There is a reason I chose “Considerable all the possibilities” as the tag-line for this blog.  I wanted to remind readers that creativity and counter-intuitive thinking are more perspirational than inspirational.  Edward de Bono, the individual who coined the phrase lateral thinking, cautions us not to stop when we come up with an ADEQUATE solution.  We should always be looking for the next right answer.  And this morning, I had to remind myself of de Bono’s wisdom.

For the past week, I have made the argument there are creative alternatives to impeaching Donald Trump.  However, the first and most fundamental skill of creative people is the ability to suspend judgment.  At my former training company ImagineIt Today, we had our clients do the following exercise.  Regardless of the issue, make a list of assumptions on which you normally base a decision or action.  Then ask yourself, “What if I am wrong?”   We would then go through the assumptions, one by one, and consider what new avenues of exploration opened up if the opposite was true.

So, let’s consider two assumptions which suggest impeaching Trump is a bad idea.  Number one.  Two-thirds of the Senate will never vote to convict him.  I will admit that is a pretty high bar to navigate.  But not as high as (drum roll) a conviction by a jury in a criminal trial.  Any prosecutor would sacrifice major parts of his or her anatomy if all they needed to do was convince eight people out of twelve they had made their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

A corollary to this assumption is that Trump’s loyal followers will never turn on him.  He is too popular among his base.  Was that not the conventional wisdom when Bill Cosby was first accused of drugging and sexually violating several women.  In fact, Cosby’s defense team seemed more interested in swaying public opinion than the jury during the comedian and television icon’s retrial in 2018.  According to the Boston Globe:

They’re hitting at (Cosby accuser Andrea) Constand’s credibility in the media with attacks that Judge Steven O’Neill is deeming too prejudicial or irrelevant for court, and they’re holding daily press briefings portraying Cosby as the victim of an overzealous prosecutor and an unjust legal system.

Sound familiar?  The judge cannot possibly be an honest broker.  The legal system is rigged.  The prosecutors, trying to make a name for themselves, are out to get me.  Yet, by presentation of the facts, prosecutors convinced most Americans, and more importantly a jury, “America’s Dad” was a violent sexual predator.  And unlike the case with O. J. Simpson, there was little, if any, difference of opinion along racial lines.  African-Americans such as actor Sidney Poitier were among those who said he was “terribly disgusted by what Bill Cosby has done.”

I know, the first time Cosby was tried on these charges, the judge declared a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.  But even in this case, there were only two holdouts.  In other words, 83.3 percent of the panel voted to convict based on the evidence.  Even in Kellyanne Conway’s world of alternative facts, 83+ percent is still more than two-thirds.

Assumption number two.  Impeachment without conviction will bolster Trump’s chances of re-election in 2020.  However, there is the possibility the opposite is also true in this case.  Again, Bill Cosby’s experience makes the point.  Even though the first trial ended without resolution, a large majority of Americans believed justice had not been served.  One has to consider whether prosecutors took this into account when they decided to re-try the case.

If the Senate does not convict, one can argue the 2020 election is the equivalent of a re-trial.  And this time, you don’t need a 67 percent super majority to remove Trump from office.  All you need is 271 electors (51 percent).  And imagine, the difference in news coverage throughout 2020.  Instead of images of an empty stage while waiting for Trump’s next campaign appearance, the airways would be flooded with day after day of hearings and presentation of Trump’s alleged crimes.  Congress, not Trump, would control the narrative.

Equally important, if the Senate votes not to convict, there could be positive implications for down-ballot races in 2020.  If the evidence is as compelling as many Democrats believe it is, they should dare their Republican colleagues to vote against conviction.   Imagine how Democratic challengers could use that vote against Trump’s Senate enablers.  Consider the following television or radio spot to promote straight ticket voting

You heard the witnesses.  You saw the evidence.  Sending Donald Trump back to Trump Tower or Mar-a-Lago permanently is not enough.  I know you believe in the rule of law and violators need to be held accountable.  So do I.  Sadly, my opponent NAME, when he/she had the chance, stuck his/her head in the sand and voted party and personal interest over country.  You deserve better.

And that is why we need to have faith in a jury of 150+ million of our peers.  Following Cosby’s conviction, the jury issued a statement saying, “Our decision was not influenced in any way by factors other than what was seen and heard in the courtroom.” (NBC Today Show/April 30, 2018)  And there will be hours of video of House Judiciary Committee testimony to run and re-run continuously during the 2020 election cycle to remind voters of Trumps violations of his oath of office, abuse of power and criminal activity.

While we’re at it, there is one more assumption we need to challenge.  Trump will not go quietly.  No doubt that is true, but only in a literal sense.  There is a difference between a barrage of whining Tweets and voluntarily stepping down.  The overwhelming consensus among legal experts is Trump’s ability to withhold evidence during the impeachment process, including his financial records, and claim executive privilege will no longer be an issue.  And while Trump claims he is a fighter, time and time again he has proven otherwise, choosing to settle court cases rather than be subjected to public scrutiny.  Just ask Stormy Daniels, the board of directors of the Trump Foundation or alumni of Trump University.  Before the Watergate hearings, no one imagined Richard Nixon would “settle” by resigning.  And he had less to hide than the current incumbent.

Bottom line?  There are no clear right or wrong choices.  Just different options.  And that is what makes this situation both fascinating and frustrating.  And one about which historians and political strategists will argue and write about for decades to come.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP