At this point it does not seem that truth makes any difference. It's not that the evidence is meaningless. For those of us who want to know the truth it's important as a frame of reference to keep our perspective. That was obvious without the impeachment proceedings. The Russians have waged a subversive and covert war against us and won it. Trump is just a tool in their plan and was a perfect choice for the job. They didn't just undermine Hillary Clinton they undermined Jeb Bush as well. This is been part of the very sophisticated plan to take control of the American government and I believe they have succeeded. I see nothing but a very dystopian future for America. A complete fall from grace and a complete reversal of the U.S. Constitution's principles and laws; separation of powers is dead. We are going to regress rapidly and it's just a matter of which rights are eroded away in what order. But it's been unfolding since Trump took office. We are now ruled by a fascist regime masquerading as a democracy. Apparently too many people did not yet educated as to their heritage or simply don't not value it. For those who think free elections will change the landscape in 2020 I think they're delusional.
Supposedly Russia is a democracy and has free elections. Who believes that? Brainwashed people. The Russians are expert at brainwashing.
2
We need a parallel process to censure Trump for multiple abuses of power, deceptions, and disregard for the Constitution.
And keep at least one major investigation open so that appeals on this nonsense about absolute immunity can be heard by the SCOTUS for the sake of posterity.
Precedents matter, even if the Senate wants to put the GOP on record as abetting a crook for the sake of preserving control of government by the minority.
Only five US Presidents were elected after losing the popular vote. Only four US Presidents were impeached or faced impeachment: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and now Donald Trump.
Trump stands out as an example of not just another Republican loser being undemocartically put into office, but a decidedly crooked Republican loser who will be impeached.
That's not all. He may indeed set a new precedent in 2020 as the only President to be re-elected after losing a popular vote the second time and he may even become the only President to become impeached a second time, based on his past corrupt behavior in the White House. Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Lewis and others have classified Trump as an “illegitimate president” and rightly so.
Which means we should be seriously addressing the Electoral College itself, rather that the fact that we end up with thoroughly corrupt Presidents in office, which is the direct product of that undemocratic process.
Most people are basically decent and honest, and I believe the majority will vote for the most decent and honest President in the election. So why do we allow a extremely minute fraction, a priviledged handful of 535 people, decide who will be POTUS? I would rather trust the instincts of 150 million voters in that decision, even if a lot of them are deplorables.
2
The list of Donald Trump's crimes is endless, Caroline.
They all matter.
Overreach? The faction formerly known as the Democratic Party has been overreaching since before the 2016 election. Since then, ‘overreaching’ would be a gross understatement. I’ve never seen anything like this in my 45 years of voting for Democrats.
— former Democrat
2
The public is already more supportive of impeaching Trump than they ever were of Clinton. The highest approval ever got was 30%. It took until July 1974 - only a month before Nixon stepped down - that a plurality of Americans supported his impeachment. That doesn’t look like Democrats are overreaching or confusing the public by not making this more simple.
https://www.dailykos.com/blog/Eric%20Boehlert
What really finished the Clinton impeachment was when proof was produced that the leaders of impeachment were massive hypocrites having their own affairs (the twice-married Newt with a much younger staffer), consorting with prostitutes (Newt’s replacement Bob Livingston) and one of their chief moral scolds, Senator Bob Barr paying for his ex-wife’s abortion. (She produced the receipt with his signature). The public saw that scam for what it was - an attempt to overthrow president on partisan grounds.
1
I despise many aspects of Trump. But what does the Democratic Party offer as an alternative? A GOP light brand of governance whose defining difference is mouthing platitudes of egalitarianism all while partying with their millionaire and billionaire urban friends. What, really, has been the difference among anyone elected to the presidential office since Reagan? Not much. The same tax cuts, the same interventionist wars, the same soft on immigration policies, the same abandonment of 90% of ordinary working class Americans, the same elite culture war bickering (endlessly promoted by the MSM to keep everyone divided). I weary of this pattern. It has destroyed the economy for most middle class Americans. And what Apocalyptic solution does the Democratic Party offer as a solution? Of course, it's impeachment. Oh, what a shocker.
The impeachment of Trump (or Clinton or Obama, if that had happened) fits the same meaningless pattern. Nothing will change. Everyone will get revved up, but nothing will change. No help for ordinary Americans. Just more bickering. And more immigration. And more dividing the country into pluralities who can agree on nothing. Thanks to all of you wealthy elites who have no courage, despite your wealth and control of the narrative. Thanks for abandoning the majority of your constituents. You are shameful.
I’ve lived through Vietnam, Watergate, 30 years on Wall Street, etc..
Along the long the way, I’ve lost a lot of my original innocence about human nature and the essential goodness of my neighbors.
But it’s shocked and dismayed me that our political process has devolved into this cesspool wherein everyday people’s venal sense of victimhood, (grafted to the unsurprising greed of the upper class), has created a coalition that’s elevated a failed businessman, a failed husband and father, and a serial liar and prime time entertainer - to the presidency.
