Impeach Trump? Good case on either side

Gordon L. Weil

Independence Day comes in less than a month.  Many remember it as marking end of British rule over the American colonies.  But, as the Declaration of Independence itself stated, the purpose was to end "all allegiance to the British crown."

The Declaration is not a collection of grievances about Britain.  It is a list of complaints about King George III.  For example, it charges: "He has obstructed the administration of justice...."

Because of their experience under the British king, the Founders worried about a strong executive.  For its first 13 years, U.S. lacked the office of president.  Congress had the lead role.

Congress has since given the president great powers.  Some occupants of the Oval Office claim the office is "unitary," giving the president supreme power in the government.  Forget checks and balances.  The president may exercise even greater powers than those given by the Constitution.

The drafters of the Constitution worried about such a theory.  One protective measure they included was impeachment and removal from office.  They said that federal officials who engaged in "high crimes and misdemeanors" in their conduct while in office or to gain election could be removed by Congress.

Impeachment talk grows.  More Democrats, resentful of President Trump's breach of constitutional and government traditions, now favor it.  Opponents are wary, but still complain that calls for impeachment are purely political.

The Constitution's drafters understood impeachment was a political act by elected politicians.  Otherwise, they might have turned it over to the Supreme Court, supposedly politically independent.  The Founders required a two-thirds Senate majority for removal from office, reducing the chances of purely partisan action.

The current discussion is based mainly on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that Trump may have tried to obstruct justice, but that he cannot be prosecuted while in office.  Mueller made it obvious that the only way to decide the question now was up to Congress.

Why impeach?

It is the right thing to do.  Mueller has provided evidence of possible obstruction of justice.  Impeachment could focus on alleged obstruction and not the host of Democratic complaints.

Evidence that Trump tried to block the Mueller investigation merits hearings to yield a conclusion.  President Trump and Attorney-General Barr should not be allowed to whitewash the findings. 

Impeachment by the Democratic House is almost certain to result from an investigation.  It should not matter that the Republican Senate would not remove him.

Former Maine GOP House and Senate member Bill Cohen advocates a House investigation.  He believes that, as the facts are brought out, sentiment for further steps against Trump would grow.

That was Cohen's experience on the House committee that voted the impeachment of President Nixon in 1974.  Public opinion initially opposed ousting Nixon, but, by the time he resigned, he was sure to be removed by the Senate.

Another view is that an impeachment investigation will benefit Democrats politically by undermining Trump's support.  Some Republicans could no longer stick with their president, improving the chances for Democratic candidates in next year's elections.

Why avoid impeachment?

It won't work.  While a Democratic House might impeach Trump, a Republican Senate would not remove him.  Only if House and, possibly, Senate Republicans begin talking about impeachment would it be worth considering.

Short of impeaching the president, Congress could limit the powers it has generously given the White House.  That would take a veto-proof majority, but would Republicans split with Trump, even to help Congress restore its constitutional role? 

Impeachment might seem excessively partisan.  Just as the misguided GOP House impeachment of President Bill Clinton hurt the Republicans in the following elections, the same might be true for the Democrats in 2020.  The process could be divisive, exactly what many Americans say they don't want.

Politically, it might even help Trump.  He could point to the Democrats as being so unhappy about the results of the 2016 elections that they prevented the Wall and other useful legislation and even tried to reverse the result.  He could cast himself as the victim of the opposition.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment, because she fears it would jeopardize chances of gaining moderate GOP support and would draw attention away from key issues.  Many of the party's presidential candidates favor impeachment, seeing it as a way to rally primary voters.

The impeachment process would get in the way of doing almost any other government business.  The U.S. would be buried in tweets and counter-tweets.

Take your pick.  Congress faces a tough decision with no easy answer.

Election clash over government's role – Europe last week, U.S. next year

Gordon L. Weil

In European restaurants, dishes on the menu have footnotes, numbers that are a key to the food allergies of each item.

The European Union has issued a rule requiring this information.  To some, this rule might seem like overkill.  Maybe customers should take of themselves.

That sort of EU power represented the main issue in last week's elections for the European Parliament.  Parties in control of several countries lean to the far right and want to weaken the EU.  Others argue that a more unified Europe produces benefits that individual countries can't.

