Is impeaching President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice a no-win situation or a win-win?
The answer likely lies in your view of a win.
As we Americans read and begin to understand the 448-page Mueller report, we find ourselves wrestling with a Trump-era dilemma: What do we and Democrats fear more, facing backlash from GOP voters wearing blinders for taking on the impeachment of Trump, or the moral failure of not holding him accountable - thereby normalizing his serial malevolence and obstruction of justice?
We're in a post-fact political and partisan climate, not the rational world we once knew where thinking people could read the Mueller report for themselves and know that impeachment is a no-brainer. That's why Nancy Pelosi a month ago said Trump is "simply not worth it." She worries that in today's Fox-infused, Trumpian-lie bubble - not to mention the GOP Senate's slavish devotion to covering for Trump - he might turn the threat to bludgeon Democrats and their 2020 nominee.
On Monday, despite a crescendo of Democratic outrage (and a peep or two from Republicans) over the president's actions as detailed in the report, Pelosi again urged caution in the hours before a scheduled Democratic conference call to hash out what should come next.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his report, detailed numerous incidents of the president instructing aides to break the law and obstruct justice.
Mueller report: "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests [Then-FBI Director Jim] Comey did not end the investigation of [Michael] Flynn. [then-White House counsel Don] McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign. [Former campaign manager Corey] Lewandowski and [Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Rick] Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to [then Attorney General Jeff] Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about the events surrounding the President's direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so."
Trump also instructed aides to lie and deny true stories in the media.
Please note those narratives of lying and obstruction are not Mueller's words, nor are they the words of the media. They are the words, under oath, of Trump's own people: Flynn, McGahn, Lewandowski, Dearborn, Hope Hicks, Sarah Sanders, Sean Spicer.
The totality of the report is so damning it literally is sickening.
Mueller report: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
That puts the ball squarely in Congress' court. Should the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives impeach Trump, knowing full well it likely will not get a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to convict and oust him? Would that not only look like a failed political effort, but also give Trump fodder for new assaults on Democrats - to the point of assuring him re-election?
Or if Democrats don't impeach him, are they - like Republicans - now accepting his continuing lies, his continuing abuse of power, his continuing obstruction? Are they saying we should accept this new and lowest-of-low normal for American leaders? Are they saying we can expect the same in spades from Democratic presidential contenders who - face it - would have to fight fire with fire to gain election?
In 1998, it was the GOP that suffered backlash for impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying under oath and obstructing justice into the investigation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton's approval rating soared to 73% following the GOP-led impeachment, and the House Republican majority shrunk. Most Americans saw the investigation as revolving around the private life of the president.
But the Trump impeachment debate is no comparison to that. This was an investigation into Russian government interference in our 2016 election, and the Trump campaign's connection to it - as well as the president's ongoing efforts to stop the Russia probe.
Trump, of course, says he's "not even a little bit" worried about impeachment. Then why, we ask, is he suing the Democrats in the House of Representatives who are subpoenaing more witnesses and his financial records?
This brings us back to our "win" or "no-win" question.
A Trump re-election win in 2020 is not a foregone conclusion - unless Democrats roll over, essentially telling Americans that Trump's actions are acceptable, and it's OK for any president to behave this way.
If that's the case, then why shouldn't Trump be re-elected?
Failing to seek Trump's impeachment is a no-win for America - no matter who wins in 2020.