And in that presidency, he’s mollified both constituencies by stoking their victimhood (on the one hand), and feeding their abject greed (on the other), while finding still other fans simply because of the pure entertainment value of his efforts to give the finger to the institutions that served this country so well for so long...
The problem is not Trump. The world has never lacked for immoral, unethical, greedy, slimy dirtbags. The world’s full of them. They’ve always been with us.
But here’s the problem... It’s the American people. They lack moral backbone and a sense of shared long term purpose.
Our political process is a shambles and somewhere, Vladimir Putin is smiling...
3
The real Ukraine scandal is that the US precipitated a coup there after pouring 5 Billion $ into that notoriously corrupt nation. The current government includes ultra-right wingers who qualify as genuine fascists. 0ne battalion of the national guard is so overtly (neo)nazi that Congress actually specified that no arms go to it.
So the Ukraine "scandal" is the worst possible basis for an impeachment, especially by the party that claims to be offended when other nations meddle in our elections. The leader who replaced the democratically elected president who fled to Russia was actually chosen by US officials. Meddling doesn't get much more meddlesome than that.
To focus solely on this gives the appearance of partisanship, too. Trump can do all manner of things harmful to many groups and principles, and the Dems don't impeach. But mess with the Bidens, and hey, impeachment on!
This will not lead to a Senate conviction. Rather it risks tying up senators vying for the nomination. It will not hurt Trump politically, either. Those outside the beltway are not engaged.
Dems should be attending to the campaign.
1
I`m hoping / thinking...
that there`s going to be a groundswell
of public opinion...
and it will ...say..
any public official ..accused of wrongdoing..
or who has evidence to exonerate..
or at least 'exculpate' themselves..or others
needs to "TESTIFY" ! !
John Bolton , Mike Pompeo . Mick Mulvaney
If you cant come forward ..to tell the truth
about what you`ve seen..
well then you may be many things ...
but you`re not patriots !
1
The truth about Trump's behavior is quite easy to understand. He withheld money from an ally and asked that country's president to investigate, or at least announce an investigation, into a political opponent. Congress has the sole authority to appropriate money, so a president cannot choose to withhold it. Further, Mr. Trump has lied to the public over 14,000 times that have been documented. Some of those lies are related to this issue. Finally, Mr. Trump's refusal to allow witnesses to testify in Congress as well as his obstruction of the Mueller Report constitute obstruction of justice. It becomes ludicrous for his backers to then argue there is not enough evidence, when we have heard testimony that the VP, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General all were involved in the scheme to abuse presidential power. They and others have refused to testify. That's the broad outline. This isn't overreach, it's an effort to enforce the Constitution. As Nadler is saying on TV as I type this, Republicans are unable to refute these facts, so instead they have made arguments about process, knowing full well that they would not allow what they say Democrats should allow.
Excellent advice. Let's hope Congressional Democrats see this article and abide by the advice.
Except that the United States has a Clinton-era treaty with the Ukraine that provides forminvestigations of the nature that Trump, as POTUS, has the authority to request...and did request.
And let’s not pretend that the Bidens’ weren’t involved in a self-enrichment scheme via Burisma....$50,000 a month paid to Hunter Biden for what? VP Biden is on record boasting of his withholding of foreign aid to the Ukraine unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired...which he then was.
As for quid pro quo...when has US foreign aid not been conditional? I’ll tell you when...never!
11
One article. Perjury in repeatedly violating his oath of office with impunity.
Threatening the separation of powers, multiple episodes of obstruction of justice including his fail to release tax returns, treasonous behavior can be considered under this but I would give a separAte article for obstruction so they can’t decide to acquit on the basis of not all charges proven.
1
This article is misinformation. There were never any charges against Biden. A prosecutor was bringing corruption charges against an energy company. Biden's son happened to be on the board of that company for up to $50,000 a month. Biden told the president of the Ukraine to fire him within 6 hours or they would not get some aid. If Mr. Fredrickson thinks that is an unfounded,narrative of what happened, he should watch the interview in 2018 when Biden himself tells it in specific detail. The result of that also happened. The prosecutor was fired, a new prosecutor was named, all charges were dropped and the Ukraine got the aid. Trump did not ask anyone be thrown in Jail. The star witness, Mr. Soundland testified that he never heard Trump ask for for anything and when he directly asked Trump what he wanted from the Ukrainians, He said "nothing.' At the most he asked that the events surrounding that be investigated. The purpose of these hearings was political. The events did happen. Biden was associated with did happen. But what did not happen are charges against Biden, in 2015 or now.
@Ron
"A prosecutor was bringing corruption charges against an energy company."
Actually, Biden, US policy, and our democratic European allies wanted the Prosecutor fired not because he was bringing corruption charges against the company but because he was not bringing corruption charges. They wanted him fired because he was more pro- than anti-corruption
4
In the face of Trump's behavior, I do not personally believe that overreach is possible. All efforts will fall short of completely addressing the magnitude of Trump's corruption and malfeasance. It would take an entire presidential term to even scratch the surface of Trump's illicit activities.
