Really good points at Politico.  The article looks at the long term impact of the Clinton impeachment, even though it “failed.”  The mantras about “TDS,” “witch hunt,” and “usurping the 2016 election” play well to the crazy base, but nowhere else.  The elections of last week revealed that there is, at present, no negative political consequences for the Democrats for impeaching – probably because the facts have trickled into the vast number of voters who do not rely on Fox and Breitbart for their news.  Not that it matters, because the hearings are really about abuse of power, rule of law, and the threat of an ever-increasing power of the Presidency against the legislature.   Republican Senators are claiming that they won’t watch the hearings (so they can dodge questions about the evidence in the future) and that will not play well with the center.  The Republicans on the House committees are just making the same speech over and over again, because they cannot engage the subject matter of the inquiry – the minute they do that they lose the frame of all future political discourse.

Trump has put them into this position, and I’m certain they privately hate his guts.  But because of the crazy base, it’s pretty much when Trump says jump they ask how far.

But they will have to face voters next year, and the impacts on their legacy for years to come, especially if the institutions of checks and balances are damaged for the long term.

Here are some excerpts:

Based on Clinton’s precedent, those costs will be paid against Trump’s agenda—things he wants to do but won’t achieve because of the distorting effects of impeachment on his political options and room for maneuver.

They will be paid by his associates—people whose reputations and ambitions will be permanently dented because of their proximity to him.

And they will be paid by conservatives who follow him—who will discover their own principles have lost credibility and power in the public mind because of their connection to Trump.

Understanding the real costs paid by a president during an impeachment battle requires engaging in some what-if scenarios. But these scenarios do not require lots of conjecture or long, speculative leaps.

…..

And they will be paid by conservatives who follow him—who will discover their own principles have lost credibility and power in the public mind because of their connection to Trump.

Understanding the real costs paid by a president during an impeachment battle requires engaging in some what-if scenarios. But these scenarios do not require lots of conjecture or long, speculative leaps.

…..

Lastly, most Republicans do not face a high cost within their own party for defending Trump. But, in a country becoming younger and more diverse, there’s little chance even these internal GOP politics remain static. The isolationists of the 1930s had the popular position at the time, but had considerable explaining to do for years after. So did the McCarthy backers of the 1950s. So did the civil rights opponents of the 1960s.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri is 39. Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas is 42. There is every reason to suppose they and other ascendant Republicans will be answering “what did you do in the Trump years?” for decades to come.

As one who covered the Clinton impeachment, I can testify that 21 years is not so long ago as it seems. The smoke from those days passed quickly—the stench lasted far longer.