Democratic leaders in the House calculate, probably correctly, that impeachment is not in their interest either.
That leaves America’s constitution in a quandary. One of the guiding principles of the experiment undertaken in 1776 was that no man should be above the law. Having just got rid of one unaccountable tyrant, the founders were keen to prevent the emergence of a homegrown version. Set against this, they did not want the president tied down by petty legal squabbles. The founders therefore meant removing a president by impeachment to be hard, to become possible only once a significant number of the president’s own faction had deserted him.
Yet the founders did not foresee the rise of a rigid two-party system that mirrors the rural-urban divide. That makes it very hard in practice for either faction in the Senate to assemble the two-thirds majority required to convict the president in an impeachment trial, unless the rank and file of their party move against the president, too. Lined up the right way, senators who represent 25m citizens could acquit a president, against the wishes of senators who represent 300m. Getting rid of a rule-breaking president was not supposed to be this difficult.
The result is that one man is, in effect, above the law for all but the most serious and readily understandable crimes, such as murder, which would surely be too much even for the committed partisans of either side. Congress should legislate against such impunity at a later date. Most democracies have independent prosecutors able to indict the chief executive.