The Case Against Impeaching Trump in the Final Days of His Presidency

The debate over whether the Democratic Party should proceed with the impeachment of former President Donald Trump as his term concludes in a mere 11 days is highly contentious. This article explores the arguments for and against this move, focusing on practical considerations and constitutional standards.

Why Impeachment Is Unfeasible Given the Timeline

There is a near consensus among experts that pursuing impeachment at this stage is verging on impossible due to the limited time frame. The impeachment process requires significant legislative efforts and scrutiny, which are severely constrained in the remaining days of the current administration. As Noah Smith from Bloomberg asserts, 'There is little to no chance that impeachment can be completed in that time frame.'

Furthermore, the House of Representatives has already ruled its impeachment proceedings illegitimate and non-compliant with procedural standards. It is argued that the House should have adhered to standard procedures, including sending the case to the Judiciary Committee for investigation, debate, and a potential vote. As these procedures were bypassed, pursuing further action now is seen as wasting valuable time and resources.

The Legality and Practicality of Removal

The primary criticism is that impeachment can only be effective if the individual still holds office. Once Donald Trump's term concludes, he no longer occupies a position from which he can be removed. This creates a moot point for any impeachment efforts. As Noah Smith explains, 'When President Trump is no longer in office, then impeachment is a moot point! He can not be removed from an office he doesn’t hold!' Similarly, John Harlow from ABC News notes, 'The benefit to the country of an impeachment now is very clear: it would send a powerful message about past events and provide a legal path to stripping away benefits and future opportunities that come with the office.'

Political and Legal Implications

While some liberals argue that impeachment could prevent Trump from running for office again, the historical precedent, as seen with the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in 1989, suggests otherwise. Hastings was impeached, then later elected to Congress. This precedents underline that merely removing a single corrupt individual from office does not prevent them from seeking political comeback. As John Harlow points out, 'The Alcee Hastings D impeachment and subsequent election clearly indicates that even that standard may not even apply.'

However, impeachment still serves a symbolic and legal purpose. It can signal a commitment to upholding democratic principles and accountability. As Noah Smith adds, 'The benefit to the country of an impeachment now is the prosecution not only of the insurrectionists but their leader as well, which starts with impeachment and removal to strip him of all benefits of office and the ability to run again.'

Divide and Conquer?

Some critics argue that pursuing impeachment is a tactic aimed at deepening the political divide in the United States. This perspective suggests that such a move would create further tension and resentment, rather than uniting the nation. For instance, Noah Smith comments, 'If they want to deepen the divide in the US. If that is the goal I can’t think of a better tactic.'

The recent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, spurred by Trump's rhetoric, highlights the severe consequences of using divisive political rhetoric. As the Republican Party elevates individuals to national leadership who are willing to incite violence to maintain power, it becomes crucial to address their actions. Impeachment in this context, even if it is not enforceable, serves to address a significant breach of the democratic process and uphold the rule of law.

Conclusion

Impeaching Trump in the final days of his presidency is an overly complex and practically untenable task. However, the symbolic and legal significance of pursuing impeachment remains valid. It sends a clear message about the consequences of inciting armed insurrection and upholding the principles of democratic governance. While the timing may be critical, the arguments against impeachment, based on the constitutional context and the limited timeline, suggest that focusing on other pressing issues may be more effective.