To Impeach or not to Impeach
Only twice since our nation adopted our Constitution has a President faced articles of impeachment in a trial before the Senate.
An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal. The Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.It is widely believed that had Nixon not resigned, his impeachment by the House and removal from office by a trial before the United States Senate would have occurred.
In the case of Andrew Johnson, there were eleven articles of impeachment for the most part alleging that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act (he wanted to replace Lincoln's Secretary of War, whom he had inherited, with his own pick and since he was a Democrat, the Republicans objected) and had questioned the legitimacy of Congress. In the Senate, Johnson was narrowly acquitted.
More recently, Clinton faced two articles of impeachment: for perjury and obstruction of justice (both relating to the Monica Lewinsky scandal). The Senate finished a twenty-one-day trial on February 12, 1999, with the vote of 55 Not Guilty/45 Guilty on the perjury charge and 50 Not Guilty/50 Guilty on the obstruction of justice charge. Both votes fell short of the Constitutional two-thirds majority requirement to convict and remove an officeholder. The final vote was generally along party lines, with no Democrats voting guilty, and only a handful of Republicans voting not guilty.
Which brings us to today. It is obvious that Trump has committed several counts of obstruction of justice. There were also clearly campaign finance violations (Stormy and Susan via Michael Cohen and David Peckar). It is also clear that his campaign did conspire with agents of Russia (you had the offer of help in the email to Don Jr., the acceptance of that help in Don Jr.'s reply and an act in furtherance in meeting with the Russians - my lawyer friends will note that these are the elements to prove conspiracy), we also have under investigated but potential emoluments violations, money laundering, etc. Even to the most partisan observer, it is pretty clear that Trump is perhaps more worthy of impeachment than even Nixon - there is a LOT here!
BUT - in the hyper-partisan Senate it appears unlikely that, even when presented with overwhelming evidence, you will find the necessary Republican votes for removal from office. It seems likely that enough Republicans will put party before principal and the rule of law. [As a side note — because of the way the Senate is constructed the Senators who will cast the votes protecting Trump will actually represent a small fraction of the American people.] This then raises the bar for what a future President might get away with to a degree that renders the important protections the impeachment process is supposed to afford almost meaningless.
But to do nothing also raises the bar on what a President can do and slides us towards a dictatorship where a President flaunts the rule of law (as Kellyanne Conway's flip reaction to her Hatch Act violations demonstrates).