The impeachment of US President Donald Trump surprised exactly no-one.

Ever since the inquiry was first launched back in September (eons ago in today's political timescale) the outcome has appeared pre-determined.

The bigger question is whether democracy in the United States, as we know it, can survive in the wake of it.

On the eve of his impeachment, Mr Trump sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a rambling, six-page letter, dotted with exclamation points and capital letters, accusing her of "declaring open war on American democracy."

Nancy Pelosi lowers the gavel after the US House of Representatives decided to put Donald Trump in the history books. ( Reuters: Jonathan Ernst )

He's right that American democracy is under attack.

It's just that no-one can agree which side is throwing the spears.

One thing is clear though: America is angrier and more deeply divided today than it has been in decades.

Fistfights and protests broke out at town halls

Adam Schiff, the head of the US House Intelligence Committee, has become a major enemy of Trump supporters. ( Reuters: Stephanie Keith )

Grass-roots political activities, the bedrock of modern democracy the world over, are now being disrupted on a daily basis.

Earlier this week scuffles broke out at a town hall meeting hosted by the Democrats' chief inquisitor, Adam Schiff.

Similar scenes erupted in Michigan, when Democrat congresswoman Elissa Slotkin addressed 400 constituents in a district that voted for Mr Trump.

Loading

She spoke about her decision to support the impeachment vote, acknowledging that she could lose her seat in the next election because of it.

Waving banners that read "Impeach Slotkin, keep Trump", the Trump supporters threatened to drown out her explanation altogether.

It seems no-one here is interested in listening anymore

Three months of impeachment proceedings have driven the partisan wedge even deeper into the heart of a nation that declares itself "United".

A Fox News Poll this week indicated 54 per cent of Americans were in favour of impeaching the President, compared to 41 per cent opposed.

Significantly, those numbers have barely moved since the inquiry was first announced.

Loading

Not a single voter (statistically speaking) has changed their minds on impeachment since the process began.

That's despite hours of what seemed like devastating evidence from the likes of Alexander Vindman and other highly respected career public servants who have served Republican and Democrat presidents alike.

The National Security Council's Alexander Vindman testified in the impeachment inquiry. ( AP: Patrick Semansky )

In other words, Trump supporters are even more certain of his greatness.

His opponents hate him more than ever.

Politicians' self-interest trumps a sense of duty

The tribalism of the American people is in lock-step with the behaviour of their elected representatives in Washington.

In Canberra, an MP from a major party "crossing the floor" is a major news event.

In the case of the ALP, it's grounds for being thrown out of the party.

Conversely, in the United States, "crossing the aisle" occurs with such regularity, it barely rates a mention.

When Bill Clinton was impeached, five Republicans voted against the first perjury charge, while 12 voted against obstruction.

Several Republicans voted against articles of impeachment brought against Bill Clinton in 1998. ( Reuters )

The vote went almost entirely down party lines.

Two Democrats broke ranks on the charge of Abuse of Power.

Three voted with the Republicans on the Obstruction of Congress article.

Most significantly, Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat running for president next year, abstained from the vote, sending a message to her relatively few supporters that she was "standing in the centre".

Loading

On probably the most consequential vote of her career, she's effectively thrown a "sickie", perhaps hoping to lure a few Trump supporters to her camp or merely grab a headline.

It's just one example of self-interest overriding any pretence of impartiality or loyalty to the US constitution.

And Ms Gabbard is hardly alone.

Republican senator Lindsey Graham openly admitted as much, saying: "I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here".

Republican senator Lindsey Graham has become one of US President Donald Trump's most vocal defenders. ( Reuters: Erin Scott )

He was referring to the Senate trial to come, in which he'll decide whether or not Mr Trump is turfed out of office.

Never mind the oath he'll swear to carry out "impartial justice".

There have been examples of honour, like the Democrat members in Trump districts who knew voting to impeach would likely cut short their careers, but did it anyway, out of a sense of duty.

By and large though, this has been a display of self-interest writ large.

For Republicans, this meant ignoring the evidence

The Republicans seem to have wilfully ignored the clearest of evidence that Donald Trump used the power of his office to pressure a foreign nation.

Republican congresswoman Debbie Lesko even went so far as to insist Mr Trump never even asked for such an investigation.

"He didn't do that. No. He did not do that," she told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Loading

Perhaps in her rush to defend the leader at all costs, she forgot Mr Trump did not mince his words when asked on camera in early October what he wanted Ukraine's President to do.



"Well I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens," he said.

Joe Biden has been leading the field of Democrat candidates for months.

Democrats rushed the investigation

But if Republicans have shown a wilful ignorance of the facts at hand, Democrats have arguably failed in their duty to thoroughly complete such an important investigation.

In their rush to have the whole scrappy affair over and done before February, when the Iowa Caucus opens the curtain to months of Democratic primaries, they have fallen short of giving impeachment the gravitas it deserves.

In the process, they have handed Mr Trump a big shield to defend himself with.

US House Democrats said they did not want to delay the impeachment process against Donald Trump. ( AP: Susan Walsh )

To be sure, the President did refuse to testify and barred key administration officials from appearing as witnesses.

But in the case of a dispute between Congress and the White House, it is up to the third pillar of democracy, the US courts, to act as umpire.

A federal district court delivered Democrats a win, but they didn't wait for the inevitable legal challenges that would have seen a final decision in the Supreme Court.

Instead, the Democrats turned this lack of compliance into the second article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump did not include enough detail or evidence. ( Reuters: Tom Brenner )

Republican leader Senator Mitch McConnell made a strong point in response to Democrat demands for him to call on the banned White House officials to give evidence at the upcoming Senate trial.

"If House Democrats' case is this deficient, this thin, the answer is not for the judge and jury to cure it here in the Senate," he said.

"The answer is that the House should not impeach on this basis in the first place."

Waiting for the courts to rule on witness subpoenas would have been messy and perhaps would have dragged beyond the November election, possibly even resulting in a second term for Mr Trump.

But rushing the process through can be portrayed as naked opportunism, which may backfire at the ballot box.

So, what does all of this mean for American democracy?

It doesn't augur well.

Consider this: every American president of the future could soon be given full congressional approval to pressure a foreign power to investigate domestic political rivals.

Imagine if Scott Morrison, while withholding crucial military aid to East Timor, asked President Francisco Guterres for a "favour".

That favour would require the Timorese leader to announce on ABC News the commencement of an investigation into corruption involving Anthony Albanese in the run-up to an election.

Now imagine the Australian Parliament voting to show its support for such behaviour.

It's almost unimaginable, but it's what will happen in Washington if Mr Trump is found not guilty in the US Senate.

Donald Trump's impeachment proceedings centre around a phone call to Ukraine's leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy. ( Reuters: Jonathan Ernst )

The main difference is that Ukraine is in a hot war with Russia, while East Timor, thankfully, is peaceful today.

As an American friend said to me this week, the nation has been through worse.

He's right.

But the system which has held firm for hundreds of years and acted as a beacon for nations the world over is now under serious stress.

As things stand now, American democracy will go on, but, it seems, not as we know it.