The Economist 14Dec2019

Leaders 9

1

O

n december 10ththe House Judiciary Committee formally

accused President Donald Trump of abuse of power and ob-

struction of Congress. It was a solemn moment, and the prelude

to Mr Trump becoming only the third president to be impeached.

It was also entirely predictable. Mr Trump will now almost cer-

tainly be indicted by the House and cleared in a trial by the Sen-

ate. If a single legislator crosses party lines, it will be news. That

enough to convict him will do so is inconceivable.

Mr Trump’s behaviour forced on Congress an invidious

choice. He deserves to be removed for attempting to tip the 2020

election. But the impeachment that has unfolded over the past

three months will leave Republicans unswayed, voters divided

and Mr Trump in office. That is bad for America.

The main facts are not in dispute. Mr Trump ordered $391m of

military aid to be temporarily withheld from Ukraine, which is

fighting a Russian-backed uprising (see Europe section). Using

back channels, Mr Trump also promised Volodymyr Zelensky,

Ukraine’s new president, a coveted meeting in the Oval Office if

he announced investigations into Ukraine’s role in the 2016

American election and, more important, into whether Joe Biden,

a potential rival to Mr Trump in the 2020 election, had corruptly

protected his son, Hunter. Mr Trump’s claim was that Mr Biden,

when he was vice-president, had prevented a Ukrainian prose-

cutor looking into a gas company that had Hunt-

er on its board.

The law is clear, too. Impeachment involves

“high Crimes and Misdemeanours”, threats to

the state and violations of public trust that need

not be crimes in themselves (see Briefing). Mr

Trump’s manipulation of a foreign government

to smear his opponent is the sort of election-rig-

ging that bothered the Framers. So much the

worse that the president was also acting against the national in-

terest by endangering an ally.

Instead, the arguments have been about what Mr Trump in-

tended. The president’s defenders insist that he was not smear-

ing Mr Biden. He had a legitimate concern about corruption, and

was conducting relations with the new government in Kyiv in his

own way—as is his right. Ukraine’s president, they say, did not

even know about the delay to the $391m, which in any case was

mostly disbursed eventually. They note that Mr Zelensky denies

that the aid depended on his investigations—and no wonder, be-

cause Mr Trump never intended such a quid pro quo.

Intentions are hard to get at, especially with a man like Mr

Trump who routinely contradicts himself. But this defence does

not ring true. Ukrainian officials did in fact know about the de-

lay, and Mr Trump released the money only after a whistleblower

had complained about his behaviour. Mr Zelensky’s statement is

open to doubt, as he has everything to lose from getting mixed up

in an impeachment while Mr Trump remains in power.

Moreover, Mr Trump did not take the Ukrainian allegations

seriously. If he had wanted the Bidens investigated, the proper

course would have been to refer the matter to the fbi, not to use a

foreign government. Before charging ahead, Mr Trump could

have asked whether the allegations were substantial. They were

not. A Russia expert once on his own staff has warned that the

story about Ukrainian meddling in 2016 was a Russian propagan-

da campaign. The Ukrainian prosecutor pushed out by Mr Biden

was shielding corrupt firms: the father was not protecting his

son, but exposing him to investigation by a new prosecutor.

“Shall any man be above justice?” George Mason asked when

drafting the impeachment clause. “Shall that man be above it,

who can commit the most extensive injustice?” Mr Trump want-

ed to tilt the 2020 election in his favour by tainting Mr Biden. Giv-

en a free hand, his illegal efforts to cling to power might continue

from the Oval Office. That is why Mr Trump should be removed.

But he won’t be. To expel him, the Senate needs to vote against

the president with a two-thirds majority. The Democrats, with 47

of 100 seats, would count it a victory to win a simple majority.

Public support for impeachment jumped in September when it

was announced, to a little under 50%, but all the investigations

and hearings since then have not shifted it. Only 21 states have a

majority in favour of impeachment (see our Graphic detail page).

Democrats argue that this is because the White House has re-

fused to let staff testify, or to release documents to Congress, the

basis for that charge of obstruction of Congress. Republicans,

they say, abetted by Fox News and others, have thrown sand in

voters’ eyes by mounting shifting and inconsistent defences.

The Democrats are right. The Republican re-

fusal to take any allegations against Mr Trump

seriously has been contemptible. In private,

many Republican senators abhor Mr Trump and

his methods. But they will not risk their careers

by breaking with him in the national interest.

The key to shifting them is public opinion—

and it still has the potential to move against Mr

Trump. Pollsters report that a third of indepen-

dent voters are undecided; some of those opposed to impeach-

ment appear willing to reconsider. But the White House will not

let the public hear from the witnesses closest to Mr Trump, such

as John Bolton, a former national security adviser, and Mick Mul-

vaney, his acting chief of staff. Sworn testimony from the inner

circle could have contained facts and insights with a unique

power to change minds.

Democrats could have asked the courts to compel them to tes-

tify and turn over documents. If Mr Trump defied the judges, Re-

publican senators would be under severe pressure to break with

him. However, rather than submit to the grinding wheels of the

law, the Democrats have settled for a vote simply to get it out of

the way. They argue that they have already accomplished a lot.

They have shown that the president did wrong, they say. Because

the House has sole power over impeachment, they do not need

the courts to prove obstruction. Even if they fail to remove Mr

Trump, impeachment is deterrent enough.

That is a counsel of despair. Nobody can say how long the

courts would take. Democratic leaders cite the months needed to

force witnesses to testify in other cases but, mindful of the elec-

toral timetable, the judges could just as well choose to proceed

swiftly. While they deliberate, the impeachment inquiry will

hang over Mr Trump. That will do more to restrain him from fur-

On trial

Donald Trump, impeachment and American democracy

Leaders