These European elections, for a population far greater than the US, might be a preview of next year's presidential and congressional elections.  On both sides of the Atlantic, right-wing parties want to reduce the power of the central government.

The forecasts were for a low turnout and major gains for the far-right, led by the Brexit Party, which wants to get the U.K. out of the EU.  By the same token, if the American turnout is low next years, pundits might reasonably expect Trump Republicans to strengthen their hold on government.

I was in Europe during the voting and found the results surprising.  Turnout was greater than it has been in 25 years and increased for the first time in 40 years.  Although the hard-right parties gained, the left Greens and Liberal Democrats did even better.

The governing parties of the center lost seats, but more went to the left than to the right.  Overall, that left the European Parliament still under the solid control of pro-Europeans.

In Britain, the parties on either side of the Brexit battle each received the same amount of support.  The traditional Conservative and Labour Parties that have waffled on the issue were blasted in the elections.  The result could be anything from an early exit to a new UK referendum.

While the results seem to mean greater American-style polarization, it more importantly shows the growing strength of the political left.  The increased turnout seems to have been driven, at least in some countries, by young voters sending the message they like Europe, even with its rules.

To take just one practical example, the EU outlawed roaming charges on cell phones on Europe, overriding national borders.  Young people like to be able to call from Estonia to Portugal without such charges.

What might the European elections forecast for the 2020 elections in the U.S.?

The left is a strong and growing political force.  It is obviously gaining support in reaction to right-wing moves in national parliaments.  As Brexit turns the U.K. to the right, the Greens rise.  The British Liberal Democrats, once thought to be almost dead, has surged past the traditional parties.

That could mean that left-wing Democrats in the U.S. would not settle for middle-of-the-road leadership.  The rise of the left might not work as well as in Europe, because of the two party American system.

In fact, another message from Europe is that the right unifies more easily than the left.  If the Democrats splinter, that could allow for continued minority control by the Trump GOP.

Also, turnout seems to work as expected.  While small voter participation helps Republicans and the far-right, big numbers help Democrats.  That explains why the GOP seeks to suppress Democrats' voting.  But young voters, especially those voting for the first time, can change the turnout considerably.

Political parties come and they may also go, if they really miss the mood of the electorate.  British Prime Minister Theresa May resigned, because she has failed to find a Brexit solution.  Her party almost disappeared in last week's elections.  Traditional conservative parties elsewhere are also seriously challenged.

In the US, where Trump has captured the Republican Party, what would happen if there were a major Democratic victory in 2020?  Would more moderate Republicans take control, justifying Susan Collins' party loyalty during the Trump presidency, or would the party be pushed aside by a new business-oriented party.

Trump will stress his friendship for the far-right leaders in Europe as a way of showing he is in the mainstream of a new brand of politics.  But the European result suggests that this new, nationalistic movement may have peaked.  Given a chance, it did not prevail.

Just as in Europe, the U.S. now faces an election that may be an historic turning point.  The 2020 election would either add momentum to Trump's dismantling of the traditional federal government or it may be a complete rejection of attacks on government and renewed support for its role.

Presidential candidates, now including oldsters, should name their running mates

Gordon L. Weil

The world is growing older.  Except for Africa south of the Sahara, the average age is increasing.

There are more old people thanks to medical advances that, together with lifestyle changes, help prolong life.  At the same time, there are fewer young people as parents choose to have smaller families.  While China ended its rule requiring one-child families, many Chinese seem to have grown accustomed to it.

The increase in the length of life is not consistent around the world or even in the U.S.  There is a 15-year difference in life expectancy between the wealthiest and poorest Americans, according to a report in London's Financial Times.

There's also a difference between people who keep employed, even in volunteer jobs or athletic activities, and those who become couch potatoes in retirement.  Keep active and you live longer and healthier.

One major factor in extending lives is a reduction in the number of smokers.  Smoking's toll shows up as people age. 

Obesity is the new smoking.  About one-third of Americans is obese and another third is overweight. This causes high health care costs and a lower American lifespan than in Japan, France, and Greece, among many others.  The median age in the U.S. is 38.  In Japan, it is 47.3 and, in Greece, 44.5.