Unfortunately Ms. Fredrickson this Congress is very different from the one in 1974 (yes I was around and followed the hearings). This is the most partisan Congress I have witnessed in my lifetime, both by Democrats and Republicans. It certainly doesn't help that the Media is "bought and paid for" by Democrats (meaning they are all liberals) so it is hard to find news that tells all sides.
As for your argument, I wish you luck. Adam Schiff and Gerald Nadler virulently despise Donald Trump and they are frothing at the mouth over this impeachment. I don't think they have the patience nor the ability to put their own personal prejudices aside and draft articles of impeachment that only stick to facts. They are too personally tethered to their partisan nature.
3
@Rozie
Upholding the law is not partisan. If you shoot someone to take something from them, then, despite your possible belief to the contrary, your arrest is not due to your politics - it's because you committed a crime.
Like it or not (and it doesn't matter if you don't like it), that's what Democrats are doing (and fairly timidly, too). Trump deliberately withheld Congressionally mandated funding from an ally and told the ally that they had to do Trump's bidding in order to get the funding.
Defending trump despite the mountain of evidence is purely partisan - OR Republicans really don't mind bribery. And if it's the latter, then the Clinton impeachment shows that Republicans steadfastly believe that laws only apply to Democrats, not to Republicans.
That seems partisan, but it's not. It's the final bit of evidence that shows that Republican's belief that they are 'the moral majority' is, in fact, a complete lie.
5
@Rozie
Let's just hold off with talk of who "despises" whom at the moment because in reality that has nothing to do with anything besides stirring up an emotional response.
What is at stake here is nothing more than the integrity of the office of the President of the United States, and the constitutional laws that govern this land.
I would like to suggest that we keep the conversation solely within that realm and to the FACTS at hand.
2
Come January, Senators Booker, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren won't be able to campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada.
Nice going.
Many comments suggest that the House should not impeach because the Senate Republicans are utterly oblivious to the law and to the need to uphold it, so they will not vote "guilty" at the impeachment trial no matter what.
What, exactly, is the House expected to do? The administration has refused to release any requested information to Congress. This means any law making or modifications and any budget writing will need to be done without the aid of the government organizations charged with collecting such information.
Any legislation passed by the House will not even come to a vote or be discussed in the Senate because Mitch McConnell will refuse to let it move forward like the over 400 bills he is already stonewalling.
The House cannot do their jobs as legislators today because of our anti-democratic (small d) Republican party. Impeachment will not distract from other House activity -- it is the only activity other than submitting a budget the Congress can do.
Every Senator needs to vote on following the rule of law or stomping on it. They need to spend the rest of their lives being reminded that they are criminals should they neglect the oaths they have taken to uphold our nations laws and Constitution.
2
The impeachment report is bloated with superfluous adjectives and opinions on actions by the players who deem themselves Lord of All Power Addicts within Congress.
We only need to read the biased media's selling points and the comments of its readers to see democracy is a messy game full of debatable First Amendment legal artifice.
The American public sees only what is put directly in front of their noses and would probably run off as lemmings if they knew the history of our political acts that were carried out before there was an internet and the safety of closed doors.
5
Basic underlying issue of the entire fiasco. Did Biden threaten a foreign nation to with hold or cancel aid authorized by congress to enhance Hunters income. If so he sold his office of Vice President for monetary reward. Should such actions by a sitting Vice President be investigated ? Democrat and Media answer; No. Impeach the President. Say what?
8
@Eddie Biden was acting in unison with the U.S. State Dept, the E.U., the I.M.F., and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, who were all pressing for the same thing he was -- to fire a prosecutor who wasn't fighting corruption. If he _opposed_ firing that prosecutor, wouldn't _that_ look like he's protecting corruption?
1
Don't over reach?
That's all that they have been doing for 3 years running now!
Russia, then this, and am sure Deutsche Bank is next.
You have been looking for a way to erase the results of the 2016 election since the day Hillary conceded, and now you want to start tempering your assault?
It's way too late for that.
49
@AutumnLeaf Please stick to facts. IF, if the President is impeached and removed from office, it does NOT "erase the results of the 2016 election." Hillary will not be President, the judges and justices appointed and executive actions undertaken will not be undone. The Vice President who ran on the same ticket would be appointed president.
The Founders included the power of impeachment in Article I , Section 2 for a reason. The question is, and has been in the other instances, whether it should be invoked. Arguments regarding impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton "erasing/overturning the election" did not gain much traction in their time; why should they now?
40
@AutumnLeaf We had an election in 2018. The majority of the American people elected a Congress that would provide oversight to the White House per the terms of the Constitution and all legal precedence.
The Republicans have been trying to erase the results of the 2018 election since the day they lost Congress by acting like the President should be above the law.
No one should be above the law, not even Trump.
44
@AutumnLeaf You use Fox talking points, not facts or logic. Impeachment asumes an election has put a person in office. Impeachment is a Constitutional remedy for a corrupt sitting president. The facts prove that the President is corrupt beyomd a reasonable doubt.
