Deliberation

The Senate today concluded the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump without an conviction. What is slightly surprising when one compares a trial in the courts with this trial in the Senate is the absence of jury deliberation. 

In a court trial, the jurors would sit and discuss the evidence they had heard during the trial; but that didn't happen here. Of course, logistically with a jury of 100 it is far more difficult to replicate the process of deliberation, but it appears not to be "required" of the jurors in an impeachment. I am speculating that this was something that would have had to have been negotiated between Sens. Schumer and McConnell in setting up the structure of the trial. 

Would it have made a difference had a way been found for them to do so? In the highly partisan atmosphere in Washington, it seems unlikely; but I suppose it's just possible that it might have.     

Impeachment, Act II Scene 4 - Acquittal

Despite voting to call witnesses this morning, the trial of Donald Trump concluded today with a 57 to 43 vote to convict, short of the two thirds majority required for the motion to pass. Interestingly, one senator, Richard Burr of North Carolina who, on the prior question on constitutionality of this impeachment, had earlier voted that it was not, nevertheless voted to convict.  For the record the other GOP senators who voted to convict were Bill Cassidy (Louisianan.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Nebraska) and Patrick Toomey (Pennsylvania).  

That raises an interesting question (which I hope scholars with expertise in this area will shortly opine on) as to who has the final say as to the constitutionality of an impeachment. The Constitution identifies the Senate, rather than the judicial branch, as the sole body that is empowered to try impeachments but does that mean they have the ultimate authority to interpret the constitution as to when impeachment is or is not constitutional?  It is possible they do not and that the vote it took last week to proceed should properly have been decided by the Supreme court. But were that the case, shouldn't Trump's legal team have immediately challenged in the courts the Senate's vote to proceed with the trial?  That they did not suggests either incompetence (certainly plausible) or that they implicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of the Senate in ruling on the constitutionality question. Note, too, that no Senators, who might have had standing to bring such a case, chose to do so.   

That failure to bring a legal challenge as to the Senate's right to decide the constitutionality question implicitly endorses that right. It follows then that Senators were in essence legally required to vote on the merits of the case and not its constitutionality, since constitutionality was now a settled matter, regardless of how they had voted on the question when it was presented earlier in the trial.  This provides the basis for Richard Burr's decision who, having voted against the impeachment's constitutionality, nonetheless voted to convict Trump on the merits of the case. 

Turning to McConnell's speech after the trial, McConnell made a fierce statement of condemnation saying essentially that Trump's actions leading up to the insurrection were what caused it to happen. But, he suggested, he did not vote to convict because he felt that would violate the constitution. While I have some sympathy for the argument he made and can see how a strict Originalist would likely have reached that same conclusion, the question of constitutionality was no longer at issue; it was settled by the Senate in its earlier vote. Even if he disagreed with the constitutionality of the impeachment (which he explained he did), he should have been bound by his oath as a juror in the trial to proceed and decide based on the merits. Judging by the unambiguous statements he made on the Senate floor this afternoon, he clearly holds Trump responsible for the insurrection; which can only mean that by not judging based on the merits he has violated the oath he took and thus he should resign.

It's not what he did...

Trump's defenders argue, amongst other things, that what he did doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense since it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his words led to the insurrection (at least now they've admitted that what took place was an insurrection). While most reasonable people, polls show, actually find that hard to swallow, it's not what he did that is really instructive. It's what he didn't do that matters more. While they argue that Trumps might not have seen that his actions could have led to the insurrection and thus he is not to blame, once the insurrection was underway, he can no longer hide behind the "no one could have seen it coming" defense because 'it' was now clearly there and no longer a indeterminable hypothetical. And it was his lack of action (and by some accounts his pleasure in seeing what he had wrought) that is so telling. He took no action to quell the riot although many options were available, both in his executive capacity as commander-in-chief and in his symbolic role as the president sworn to uphold the country's democratic institutions. Watching, unconcerned, from the shore when someone is drowning is tantamount to culpability.  Sometimes in-actions speak louder than words.   

... Barr, the shouting

It's over. Donald J. Trump was acquitted. The vote was bipartisan (!) but not in the way Republicans had hoped; Mitt Romney voted guilty on Article 1 (abuse of office) though with his party on Article 2 (obstruction of Congress). He was the only US senator not to vote with his party.

