Eugene Robinson: Congress avoids constitutional duty by not preventing Trump

Washington • House Democrats can not have both. Either they dismiss President Trump, or they are not – and it looks like they are not.

Why does Congress not fulfill what appears to be its constitutional duty has nothing to do with the merits of the case against Trump, who adds almost daily to the list of his impenetrable offenses. This has everything to do with a political calculation that I hope the Democrats will not regret.

Judicial Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, DN.Y., said this week that his panel "was looking at the president 's misconceptions with a view to … eventually recommending impeachment items to the House. But President Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. , says it's just a "route of inquiry" that could lead to a formal investigation of impeachment or, presumably, not. Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Said Wednesday that the House had not yet initiated an impeachment investigation, but subsequently clarified that he fully supported "the investigation" whose subject, according to Nadler, is the indictment.

On Thursday, Nadler's committee approved the procedural guidelines for its investigation or investigation, or as we want to call it. "I salute them for this job," Pelosi said later. But she added that "people say it's good to pay attention to how we proceed."

Enough with semantic distinctions so subtle. Do something or do not do it – and be ready to explain why.

With respect, how many other surveys do we need? The former special council, Robert Mueller III, spent two years establishing what was a roadmap for impeachment. The second part of his voluminous report makes it clear, to the satisfaction of more than 1,000 former prosecutors, that Trump has committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice. If you feel that the impeachment requires the president to have committed a statutory crime, Mueller handed him to Congress on a plateau.

But the indictment does not even require the conclusion that the president, beyond a reasonable doubt, broke the law. The founders left the message vague, refusing to define the meaning of the phrase "crimes and serious crimes". But according to their writings, we know that they deeply feared that a president would use his vast powers to behave like a tyrant rather than as a servant of the people.

"The abuse of power" is not a federal crime, but it was one of the articles on the ongoing removal against Richard Nixon prior to his resignation. Trump abuses his power in a way that forces the founders to move like turbines in their graves.

To give just a few examples, look at its border policy. He ignored the law and court rulings and continued to separate migrant families and incarcerate children in cages and refuse them soap or toothpaste. When Congress, which has the power of the stock market, refused to finance its ridiculous border wall, it seized billions of dollars that had been duly used for other programs. According to credible information, he allegedly asked subordinates to violate the law to prevent migrants from entering the country, if necessary, and promised to forgive them if they had problems.

Beyond the abuse of power, there is the principle that no president should use the office to enrich corruptly. In some cases, there appear to be clear violations of the emoluments clause. In others, there is simply a transplant in the old. Of all hotels in Scotland, US military can only find accommodation in the priceless golf resort of Trump? Seriously? And Congress thinks it's okay?

I think the founders would also consider the way Trump is constantly relying on the American people. I do not need to give examples; Just watch his Twitter feed or listen to the comments he's made on the White House lawn. I know that Trump may believe that concepts such as trust and honor are reserved for suckers, but his incessant lie defiles the presidency – and Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, know it. But they do not do anything about it.

The damage caused by Trump is limited only by his lack of concentration. We can only hope that after his departure, things return to normal, although this is not guaranteed. And may God help us in the event of a real crisis while he is still in power.

The political calculation that the Democrats make is that the indictment, especially if it is followed by an acquittal before a GOP-controlled Senate, could make Trump's reelection more likely. There is no way to know, but I doubt that it would make a big difference one way or the other. Trump is going to ignite his base anyway. Democrats have an interest in motivating theirs.

But everyone should realize that the calculation of the story must also be taken into account. Future generations will judge anyone who has decided, for whatever reason, to place politics before duty.