28
Trouble is, it wasn't unfounded. The Bidens really were taking bribes, something which has now become glaringly clear. The Democratic attitude that Trump should be impeached for investigating a crime is backfiring big time.
29
@Cloudy
What you're missing is the fact that this president withheld federal funds in exchange for information on his political rival -- that is not only using his office for personal advantage, but it also constituted a national security situation.
24
@Cloudy If you're investigating a crime, you refer it to DOJ, because they, like, investigate federal crimes. Duh. What you DON'T do is bribe a foreign government with aid $ to force THEM to do the investigating! If you're so sure that Bidens are guilty of bribe-taking, them I'm sure DOJ has already investigated this and is preparing federal criminal charges against them - you know, the Republican DOJ whose AG acts as the President's personal attorney. Oh wait, DOJ hasn't investigated or prosecuted the Bidens - gee, wonder why? Your theory falls apart in seconds.
49
@Cloudy ; even if they did, and that's not proven in any court of law so whatever happened to that!, the President's action in this regard is NOT acceptable and it is not lawful. Where would be be if the President personally would be allowed to ask any foreign country to investigate a US citizen? Who is next?! Are you kidding me?
24
Partisan disputes exist partly because the charge of "engaging a foreign power to interfere in a U.S. election" is difficult for many people to get their minds around, and so causes more difficulty in making the case conclusively.
More easily definable, it seems to me, is the charge of obstruction of justice, including the matters of witness tampering and witness intimidation, both of which seem pretty self-evident in Trump's angry Twitter attacks on several witnesses even as they were still testifying.
It remains true, in my opinion, that Democrats must clarify the case for impeachment beyond its present state if they hope to accomplish more good than harm to the country and to their own party.
Will Democrats overreach? It's a rhetorical question.
2
What, precisely, does it mean to interfere in an election? Soliciting a bribe seems like a pretty clear accusation. Why these theatrics about interference?
This is a constitutional crisis brought about by the corrupt GOP and their reliance on big money donor support rather than voter support. It is the GOP that rely on emotional appeals rather than logic. They know what marketing companies have done for decades to get people to buy products that they don't need or actually kill them like cigarettes. Its time for campaign finance reform.
People are saying that the impeachment process should expand, to what purpose...any expansion would likely expose Trumps co-conspirators but wouldn’t help in the impeachment process...Investigators could have transcripts or tapes of Trump saying he wouldn’t release the aid unless Zelensky did the investigations and the GOP wouldn’t care...they are not going to vote to impeach or vote to convict...I am almost certain Trump could scream from 5th Ave. that he asked for a Quid pro quo and the GOP would just shrug.
He has refused to release materials and permit government witnesses to testify. That is obstruction of justice. That MUST be included. Otherwise, the Turleys of this world will muddy the waters.
I love how any pro-Trump message, no matter how thinly argued, gets an NYT best. An effort I guess to demonstrate "fairness" like having a climate change denier on staff despite the near total consensus among the scientific community on that score... There aren't always 2 sides to an issue, but as Colbert once said, the truth often does have a well known liberal bias...
Getting all of tRump's misdeeds out in the open may well (hopefully) doom him to be defeated next year. We've now had two elections where the Democrats took back the house, and last month took back the VA legislature as well as the governorships of Kentucky and held on in Louisiana. The suburban counties around Philadelphia went almost totally Democratic, including Delaware County which had been republican since the 19th century.
I think the complacency is gone. Too many voters were convinced that Hilary would win that they didn't think it was necessary to vote. Hopefully in the words of the Who "We Won't Be Fooled Again'.
2
The founding fathers added impeachment to the constitution, but failed to appreciate that the judiciary could devolve into a delay and deny justice branch, rendering moot many of congress's powers to investigate.
Presently, congress appears to have no effective power to compel testimony and evidence.
Judging by how the courts have handled requests for cooperation from the executive branch in the cases of the fast and furious case, and also of McGahn, the courts have established themselves as an obstacle to congress s power to investigate.
Similarly, invocation of executive privilege against congressional inquiry has no place in a democracy.
Bottom line: The role of the courts in impeachment processes needs to be eliminated.
I haven't missed a presidential election since 1968 (I voted Humphrey) and sometimes have held my nose when doing so. It looks like this will be the first year, I don't vote. Trump is impossible and the Democrats seem bound and determined to 'drink the KoolAid'. I pray for a better choice, but don't see one. I can see my Suffragette grandmother rolling in her grave now....
@sue hoffman
What koolaid? The one filled with evidence of criminal conduct by trump, guilliani, and a clown car of mobster wannabes? The one filled with evidence that Russia influenced the 2016 election as per our very conservative intelligence community?
Is there another one I'm missing?
1
"What made the public sit up and take notice was the release, on Aug. 5, 1974, of a transcript of the so-called Smoking Gun Tape..."
This is bad history and undermines the author's argument. The public was paying attention for more than a year before the release of that transcript. The Judiciary Committee had voted out three articles of impeachment before August 5th. Both of the first two articles received substantial support from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Nixon would probably have been removed from office even if the "Smoking Gun" tape had not been released. The release of the transcript on August 5th caused Nixon's remaining support to collapse and led to his immediate resignation, but the transcript wasn't the key to removing Nixon from office.
