Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The honest Trump defense that is too embarrassing to advance
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/honest-trump-defense-that-is-too-embarrassing-advance/
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Jan. 24, 2020 at 7:45 a.m. EST
House impeachment managers have demonstrated through a painstaking presentation of facts and law that: 1) President Trump wanted a foreign government to help him win reelection by announcing an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden; 2) there was no legitimate basis for such an investigation into the Bidens or the Crowdstrike conspiracy, as his own advisers admit, but served only Trump’s egotistical and political interests; 3) Trump ordered military aid held up in violation of law in an effort to pressure Ukraine and to the detriment of United States’ foreign policy; 4) His own officials knew this was wrong and began a coverup (e.g., moving the July transcript to a classified server); and 5) Trump refused to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings in any way, instructing administration officials to refuse to respond to any subpoenas without asserting executive privilege.
Republicans can pretend they did not hear the mountain of evidence in support of each of these points. They can pretend there is contradictory evidence (where?), though that would require them to allow definitive evidence in the form of new witnesses and documents. They can argue that abuse of power is not impeachable, but that is legally preposterous and dangerous. So what to do?
They could simply lie, as many are doing. (No facts! You need a crime!) That works for red-state senators who are shameless and operate entirely within the right-wing media bubble. But what’s the strategy for politically vulnerable senators who know the facts against Trump are irrefutable, his conduct was impeachable, and that the president has provided no legitimate defense?
One option for Republicans is to call for more witnesses — or allow them later so they can plead they did not create a sham trial. Another option is to do just as their red-state colleagues are doing and hope voters at home do not punish them for refusing to uphold their oaths of office. A third option would be to do the right thing, namely, vote to remove Trump, with or without new testimony. Is there another option?
</snip>
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Jan. 24, 2020 at 7:45 a.m. EST
House impeachment managers have demonstrated through a painstaking presentation of facts and law that: 1) President Trump wanted a foreign government to help him win reelection by announcing an investigation into former vice president Joe Biden; 2) there was no legitimate basis for such an investigation into the Bidens or the Crowdstrike conspiracy, as his own advisers admit, but served only Trump’s egotistical and political interests; 3) Trump ordered military aid held up in violation of law in an effort to pressure Ukraine and to the detriment of United States’ foreign policy; 4) His own officials knew this was wrong and began a coverup (e.g., moving the July transcript to a classified server); and 5) Trump refused to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings in any way, instructing administration officials to refuse to respond to any subpoenas without asserting executive privilege.
Republicans can pretend they did not hear the mountain of evidence in support of each of these points. They can pretend there is contradictory evidence (where?), though that would require them to allow definitive evidence in the form of new witnesses and documents. They can argue that abuse of power is not impeachable, but that is legally preposterous and dangerous. So what to do?
They could simply lie, as many are doing. (No facts! You need a crime!) That works for red-state senators who are shameless and operate entirely within the right-wing media bubble. But what’s the strategy for politically vulnerable senators who know the facts against Trump are irrefutable, his conduct was impeachable, and that the president has provided no legitimate defense?
One option for Republicans is to call for more witnesses — or allow them later so they can plead they did not create a sham trial. Another option is to do just as their red-state colleagues are doing and hope voters at home do not punish them for refusing to uphold their oaths of office. A third option would be to do the right thing, namely, vote to remove Trump, with or without new testimony. Is there another option?
</snip>
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