Maine, at 44.6, has the highest median age of any state.  That makes the state a world leader.  What it learns about dealing with aging and improving the quality of life for older people could provide valuable tools for the rest of the country and even other countries.  Here's an economic development opportunity.

Longer lives are also having political effects.  A higher percentage of older people vote than do other age groups.  Traditionally mostly Republicans, they have begun to move toward the Democrats.  In political campaigns, older Americans should be added to the list of target groups like women, minorities and the young.

The most obvious effect of an older population is among the presidential candidates.  Bernie Sanders, 77, and Joe Biden, 76, lead the Democratic pack.  Donald Trump, 72, is the oldest person ever elected president.  Elizabeth Warren, 69, could end her first term at 75, older than Trump will end his.

Robert Kaiser, 76, a former editor of the Washington Post, worries about older presidents.  He writes the presidency is "perhaps the hardest job in the world."  Aging experts think it is a job for a person of 50 more so than one of 70, he says.

Because individuals differ from one another, general findings may not apply to every older person.  But studies show that, on almost all measures of intellectual ability, old people suffer in comparison with younger adults

It may be difficult for older people to admit the reduction in their memory or ability to handle complex tasks.  You can more easily recognize reduced lung capacity or muscle strength.  For older people, including presidential candidates, mental capacity slows down like physical ability.

Ronald Reagan is currently ranked as the oldest president, though Trump would pass him.  His deteriorating mental agility while in office was recognized.  That can be a factor for today's candidates.  Plus, older presidents have a significantly greater possibility of dying in office than usual. 

Presidential candidates make only one decision during the course of a campaign that will bind them if they gain the highest office.  And it is a decision they usually make in the euphoria of their victory just before or just after they have received their party's nomination.

The nominees pick their vice presidential running mates for a variety of reasons.  A man has picked a woman.  A black has picked a white.  A northerner has picked a southerner.  A Republican has picked a Democrat.  These moves were designed to "balance" the ticket and improve chances of winning.  All, except one, worked.

But the principal role of the vice president is to be a "heartbeat away" from being president.  In 1944, Democrat kingmakers were reasonably sure that Franklin D. Roosevelt would not live through his fourth term and selected Harry Truman, a man who knew his way around Washington, to succeed him.

Given the age of some of the presidential candidates, they should recognize voters are electing two people who could be president, not just a candidate and a ticket balancer.  Of course, if older candidates make a choice, others will have to follow.  The wisdom of their choices can then be a factor in our choice.

Then, the rest of us can focus on taking off a few pounds and keeping active.

Democrats worry about possible election conspiracy claims

Gordon L. Weil

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the Democratic presidential candidate next year to score a landslide victory over President Trump.

If he lost by a narrow margin, she worries that Trump would challenge the result, claiming there had been a conspiracy to rig the election.  He might then refuse to leave office at the end of his term. 

Her worry might seem far-fetched, but she notes that Trump continues to challenge Hillary Clinton's nearly three million popular vote majority in 2016.  He claims there was massive illegal voting for her, though nobody has produced any evidence of it.

Pelosi's solution would be for the Democrat to win by a large enough number of votes that it would be impossible to make a potentially believable claim that Trump's defeat resulted from massive vote fraud.

Whatever they say about focusing mainly on the issues, the Democrats all have one principal goal – getting Trump out of the Oval Office.  Some assert he has made the country ripe for a major move to the left.    

The Speaker argues that the party should pick a middle-of-the road candidate who could hold onto the Trump voters who voted for Democratic congressional candidates last year.  She does not see a winning answer to Trump politics being a radical turn to the left, as do some Democratic hopefuls. 

She is concerned that Trump does not like or respect constitutional limits and practice.  He could seek to override the limits on his term in office by declaring a conspiracy-driven national emergency.  Given the Supreme Court's partisan Bush-Gore decision in 2000, Trump might even hope for legal backing allowing him to hold onto power.

If this all seems like Nancy dreaming, it underrates the role of conspiracy thinking and false information in today's political scene.  Fantastic stories are offered as explanation of major claims.  "Facts" are created to support these tales, even if there is no evidence for them.

The Washington Post Fact Checker, generally regarded as the best in the country, has documented more than 10,000 times since he took office when Trump has made a statement that was not true.  Many are repetitions.  He relies on manufactured facts to support policies he advocates.