1
This "don't overreach" position only makes sense if you believe the Republican Senators will act in good faith during an impeachment trial. I think Senators Kennedy and Graham, among others, have made it blindingly obvious they will not. Knowing the Senate will not convict, the best strategy for the Democrats appears (to me) to be to take steps designed to bring President Trump's and other Republicans running for office next year numbers (poll numbers) down. If that means expanding the scope of the impeachment inquiry--go for it.
"Like Nixon, Trump is accused of many things. But only one matters."
"The best story line is the simple one: Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival. There is more, much more. But that’s enough."
Sorry, but that is not enough, especially the way Ms. Fredrickson has characterized Trump's offense. I suspect that the American people will fail -- utterly -- to get the "bribery" charge. In 2019, we're dealing with an uninformed, disengaged electorate. The crime in Nixon's case was an easy to understand, straightforward burglary. People were caught in the act and arrested. The setting for Trump's crime is a phone call in which a notoriously inarticulate president asked the leader of another country to announce an investigation. I don't think the American people will understand the severity of that offense. The point, which must be made and that the Democrats so far have done a poor job of making, is that Trump was trying to get another country to assist him personally in cheating in the next election. Trump was trying to subvert our presidential election. To assume that this would be Trump's only attempt to undermine the integrity of the election is to deny everything we know about Trump.
Sadly, to only impeach Trump for the Ukraine call (and perhaps the subsequent obstruction efforts) is, in effect, to say that all of Trump's other criminal behavior is OK.
I could not disagree more. The leader of the corrupt republican cult is himself a criminal.
It only takes one article of impeachment that passes the Senate as a guilty vote to remove him. To limit the impeachment articles to one incident only works to the advantage of the dishonest republican cult.
There are numerous offenses against the people of the US documented in the Mueller report. These need to be enumerated in separate articles of impeachment.
It is very likely that as the intentional law breaking of the administration by demanding their employees ignore lawful Congressional subpoenas will wind their way through the courts and be available to a trial in the Senate.
1
"The Republicans took full advantage of this simple story to advance their claim that a president of questionable morals should not remain in office."
If the Republicans really believed this they would have led the impeachment process back in January of 2017. To call Trump a "president of questionable morals" is to give him far more credit than he deserves. His corruption is obvious and encompasses virtually every aspect of his role as president.
What Republicans meant was that a DEMOCRATIC president of questionable morals should be removed from office.
Clinton was guilty, but his conduct, typical of many presidents, should not have resulted in his removal from office (though I, for one, would not have been sorry to see him go). The Senate should have convicted Clinton on at least one charge and censured him. Scathingly.
However, censure is not an adequate response to Trump's many criminal and political offenses. Since Trump believes he is above the law -- a belief that clearly preceded his taking office and is rooted in his profound narcissism -- he uses all of the powers of the presidency for personal reasons. He has made a mockery of the presidential pardon power -- war criminals? -- and doles out the Medal of Freedom to political friends and professional athletes. Mariano Rivera may have been a great "closer" but is being able to strike out the side in the bottom of the ninth really worthy of such a medal?
1
Refusing to cooperate with the impeachment investigation is enough for impeachment all by itself, and should be the only count. Accusing him of leaning on Ukraine for his own political benefit is really underreaching; it is peanuts compared with generally refusing to accept Constitutional limits on his authority. And this refusal is easy to prove, since withholding documents and testimony on whatever else he is up to is its own proof.
The absence of witnesses and documents speaks louder than anything the witnesses and documents could say, and is all the proof Congress needs to remove him from office.
If Trump continues to refuse to cooperate, he should be impeached. If he starts to turn over documents and allow people in his administration to testify, then investigation of other possibly impeachable activities will be possible and can proceed. One of the charges could still be that he attempted to stonewall Congress before giving that up, but he could plead that he has stopped and the charge should be dropped.
Refusing to cooperate amounts to a coup d'etat, a forced change in our government from a balance of powers to a (supposedly temporary) dictatorship. According to the Constitution, this change can be made only by a constitutional convention or a series of amendments; making it by executive fiat is unconstitutional.
2
I must keep pounding on the obvious facts supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed obstruction of justice/contempt of Congress. No hearsay, so called or otherwise is involved with these charges. (Both those set out in detail in part two of the Mueller investigation report and the lack of compliance with House subpoenas/subpoenas duces tecum. The House prosecutors need cite only the subpoenas, and the total refusal of the President to honor those attempts to look at and hear evidence without any reasonable and legally acceptable justification. Today the experts of both the Democrats and the Republicans testified that the Ukraine scheme as alleged would be grounds for impeachment. That blows up the “witch hunt” justification for Trump’s failure to cooperate with the investigations, and executive privilege will not work to conceal unlawful conduct. His only defenses are his steadfast dishonesty and the cult of personality once known as the Republican Party.
