Impeachment’s Inevitability Problem

Read: Will Hurd picks a side

There is slightly more doubt on the Democratic side. Two House Democrats—Representatives Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey—voted in October against launching the inquiry and are likely to oppose the articles of impeachment. A few more Democrats from districts that backed Trump could join them in voting against one or both articles, although not enough that would threaten to sink the vote.

None of those Democrats is on the Judiciary Committee, however, and over 14 hours yesterday, the party’s members on the panel delivered harsh indictments of the president’s conduct as a singular affront to the Constitution. Some, such as Representatives Eric Swalwell of California and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, seemed to be auditioning for the starring roles of impeachment “managers” during the Senate trial next year. Others were simply intent on rebutting the many Republicans who used the debate not only to defend the president but to attack Biden and his son Hunter. When Representative Matt Gaetz, the Trump acolyte from Florida, brought up Hunter Biden’s past drug use as he was offering an amendment, Democratic Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia came back with a thinly veiled warning to the young congressman, who was arrested in 2008 for driving under the influence. “I would say that the pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do,” Johnson said. “I don’t know what members, if any, have had problems with substance abuse, been busted in a DUI. I don’t know, but if I did, I wouldn’t raise it against anyone on this committee. I don’t think it’s proper.”

Gaetz did not respond.

There is no filibuster in the House, but the light rules of a committee markup—in which lawmakers debate and revise legislation—gave Republicans their best opportunity to hold up the Democrats’ impeachment drive, if only for a day. Members were allowed to offer virtually unlimited amendments to the text of the articles, and once offered, every member of the committee was allowed up to five minutes to weigh in on each proposed change. The result was something of a free-for-all. When Nadler submitted the first change—merely substituting the president’s full middle name, John, for his middle initial in the text of the articles—the ensuing “debate” lasted three hours before the committee adopted the amendment without opposition. All substantive proposals from the Republicans, including attempts to remove the articles of impeachment entirely, were rejected on party-line votes.

If the GOP’s goal in dragging out the meeting was to create some bad optics for the Democrats—by forcing a “midnight vote” on such a weighty matter as impeachment—Nadler sussed it out. He announced just before 11 p.m. eastern time that members would have a chance to “search their consciences” and that the committee would break for the night and return in the morning for the actual vote. Republicans claimed, with dubious sincerity, an ambush. “This is the kangaroo court,” complained Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee. “Stalinesque,” chimed in Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas. Their complaints were futile, their limited power to stop impeachment in the House having already been exhausted. Their colleagues next week won’t even have such a chance.

There seemed to be little soul-searching that took place over the next 11 hours. When the committee gaveled back in this morning, each member voted the same way they had been planning to for weeks, and the impeachment process advanced one more significant step toward an outcome that seems ever less in doubt.

Russell Berman is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics.