Sam Smith - I've increasingly felt that the Trump disaster is
being pursued in a manner that pleases lawyers but is not good politics.
Ask the average voter whether Trump's Ukrainian activities are enough
to remove him from office and you not only find less than a impeachment
majority, but an increasing opposition. The most recent Emerson poll,
for example, has impeachment support down from 48% to 43% since October
with only 34% of independents backing it. Given the unlikelihood of a
Republican Senate expelling Trump, the difficult question is what to do
in a time like this?
My hunch is that if the recent
hearings had been aimed at coming up with a declaration of censure
rather than impeachment, they would have proved more effective. In other
words, rather being a legal game of chess about a specific incident,
they would have been a broad educational inquiry into how many ways
Trump has undermined the law, the Constitution and decency.
The
purpose might have been to determine what new laws or constitutional
amendments we need to deal with a con man like Trump. For example, what
penalty when the President holds up a legally approved expense for his
own personal gain? This would involve not only Ukraine, but, as reported
here recently, budgeted funds for EPA.
There is no
easy solution but offering the public as list - rather than just one
example - of the ways Trump has misbehaved would probably have proved
more useful. It is certainly worth a try.