1
The Democrats are making a mistake of historical proportions in their pursuit of impeachment. Trump will claim exoneration when the Senate refuses to convict. His base will be energized. The undecideds will be turned off. The progressives will howl in protest at his acquittal and the middle-of-the-road will be further alienated.
3
@Mr. Moderate
It is not up to the Senate to convict on Articles of Impeachment, but the House.
The only ones I see "howling" are Republicans.
1
@Mr. Moderate: Right, moderation in all things. Reminds me of the Phil Ochs song, "Outside of a Small Circle of Friends." That's you he's talking about.
@Mr. Moderate
just let him continue his bullying collusion with foreign governments to help him get reelection? Not to mention the dozens of other illegal and immoral things everyone knows he does.
Trump has already claimed exoneration.
your advice is terrible.
1
"some members thought the affair was enough to sink the president, while others thought the lying was the impeachable offense"
I thought perjury was the only possible problem.
Yet that is the opposite of how such things are treated today. It is now career ending among former defenders of Clinton for a man to do the same morally inappropriate sexual things.
Yet Republicans are now on the other side of their old positions too, when they dare to raise their heads at all. Guys like Pence just hide behind their wives' skirts, "Don't let those young women get me," as if the potential victims are predators seeking out poor lame Republicans to tempt.
I don't like this. It is nonsense.
I don't want anyone trying to victimize my wife or daughter, and I've seen it happen that someone tries. I'm not excusing that, I went to war with that. I don't want anyone else to suffer that either. I've won lawsuits like that, when that was new.
Yet, the Sen. Franken thing appalls me. That baying mob was a sickness.
Now we've also got too many displaying baying mob behavior against Trump. I don't defend some things Trump did, but am still stunned by the mob-like behavior.
Voters I talk to are also uncomfortable. They don't like much of Trump's behavior, but they also don't like a mob of self righteous fools behaving badly.
Dignity and decorum -- It is the contrast of earned respect with his behavior that could get him. The mob-like behavior surrenders the real strength of its own position.
Democrats simply haven't made a case for bribery. The person allegedly bribed didn't know he was y being bribed; and those most certain of these alleged bribes never actually heard the president bribe anyone.
Add to this a meeting doesn't reach the level of "benefit" required for a bribe and withholding a meeting doesn't constitute "inducement."
This might explain their new charge, "collusion".
4
@AACNY The "person being bribed" was Donald Trump, not the president of Ukraine. The bribery statute prohibits both taking a bribe, and asking for a bribe. I'm pretty sure Donald Trump knew what he was asking for.
1
This misstates the case. Numerous people have offered succinct summary explanations, some less than 100 words.
1
With only one charge, Republicans will complain that Trump is being removed for one slip up, unfairly. They'll claim any president can make a mistake, but removing them for a single mistake will endanger all future presidents. If a president can refuse all Congressional demands for oversight, we no long have a Constitution, we have a dictatorship where the president is above the law. Can we let that stand? Trump is also already been tacitly indicted in the Cohen campaign finance charge. Concentrate on the first charge, but get the others in there to emphasize this is far more than on mistake.
3
Trump did nothing wrong.
He did not ask them to investigate Biden. He did not ask them to investigate Biden in exchange for the aid.
He asked them to investigate alleged interference with a US election before they received aid.
Trump will win in 2020.
5
@Andy7065 I will vote for Trump in 2020. I wonder if I'm a deplorable. I have an M.A., and I am not religious, also anti-war, anti-gun and pro-abortion. I like Trump's stance on immigration. The Democrats, especially Warren, Sanders, Pelosi and Schiff , are crazy.
5
Andy7065: Nice spin you put on those “factoids.” Factoids are useful in the same way as whiffle balls, they make it easy to throw curves.
1
@Carol
They still don't understand Trump supporters.
3
You are absolutely right! Don't dilute! Akmericans now have tiny attention spans. Democrats should not tax them. i.e. Keep it simple.
1
Too late! The overreach began prior to inauguration and has not stopped for a minute thereafter. Get used to Trump. He's your President through 2024 so just enjoy the wonderful economy he's providing you with even in spite of all the unfair criticism.
6
"There are many obvious parallels between Mr. Trump and Nixon, including their venal behavior, demonization of the news media and the fact that both investigations have included evidence of break-ins into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Both presidents also sought to persuade a foreign power to interfere in our elections"
This is opposite from smart and truthful and nothing new for the liberal media.
If any one is venal, it is going to be the liberals and their media which completely dominate the US media space.
If there is demonization, it is going to be the deeply sick and unfair attacking of Trump by the liberal media for nearly 4y now.
As for the interference of foreign power, that exists only in liberal heads, which are beyond any help, unfortunately.
The thoughts and texts as this make me not only vote for Trump, but campaign for him, although he is a low level and bad character but all seems better than the liberal tyranny.
2
Disagree.
Include all articles the president has violated because all of enablers will subsequently have to defend their votes when they are up for re election.
Impeachment is a political process of accountability.
Make Republicans accountable.
