Trump’s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation, but even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield.
In my column “Making Sense of the Impeachment Charges,” I pointed out that the three impeachments of presidents by the House of Representatives were political acts. Only in the case of Bill Clinton was there a real offense. Clinton did lie under oath. However, the Senate did not regard lying about a sexual affair as rising to the level of a “high crime” and refused to convict. Unless enough Republican Senators can be threatened by the FBI or bribed by the military/security complex, the Republican Senate will not convict Trump.
The Democrats know this. The question is why did the Democrats go for impeachment? An obvious answer is to throw enough mud in hopes that some of it sticks and reduces Trump’s reelection chances.
That is a likely reason. Another reason that we don’t hear much about is that a number of prominent Democrats are under investigation by the Department of Justice for felonies committed in their orchestration of the Russiagate hoax. This investigation could easily produce indictments of such prominent Democrats as Hillary Clinton. Trump’s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation, but even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield against indictments. Democrats can claim that charges against them are just political payback for their impeachment of Trump.
Much of the public would believe it. With the country already split by Russiagate and the impeachment, indictments of Democrats would further spread disunity. Republicans are less inclined to encourage disunity than Democrats. I can hear many Republicans arguing that as impeachment failed, the party is well-positioned and should not split the country by indicting highly placed Democrats. In this way even a failed impeachment serves the Democrats.
This article was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org on January 22, 2020