How will history remember Trump's impeachment? Given the way the GOP has fallen into line behind Trump since his inauguration, the final outcome - acquittal -  was never in doubt. But there were two things that were not preordained. One was the possibility of using the Senate trial to gather additional evidence. While to most Democrats the case was already quite clear, some hoped that were witnesses to testify under oath to the events described in the complaint, removal from office might be possible, and if not, then at least GOP Senators up for reelection would be vulnerable and a better case for replacing Trump and the ballot box would emerge. That didn't happen. 

The second question was whether some Democratic senators would be sufficiently fearful of an electorate that wasn't completely decided on the president's guilt that they would vote with the GOP not to impeach. Interestingly and slightly surprisingly, that didn't happen either; all the Democratic senators voted guilty on both counts. 

Somewhat unexpectedly, Mitt Romney emerged as the only senator to break ranks, although just on one vote, that on Article 1, the abuse of office. Thus the vote was ultimately bipartisan but not bipartisan in the direction the president had been hoping for and predicting.

Parenthetically, it's hard to see how Romney could have acknowledged the crime but refuted the coverup; but that's a question interviewers will have to pressure him on in the coming days. What is sad about his split vote is that the second alleged offence is arguably more consequential for American democracy than the first. Using the power of the office to dig up dirt on a political rival is certainly serious but Trump's acquittal sets a relatively narrow precedent. By contrast, the decision to acquit the president from a blanket assertion of his right not to cooperate with Congressional oversight investigations is unlimited in its scope. If the decision is to stand, Congressional oversight will be rendered powerless; administrations can simply use the decision to evade any Congressional requests for information pursuant to its role and authority granted to it in Article 1 of the Constitution.  This will certainly now have to be litigated in the Supreme Court.

So the impeachment of Donald J. Trump is over, bar the shouting. But no doubt there will be plenty of that in the weeks ahead.

Impeachment #7.2 - Implications for Britain

With the failure of the Democrat's effort to remove Trump from office, his election in November is all but assured. And on the day that the UK leaves the EU, that has consequences for Britain.

Today, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -- united perhaps only until Scotland holds another referendum on secession -- leaves the EU and begins the task of renegotiating access to European markets and simultaneously finding new trading partners.

Boris Johnson's hope that Trump will come through for Britain is entirely misplaced; as alike as they are in many ways, if one thing is clear it's that Trump is will use all the leverage at his disposal to benefit America and his friends.

In particular, since he'd like money from pharmaceutical companies to help in his reelection, and they want to be able to sell product without facing a monopsony, he will condition any trade deal with Britain on a relaxation of the NHS bargaining over prices for drugs. While that won't put Britain into the same category as the US in terms of overpaying for health care, it will put additional strain on the NHS budget. And since Johnson won't raise taxes to make up for the increase in costs, and the bonanza from EU withdrawal is very likely "creative accounting", the services the NHS provides will suffer.

Impeachment #7.1 - What next

As of 11am today (January 31st, 2020) it appears as though the the Senate will vote not to hear additional testimony or subpoena and consider any additional evidence.  Among Republicans, there seem to be two camps; those who see nothing wrong with Trump's actions, and those who think it wrong but not sufficient to warrant removal from office.  Since it is thus very unlikely that Trump will be convicted in the Senate, the question arises; what next?

No doubt Trump will declare victory (indeed, he prevailed in his case) and try to leverage that into campaign contributions and votes. It is also likely that he will now actively exploit the precedent that has been set, that in effect he is untouchable. The free pass that Congress has in essence afforded him opens the door for no end of abuse of office in the run up to the 2020 election. This has to be the Democrats' worst nightmare; a rogue chief executive with no constraints at all.

And while the House might continue to pursue its investigations, its hope that using the impeachment process to pry open the White House cone of silence is dashed. Its only remedy is through the courts, and the relatively slow pace at which arguments will move through the judicial system make this evenue moot for the November election.

While it has been largely understood that the impeachment process was never going to result in Trump's removal from office, and was therefore principally about shining a spotlight on his conduct, that effort has largely failed. At the same time it has given Trump licence to reoffend and since jeopardy would seem to be attached, so no further action, at least on this case, can be brought.