2
Impeachment is primarily a political process, not a criminal trial. As such, and especially since the outcome in the Senate is so predictable we should be looking at the impeachment process primarily in terms of political education of the American public. Lessons:
Trump is not a king. Apparently a lot of Americans and most of the Republican leadership and base needs to be reminded what a constitutional democracy is.
Elections are sacred and foreign interference cannot be allowed, nor even solicited.
Congress is a coequal branch. The executive runs foreign policy, but Congress has the power of the purse. Trump had no right to withhold aid.
Congress has oversight responsibility over the Executive branch. Trump's orders to not cooperate constitute illegal obstruction of justice and are a violation of the Constitution.
The Ukraine scandal provides clear evidence and a simple narrative to demonstrate all of these principles. KISS.
Hopefully SCOTUS in its decisions on appeals to force Executive branch officials to testify will make the coequal relationship between the other two branches clear. Hopefully Justice Roberts will preside actively in the Senate trial and will require testimony from all witnesses and keep the Republican clowns from derailing the proceedings.
Trump is also a common criminal and will eventually face prosecution for crimes committed in office. But right now our democracy is threatened and desperately needs a focussed civics lesson.
2
@Yojimbo Trump is not King but neither is Congress. Both have power and both have limitations.
Investigations are neutral, they inform, they do not interfere with an election.
Show me the exact law that says a president cannot temporarily withhold foreign aid. Bet you can't find one.
"Trump's orders to not cooperate constitute illegal obstruction of justice and are a violation of the Constitution"
Not until the courts rule one way or the other. Just because you say it does not make it so. Each case is different and each side can certainly ask for their day in court.
"But right now our democracy is threatened..."
Hyperbole. Our system is working as our system is designed to work. The President is not all powerful but neither is Congress and some issues have never been settled by the courts. Yes, Congress has oversight power that is clear, but it is also clear the President can assert executive privilege. If neither side gives in, the courts, our third branch, gets to decide.
We are having impeachment proceeding, we may have an impeachment trial and if so we will have a verdict on that trial. And both sides need to accept that in our democratic system that we have set up, that verdict will be the final word on those specific impeachment issues.
Many folks like to cry 'constitutional crisis' and 'anti-democratic' and such when they don't like the outcome of our constitutional and democratic process as it is defined.
@Marvin
Congress, not the Courts, decides what is obstruction of an impeachment inquiry, and what is contempt of Congress.
Also, we can all see how disingenuous it is to argue this dispute is over "temporarily withholding foreign aid."
I'll note there's also not a single law that prohibits pointing or even firing a gun---yet people get sent to prison for that every day.
"Mr. Clinton was accused of having an affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, and then lying about it. The Republicans took full advantage of this simple story to advance their claim that a president of questionable morals should not remain in office." You got it wrong. Clinton was accused of and without question committed perjury, obstructed justice and suborned perjury. Those are real crimes that any ordinary citizen would have been jailed for. More importantly, they established a precedent: a president cannot be impeached and removed from office for process crimes if there was no underlying crime. In the Trump case, there was no collusion with Russia so even if you think he obstructed the investigation, that by itself, given the Clinton precedent, is not enough.
2
@J Correct in many cases but this is a political, not criminal, process so there really is no binding precedent.
A president could be removed for a non-crime or they can be kept in office even if committing a crime. Clinton was rightfully no removed from office and Trump, given all the evidence I have seen, should not be removed from office.
I think the main "storyline" is simple enough. It's right there on Schiff's placard in the photo used to illustrate this opinion piece. The Ukraine scandal is central to Trump's abuse of his office for personal gain. Everything else, including the emoluments issue, goes to further illustrate his need to gain some advantage or enrichment before he is willing to do his duty. (Note to Ms. Fredrickson: Keep telling the public that the "story line" is too complicated to understand and they may begin to believe it. Ignore every other charge and people may think that's all there is.)
2
Caroline, this story is not complex at all. Unless you fall prey to the Republican response, which is calculated to obfuscate the issue.
Whenever I read anything that claims that Urainegate is complex I assume that I'm reading something that has its roots in a Devin Nunes talking point.
2
Ms. Fredrickson, I will always "overreach" on democracy, truth, and the rule of law. History will not be kind to anyone who has enabled the worst president in American history.
30
@MrDeepState I think his point is that if the democrats don't simplify and clarify their message, they will be the ones enabling Trump.
1
@MrDeepState -- History will not be kind to anyone who enabled Dubya either, but it has yet to catch up with them. They are back.
If history has an arc, it is currently an arc that is too long and not bending enough for my taste.
What about obstruction of justice by Trump, blocking testimony?
We can endlessly dispute what Trump attempted to influence.
But it is crystal clear, that Trump refused to allow testimony.
So, it seems to me that obstruction of justice must be a focus.
The professors mentioned this, but they did not emphasize it.
Ultimately, the fear is that democracy will be be destroyed.
I suggest a new birth of freedom after Trump's impeachment.
As in the "Democracy" song of Leonard Cohen, (1992):
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
1
@H Pearle "What about obstruction of justice by Trump, blocking testimony"
It would only be obstruction if the courts eventually decide that executive privilege does NOT cover these actions and THEN Trump blocks it.
