Over the course of US history, when an incumbent President has run for a second term, he has won more than often than suffering defeat. There would seem to be a variety of plausible reasons for this trend. Of course, Trump is a different matter in numerous ways. Besides all the other ways, the 2018 mid-term elections made it abundantly clear to me that Trump in the White House, representing the Republican party, is a very big asset for Democratic candidates, as undoubtedly would be the case in 2020. Trump seems to energize a lot of people who wouldn't ordinarily vote, or who wouldn't ordinarily vote for Democratic candidates, to do just that.
On the other hand, impeaching and removing Trump from office would conceivably be off-putting to perhaps a large percentage of the small group of swing voters, whose votes the Electoral College requires any successful candidate for President to win. It is far from certain that Trump's conviction by the current Senate would be even possible anyway. But to the eyes of those with even a modicum of traditional conservative leanings, Pence in the White House, compared to the gore of Trump's administration, will look like a white sequined angel descended to earth against a purple velvet backdrop. (I don't know what that means. I feel slightly hallucinatory at the moment.) Pence is undoubtedly more re-electable than Trump is.
Additionally, during the lengthy impeachment process, if it becomes apparent that an impeachment and conviction will happen, Trump will begin spending his 18 idle hours per day pardoning his cronies and family members. In the case of impeachment, Pence will undoubtedly pardon Trump on his (Pence's) last day in office.
Just on the basis of the federal and state civil and criminal offenses noted or otherwise alluded to in the 40-page Complaint for the New York civil suit against the Trumps and the Trump Foundation, I think it's quite likely that, if the cards are played right, the Trumps will be fined out the wazoo, and possibly spend some time in prison after the White House stint. That prospect is so much more delicious, so much more metaphysically nourishing, than mere impeachment. I've seen plenty of cases of 501(c) organizations set up and operated for no other reason than to engage in criminal activities. But I've never seen a more blatant, extensive and and egregious case than what the Complaint describes.
The Complaint sets out numerous facts upfront by which the Trump Foundation carried out its unlawful purposes. The Foundation has never had any employees, delegating all its operations to the accounting office of the Trump Organization. The Board of the Foundation--consisting of Trump, and, after 2006, Eric, Junior and, until January 2017, Ivanka--never had any criteria for approving or disbursing monies in furtherance of any charitable mission. The Board has not met since 1999. The Complaint points out that “the sole [criterion] that the accounting staff [of the Trump Organization] used to determine whether to issue a check from the Foundation, rather than another entity in the Trump Organization or Mr. Trump personally, was the tax-exempt status of the intended recipient; no one made any inquiry into the purpose of the payment.”
The Complaint lists 6 separate statutory causes of action (and notes at least one instance of what I usually call a “statuesque cause of action”), which seem to represent at least 18-24 violations committed by Trump, Eric, Junior and/or the Foundation collectively. This suit will undoubtedly be ongoing for many years. Several of the counts are slam-dunk because people with the Trump Organization suddenly began trying to correct the violations as soon as they learned there was an investigation; these sudden and otherwise inexplicable attempts to at least partly correct the unlawful self-dealing and contributions indicate a consciousness of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, it's going to be a lot of work for any single jury sort out the facts, understand the sometimes complex laws, and determine the liabilities in each of the counts.
Just to note one example of wrongdoing:
The Complaint spends the remainder of paragraph 36 and the subsequent 3 paragraphs describing the pre-event arrangements by persons employed by and on behalf of the Campaign.
On the other hand, impeaching and removing Trump from office would conceivably be off-putting to perhaps a large percentage of the small group of swing voters, whose votes the Electoral College requires any successful candidate for President to win. It is far from certain that Trump's conviction by the current Senate would be even possible anyway. But to the eyes of those with even a modicum of traditional conservative leanings, Pence in the White House, compared to the gore of Trump's administration, will look like a white sequined angel descended to earth against a purple velvet backdrop. (I don't know what that means. I feel slightly hallucinatory at the moment.) Pence is undoubtedly more re-electable than Trump is.
Additionally, during the lengthy impeachment process, if it becomes apparent that an impeachment and conviction will happen, Trump will begin spending his 18 idle hours per day pardoning his cronies and family members. In the case of impeachment, Pence will undoubtedly pardon Trump on his (Pence's) last day in office.
Just on the basis of the federal and state civil and criminal offenses noted or otherwise alluded to in the 40-page Complaint for the New York civil suit against the Trumps and the Trump Foundation, I think it's quite likely that, if the cards are played right, the Trumps will be fined out the wazoo, and possibly spend some time in prison after the White House stint. That prospect is so much more delicious, so much more metaphysically nourishing, than mere impeachment. I've seen plenty of cases of 501(c) organizations set up and operated for no other reason than to engage in criminal activities. But I've never seen a more blatant, extensive and and egregious case than what the Complaint describes.