The Democrat's lack of appreciation of the effectiveness of their opponent's ruthless disregard of political norms could also play out in their selection of their candidate for the presidential election.  The mood in much of the country is not one of sitting and listening to carefully constructed arguments about this or that policy. Much of the country seems depressed, distrustful of policy wonks and political elites, and just wants a larger than life "hero" figure. With his "America First" MAGA doctrine, Trump provides just that. No hard to grasp nuanced argument, just chest-thumping, feel good rhetoric. Then we can get on with our daily lives.     

In hindsight the Dem's decision to impeach Trump may be seen as a stunning defeat and a terrible error of judgement, since it all but guarantees Trump's reelection. More worryingly, it has set an appalling precedent that significantly weakens Congress' ability to act as a check on the authority of the Executive branch. Absent legislation or an amendment to the Constitution, the Executive branch has been gifted vastly more autonomy. Whatever happens next, historians will rightly look back at 2019 as a watershed year in American democracy.

Impeachment #7

The case for removing Donald Trump from office, whatever one's feelings about is fitness for office, is not cut and dried.

What seems generally accepted is that Trump used the power of his office to pressure a foreign government to provide dirt on a political opponent and then sought to prevent Congress from looking into what he had done.

One interpretation, that advanced by the House Managers, raises three issues; that Trump abused the power of the office by using it for personal gain, that he was inviting foreign meddling in a US election, and by stonewalling Congressional requests for information and testimony, he was obstructing Congress which has the right (and the duty) to hold the executive branch to account.   

However, there are reasons to suggest that impeachment and a verdict of removal from office would be inappropriate.

First, with respect to Article 1, there is the central question of motive. If asking for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden was in part motivated by a desire to deal with corruption, then the act, even though it had as a 'side-effect' of benefitting Trump in the upcoming election, might not qualify as an abuse of power. If it cannot be  definitively ruled out that an element of Trump's intent to further the rooting out of corruption, something that would be (and has been) a legitimate US foreign policy goal, his conditioning official acts on Zolensky opening of an investigation could be seen as a legitimate exercise of the power of the office. Thus the first article, abuse of office, cannot be definitively proven. While the most probable interpretation of Trump's actions is that it was solely about political gain and not corruption in general, it is unclear that this can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, with or without the testimony of Bolton, Mulveny, and Pompeo and others who might provide corroboration. Proving intent here is difficult.   
 
Second, with respect to Article 2, it has been argued that in the absence of a case for the first article, the second is moot; if there was no offense, there could be no cover-up, even if the scope of the refusal to cooperate with Congress want far beyond historical precedent and the normal exercise of executive privilege. The problem with this argument is that the determination of whether there was an offense or not cannot be left to the defendant, the Executive branch in this case, but must be made by the prosecution, the House.

Perhaps a better defense is that Congress' right to demand information from the Executive branch has not been fully tested in court. While the Supreme Court ruling on the Nixon tapes suggests that the Executive's prerogative to withhold information from Congress is not without exception, the limits of what must be divulged and what may be withheld may still be subject to debate and adjudication. And since the House did not pursue its request through the judicial branch, the case for obstruction can't be made since it is not clear that the House has an indisputable right to the information it sought. 

While utterly farcical, Alan Dershowitz' argument that if the president believes his reelection is in the "public interest" then any action he takes in pursuit of that end is is, by definition, in the public interest and therefore not impeachable could be applied to both articles. The original abuse of power was intended to help Trump get reelected, and the exposure of this act would have damaged his reelection chances, so covering it up was also material to his reelection. Thus both articles are nullified according to the Dershowitz doctrine. The Dershowitz theory, fortunately, is unlikely to survive the test of time, public opinion or the courts.   

So while to many the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to Trump's guilt on both counts, it is perhaps not incontrovertible; and if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then perhaps removal from office is not an appropriate remedy.
     
The case for impeachment is not cut and dried, but US democracy is left torn and tacky.

Presidential power according to Dershowitz

"If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment". Alan Dershowitz, Jan 29 2020.

So, hypothetically, if a president requested a foreign power to 'detain indefinitely' a political rival, in return for say government aid and believed that his (re) election was in the national interest that would be an acceptable quid pro quo?

But Dershowitz doesn't qualify this as limited to a foreign power. He might ask the his Attorney General to open an investigation into a rival candidate in return for a promise of another job, perhaps at State, or as a director of one of his companies; that too would be an OK quid pro quo?