He claims that those who oppose his misstatements are producing "fake news."  It matters little to him that these reports can provide evidence.  Similarly, this way of viewing events might make possible charges of a conspiracy to commit vote fraud.

Just how widespread a conspiracy can extend is illustrated by the claim that vaccinations cause autism in children.  There is no evidence this is true.  The result has been the dangerous spread of measles and even some deaths.  The illness could have virtually been eliminated if people were vaccinated.

Trump's own persistent claim that President Obama was not born in the U.S. is another example of a widespread but false belief spread by a claim lacking evidence.  Obama finally produced his birth certificate, but even that was questioned.  In light of Trump's refusal to reveal his tax returns, Obama probably should have ignored him.

Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  For the answer, you can pick from a menu of conspiracy theories, all stated with firm conviction.  Was the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut a performance by actors and staged by gun opponents, leaving nobody really dead?  No facts, no evidence.

Did Russia try to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump, even if his campaign did nothing more than accept the help?  Conspiracy claim or fact?

A conspiracy balloon should be popped by solid facts reported by the independent media relying on evidence.  A lot of that is happening, but faces two problems.

First, newspapers and cable channels have lined up editorially for or against Trump and it may seem their news coverage is biased.  That's all the more true when opinion is offered as if it were a news report.

The other reason the media may be mistrusted is that readers and viewers bring their prejudices with them.  If you readily believe in conspiracies, then you may look behind a straight news report to find a hidden meaning.  A wide sense of cynicism exists, making suspect any objective journalism.

That's why Pelosi may be right about what her party needs.  Its candidate would not only win, but must win massively.  Only then could conspiracy be forced to the fringes.

Voters can't be passive, but must make the effort to separate fact from opinion, rejecting unfounded conspiracies.  Even if free speech allows anything to be said, facts matter.

Voters need to know secrets in Trump's tax returns

Gordon L. Weil

When he ran for president, Donald Trump refused to make his tax returns public, saying they were under IRS audit.  His message was that he would make them public as soon as they were final.

A taxpayer can make his returns public even when under audit.  One reason for temporary secrecy may be that the IRS could require that they be amended and the candidate wants to present only the corrected documents.  But President Trump's permanent refusal departs from decades of practice by presidents and candidates. 

It seems obvious that Trump has no intention of ever making his returns public or turning confidential copies over to Congress.  Equally obvious is that his refusal is not based on a rule or concern about accuracy, but rather because he has something to hide.

Trump is an unusual president.  Though his sons manage his company day-to-day, he has remained in business while serving as president.  There is no law against that.  But, until now, all presidents have worked at the job full-time with no other active business.

Because of his continued company involvement, Trump receives an income from it in addition to his presidential pay.  Again, that's not illegal, but it is unprecedented.

Previous presidents have placed their financial interests in a blind trust.  An independent manager controlled their assets and had the right to buy or sell investments without the knowledge of the president.  In that way, the president could avoid any conflict of interest in taking official action for personal benefit.

It is likely that Trump's interests are not sufficiently diversified that they could readily become part of a different investment portfolio.  That leaves only two solutions if he wanted to assure voters that he has no conflict of interest.

He could simply have sold his company upon taking office and transferred the proceeds to a blind trust.  He would no longer be in the real estate business.  Or he could publish his tax returns and related financial information so that the public, courts and Congress could judge if he had any conflicts between his public office and his business.

Because Trump won't disclose his returns, there's much speculation about his reasons.  Of greatest concern would be a financial relationship with others who are subject to federal government regulation or with foreign countries trying to influence his foreign policy.

Of course, if he engaged in a business relationship with a known or accused lawbreaker, that, too, would be a problem.

Another kind of speculation, fueled by Michael Cohen, formerly his personal attorney and now a federal convict, would be the risk of embarrassment.  Perhaps he is not as fabulously wealthy as he would like the public to believe.  

Even worse, perhaps he misrepresented his wealth to obtain bank loans for his investments.

This week, the New York Times, having seen some of his tax information, said he had lost over $1 billion in ten years when he claimed to be gaining wealth.

There's also the emoluments clause of the Constitution.  It says no federal official can, without congressional approval, "accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign state." 

