Donald Trump is a man who inspires passion. His true believers remain unshaken by attacks on war hero and fellow Republican John McCain, and the family of a soldier killed in action. They are unconcerned at his open and constant violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause. They are sure that his foreign policy of alienating friends and embracing despots will make for a safer world. And they're willing to take economic hits (especially the farmers) to facilitate a trade policy that might be charitably described as risky.
His detractors see him as embarrassingly profane, sexist, racist, jingoistic, woefully ignorant of history and economics, avaricious, illogical, and possibly mentally ill. They have also seen that he is a street fighter who will do anything to win, and that so far, he's holding his own.
The Trump haters take solace in the likelihood that he won't make it through his entire four-year term, that Trump will either be impeached and convicted or removed through the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet "or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" to perform that distasteful but necessary task.
As to the amendment option, Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants and collaborators. His attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has happily cooperated in the policy of tearing apart immigrant families at the border with no real plan of reuniting children separated from their parents.
Vice President Mike Pence has traded his moral integrity for political expediency. As a radio talk show host, he was one of the loudest media declaimers of President Clinton for sexual improprieties, but he has remained silent on this president's well-documented history of paying off porn stars and consorting with Playboy playmates during his marriage.
It is more likely that Vladimir Putin is telling the truth when he says that he did not interfere in American elections than that this motley crew will rise to the occasion and oust Trump under any circumstances.
But there's always impeachment, right?
In the history of America, two presidents have been impeached. In neither case was there a conviction, and in neither case was impeachment genuinely warranted.
Andrew Johnson's impeachment of 1868 was purely political. The Radical Republicans didn't want this former slaveholder from Tennessee to interfere with their military reconstruction of the South, so they manufactured a law, the Tenure of Office Act, knowing that he would consider it unconstitutional and violate it. He did. He was impeached.
Johnson beat the rap, and the law was repealed a couple of decades later.
Bill Clinton was impeached primarily for perjury, of which he was royally guilty, but there was serious question as to whether his actions actually constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" as required by the Constitution. It would have been perfectly appropriate to let him serve out his term, then bring him to trial on federal charges. But the opposition would have gotten no political mileage out of that, so the Republican-controlled House of Representatives brought impeachment charges, knowing that it was impossible to get the two-thirds Senate vote required to convict. Predictably, Clinton was acquitted by a wide margin.
The same would have happened if Richard Nixon had refused to resign. Even though Nixon's offenses, covering up the subversion of an election, clearly warranted impeachment, Republicans in the Senate would not have voted in large enough numbers to convict, and Nixon would have skated. The likelihood is that Nixon resigned because he feared an impeachment trial that would reveal greater evidence of illegality and lead to further embarrassment and eventual prosecution on criminal charges.
Other presidents might have been impeached: Andrew Jackson for pulling federal funds out of the Second Bank of the United States, an action that was probably unconstitutional and led to the firing of his Secretary of Treasury William J. Duane when he refused to be a party to it; Ulysses S. Grant for his likely involvement in a number of scandals, most famously Credit Mobilier; Warren Harding, who had the good fortune to die in office before the Teapot Dome scandal broke; and perhaps even Ronald Reagan in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal.
But had they faced impeachment, probably none of them would have been convicted. Their party strength in the Senate would have saved them. The same is true for Trump.
None of the aforementioned fearless leaders was accused of treason, just forgivable failings like vengeful political machinations, money grubbing, over-zealous anti-communism, or lying about sexual shenanigans. The Mueller investigation has already produced strong evidence that members of Donald Trump's family consorted (I won't say "colluded" because I have it on good authority from Rudy Giuliani that there's nothing wrong with that) with Russians for the purpose of influencing a presidential election. And if the Democrats reclaim the House in November, as polls indicate is very likely, the prospect of impeachment grows immensely.
We already know that Trump helped prepare a response explaining his son's involvement in a meeting with Russians for the purpose of getting information damaging to Hillary Clinton. What if the Mueller probe finds out that there's more to it? What if that "more" is indisputable evidence of the president himself actively conspiring with Russians to beat "crooked Hillary"?
The Constitution is fairly specific: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Wouldn't ex-KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin feel pretty aided and comforted by having an American president beholden to him for an election victory? Something to think about. Republican senators must be distressed about potentially being put in a position that would require them to demonstrate, with their impeachment votes, whether their loyalty is to their party or to their country.
In this light, President Trump's strident calls for Mueller to wrap up his probe seem eminently understandable. Trump is a man who likes notoriety, and he clearly wants to leave a mark on history. But it's doubtful that he wants to be remembered as the first president removed from office through impeachment.
Dr. Gary Battershell, a history instructor, is retired from an Arkansas school in the University of Arkansas system.
Editorial on 08/19/2018