Or perhaps, he could offer local returning officers a position in his cabinet if they stuffed the ballot boxes in the elections they are charged with overseeing?

Because, let's face it, no candidate running for office is ever going to think that their getting elected is NOT in the public interest; if they did -- and had any integrity-- they wouldn't be running. 

Dershowitz appears not to see much further than the glare of the spotlight he appears to so enjoy. Is this really the kind of "intellect" the Harvard Law School wants to associate itself with?

House managers and unscrupulous lawyers

The team of House Managers the Dems have put together to conduct the prosecution of the impeachment case against Donald J. Trump comprise some very experienced legislators. They are up against two very wiley and unscrupulous lawyers (Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz).

The outcome was always certain from outset, but Trump's legal team is going to crush the Dems in the PR battle too.

Expect a second MAGA term. 

Risky Business

Nancy Pelosi is taking a huge risk pushing for witnesses in the upcoming impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The argument Jerry Nadler, one of the House Managers who will be conducting the prosecution made, was that witness are important but should only be called if they are relevant. He suggested that witnesses with first hand knowledge of Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to deliver dirt on Hunter Biden is a violation of the constitution because it uses the office of the president for non-official (political) business (akin to making long distance personal calls on the company phone).

But his argument is flawed; the administration's defense is that Trump was not digging for dirt but looking for evidence in rooting out corruption, making his actions consistent with the aims of the country and something that the occupant of the White House might reasonably be expected to do as part of his official duties.

Hunter Biden is germain here because his links to his father look like corruption, at least as more broadly defined than by the Supreme Court. If the administration argues convincingly that Hunter Biden is party to corruption, not only does it help exonerate the President, but it makes his inevitable acquittal look justified and the Democrats look as though they are defending a corrupt system, thereby hurting Joe Biden's election chances. That makes Pelosi's gamble look not only very high stakes, but improves the odds of Trump being re-elected. The GOP clearly won this round.

Strange times

Who would ever have thought that we would see phrases like these about a sitting US president.

"Trump went on to claim, without evidence, that..."

"Trump, ... has spent the Christmas period furiously tweeting and retweeting false claims and conspiracy theories..." [emphasis added].

Yet this is not uncommon in the reporting of many of not most of Trump's public statements. 

And notwithstanding the denials from the duplicitous nut-jobs that now seem to make up the public face of the GOP, to have any public figure, much less the president, lie so ubiquitously with such a lack of shame or conscience, continues to be as shocking, three years on, as it was on his rise to power.  Politicians often shade the truth but before Trump, at least in democracies, they did so in subtle ways that were not completely outrageous or easy to disprove. But as with some many norms, Trumps has paid them no heed. And in re-setting the bar, a bar that Newt Gingrich had already lowered considerably during his time as Speaker, Trump has set a new low for honesty, or lack thereof, in public office. 

Since there is no longer a robust media to hold public figures to account, it is unlikely we can ever get back to even slightly higher ground (the "high ground" is completely out of reach).       

Strange times, indeed.

A long drawn out process

Although it looks unlikely that an indefinite delay in sending the Articles to the Senate is tenable, a temporary delay has considerable utility.  It allows senators with the vestiges of a conscience to think long and hard about the probity of their decisions.  It allows time for more people to come forward with useful information. It might even allow the courts to render a verdict on Trump's preposterous assertion of immunity from demands for information from Congress. All have the potential to sway public opinion in in the Dem's favor in the longer term. 

High Stakes: impeachment #6

Nancy Pelosi has decided to hold on the Articles until she gets a commitment from Mitch McConnell that he will agree to a process for the trial phase that she believes is fair. Of course fair is to some degree in the eye of the beholder, but it's an interesting gambit. Her (and Chuck Schumer's) argument is that a fair trial would allow the calling of key witnesses, something McConnell is hoping to avoid at all costs.

There's no guarantee that even with those witnesses public opinion will be swayed, let alone Trump removed from office. But the delay itself is useful. For example today Christianity Today published an op-ed calling for Trump's removal from office: "But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral".   Perhaps this is a harbinger of a bigger shift in public opinion. Given time for the facts to sink in before the matter disappears in the rear view mirror, it might move enough if not for a conviction but for his defeat at the ballot box.