By accepting money "of any kind whatever" from a foreign government, a person might be fined or even subject to removal from office.  Trump is now challenged in federal court on that matter.  If the person lied about such a payment on his tax returns, he could be charged with income tax evasion.

The House of Representatives has requested Trump's tax returns as allowed by law for its use in lawmaking and oversight activities relative to any conflict of interest. 

But Trump believes that the sole purpose of the request is to seek information that could embarrass him politically in next year's presidential election.  No tax information previously revealed to the public has changed a presidential election result.

Out of loyalty to the president, the Secretary of the Treasury, home of the IRS, has refused the congressional request.  He claims the House's request is not lawful, because it is intended to serve political purposes, not for oversight or lawmaking.

The matter will surely go the court.  Congress can make a good case that another branch of government cannot determine whether its request is relevant to its functions under the Constitution. 

But Trump may drag the case out until after the next elections, when he hopes the Republicans will regain control of Congress and he will be reelected.

Meanwhile, voters are denied their right and need to know.

Court: Women's natural rights overrule anti-abortion law

Gordon L. Weil

True or false?  The U.S. Constitution begins: "Natural Rights.  All people ... have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights...."

False.  That is in the first sentence of the Maine Constitution.  Most other states have a natural rights clause.  For example, the Kansas Constitution begins: "Equal rights.  All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights...."

The Declaration of Independence adopted the principle of natural rights in the United States, but those exact words were not included in the Constitution.  It contains similar but more limited provisions.

This concept is not simply what some belittle as a "glittering generality."  It may mean a lot.  That's what the Kansas Supreme Court decided last week, determining a state law violated the natural right to liberty.

By a 6-1 vote, it overruled a state law designed to limit a woman's right to an abortion.  When a conservative state produces a decision on state law that cannot be appealed, possibly making many conservatives unhappy, that's news. 

This was no Ivy League decision.  All seven judges had studied at one of two Kansas law schools.  Four were appointed by Republican governors and three by Democrats. 

Given GOP domination of Kansas politics in recent years, the decision received national coverage.  Most government action on abortions in mid-America is aimed at restricting access to them.  Kansas upset the pattern.

As important and surprising as the decision may have been, the court's reason for its decision was more far-reaching.  It was a rare moment when a government institution focuses on the fundamentals of American beliefs underpinning the entire system of government.

Many people may believe that the Bill of Rights lists all the rights given to people by the government.  In fact, it only limits the power of government to infringe certain rights that people already have.  The Constitution specifically states that people have other rights which government cannot override.

Many state constitutions, like those in Maine and Kansas, go beyond the U.S. Constitution and declare that people have natural rights, which result from their being, well, human beings. 

Natural rights, derived from nature itself, exist with or without government.  When people create governments, they give up only some of their rights.

The Kansas court found that the state could not limit the natural right of a person to control her own body by denying her access to what doctors consider the safest abortion method.  The Kansas law was unconstitutional because it violated the state constitution's recognition of natural rights.

The decision was a stark reminder that people have inherent natural rights and choose to cede some authority to government, not that government gives people their rights.

What about the sole dissenter?  He agreed that people have natural rights and may limit some of them to give powers to government.  But the people themselves must decide what rights they have limited or kept.  They elect legislators to act for them.

Americans are accustomed to majority rule.  Can the constitutional recognition of natural rights, belonging to each person, be overruled by the majority?  "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away, especially by government, but doesn't that happen frequently?

In the dissenter's view, courts should not decide on natural rights.  But the Court majority noted that checks and balances empower it to review legislative action.  Is there judicial review of whether laws are constitutional when it come to natural law or is majority rule the last word?

The dissenter questioned if courts really have the authority to decide what a natural right is, even if that right is recognized in a constitution.  If they don't have the authority, how much is the right worth?

Most people now believe they have a right to privacy, though it is not mentioned in the Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court, not Congress, acknowledged it.   It relied on a key article written by Samuel D. Warren, a Boston lawyer and owner of a paper mill in Westbrook, Maine, and his law partner, Louis D. Brandeis, later a Supreme Court justice.

Governments, federal and state, have assumed increasing powers, sometimes required in an increasingly complex world.  But they also set themselves apart from the people who are the ultimate source of their powers.  Think of times when government secrecy is used for government's own 

purposes.

