeachment. Nadler said Kavanaugh’s views on accountability wouldn’t change Democrats’ calculus if they controlled the House, but “what you did might later be constrained by the court.”

“Whether you’re in the majority or not you want to hold the president accountable, you want to know what’s going on in the administration, you’re going to want to subpoena various documents, etc., and the president may or may not do things that are questionable so you want to get information about that,” Nadler said.

Asked if he’d hold hearings on articles of impeachment in the majority, Nadler quickly said “no, no.”

“First of all, you wait and see what the Mueller investigation reveals,” he said, “and then you see where you go from there.”