Republicans need to abandon Trump now — not for moral reasons, but for self-preservation

History tells us that Democrats won't suffer if they open impeachment proceedings this year. The lifelong careers of their Republican counterparts are now on the line

As more details continued to emerge about the Ukraine scandal, over the weekend House Democrats announced their plans to move quickly through the impeachment investigation. Trump, naturally, went berserk on Twitter:

Such outbursts are bad for the president, but in many ways even worse for Republican members of Congress – they have constituencies to answer to and reputations to uphold. When the president does things like rant and rave at the United Nations or make the Ukrainian president look visibly uncomfortable during a joint press conference, it reflects on them all.

And while a conviction in the Senate is dead upon arrival, Republican lawmakers should still be able read the writing in front of them: it’s time to abandon ship. I don’t say this for moral or ethical reasons; this isn’t a call to patriotism. At some point the president and key members of his administration are going down, probably with criminal charges, and anyone who doesn’t at least get out of the way may end up going down with them.

Utah senator and former Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, got the memo. He is saying he’s “deeply troubled” by the whistleblower allegations and how it was handled by the White House. And that was before Trump joked with US mission staff at the UN last week alluding to torturing whistleblowers in the old days. Hilarious, indeed.

Unfortunately, with former Arizona Senator John McCain now gone, it is unlikely any other Republicans will be joining Romney’s ranks. It seemed like Nevada Rep. Mark Amodei was going to support impeachment for a brief moment over the weekend — but he has since clarified that he merely supports “oversight”.

Those who remain steadfast at the side of the president do so at their own risk. Bragging about torturing people or committing crimes is generally not good for business. It wasn’t good for Nixon, who had the foresight to resign before he was forced to explain his crimes to Congress and American taxpayers. And while Republicans have been wagging their fingers at Democrats warning that impeachment in an election year (a first in US history) could be a fateful move for Dems up for re-election, history tells us a different story.

Nixon’s resignation helped Democrats in the following elections and the Republican impeachment of Clinton helped move George W Bush into the White House. The same happened when Republicans impeached, but weren’t able to convict, President Andrew Johnson in 1868. In spite of the lack of conviction, Republicans still maintained their majority in Congress and even won the presidency in the next election with Ulysses S Grant.

Furthermore, during the 1974 Watergate scandal, the few Republicans that chose Rule of Law and their reputation over party alliances, like Nixon’s Attorney General Elliot Richardson, or Rep. Lawrence Hogan, Rep. M Caldwell Butler and Sen. Howard Baker are remembered as Republicans with moral courage at a critical moment in history. They continue to be honored as representatives of a party with values, something older generations of Republicans lament that the Grand Ol’ Party used to stand for.

The question now is: how do Republican members of Congress want to appear in the history books, or in future Google searches — as fellow traitors who supported a president who manipulated foreign governments and US taxpayer-funded aid in order to interfere in US elections on his behalf, or as ethical actors? Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway’s husband, attorney George Conway, tweeted a couple of days ago that Trump will be regarded in the future as “without a doubt, the dumbest and worst” president in history. If that’s his legacy, his supporters should consider what theirs will be by association.

The situation at hand reminds me of one of the more morbid cases from my first year of law school: The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens. In the 1884 case, the two defendants, another man and an English boy had been lost at sea on a British vessel with no food or water and no signs of relief to come. After 20 days, the defendants decided to save themselves by killing and eating the boy, who was weak from starvation and dehydration. Dudley, Stephens and another shipmate (who protested against the killing) were rescued several days after the murder and quickly brought to trial. They argued the defense of necessity – that it was necessary to kill and eat one in order to save three. The court disagreed and the defendants were convicted of murder.

Republicans find themselves in a similarly difficult predicament. But in this case, they are not cast away at sea — rather, the captain of the ship has lost his wits and won’t release the helm. The paradise is lost. It’s time to abandon ship, ladies and gentlemen – if not for good of country, then for self-preservation. I say: eat the guy and save yourselves, before you end up described in the history books as spineless hypocrites.