IMPEACH TRUMP? NOT SO FAST!

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed the massive $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill on March 23 while pointedly suggesting that he would never sign legislation like that one again. In response, conservative political commentator Ann Coulter, author of "In Trump We Trust," mocked the president by tweeting: "Yes, because you'll be impeached."

Whether conceptually, hypothetically, ideologically or reluctantly, impeachment has been on the lips and in the minds of many political activists, sometimes dating back to before Donald Trump's inauguration. As the political dialogue became more contentious, this discussion grew more intense, not just on the political left, but, be it for different reasons, among many Republican operatives as well. When the president appeared to be toying with the idea that he could somehow fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, representatives from both sides of the congressional aisle warned that such a move could precipitate a constitutional crisis and potentially escalate political demands to start the impeachment process. To date as many as 60 House Democrats have signed on to a request to begin debating impeachment, a step opposed by the party's leadership as premature and counterproductive. A resolution voted on in December 2017 failed by a 58-364 margin. Nevertheless, Representative Maxine Waters, Al Green and Brad Sherman continue to push the issue, while billionaire donor Tom Steyer has embarked on a national "Need to Impeach" campaign, attending 30 town hall meetings in an attempt to get his point across.

Before we read too much into this incessant banter, we ought to take a look at what we are really talking about. Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar specializing in constitutional law, in "Impeachment American Style," published in The New Yorker of Sept. 20, 2017, gives us a historical perspective. The American colonies imported the concept from England, where Edmund Burke called it the "great guardian of the purity of the Constitution." When, in the summer of 1787, the Constitutional Convention accepted the idea of a powerful president, its delegates insisted on including the impeachment mechanism. In fact, the argument was made that, without he impeachment clause, the Constitution would never be ratified. Benjamin Franklin apparently observed that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination, and suggested that a procedural mechanism for legal removal - impeachment - would be preferable. (Josh Chafetz, "Impeachment and Assassination," Minnesota Law Review, June, 2011).

To be clear, impeachment refers to the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. It is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. It is NOT removal from office. To begin the process, the president has to be charged with treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives, on the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee, votes on one or more articles of impeachment. If at least one of these gets a majority vote, the president is impeached, and the proceeding moves to the Senate. Overseen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Senate holds a trial. A team of lawmakers from the House play the role of prosecutors, the president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the Jury. If at least two-thirds of the senators find the president guilty, he is removed, and the vice president takes over as president.

Impeachment is a political act. There are no standard rules. The party in power traditionally decides how to interpret the charges and what the rules for the trial will be. Throughout our history only Andrew Johnson (1868) and Bill Clinton (1998) were successfully impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate. However, in Johnson's case the Senate vote was 35-19 in favor of removal - one vote shy of the requisite two-thirds majority. President Nixon (1974) resigned before the impeachment resolution could be voted on by the House.

With mid-term elections coming up at he end of the year, both Republicans and Democrats grapple with the impeachment prospect. When Ann Coulter predicted that the president would be impeached, she really warned Republicans that if a Democratic "blue wave" were to materialize, Donald Trump would run the risk of being impeached. Republican leaders are reportedly discussing framing their election campaign around the threat of impeachment, as a motivational tool for voter turnout. Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager, suggested that "the threat of impeachment is something that unifies everybody in the party, even if you're not a Trump supporter." Democrats, on the other hand, fear that the focus on impeachment may be a political trap that would distract from their core message, and boomerang them in November. According to Obama's former chief strategist, David Axelrod: "If impeachment becomes a political tool instead of the end result of a credible investigation, you are as guilty as Trump, in  some ways, of taking a hammer blow to institutions." (Charles Pierce, "Impeachment is the Republicans' Latest Boogeyman for the 2018 Elections," Esquire, April 9, 2018).

While both the left and the right appear poised to use impeachment as a wedge issue or a rallying cry, history tells us that the actual political process is thorough, slow, and tends to protect the incumbent. It rarely comes close to its intended conclusion.