McConnell has cleverly framed the gambit as Pelosi not wanting to go to trial because her case is weak. The beauty of his ploy is that there was really never any doubt that the Senate would acquit, in large measure because the Republicans seem not to be interested in a just outcome or a fair process. But by framing the all but certain acquittal as a function of a weak case rather than GOP intransigence, he has set up a high stakes showdown.  If Pelosi blinks first, and sends on the Articles before getting the commitments she needs, the trial will be a circus starring Trump's sycophantic acolytes in the GOP. The longer she resists the more time McConnell has to hammer on his argument about the weakness of the case.

Getting any commitment from McConnell will be difficult, as unscrupulous and untrustworthy as he seem to be.  But as wiley an operator as McConnell clearly is, in Pelosi he has likely met his match. Being in different chambers they have seldom sparred directly but now they are head to head, toe to toe.  I suspect that McConnell has underestimated her; my money is on Pelosi to come out on top.  

The die is cast: impeachment #5.1

After the vote was taken, Speaker Pelosi indicated that there may be some delay in sending the Articles to the Senate. Although she conditioned their transmittal on Mitch McConnell's commitment to a fair process, it is possible that this stalemate might continue for some time as noted in my previous post. Indeed, it might become the final answer: Trump was impeached; but never acquitted. That might be the best outcome of the whole sordid business.

Once the die is cast: impeachment #5

If events proceed as anticipated, the House will vote in the affirmative to impeach Trump, the Articles will be sent to McConnell and the Senate will acquit him in short order. At that point Trump entirely free to act as he pleases since there is now check whatsoever on his abuse of office. He could (and likely will) act to undermine the democratic process to secure another term in office. Once impeachment is done, and the verdict is in  there is no other remedy besides the election and that he would likely rig in his favor.  The only possible check on potential malfeasance is to hold the charges in abeyance as a sword of Damocles over his head to keep him slightly more honest than he otherwise would be.   

Nonsense is no defense

1) "It's not a crime". Impeachment is a remedy set out in the Constitution and does not require a crime under US law. It is applied when the Constitution, the highest law in the land, appears to have been violated.

2) "The aid was released, and the meeting happened". The completion of an illegal or improper act does not alter the fact of the attempt. A failed robbery attempt is still a crime, albeit not as serious as were the robbers to have been successful. So is attempted murder.

3) "We do it all the time: get over it". While bargaining is certainly an important part of diplomacy, the 'bargain' being stuck here was for private personal gain, not for the good of the country. That makes it abuse of office.

4) "The Biden's (father and son) were acting corruptly so the call for an investigation is legitimate". If the investigation requested had been into corruption in general, and not into the Bidens in particular the claim might have had merit. But because it was specifically directed at Trump's likely political opponent and was only requested after Biden declared his candidacy, indeed only after he appeared to be Trump's most threatening opponent, it can't be argued that his interests was about corruption in general, else why did he not pursue the matter his first three years in office?

5) "It's a politically motivated witch-hunt / coup". While there have been some Democrats who were calling for Trump's impeachment almost since his election, (and arguably with some reasonable cause), most resisted it. Since the Dems took back the House, they have been looking into a series of allegedly nefarious dealing by the President, but none, even Meuller's allegation of obstruction of Justice by the White House, were considered by the Democratic leadership as strong enough to support impeachment. The Ukraine matter is different in that not only does it conform almost, stereotypically, to a pattern of behaviour, it was also so simple as to make it easily understandable to a public that may not have time for the minutiae of the Meuller report. And in a single effort, Trump has committed three offenses: the solicitation of foreign interference in a US election; the abuse of his high office; and the obstruction of Congress in its oversight responsibility. Not a bad triumvirate for an amateur.  (It might have been clearer to the public to charge only the second article, that of obstruction of Congress, since that is the clearest example of the repeated pattern of obstruction this White House has engaged in. But to charge obstruction without a serious offense worthy of Congressional investigation would have been problematic, as it would have allowed the GOP to argue that the requests for information being refused were frivolous).

5) "We haven't heard from all the possible witnesses" First, if 17 witnesses all consistently make the same allegation, it is unlikely that another witness will, under oath, add or detract from the account of events established so far.  The "additional witness" defense is not intended to bring forward anyone who knows about the attempted extortion, but to bring in other people simply to muddy the waters (like Hunter Biden).   

