“As much as I believe that President Trump should be removed from office and represents an imminent threat to our Democracy and our national security and many other things, politically — it’s probably not a good thing to get rid of him.”
This is a self-refuting statement. If Yarmuth believes that Trump “represents an imminent threat to our Democracy and our national security,” then he cannot also believe that “it’s probably not a good thing to get rid of him” — “politically” or otherwise. As Yarmuth knows, if Trump really does represent those things, then he has no choice but to help get rid of him.
Impressively, Yarmuth’s reasoning then proceeds to get worse:
Yarmuth predicted that if Trump was ultimately impeached and removed from office, the GOP would replace him with an even more formidable general election opponent like former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who has repeatedly been floated as a potential Republican presidential candidate.
“I don’t think the Republicans would nominate [Vice President] Mike Pence. I think they would nominate somebody like Nikki Haley. Somebody who would be very, very tough for a Democrat to beat,” he said.
Where does one start with this? Yarmuth’s calculation seems to be that Trump is less likely to win the imminent election than is another Republican candidate. But how, if Trump poses an unusual threat to “Democracy”? Perhaps Trump is one of those faulty Threats to Democracy who can’t even usefully undermine a plebiscite?
There is one more option, I suppose: That Yarmuth believes that Trump will steal next year’s election, whereas Haley would win it fairly, and that he’d rather fight against a usurper than against a victor. But if that’s the case, Yarmuth should resign now on the grounds that he is unwilling to uphold his oath of office.
It couldn’t be, could it, that our political rhetoric has moved just a little bit ahead of the evidence?