There is a tendency to think of impeachable offenses as like landmines: If the president steps on one, then it explodes and he suffers the consequences. This is the wrong way to think about impeachments.
Keith E. Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He teaches and writes about American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency. He is the author most recently of "Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech."
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Although senators might be called upon to vote on one charge at a time, they have a responsibility to consider the totality of circumstances when casting that vote.
Seeking a subpoena to force the president to testify would set up a constitutional showdown over the scope of judicial authority over a sitting president—a showdown that neither Mueller nor the courts should wish for.
Does Congress still have war powers?
Does the president’s oath of office require him to uphold the Constitution as the judiciary understands it, or as he does?
Congress has the power to impeach executive officers beyond the president and vice president.
If use of the impeachment power is an exercise in forward-looking, political judgment, then it is worth thinking carefully about what the downsides might be of refraining to pursue an impeachment inquiry in the face of impeachable offenses