The Complaint sets out numerous facts upfront by which the Trump Foundation carried out its unlawful purposes. The Foundation has never had any employees, delegating all its operations to the accounting office of the Trump Organization. The Board of the Foundation--consisting of Trump, and, after 2006, Eric, Junior and, until January 2017, Ivanka--never had any criteria for approving or disbursing monies in furtherance of any charitable mission. The Board has not met since 1999. The Complaint points out that “the sole [criterion] that the accounting staff [of the Trump Organization] used to determine whether to issue a check from the Foundation, rather than another entity in the Trump Organization or Mr. Trump personally, was the tax-exempt status of the intended recipient; no one made any inquiry into the purpose of the payment.”
The Complaint lists 6 separate statutory causes of action (and notes at least one instance of what I usually call a “statuesque cause of action”), which seem to represent at least 18-24 violations committed by Trump, Eric, Junior and/or the Foundation collectively. This suit will undoubtedly be ongoing for many years. Several of the counts are slam-dunk because people with the Trump Organization suddenly began trying to correct the violations as soon as they learned there was an investigation; these sudden and otherwise inexplicable attempts to at least partly correct the unlawful self-dealing and contributions indicate a consciousness of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, it's going to be a lot of work for any single jury sort out the facts, understand the sometimes complex laws, and determine the liabilities in each of the counts.
Just to note one example of wrongdoing:
33. In 2016, the Board [of the Foundation] knowingly permitted the Foundation to be co-opted by Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, and thereby violated its certificate of incorporation and state and federal law by engaging in political activity and prohibited related-party transactions. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the "Campaign"), Mr. Trump's political committee, extensively directed and coordinated the Foundation's activities in connection with a nationally televised charity fundraiser for the Foundation in Des Moines, Iowa on January 28, 2016 (the "Iowa Fundraiser"), and the disbursements of the proceeds from the event.
34. Candidate Trump decided to conduct the Iowa Fundraiser in lieu of participating in a televised debate of the Republican presidential candidates. The events took place less than one week before the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
35. In a filing submitted to the Attorney General's Charities Bureau, signed by Mr. Trump as President of the Foundation and dated October 20, 2016, the Foundation asserted that it "held [the Iowa Fundraiser] to raise funds for veterans' organizations . . . [and that it] created a website to allow donors to make charitable contributions online." (2016 Form CHAR410-A, Part G, Line 3(c).) This statement was false because, in reality, the Fundraiser was a Trump Campaign event in which the Foundation participated.
36. The Investigation revealed that the Iowa Fundraiser was planned, organized, financed, and directed by the Campaign, with administrative assistance from the Foundation. [. . . ]
34. Candidate Trump decided to conduct the Iowa Fundraiser in lieu of participating in a televised debate of the Republican presidential candidates. The events took place less than one week before the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
35. In a filing submitted to the Attorney General's Charities Bureau, signed by Mr. Trump as President of the Foundation and dated October 20, 2016, the Foundation asserted that it "held [the Iowa Fundraiser] to raise funds for veterans' organizations . . . [and that it] created a website to allow donors to make charitable contributions online." (2016 Form CHAR410-A, Part G, Line 3(c).) This statement was false because, in reality, the Fundraiser was a Trump Campaign event in which the Foundation participated.
36. The Investigation revealed that the Iowa Fundraiser was planned, organized, financed, and directed by the Campaign, with administrative assistance from the Foundation. [. . . ]
The Complaint spends the remainder of paragraph 36 and the subsequent 3 paragraphs describing the pre-event arrangements by persons employed by and on behalf of the Campaign.
40. Following the Iowa Fundraiser, the Foundation ceded control over the charitable funds it raised to senior Trump Campaign staff, who dictated the manner in which the Foundation would disburse those proceeds, directing the timing, amounts and recipients of the grants.
[. . . ]
58. The Foundation's disbursements of funds from the Iowa Fundraiser were related-party transactions. As detailed above, the Foundation ceded control over the grants to the Campaign, making an improper in-kind contribution of no less than $2.823 million (the amount donated to the Foundation) to the Campaign that provided Mr. Trump and the Campaign a means to take credit at campaign rallies, press briefings, and on the Internet, for gifts to veterans charities. The Foundation's grants made Mr. Trump and the Campaign look charitable and increased the candidate's profile to Republican primary voters and among important constituent groups.
The Complaint cites numerous instances of Trump boasting at campaign rallies about his personal donations to veterans. The podium at the Fundraiser brandished Trump's trademarked campaign slogan “Make America Great Again!” at the top. The campaign slogan was printed on the enlarged checks presented to veterans groups. The website for the Iowa fundraiser heralded the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again!” on the first page.[. . . ]
58. The Foundation's disbursements of funds from the Iowa Fundraiser were related-party transactions. As detailed above, the Foundation ceded control over the grants to the Campaign, making an improper in-kind contribution of no less than $2.823 million (the amount donated to the Foundation) to the Campaign that provided Mr. Trump and the Campaign a means to take credit at campaign rallies, press briefings, and on the Internet, for gifts to veterans charities. The Foundation's grants made Mr. Trump and the Campaign look charitable and increased the candidate's profile to Republican primary voters and among important constituent groups.
