What the Clinton impeachment tells us about Trump’s future

I just finished reading A Vast Conspiracy, Jeffrey Toobin’s chronicle of Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

Since the word “impeach” is on the everyone’s lips right now, I wanted to better understand the kind of political journey the United States would be taking if the Legislative branch attempted to remove the President from office. Toobin’s book contains enough to lift the heart of a Trump-loathing liberal, but also dashes any hope that impeachment is any kind of political magic bullet.

Let me sum up the lessons I took from the book, from both sides.

Why Toobin’s book makes the “Impeach Trump” crowd optimistic:

1. Special counsels are Trump’s worst nightmare

Donald Trump should be very, very worried. As Bill Clinton discovered to his agony, special counsel investigations are a semi-permanent fishing expedition into your entire political, personal and financial life. There is no natural check on their work. In fact, since the government is picking up the tab, the preferred pace of outside counsel drafted to assist this work seems “leisurely”. The special counsel M.O. is often “keep investigating until we find something… and we always find something.” The investigation that finally focused on Bill Clinton’s dalliances with Monica Lewinsky began with the appointment of a special counsel into the Whitewater Affair (a nothingburger). Only after investigating that, then “Travelgate” (even less of a burger), then “Filegate” (negative amounts of burger), did Ken Starr’s work finally merge with the Paula Jones lawsuit which then metastasized into the Lewinsky scandal. The Office of the Independent Counsel was appointed to look into Whitewater in January 1994. The Senate acquitted Clinton of impeachment charges in February 1999. Trump could be in for a five year ride here. He should be sick to his stomach.

2. Depositions are a motherf**ker

Bill Clinton lied under oath in front of a federal judge. Despite his talent for hair-splitting, and whether or not you thought his sex life was the people’s business, Bill Clinton without question committed perjury in his January 1998 deposition. He committed a crime. He was guilty. End of story. But the lesson of his impeachment is clear: it may take a while, but special counsels WILL find out if you lie under oath. Clinton was — despite his weaknesses — possessed a well-trained and highly skilled legal mind, and often successfully danced around the edge of self-incrimination. Trump is even more of a liar, but with little of Clinton’s mental self-control or lawyerly acumen. If Trump has committed crimes of any kind, and is deposed by skillful prosecutors in full possession of the facts, Toobin’s book suggests a high likelihood that Trump will either admit to wrongdoing or perjure himself.

3. Politicians often take foolish risks

Forget Clinton’s actual sexual conduct. His impeachment was midwifed into being by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, which hinged on the events of a single day in May 1991, while Clinton was still governor of Arkansas. Clinton had multiple opportunities to settle this suit before Ken Starr was even appointed. He could have settled for a little under $1 million in 1996*. Had he done so, Starr could not have eventually used the Jones case as a pretext to investigate all of the President’s sexual behavior, in an effort to establish his “predatory” patterns. But Clinton was confident he could ride this out, betting that his opponents had nothing (at least, nothing provable) on him. These were private moments, with one person’s word against his. “Screw ‘em,” was his attitude. “I’ll see them in court.” He did, and it maimed his presidency. Not settling the Jones case was incredibly reckless and laid the foundation for all that undid Clinton in the future. This does not bode well for Trump. President Trump’s entire professional life has witnessed one spasm of legal bravado after another. Roy Cohn hutzpah may work in New York real estate or the casino business, but they don’t wash at this level. If Clinton’s legal judgment became a crucial liability, Trump’s will probably land him in much, much hotter water.

(*By the way — in late 1999, Clinton finally did settle the Paula Jones case…. for a mere $850,000. What a bargain.)

Why Toobin’s book makes “Impeach Trump” fans pessimistic

1. Special counsels and their offices can make mistakes

For all the vast power of special counsels, they often screw up in big ways that — while not necessarily impactful in the strict legal sense — change everything on the ground politically. To give just one example, Ken Starr’s lawyers spent over 18 months squabbling with Lewinsky’s legal team about giving Monica blanket immunity. Recall she had signed a sworn affidavit that she had no sexual relationship with the President. Therefore, she was also a perjurer and technically as guilty as Bill Clinton. So for her to submit to a full deposition (one not full of “I plead the 5th”), she needed full immunity. Starr’s team thought it important to maintain the possibility of charging Lewinsky, to sustain their leverage over all parties to the suit. So for 18 months, the Starr investigation could not fully depose Lewinsky (despite knowing everything already from her illegally taped phone conversations with Linda Tripp). They stalled themselves. They lost momentum. In the space of that 18 months, the political terrain of the Lewinsky scandal changed completely. The nation took the time and came to grips with the sad truth: Clinton was just another pathetic husband who cheated on his wife with a woman at the office. And the electorate had determined, on balance, that they didn’t much care. In fact, they were getting sick of hearing about it. Beware this happening in the Trump-Russia investigation. The attention span and patience of the voting public are not infinite resources.

2. Impeachment is a battle for the soul of the President’s party

(a.k.a. “Not everything is about you, Democrats.”)

Dumping a President requires convincing the President’s own party to dump him. This is the political reality, and completely separate from the legal reality. The smartest thing to do — from the Trump-hating point-of-view — is to conduct yourself with the utmost rectitude, eschewing any opportunity to over-react, hyperventilate, or throw the red meat of outrage to your own base. Why? Because if your opponents can portray the whole impeachment process as a mere partisan clash? YOU. WILL. LOSE.

The GOP forces arrayed against Clinton never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They got high on their own self-righteousness and gave the Democrats the chance to portray the entire affair as the partisan witch-hunt that it largely was. Democrats rallied, and getting the necessary 2/3rds majority to impeach Clinton in the Senate became impossible. Opponents of Trump forget this lesson at their peril. Right now, if anything, they seem even more nakedly partisan than the 1990’s GOP. Of course, Trump-haters feel their rage is justified. But that’s not the point. Outrage at this stage is a tactical error. The better course is to be scrupulously fair, let the wheels of the investigation grind slowly and deliberately, and save your indignation for when Trump has resigned or been removed. I am skeptical that the Democratic Party is either willing or able to exercise this level of collective self-control.

3. Er, impeachment is really hard… and sometimes, not even final.

In the history of this Republic, only nine individuals have been successfully impeached and removed by the United States Senate, and not one of them a President. (Of course, a handful more resigned before the full process could begin or conclude, like Richrd Nixon). Let’s repeat that. Technically speaking, a President has never been successfully impeached. It’s hard to do. It’s really hard. It’s really, really, really hard.

And even if you DO get impeached, the people who put you — a scoundrel — into office, may still love you and may still send you and people like you to Washington to serve their interests. One of the more recent people to be successfully impeached was a federal judge in Florida called Alcee Hastings, removed from office by the U.S. Senate in 1989 for accepting a bribe and committing perjury. He turned right around around and ran for Congress in 1992. And he won. HE FUCKING WON. He sits in the U.S. House of Representatives to this very day. In other words, even impeachment is not necessarily a death sentence for the ideas, values and constituency that any federal office-holder may represent. Getting rid of Trump still means reckoning with Trump voters. Some of them truly love him. And they may continue to send men like him to Washington, whether you impeach his particular toxic brand of populism, or not.