A thorough and well-sourced study of the failure of two attempts to impeach DJT. Bade and Demirjian (BD) acknowledge the perfidy and cowardice of the Republicans, but they point the spotlight more on strategic and tactical errors by the Democrats in carrying out impeachment. Their main argument is that the Democratic put politics ahead of a thorough impeachment process, undermining their own case. I am skeptical that any case could have garnered 67 votes in the Senate (which would have required 17 Republicans vote to remove Trump rather than the 7 that did) given Trump's grip on the party, but it's important to have a critical lens on the Democrats as well. They end with the important point that impeachment will never work if it isn't bipartisan and that the Democrats made only half-hearted efforts to get more Republicans on board. I think this principle is crucial in the abstract, but if a direct attack of a Trump mob on Congress that he egged on and refused to act to stop couldn't get more Republicans to vote against him, nothing would. Their behavior was confirmation of his infamous statement that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose support. Still, this book is really valuable for going inside the Democratic Party to show how factionalized it is and how those divides undercut the impeachment attempts.
In the first impeachment, the Dems made a few errors. First, they struggled to decide how widely to cast . Second, they made a huge error in rushing the process, particularly failing to battle in the courts to subpoena key witnesses who could testify directly to the quid pro quo (the sneaky John Bolton comes to mind). This was largely the fault of Nancy Pelosi, who feared that an impeachment effort would backfire politically and actually strengthen Trump. Thus they had a lot of civil servants testifying to Trump's misdeeds, often through second-hand knowledge, but no equivalent of John Dean from Watergate, who testified directly to Nixon's support for a variety of misdeeds. Third, I suppose they made a mistake by holding so many of the initial interviews in secret, opening them to GOP accusations of rigging the process (even though, as BD acknowledge, this was normal procedure in previous impeachments). I regretfully came away from this analysis with the conclusion that the first impeachment was probably a mistake, if a noble one. Yes, what Trump did vis Ukraine is an impeachable-level offense. But it wasn't very sexy, it was complex and hard to sell to a distracted, goldfish-minded public, and they never quite brought all the evidence together. And if they couldn't chart out a plausible path to 67 votes in the Senate, they shouldn't have started the whole process.
But again, we run into the problem of GOP bad faith. The GOP leadership decided to be in lockstep with DJT from the get-go, before they even knew the extent of his misdeeds regarding Ukraine. Even though Trump was undercutting national security for purely personal gain (all based on conspiracy theories, mind you), the GOP doubled-down in favor of him, attacking the Dems' process because they knew they could not win on substance. When it was more or less proven by Bolton that there was a quid pro quo, they pivoted to the argument that what Trump did wasn't impeachable. BD recognize all of this, but this was one part of the book where more context was needed. I think they understated just how beholden and/or enraptured the GOP was to Trump, and how his capture of the party dictated their stalwart defense of him. Trump retained a grip on the GOP base, and few GOP politicians were willing to challenge that (a handful of swing district moderates, a few retiring types like Flake, and genuinely brave figures like Romney). Dozens of accounts testify to the fact that Republicans who don't worship Trump are terrified of him, and leaders like McConnell acknowledge that he was their main path to power. So my main critique of this book is that it needed a little more context to explain the GOP's action and that it understates his iron grip on the party.
The second impeachment was much more serious, obviously, but also stranger, as the trial took place after DJT left office. His offenses here were truly monumental, exactly the high crimes that the founders were terrified of. However, the Dems ran into many of the same problems. Pelosi, Biden, and other leaders wanted to move into the legislative session and focus on enacting reforms that were promised on the campaign trail. So once again, despite the best efforts of folks like Jamie Raskin (the hero of this story), the Democrats failed to pursue the necessary court battles and testimonies that might have truly proven Trump's responsibility for Jan. 6 and his unforgivable delay in stopping it. Again, Democratic leaders put politics ahead of a defining moment in the nation's history, a moment where the COnstitution really had to come first. Trump's has since said quite openly (and Jan. 6 Committee testimony has demonstrated) that he really thinks the election was stolen, the insurrectionists were heroes who should face no consequences, and that he did absolutely nothing wrong.
And why should he think anything else, given the GOP's failure to push back on him in any way? This is where I deviate slightly from BD; I'm glad they highlighted the Democrats' errors, but given the GOP's abject surrender to Trump, I don't think there's anything that could have been done to get ten more GOP senators on board. This would have required Mitch McConnell to do what goes against his fundamental nature: put the collective good of the nation ahead of the pursuit of power and the promotion of ideology. Yes, he agonized a little, whatever, but he ultimately never came close to supporting impeachment, even though he might have been able to drag 9 more senators with him. This is a man, after all, who has eroded the norms and guardrails of democracy more than anyone except Trump himself in pursuit of his political and ideological goals. Since Jan 2022, he has opposed the Jan. 6 Committee, failed to criticize Trump, and instead of punishing insurrectionists in his own party, he, McCarthy (the true craven of this story), and the GOP leadership has attacked people like LIz Cheney, exiling voices of reason and principle from the party.
Ok, that was a whole rant, and that may have sounded more critical of the book than I meant it to be. This is an excellent account that really helped me understand the inter and intra-party factions, rivalries, and debates that shaped these two pivotal events in recent US history. BD also bring out the human element of this story, especially regarding Jamie Raskin, a man for whom I have renewed respect. There's a deep civic concern that animates this book: if neither party (to varying degrees) could truly unify behind a concerted defense of the constitution against a man as blatantly hostile to the rule of law as DJT, what would actually do the trick and get them to do this the right way? Anyone concerned with that question will get a lot from this book.