We don't know what the truth is about the Trump campaign's dealing with the Russian government, but the range of possibilities has always extended from "Trump's right" (fake news!) to "Trump's critics with the fastest resting heart rate are right" (treason!). The former has it seems to me always been only a theoretical possibility: Team Trump was up to no good, else its behavior makes no sense--I'm talking about the failure to acknowledge the conclusions of our intelligence community regarding Russian interference, the firing of Comey, lying about the reason for firing Comey, later accidentally telling the truth about why Comey was fired, lying about (not) meeting with Russians, then lying about the substance of meetings once it was known that they'd lied about there having been no meetings, etc., etc., etc. I suppose you could take the view that they lied purely for recreational purposes, but that would be dumb as everything else they've done, and anyway we know now that indictments are forthcoming. Something's rotten and it's not in the state of Denmark.
The worst case scenario is still in play and it seems worth asking: What then? Lawrence Lessig, of Harvard Law School, has gotten in trouble with Trumpeters for taking up that question. I think his conclusion about what ought to happen in the unlikely event that there arises indisputable proof that the Trump campaign worked directly with a hostile foreign power to rig our election is more than they can stomach. As Lessig points out, however, events would in this scenario almost certainly move very quickly and the possibility of a decent outcome could be carried away on storm waves. It makes sense to think now about what ought to happen.
The Trump presidency should end. If he doesn't resign, he should be impeached by the House and convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, as the Constitution requires. I'm confident our institutions are healthy enough so that this would happen. I disagree with Republicans about this, that, the other thing, and almost all else, but I also don't doubt that many of them are sane and decent. In the House, a simple majority suffices, and it's become evident how, say, Bob Corker would vote in the Senate. For reasons great and small, including just the enlightened self-interest of Republican senators, Trump would be done.
The line of presidential succession then falls first on the vice president, Mike Pence. But Pence holds that office by virtue of the same election that elevated Trump to the presidency. Since the treasonous and impeachable act pertained to the subversion of that election's integrity, Pence should not benefit from it. Though we are now in unmapped territory, the articles of impeachment that function to remove Trump should disqualify Pence from succeeding him. Or, if Pence does become president, he should resign or be impeached himself. Lessig saves his skepticism about the likelihood of his remedy being adopted for the next step of the succession, but I feel that we have now already left the realm of what would happen and are talking only about what ought to occur. Most likely, Pence would become president, notwithstanding the corrupt acts of the Trump-Pence campaign. But, were he barred from settling into the Oval Office--
Next up in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin. He should become president. Almost his first duty would be to nominate someone for the vacant office of vice president. Whom should he nominate? Lessig says he should nominate Hillary Clinton. Then, when she's approved by both Houses in accordance with the Twenty-fifth Amendment, Ryan should resign and Clinton should be sworn in as the next president. You see now why Lessig's in-box was full even though the whole argument is premised on the condition that a treasonous conspiracy is proven. Lessig:
Of course, this is the sort of thing that’s unimaginable in Washington today. But that’s why we need to start imagining it, now. The nation won’t have months to deliberate the matter in the urgency of a treason-driven impeachment. It’s the sort of truth we should have resolved to long before it is needed.
And it is the sort of truth we all should embrace: If you steal an election, neither you or your party should benefit from that theft. Even more so if you steal it in conspiracy with a foreign government. Everyone should be able to agree with this fundamental principle. The only question then is whether that principle would guide in this particular case.
Without doubt, if Ryan did the right thing, that would be the most extraordinary event in the history of America since the Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter. But unlike that, this event would build the union, not divide it. And if he did it, then Clinton should embrace the spirit of cross partisan decency and nominate Ryan, or a Republican, as her Vice President. At least for the balance of her first term, the frame of adults-behaving-like-adults could live.
Comments