**Over several posts, I hope to look at 1) what the Constitution says about impeachment, 2) presidential impeachments in history, and 3) how President Trump’s actions should be judged in light of the Constitution, history, and other standards frequently brought to bear.**

The third presidential impeachment trial unfolds before us. Our Senators will soon cast the most consequential votes of their lives. They will be tempted to view this dispute through purely partisan or moral frameworks. I think they should reject these approaches and vote based on the preservation of America’s constitutional order.

Transcend the Partisan Impulse

Should Senators vote to remove Donald Trump? The partisan mind cannot bear to pause over this question. The answer is blindingly obvious and only a lout in search of a brain cell or a moral fiber would think otherwise. President Trump should be removed (or retained) without consideration because removing (or restraining) him would enhance the party’s chances this November.

The partisan mind cannot be trusted, alone, to reach a responsible conclusion. If partisanship overwhelms other factors, our constitutional republic suffers another degradation. We have a written constitution to limit government’s reach and enshrine our freedoms. Government’s powers are separated and opposed to one another not to facilitate or expedite, but to frustrate and drag.

Partisanship seeks to bind branches together to maximize the party’s power. Senators, of a partisan mind, are no longer restraining presidential power as they weigh the president’s fate, but maximizing the party’s chances in the upcoming election. The partisan mind is not consumed by the public trust, but fixated on short-term advantage.

The Senate, in particular, was designed to push against transient passions. With six year terms of office, a higher age threshold, and stiffer residential requirements, Senators were supposed to deliberate on the long view. They were the aristocrats in this mixed form of government. To achieve these goals, the framers gave state legislatures the power to choose Senators. This indirect election method would guarantee that office-holders were a bit removed from the tumult. The Seventeenth Amendment changed this, but impeachment should fan the dormant embers of detachment.

Misplaced Morality

Mark Galli provoked weeks of discussion after he published his Christianity Today editorial calling for President Trump’s removal. Galli reasoned that President Trump’s actions surrounding Ukraine were not only a violation of the Constitution, but were “profoundly immoral.” They were not enough, he lamented, to shock Trump’s supporters.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

I cannot argue with the evidence Galli marshals against Trump. He may be the most brazenly immoral man to hold the office. By this, I mean he parades his private indiscretions before the public. He is beyond shame. The language he uses to describe his rivals, former associates, or those unfortunate souls who find his momentary gaze upon them, is often rude and crass. He says and tweets things that no other president has said in public. He is unapologetic about his past behavior. He has had three marriages. He seemed to brag about sexually assaulting women in the infamous video that leaked before the 2016 election. He has paid women to be quiet about their affairs with him. President Trump has a loose association with the truth. These things reveal the absence of character. I believe character matters. It is a complex discussion, but it is probably the most critical ingredient in leadership.

But these actions cannot be the foundation for impeaching and removing a President of the United States. They do not constitute a violation of the public trust. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate an abuse of power. They are private acts brought into the public or they are vile and uncivil public acts. These matters, I think, belong in the hands of voters unless it is clear the president, or any federal official, is either unable to carry out his duties because of these defects or his actions cross the line into abuse of power or a violation of the public trust.

A President who decides to celebrate Mardi Gras for 12 weeks and fails to show up to the office or engage in official work should be impeached and removed. A President who has an affair with what is revealed to be a foreign agent should be impeached and removed. A President who fires three successive Directors of the F.B.I. because they attempted to investigate that affair should be impeached and removed. A President who lies so much that he is not a credible negotiating partner for other governments should be impeached and removed.

President Trump’s Ukrainian actions may be an abuse of power, and he seems to have lied about them publicly over time. The immorality of squeezing a vulnerable ally is arguable, but it only veers toward impeachment and removal when we can credibly claim the President abused his own power to achieve his own personal end that was disconnected from the public’s interest and due to the President’s other moral defects.

Executive Power and the Accidents of History

President Trump would never have been impeached over his actions involving Ukraine if Republicans still held the U.S. House of Representatives. The partisan environment provided an opportunity for Democrats. His actions, while objectionable and perhaps worthy of impeachment and removal, were not the kind to peel away his partisan base of support. We should not look at impeachment through such a narrow lens, however.

Putting President Trump’s actions in context is difficult. In a previous post, I highlighted other impeachment episodes. That feels like the right context, but I think it is misleading. Impeachment is only a threat when divided government makes it possible. Missing from such an analysis is an understanding of executive power both in the Constitution and across the span of American history. Article II grants broad authority to the President of the United States. This authority is always checked, but it is least restrained in foreign relations and during times of war. Even in those instances, executive power can be abused. I am not a historian and not an expert on the presidency, but here are a few examples of executive conduct that, in my judgment, are far more egregious than President Trump’s actions involving Ukraine.