6) "The testimony is all hearsay and therefore not admissible". First nothing prevents hearsay evidence in an impeachment. Second, some witnesses had first hand knowledge of the plot to extort Zelensky. Third the call transcript is an official record of one element the attempted extortion; it is not so much a "smoking gun", as video of the gun being fired by the perpetrator at the victim.  Moreover, the witnesses best placed to provide mitigating explanations are the same people, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, who have been told by Trump not to obey the congressional subpoenas. Were they really able to provide evidence that would change the understanding of the events concerned, Trump would certainly have encouraged, probably compelled, them to testify.   

7) "There facts are not established". Just nonsense; the facts are clear. Only willful blindness leaves any doubt as to what was going on. 

Bribery or extortion?

There was some mention in recent weeks of the word bribery to describe Trump's actions vis a vis Zelensky and the Biden investigation he wanted announced. Ultimately the word didn't appear in the Articles as voted on by the House Judiciary committee. In his testimony before the House Intelligence committee, Noah Feldman suggested that because bribery wasn't a statutory felony when the Constitution was written, the word had a more expansive definition in the minds of the Founders than it commonly does today.

But since impeachment is about swaying public opinion, using antiquated language is not going to move the needle, or for that matter, Republican self-serving head-in-the-sand denials, however much more directly it appears to connect Trump's misbehaviour to the Constitution.

Bribery is generally seen as an offer made to tempt its potential recipient to act in an improper manner. Bribery is distinct from trade in that it implies the act sought contravenes some rule or regulation.

Blackmail and extortion on the other hand are based on a threat, generally of dire consequences, rather than an offer of something of value. With a bribe, the recipient will be better off then before after the exchange. In extortion the best the target of the blackmail can expect is that they won't be significantly worse off. That is perhaps why extortion seems far more egregious than bribery.

It could be argued that the offer of a White House meeting was a bribe since it would benefit Zelensky and wasn't something that he already had.  The withholding of Congressionally appropriated funding, by contrast, was something that Zelensky could reasonably have expected was rightfully his and Trump was threatening to taking it away.

Despite the distinction, neither are acceptable or excusable. 

A terrible precedent and an immediate threat

Assuming things go the way almost everyone expects -- the House voting to approve the Articles of Impeachment drafted by the House Judiciary Committee, a Senate trial with a vote along party lines -- a  constitutional precedent will have been established that blackmailing a foreign entity using the power of the presidency is not an unconstitutional act. Since the offence charged here involved both abuse of power and the involvement of a foreign entity in interfering in the US electoral process, both of which were problematic, that used in combination is not established as impeachable means that either one alone could not be either. That opens the door for purely domestic abuser of power, for example the dangling of a presidential pardon in exchange for political favors, and for the unsolicited interference of a foreign entity in a US election.   

The precedent is not just something for future candidates to worry about (or revel in). It also paves the way for Trump to behave in nefarious ways in the run up to the next election. His acquittal by the Senate will embolden him to treat the election like one of his shady business deals; he will see himself as completely vindicated and untouchable. That's extraordinarily concerning.     
    

Partial symmetry, politicians and bureaucrats

Democrats and Republicans have both had investigations on which they pinned their hopes of a political knockout blow. For the Dems it was Meuller, for the GOP it was IG Horowitz. Both Meuller and Horowitz were public servants well used to serving masters of different political stripes and both presented their findings in carefully worded, fact based accounts. Neither gifted one side of the political aisle or the other with a clear case to sell to voters. Both political tribes were disappointed; but that's where the symmetry ends.

The differences in how Democrats and Republicans reacted is instructive.  The Dems swallowed the bitter pill after trying (and failing) to leverage Meuller's testimony into a public condemnation of Trump's behavior that would have allowed them to start impeachment proceedings; they had to wait another 6 months until Trump misbehaved yet again to move forward.

The GOP in contrast has rubbished IG's report and slandered its author, someone their Justice Department appointed.  The Trump administration's approach is to keep the revolving door of political appointments going until they find sufficiently unprincipled and sycophantic people who will follow the President's random walk through conspiracy-theory-land. If the tactic works and Trump and his ilk are elected next year, it will be a sad reflection on the ignorance and or callousness of those who voted for them. 

Impeachment #4