Another Look at Impeachment, After the Mueller Report
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/another-look-at-impeachment-after-the-mueller-report
Daily Comment
Another Look at Impeachment, After the Mueller Report
By Adam Gopnik
April 25, 2019
The Mueller report is a powerful and positive document, because it is written testimony to the liberal faith in the power of rules and systems to bring order and justice.
snip//
But, on the whole, and taken on its own terms, the Mueller report is a powerful and positive document, because it is written testimony to the liberal faith in the power of rules and systems to bring order and justice. Mueller and his team were trying on every page of the report and in every instance to follow the rules, even if the rules they were following forced them into contorted prose and easily misrepresented positions.
The rules are worth following, the underlying premise of the report insists, because only in accepting the rules can we insure justice. This is why the language of norms and their violation is misapplied to Trump and his conduct. What is at stake here are not norms, in the sense of ornamental ritual regularities in the conduct of office. What is at stake are rulesrules meant to insure objective judgment and fair dealing no matter who the subject may be or how you may feel about his or her conduct. These are fair-minded rules put in place by the painfully slow accession of power to procedure, equitable rules put in place over time and that, historically, remain vanishingly rare. As Game of Thrones reminds usit may be the chief reason for the shows current appealthe rule of pure power asserting itself exactly as it likes whenever it likes is what most often happens among human beings.
This is why the idea that Mueller cleverly engineered his report to force Congress to act misses the point. Mueller didnt intend it. The rules did. This is why impeachmentat least attempting to remove from power someone obviously unfit to hold it, whatever the outcome may behas, within a week, passed from a distant speculative possibility to what seems to many like a primary moral duty. It is being miscast as a prudential act, or even as an act of overdue partisan aggression. Right now, it seems more like collective self-defense against a common danger.