In the shadow of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the military to remove individuals from military zones on the West Coast. It was quickly applied to Japanese Americans, including citizens born in the United States. They were ordered to leave their homes and all their belongings except for what they could carry. More than 100,000 were detained in facilities across the western United States for three years. Many lost property and livelihoods as a result.

President Barack Obama ordered a drone strike on American citizens in Yemen without congressional input. Yemen was not part of the War on Terror’s authorization for the use of military force. Those killed included a teenaged boy. There was no trial. There was no tribunal. There was only an internal argument within the executive branch as a bare proxy for due process.

President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which precipitated the Trail of Tears. It was part of Jackson’s longstanding effort to relocate Native Americans to open up new areas for farmers in the Southeast. Thousands died on the forced trip west.

President Reagan’s administration engaged in the Iran-Contra Affair, where senior advisors to the President traded American armaments to Iran for the release of hostages. Proceeds from those sales were funneled to the Contras, a militant group fighting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. This funding violated federal law. After investigations, Reagan’s Secretary of Defense (Casper Weinberger), National Security Advisor (Robert McFarlane), and Assistant Secretary of State (Elliot Abrams), along with eight others, were indicted. Most were pardoned in the waning days of the George H.W. Bush presidency. Bush had been Reagan’s Vice President. Reagan’s relationship to these events was nebulous, but it was a significant scandal.

Some of these actions enjoyed wide, public support. Others were hatched and executed secretly. Some of these actions were in conjunction with Congress. Others violated the will of Congress or were conducted without congressional authorization. These are all factors when it comes to impeachment removal, but they should not be determinative. President Trump’s behavior was secretive, abusive, and against the standards normally established for issuing foreign aid, but not as abusive as the acts above. None of them were impeached and removed. Maybe, in an ideal world where Congress jealously guards against Executive encroachments, they would have been, but that world has never existed. They operated in partisan and political environments that allowed them to either survive those actions or to face no real consequences.

There is the very real possibility President Trump’s actions with Ukraine are just standard operating procedure. Perhaps his dealings with China, Russia, North Korea, and Turkey are equally unbalanced. Perhaps he is guilty of using his office to enrich himself by paying his businesses exorbitant rates to house himself and other executive officers across the globe. These are legitimate concerns, but they are not on the table for impeachment. House Democrats erred when they attempted to focus impeachment on Ukraine alone. Everything should have been on the table and in the public.

The House’s rushed investigation, though, should not remove the Senate’s responsibility to turn over every rock, at least as it relates to Ukraine. As of now, it appears doubtful that enough G.O.P. Senators will join the Democrats to demand witnesses or additional documentation. Refusing to hear from John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former National Security Advisor, is stunning and defies every explanation save the most craven. This is not unlike a criminal trial where police officers conducted an incomplete investigation or when new evidence comes forward during the trial itself. There are only two questions to ask: is the information relevant to the proceeding and is it important? Bolton’s testimony is an easy “yes” on both counts.

Why I Would Not Vote to Remove President Trump

President Trump is not an existential threat to the republic. He is petty, ill-mannered, and boorish. He is sometimes rash in his language and judgments and I am convinced he struggles to distinguish between private and public interests. I also categorically reject Mr. Dershowitz’s argument that the pursuit of re-election interests are by definition “public” in nature and therefore cannot be a foundation for impeachment. I also reject Mr. Trump’s legal team’s insistence that abuse of power is not a proper foundation for impeachment and removal. This interpretation cuts against both reason and the intentions of our founding fathers.

I believe he abused his power, and he did so for his own ends, but not all abuses of power are created equally. Removing a president through the impeachment process should be obvious even to those with no skin in the game. This is true not only for the facts but the gravity of the matter. The facts are clear, but the gravity is not. At the end of the day, there was only a minimal disruption in aid to Ukraine. A whistleblower revealed the problem and public pressure resolved the issue and brought the President’s misdeeds to light. This should not excuse the President’s behavior, but it has to be considered.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the gravity that most of us attached to Ukraine was misplaced for two reasons. First, Democrats desperately wanted a reason to impeach and remove the President of the United States. They were like Communist Commissars in search of a crime to justify the ends they had in mind. Second, those of us convinced that President Trump is a problematic president–whether for his character, influence on the culture, instability, or poor judgment–also found a useful weapon.

I believe, in my bones, that President Trump is bad for the body politic, but that belief is too abstract and too subjective to justify removing him from office. His offense, in less polarized times, or if committed by a different politician, would have warranted an investigation, an apology, and a black mark on his record. That is what it should yield now.