Four Ways Democratic Presidential Candidates Can Use Impeachment to Their Advantage

By Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post

08 December 19

emocratic presidential candidates talk a lot less about impeachment than you would think. That perhaps is a function of their belief that President Trump and his hapless allies are doing enough damage on their own. Alternatively, they may believe that it is not a winning issue in the way, for example, health care may be. Whether that is true now, they are likely to get a 2020 gift never before handed to the party out of the White House: a month-long impeachment trial in which Trump’s wrongdoing, recklessness and corruption are aired every day, all day, on every news channel. To quote Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), they better not screw this up.

Remember, they do not need to prove what he did is impeachable; their task is to prove his conduct is disqualifying. That should be a far easier task, and Trump has shown them how. Now, some presidential candidates will be sitting in the Senate, but nothing prevents them from talking publicly about the proceedings. (Trump sure will.) So what do they say? Remember, these are arguments they need to drive home as to why it would be nuts to give him four more years.

First, as I pointed out — as did several of my colleagues — the man who ran on “Lock her up!” (on Hillary Clinton’s noncriminal use of a home server) did something a lot worse: He intentionally used unsecured lines to avoid records being kept of his calls, knowing they would be picked up by enemies of the United States. He invited blackmail. Should someone who is so paranoid (rightly or wrongly assuming he’ll be in a lot of trouble if people know who he is talking to) and so unconcerned about national security get a security clearance, let alone be trusted with our most vital secrets? Heck, they should be calling for him to step down over this alone. (As tempting as it is, I do not recommend starting “Lock him up!” chants. Don’t worry, late-night comedians and TV pundits will do it for them.)

Second, Trump is willing to do things that inevitably help Russia. He’ll pull out of Syria, cut off aid to Ukraine, destroy NATO and excuse Russian aggression. Whether the Kremlin has the goods on him — or an accounts receivable — or whether Trump is just a sitting duck for manipulation is a matter of debate. Democrats have to be clear, however: Whatever the cause, Trump cannot distinguish between our friends and our enemies. He will believe crackpot conspiracy theories rather than unanimous intelligence findings. He is too gullible and dim to be president.

Third, he surrounds himself with shady characters and crooks: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen and Michael Flynn. His personal attorney is colluding with corrupt foreign nationals to get “something of value” on his political opponent. Again, this is not something necessarily impeachable, but it is a heck of a reason not to entrust him with power. He empowers crooks, who, lo and behold, do crooked things. (There is a reason Trump sometimes talks like a mob boss, inveighing against “flipping” witnesses, rather than the chief executive charged with enforcing the laws.)

Fourth, Trump no longer does his actual job. He spends hours watching TV, tweeting, railing at critics, calling into Fox News. It is not the House that has failed to do its job (it’s passed hundreds of bills); it is Trump. Other than start a punitive and counterproductive trade war, what has he done since he gave the super-rich a giant tax cut? When you are a full-time defendant, there really is no time for Infrastructure Week.

Democrats are wrong if they think the impeachment trial will do their work for them. They need to extract from the myriad facts and the legal arguments a singular truth: None of what Trump did is defensible. Not even Republican senators are willing to go along with the “perfect” canard; even they deplore cutting off aid to Ukraine. Presidential (and senatorial) candidates need to connect the dots: Trump willfully endangered national security in a much more serious way than Clinton ever did; he is a dupe of dictators; he surrounds himself with crooks; and he no longer even gives the appearance of performing his job. In short, you can be against impeachment, but how does any reasonable person justify giving him another term? Vice PresidentPence must be wondering the same thing.