Moral imperative or dangerous precedent? House plans to impeach Trump again.

When rioting Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, Rep. Gerald Connolly was on the House floor. The Democrat from Virginia could hear pounding getting closer to the chamber, but wasn’t sure at first what it was. As word spread that angry mobs were inside the building, he saw Speaker Nancy Pelosi being escorted away, and members of the sergeant-at-arms securing the chamber doors.

Lawmakers were told to ready gas masks, which were under every chair – a fact previously unknown to the six-term congressman, who was shocked and alarmed. Then came evacuation. As he and about 150 members headed for a staircase to the sub-basement, he turned to see double doors just steps from the chamber entrance. They were barricaded, and hands were pounding on the glass.

Shortly after, a Capitol Police officer fatally shot Ashli Babbitt at that same spot. She was one of five people killed in the melee that Wednesday, including an officer who died the next day.

On Monday, House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump, charging him with “incitement of insurrection.” Speaker Pelosi said the House would proceed with impeachment if Vice President Mike Pence did not seek to remove the president under the 25th Amendment by Wednesday. It’s a move Congressman Connolly says he strongly supports – even though he knows impeaching will not remove Mr. Trump before Inauguration Day. It’s unclear when the Senate would take it up and whether it would convict. And politically, it might undermine President-elect Joe Biden’s unity message, while strengthening the outgoing president’s standing among Republicans. 

“If you had been in the Capitol and experienced the mob violence that we experienced Wednesday, you might have a different point of view about unity,” the congressmen explains in an interview. “Unity can’t be a subterfuge for lack of accountability.”

Indeed, many Democratic lawmakers say they have no choice. This was an unprecedented, violent assault on the Capitol – a seditious attempt to deny the constitutional process of counting legal electoral votes that were certified by the states and the courts. They say they must hold the president accountable for fomenting rebellion. As Congressman Connolly puts it, he believes he has a constitutional obligation “irrespective of the politics of it, irrespective of its likely outcome.”

Still, nothing in Washington happens in a political vacuum. While starkly condemning the president and the attack last week, Mr. Biden is focused on gearing up his administration, getting to work on the pandemic and the economy, and unifying the country. On Monday, he told reporters that he had proposed a bifurcated system, where the Senate would spend half a day on impeachment and half on Cabinet confirmation hearings and priorities such as pandemic relief.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the most conservative Democrats in the 50-50 Senate and a crucial swing vote, said that while he believed the president deserved to be impeached, Democrats should be “practical” and pursue the legal path in the criminal justice system rather than the political path. Mr. Biden has “an awful lot on his plate,” he told CNN on Sunday.

The less attention paid to President Trump the better, advises Ross Baker, an expert on the Senate at Rutgers University. Otherwise, Democrats could inadvertently make a “martyr” out of him.

Republican pollster and consultant Frank Luntz agrees.

“Donald Trump is a pariah right now,” he says, “and the Democrats will be solving the GOP’s problem by getting rid of him.” In his view, Democrats are mixing up their priorities, putting their abhorrence of Mr. Trump above the interests of the new president, who will never have more power and influence than he has now.

“They feel a moral imperative, because they think that Donald Trump is literally evil, and so there is no limit to how far they will go to punish him, even to the point of hurting their newly inaugurated president,” says Mr. Luntz. 

Swift impeachment a “dangerous precedent”?

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who testified before Congress against President Trump’s first impeachment, describes this week’s actions as an “impulse” that would set a “dangerous precedent.” By voting to impeach without even holding a hearing, lawmakers are going against the Founders’ intention of a deliberative process and would clear the way for snap impeachments in the future.

Additionally, he warns that the standard for “incitement” is vague. Democrats want to remove the president based on his remarks before the storming of the Capitol – remarks that Professor Turley believes are protected speech. A number of Democrats have also spoken threateningly, he notes, including Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who urged supporters to confront Republicans in restaurants.

“This type of language has become ubiquitous in our politics,” says Professor Turley, who teaches at George Washington University Law School in Washington. 

“This is not a ‘both sides’ kind of time”

Former Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia says in the past she has had people come to her home and scream, to the point where her daughter was afraid to go out with her children in public. But, says the Republican, “this is not a ‘both sides’ kind of time.” The deadly storming of the Capitol and the president’s role in it are “unprecedented and we need to take strong action.”

Ms. Comstock has signed a letter with 23 other former GOP congressional lawmakers urging Congress to “uphold the integrity of the legislative branch and protect American democracy” by impeaching President Trump. She believes such a vote will be “well north” of the 218-vote threshold needed to pass and that it will be bipartisan.

Democrats, who hold a slim 11-seat majority in the House, say they have the votes – which would make Mr. Trump the only president in history to be impeached twice.

Ms. Comstock says she sees a “disintegration” of Mr. Trump’s support and believes that it will continue as more details of the president’s behavior and of what occurred on the Hill come to light. She points to an ABC News/Ipsos poll showing 67% of Americans blaming the president for the riot. The poll also found a majority of the country believes he should be removed before Mr. Biden takes office on Jan. 20.

But removal is highly unlikely. Unlike President Richard Nixon, who Ms. Comstock likened to a “statesman” compared to the current president, Mr. Trump has shown no intention to resign. In an interview, one former Republican House member argues that what is called for is a “Goldwater-to-Nixon” moment, referring to when three GOP senators went to Nixon to say he was doomed to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. On Monday, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy said he opposed impeachment, but suggested censure among options House Republicans would pursue.

Meanwhile, the vice president, whose life seemed under threat by mobs at the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” appears disinclined to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would require that he and a majority of the Cabinet find the president unable to discharge the duties of his office. The vice president, next in line, would then become president.

That leaves impeachment followed by a trial and conviction and removal by the Senate, which would require a two-thirds vote of those present to convict. To bar him from ever holding an elected office again would require a second vote after conviction, but this one needs only a majority to pass. Although this would take place after Mr. Trump left office, there is precedent for such a maneuver. Several Republican senators seem more open to consideration of an article of impeachment than last year, when the GOP-controlled Senate voted on a near-party line basis to acquit Trump on a count of abuse of power and another on obstructing Congress. In 2020, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney was the only Republican voting to convict.

“The real need is not just for accountability ... but [for] a Senate vote prohibiting him from being able to run for office again. If we don’t hold him accountable and take that [next] step, we’re going to see the same sort of incitement for the next four years from him,” says Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, which, together with Republicans for Integrity, organized the letter signed by Comstock.

“I’m sorry if it does tarnish Biden’s goals [of unity], but at this stage, I think that’s a secondary consideration,” Ms. Brian says.

Some experienced Democrats are unconcerned about a clash between impeachment and Mr. Biden’s start on his agenda, including his overarching goal to bring the country together.

“You have to think what unifying the country means. This country has never been 100% unified. Even when JFK was assassinated ... there were people who applauded,” says Robert Shrum, who advised earlier Democratic presidential campaigns and now is at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. The timing of impeachment is a “complication” he says, but “the justification for it is overwhelming.”

“The politics will take care of itself,” chimes in Bill Carrick, a longtime Democratic consultant.