If the Kansas decision is taken seriously, other state courts may question abortion laws and government attempts to assert powers at the expense of people's natural rights.  Will lawyers, opposing government policies, start asking the Supreme Court to consider natural rights?

This could get interesting.

Impeachment history reveals risk for both Trump and Dems

Gordon L. Weil

Impeachment is in the air. 

The Mueller report made no criminal charges against President Trump, but questioned some of his attempts to obstruct the inquiry.  Some in Congress believe he should be impeached for those actions.

Impeachment is almost always political, and it could well be in this case.  Only Democrats are considering impeachment.  They understand that impeachment would be a political act.

It can be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives, where Democrats now enjoy control.  After impeachment, the Senate can convict by a two-thirds vote.  That would require some GOP senators to vote to convict.  That's quite unlikely, making the House vote little more than a gesture.

For House Democrats, impeaching Trump might only be worth doing if it helped them in the 2020 elections.  If not, it could place a burden on Democratic candidates.  Obviously, nobody knows the answer.

In fairness, some Democrats believe that Trump's actions to try to kill the Mueller investigation did truly transgress the limits on presidential powers.  They may believe that the issue needs to be tested for the sake of history, not only current politics.

That possibility could have influenced Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr went along.  All three are Republicans.  Rather than charging Trump with criminal acts, they may have chosen to leave only the impeachment option.

The Constitution contains the power of impeachment to help ensure that limits could be placed on federal officials, not only presidents, who engage in criminal activity or exceed their powers.  The House, as prosecutor, and the Senate, as court, decide.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the judiciary is not involved.

The penalty for impeachment may be political embarrassment; the penalty for conviction is expulsion.  Neither is the same as a court judgment of criminal guilt.

Several impeachment proceedings have resulted in conviction and expulsion, usually when connected to a criminal act.  But in the most important cases, no conviction was obtained.

In 1805, the House, controlled by Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, impeached Samuel Chase, a Federalist-appointed Supreme Court justice, who had been openly hostile to Jefferson.  Some of Jefferson's supporters voted against impeachment as did some in the Senate, which did not convict.

The Jeffersonians were politically motivated in taking action against Chase.  But some of them put the independence of the judiciary above partisanship.  Federalist judicial appointees would survive, even as presidential politics changed.

The first attempt to remove a president came when Republicans tried to oust Andrew Johnson, a Democratic senator who had been Lincoln's second-term vice president.  Republicans wanted to transform southern society, not merely suppress secession.  Johnson wanted to go easy on the South, allowing it to pursue racist policies. 

By a straight partisan vote, with southern Democrats not yet back in Congress, Johnson was impeached.  The Senate missed conviction by one vote, after seven Republicans voted to acquit.  Contrary to myth, none paid a political price for his vote. 

Maine's William Pitt Fessenden, a Bowdoin graduate, cast the first Republican vote against conviction.  He disliked Johnson's policy, but rejected using conviction for partisan political purposes.  In the end, Johnson prevailed, when a fully restored Congress backed his policy.

In 1974, a bipartisan House committee vote recommended impeachment of President Richard Nixon for covering up his campaign's break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices.  His actions may have been criminal.   

When Nixon learned that many Senate Republicans would vote to convict him, he resigned.  The elections that year yielded a crushing Democratic majority.

In 1999, the House impeached President Bill Clinton by bipartisan vote for lying to investigators about his personal, non-political transgressions.  The Senate refused to convict.  

Several Republicans, including Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, opposed conviction.  A Republican won the presidency in 2000, but the party lost seats in Congress.

History shows heavy, if not absolute, partisanship in the impeachment process.  Only in Nixon's case was impeachment connected to probable criminal action as president.  Only in his case did it, or the threat of it, work.

Because impeachment is a political act, the Democrats must make a political judgment.  Will they help or hurt themselves politically by impeaching Trump without winning conviction and possibly without a single Republican vote?  History goes both ways.

Besides, impeachment might not prevent a Trump comeback.  Federal judge Alcee Hastings, impeached and convicted, is now Florida's longest serving member of Congress.  Andrew Johnson returned to the Senate and was sworn into office by the vice president who, as a senator, had voted to convict him.