So here we are. Jacta est alia. Caesar’s words as he took his army across the Rubicon River and advanced on Rome, defying the Senate. He knew he’d either lose everything, probably including his life, or he’d win the Empire.
The other day, Speaker Pelosi threw the die. Whatever you think or thought about the impeachment decision, you must understand one thing:
We either win or lose the war here.
Over recent months, the Resistance—every single one of whom detests Trump and shares the goal of deposing and prosecuting him—has been split between two orientations:
- Principle: activists who argue from core principles and insist that our democracy means nothing if we don’t aggressively prosecute through Impeachment.
- Tactics: pragmatists who understand the risks inherent in impeachment and prioritize political tactics.
As the battles here over tactics and principle have raged, I always feel that both sides are correct. I want Trump impeached, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. I think the principle of the rule of law requires this. I always think people arguing for that orientation are arguing from a place of core truth.
But the larger war matters too. If we swing for the principled fences and strike out, the consequences will be dire.
Impeachment: Jacta est alia.
For everyone who wanted impeachment, here we are. And make no mistake. If we can’t make the impeachment charges stick, Trump will be around another 4 years or longer.
Of course, that doesn’t mean winning a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. We could lose that vote and win the battle. If it is abundantly clear that the Senate is just carrying Trumps foul water, we can not only win the W H, but also push our down ballot success even further. We’d actually be doing well with a wounded Trump remaining on the ticket.
But we have to make the charges stick. We cannot come out of this with the nation feeling, as it did in ‘83 (?) that a president was being impeachment on trumped (!) up charges by a sour partisan lynch mob.
Democratic Leaders are facing a really difficult challenge. They must be effective in breaking through the fog of post-truth media, professional and social. They have to cut through not only the both-sideserism so deeply engrained in our sick electorate but also the confusing blur of 3 years of investigations that didn’t go anywhere. We have the aces in our hands. But playing the hand in this environment is going to be tough. We are precisely in the position of a prosecution in possession of a mountain of evidence but forced to avoid confusing, overwhelming and stupefying the jury.
It ain’t going to be easy. And the stakes could not be higher.
The Scope Decision
Which leads us to the massive tactical question: how many Trump sins will we weaponize in the impeachment action?
Now, we all want hundreds of counts, holding Trump accountable for an unfathomable mountain of malfeasance. I do. I want him to pay for sins going back to his predatory sexuality with beauty pageant contestants and beyond.
But here is where I implore the Principle folks to understand that we must think tactically. We may be more satisfied by a long list of counts. But any seasoned prosecutor will tell you that juries need focus, clarity, and a chance to respond emotionally. They zone out and feel resentful at the burden of listening to it all. Here, the jury includes millions of low information voters, impatient professional media, and social media with an attention span of seconds.
And in case you’ve forgotten, if we lose this fight we lose the war.
The decision of the width of the scope of impeachment charges MUST BE A COLD-BLOODED TACTICAL DECISION. There is no room whatsoever for indulging principled high mindedness that loses the game.
Which is not to say there is no room for principles! The whole point is that the principles of justice will be honored and fulfilled best by shrewd tactics. And that most likely means selecting a narrow range of charges that can be effectively mobilized with the jury of the American political scene.
The Lawrence Wrinkle
Having said all that, Lawrence brought up a great point last night. He said that a well crafted impeachment would include several counts, giving Thugs in the Senate a chance to defend the home team by voting against some while voting for one so egregious that it can’t be defended. And, says Lawrence, “It only takes 1.”
That makes a lot of sense. But I think it will be easy to focus solely on this Ukraine thing but have several counts: the abuse of power, the quid pro quo pressure on an ally, the corruption of state department procedure, and of course the cover ups. Maybe 4 good, solid counts, with one GOPers can swallow while rejecting the others.
Personally, I think the impeachment should simply move on from all those months of investigation which, so far as low info folks know, added up to nothing. We know they didn’t. But rehashing anything that seems like “old news” would be, I think, a tactical mistake. But structure the prosecution with several counts using the Lawrence Wrinkle.
Are you on board?
Of course, I dunno from nuffink. And I tell you this.
I will support our leaders however they play this. The time for carping criticism is over. I see no reason why Principle and Tactical folk—and people who care about both—can’t unite behind Speaker Pelosi’s play.
Our leaders will make mistakes. Hell, they may blow it. If they do, there’ll be plenty of time for blame.
But the rolling barrage has begun and the troops are going over the top. While the battle rages, there is no point in second guessing tactics. We threw the die. Let’s unite to be sure we win the battle.