How keeping up with the Clintons could save Trump from impeachment

The analogy isn’t perfect. Michael Cohen appears to be alleging that Trump’s own money was involved in a campaign finance violation, while it was Chinese donors in Bill Clinton’s case. Robert Mueller may attempt to prove that Trump obstructed justice in relation to the underlying purpose of his investigation (Russia), while Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky were steps removed from Whitewater.

Then again, maybe not. It is possible the Cohen interlude moves the probe away from collusion and into more salacious territory, though Lanny Davis promises otherwise.

Either way, the Democrats’ failure to meaningfully discipline Bill Clinton after his Lewinsky lies helped make it thinkable we would have a president paying off porn stars two decades later. And the inability of Republicans of that generation to win the “character counts” argument makes them less likely to unilaterally disarm now.

Cue the eye-rolling and invocations of “whataboutism.” Let’s stipulate that the hypocrisy of one party does not absolve the other’s — but let’s also recognize that the hypocrisy is mutual.

Yes, if the situation was reversed Republicans would be clamoring for the impeachment of Bill or Hillary Clinton. But it is equally true that most Democrats would be voting to acquit. In the years following the Clinton impeachment saga but before “Me Too,” they might have even avoided floating censure or trotting out Joe Lieberman to express his disappointment.

Republicans still serving in the Senate — and one serving as Trump’s attorney general — voted to remove a Democratic president from office for obstruction of justice. Democrats still serving in the Senate voted to keep that Democratic president in office and will do the opposite if a similar fate befalls Trump.

Before the issue was payouts of hush money to cover up extramarital affairs, that circle could be squared. Russian interference in the presidential election is a public matter, sex is private. (As it happens, many Republicans think this too but will require a higher burden of proof than their Democratic counterparts.)

Yet what if, as appears to be the case at the moment, the evidence against Trump is stronger on Stormy Daniels than collusion? Democrats, and more than a few Never Trumpers, are going to say campaign finance violations require more than a fine — they constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

One argument in Bill Clinton’s favor was that even if he perjured himself, it was said that he had the right to lie about sex and his government interlocutors had no right to inquire about such a personal matter. Even if that seems implausible in a sexual harassment case, that logic carried the day when it mattered.

Why does it not apply to Trump, at least as far as impeachment is concerned? If guilty, he could pay a fine. Maybe make Mexico pay for it.

Both Clinton and Trump were widely known as womanizers when they were elected. They both faced even worse allegations. People heard them and voted for them anyway. They were also both known for shady land deals, though Trump obviously on a much larger scale.

If Bill Clinton had been removed from office or persuaded by senior Democrats to resign, Trump would have much less of a leg to stand on right now. In the present climate, Richard Nixon might have survived Watergate.

Partisanship produces temporary victories when you have the capacity to exercise raw power, but the long-term consequences can be hard to predict. Eventually, the other side will have the same power. (This, more importantly, applies to little things like civil liberties and untrammeled executive authority too.)

It is possible that for the second time in his brief political career, the Clintons will have thrown Trump a lifeline. That would be a delicious irony, were it no so sad. Republicans, after all, used to hold officials to a higher ethical standard than the Clintons.