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.
Latest in impeachment
“It would be unthinkable if this material were kept from the House of Representatives in the course of the discharge of its most awesome constitutional responsibility.”
—Letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, Mar. 8, 1974
The Senate has a responsibility to do so—but not an express constitutional obligation. And in a time of disregard for established institutional practice and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more.
A response to some counterarguments.
Tribe has proposed a novel argument to assert that a sitting U.S. president can be indicted.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has alleged conduct by Donald Trump that, if true, could justify impeachment.
Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski’s road map report to the House of Representatives hastened the impeachment of President Nixon in 1974, but might be a bad model for Robert Mueller.
There will be a report from the special counsel’s office, though the public won’t see it. The question is what happens after that.
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.
A key dynamic is weighing on Republicans, even if removal of the deputy attorney general is unlikely.