In the second season of the American series “The Good Fight” there is an episode that quite accurately reflects the whole range of opinions that exist in a liberal environment regarding what to do with the “impossible” Donald Trump. In the yard in 2018. Democrats are confident that they will soon gain control of both chambers of Congress. In the office of the Chicago law firm, a woman operative from the Democratic National Committee appears and invites the firm’s management to reflect on the legal strategy of impeaching the president.

Starts a heated argument. Some say that collusion with the Russians is unprovable by definition, so the head of state should be caught lying under oath and obstructing justice. Others are convinced that Trump will never go to the face-to-face testimony (so that one can’t wait for a lie), and the Constitution does not allow to consider any actions of the White House’s owner, which correspond to his authority, as an obstacle to the investigation. Still others consider the whole undertaking to be worthless: they say, if you want to defeat Donald so much, you need to do this in the next election.

But there is a fourth point of view. It sounds particularly surreal, given that the debate is between lawyers. One of the employees ardently argues that the 45th President of the United States should be tried - and not on formal grounds, but "honestly and openly" - because he is a racist, sexist, homophobic and generally a spoiled, trashy person. His removal from power will serve the public good, and this factor has always been taken into account by the American Themis, so even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cannot ignore him. In general, to hell with the presumption of innocence! We'll ride Trump for the immoral.

The representative of the Democratic party leadership listens attentively to everyone and with a mysterious smile leaves, promising to call back ...

In the real world, such disputes have been flaring up for more than two years on all liberal television channels and, as you can guess, in a wide variety of political circles close to the Democratic Party. Publication of the full text of the report of the Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller by and large did not affect the situation. After the shock of the liberals, who learned that the investigators did not find any evidence of Trump's conspiracy with the Kremlin, everything was back to square one. The Democratic Party, as in 2017, is faced with the question of whether to start the impeachment procedure on political grounds. For the fact that the president is a “bad person.”

The key word here is “start.” To run the procedure, you must enlist a simple majority of members of the House of Representatives. It is easy to do. It is unlikely that many Democrats would dare to vote against. And then the fate of Trump will be in the hands of the Senate, where the real court will be held.

A senior judge of the Supreme Court will speak as procedural arbiter.

Maintaining the charge will fall on the shoulders of a group of congressmen of the lower house. Protect the president will be lawyers. Well, senators will become jurors.

To convict the head of state will require two-thirds of the votes of these jurors. To collect as many votes with the current (and with any other) composition of the upper chamber is unrealistic. And not only because Republicans are unlikely to want to annoy their voters. Many Democratic senators will vote against it, unless the guilt of the White House’s master (guilt is not in something, but in a particularly grave crime) cannot be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Yes, the Ministry of Justice, special services and even some courts of federal jurisdictions have recently become so politicized that it seems that the American justice system has collapsed completely. But few politicians want to personally lend a hand to this. Even Special Prosecutor Muller, whose task was to prove Trump's guilt at all costs, acted cautiously. He acquitted the president on charges of collusion, and left the question of obstructing justice without a decision, dropping the weight of the final verdict to the congress.

Generally speaking, Muller violated the rules of procedure. The prosecutor is obliged to either charge, or completely close the case. You can’t write a 450-page essay on the topic “What I think about Donald Trump” (or another name), speculate about constitutional law and declare that in one of the points he will not decide anything. But the highly experienced prosecutor considered that it was not his business, but the congress. Speaking more precisely, congressmen from the Democratic Party.

It is clear that all Democrats would like Trump never to cross the threshold of the White House. But now they need to make a very difficult tactical decision. And there is no agreement in their ranks. It would seem that prevents to try? After all, the impeachment procedure, even if it ended unsuccessfully, will last long enough and should have a negative impact on the rating of the current president. What is not a way to ensure the campaign before the elections of 2020 at public expense? It will not be possible to finish the job in the Senate - it does not matter! Shortly before the day of voting, you can throw in the slogan of "national impeachment at the ballot box."

But not everything is so simple. Practice shows that the most impeachment hits the ones who started it. In the history of the United States, the procedure for the removal of the head of state from power was launched only twice - in 1868 against Andrew Johnson and in 1998 against Bill Clinton. Very often, referring to the impeachment, mention Republican Richard Nixon. However, he himself resigned in August 1974, without waiting for formal steps by the House of Representatives. Historians still argue that it would be if Nixon defended his presidency to the end. After all, his rating during the entire Watergate remained quite high.

In 1998, the Republicans perseverance in their hopeless case against Clinton led to the fact that in the next elections they lost a significant number of seats in both houses of Congress, and the speaker of the lower house and the main locomotive of the impeachment Newt Gingrich was forced to resign.

The rating of the figure of “monicagate” has grown to such proportions that he would have easily been elected for a third term, if not for legal restrictions.

"Hit" on the Nixon, too, cost his opponents expensive. Yes, his successor Gerald Ford lost re-election, not because he was associated with Nixon, but because he was a weak candidate and an unelected person in the White House (he was appointed by Nixon shortly before his resignation). If Ronald Reagan had been nominated for the presidency at the party conference in 1976, he would almost certainly have become president. Well, Democrat Jimmy Carter, who won the Ford, spent only one term at the post. The voter replaced him with the true successor of the Nixon - Reagan - in 1980.

The current leaders of the Democratic Party are reasonably afraid of the negative consequences of impeachment, and, in general, of reducing the entire political discourse to “correcting the error of 2016”. They managed to slightly move Republicans in the mid-term congressional elections in 2018, pushing the social agenda forward. At the same time, the party leadership worked with the most complex states and electoral districts, and in the liberal estates of both coasts, the left ultras with their socialist ideas and demands broke through the capitol immediately to overthrow the hated “white suprematist”.

For a while, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and the leader of the democratic minority in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, managed to restrain the inner-party strife. However, after the publication of the Muller report, the split was finally formed. So, Pelosi said that “Trump could be summoned to account” without impeachment, and one of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates, Senator Elizabeth Warren, demanded that the head of state be removed from power immediately.

In an interview with MSNBC, Warren, defending his position, complained that too many people in Congress think about the political consequences of impeachment, while "this is not a political issue, but a question of principle." Other Democratic candidates are not expressing themselves so unequivocally, but it is already clear that in the next couple of months they will have to do this. This was forced to admit, and Nancy Pelosi.

It is worth paying tribute to the veteran party due. She is tirelessly maneuvering, trying to provide the most democratic conditions for presidential democratic candidates to participate in the 2020 and 2024 elections. She also has to take care of the 2020 legislative re-election. If Trump is not only re-elected for a second term, but also provides the Republicans with a majority in both houses, it will be almost impossible to restrain him.

Pelosi is trying to play the game. But it seems that the new generation of the Democratic Party is no longer listening to her. And the liberal media is gradually leaning towards the “youth”.

A political observer of the Slate edition, Jamel Boy, claims that in 2020, unlike in 1998, impeachment can be turned into a political weapon. He accuses the party leadership of the "over-the-guard stance". In essence, it is a euphemism of cowardice. He is echoed by political analyst Julian Zilizer.

On the website of CNN, he published an article under the catchy headline: “This is not 1998. Democrats should not be afraid of impeachment. ”

However, Trump is not afraid of impeachment either. When, during the Easter events on the lawn of the White House, he was asked if he was afraid of starting the procedure of removing him from power, he briefly replied: “Very little!”

The reasons for this attitude of the President of the United States is easy to understand. There is practically no chance that the impeachment will be crowned with success. The perseverance of the radical Democrats will almost certainly infuriate Trump’s electoral base just as in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s lordly confidence in her “imminent victory” angered her. Pelosi will not be able to reason with all of her party members (as she did before the mid-term elections of 2018), in any case, those participating in the presidential race. Democrats will be hot to argue (as employees of the law firm from the Good Fight series), and Republicans will play on their controversies.

Not afraid of the start of the impeachment procedure and the left ultras. It is unlikely that the radicals firmly believe in the success of impeachment (both as a legal procedure and as a political show). But appeals to him and a dispute with Pelosi, Schumer and other party bonzes are a good excuse to accuse the latter of cowardice and lack of principle. The main goal of Warren and other representatives of the Left Ultras today is not to send the 45th President from the White House ahead of time, but to seize power in the Democratic Party.

So fear of talking about impeachment, paradoxically, it should be only Nancy Pelosi and others like her. And Joe Biden, who the other day has to decide whether to take part in the presidential race.

Poor Nancy! Poor Joe!

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.