Until then Trump has every right to ask the courts and appeal decisions until a final decision is made. As Congress has the same right.
"The best story line is the simple one: Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival."
It's not so simple. Certainly not as simple as a break in or an affair with an intern. For one thing, is it a "bribe," "extortion" or a "high crime or misdemeanor." Democrats can't seek to make up their mind. And if a bribe, what are the elements? When the Constitution was written, a bribe was not a crime.
Second, is it clear that the charges against Biden were totally "unfounded?" There's room for disagreement here. At the hearings, several witnesses had no idea why Hunter Biden was being paid $600,000 a year by Burisma, except that somehow the investigation against Burisma was miraculously dropped.
4
While it may be simpler to focus on a narrow set of events, the reality is that Senate Republicans are so tribal that no articles of impeachment, no matter how few or how many, will receive the necessary 67 votes to convict.
What impeachment on a large number of articles will do is display to the voting public the immense mendacity of the current occupant of the White House. If he's determined to cheat in the 2020 elections, he should be damaged as much as possible in the process of impeachment and trial to ensure that he doesn't win.
4
It may be that the vote to impeach might be easier to obtain by focusing on a narrow interpretation, but that's not really saying much. By virtue of their majority the Democrats will vote for impeachment, no matter what given the documented "high crimes and misdemeanors". But once impeached, then what? It goes to the Senate, and it's there that the case must be made. More than that though is that the REAL case must be sold to the American people, and impeaching on narrow grounds will not be enough.
No, the American people need to be shown the real danger of what Trump has done. He has invited attacks by our enemies on our democracy! In short, treason. There is no ifs, ands, or buts, about this, but so far, the Democrats have failed to make this case clear to the people. Beyond this treachery, Trump - and the Republicans - are trying to undo the Constitutional bounds that enable our democracy to function. They are asserting that we no longer have a Republic, but a monarchy. THAT has to be spotlighted and made clear to the American people.
Impeachment is only half the job.
2
Congress has a smoking gun and inexplicably refuses to use it. That being the dossier presented to them by IG Linick of "dirt" concocted by Rudy Giuliani (that Giuliani has admitted being the provenance of). That along with the operative phrase "work with Rudy he knows what is going on" from Donald Trump's own transcript proves that what was being extorted from Ukraine was not to conduct an investigation but to take ownership of Giuliani's concoction which of course would have zero credibility coming from Rudy Giuliani. In this context Donald Trump no longer has the plausible deniability of being a fearless corruption fighter.
As long as said plausible deniability remains plausible Senate Republicans (several of whom have accepted Donald Trump blood money which is an article of impeachment in itself) will waste no time not only exonerating but pinning a medal on Donald Trump.
1
Whether right or wrong. So Far. The "Impeachment Hearing" this morning has horrible optics for the Dems. Angry Karlan, Boring UNC guy and central casting effete Harvard Law prof. Yeesh. At least Turley seems calm and reasonable. One against three.
It's not looking pretty. And Dem-run television is not broadcasting anything else on any channel. The general voters will not be interested in any of this.
4
Lagrange,
Yup, I am 74years old and I have seen my beloved Democratic Party, that I supported for over 50 years devolve into an unrecognizable party of elite liberals; not my party without a change back to representing to poor and middle income people, not Hollywood elite types and illegal immigrants.
27
And which party do you believe now represents poor and middle income citizens? Surely, you can’t believe that the Republican Party represents the poor? Just read today’s news about the Department of Agriculture’s revision for food stamps eligibility and the associated numbers of citizens that will most probably lose those benefits.
18
@JRS I have trouble believing you are whom you say you are but lets put that aside. In the past 50 years Democrats have fought for social and economic justice for all Americans of every race, gender, age, and origin. The GOP have fought these changes with money, cunning and corruption. They represent the true elites, the billionaires that seem to now call the shots. Yes there are a few movie and music starts that espouse progressive principles, but they also are true to the principles Democrats have fought for.
13
@JRS
"evolve into an unrecognizable party of elite liberals
"Hollywood elite types and illegal immigrants.
Sounds like you have switched over to FOX News and picked up on their talking points.
BTW - Trump is a Hollywood elite type - as evidenced by his hit TV show and TV personality
12
The NYT has interviewed swing state voters who say that when the Democrats vociferously pursue charges of impeachment, they simply alienate voters. But, in this case, the impeachable offense(s) have been explicitly acknowledged by related parties. Everyone knows what Trump did - try to blackmail the newly elected Ukrainian president into announcing an investigation of Trump's political rivals. The only reason why he did this was to ensure he cruises to re-election. His breach of the Consitution has been documented. If the only reason why he isn't removed from office is because Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, or if he wins re-election because swing state voters turn a blind eye to his crimes, democracy is officially a sham and it's time to find a more effective form of government.
2
Trump did the same thing that Biden did, just saying.
4
@JRS
Please explain further.
N.Smith,
both Biden and Trump withheld funds for Ukraine for political expediency, bottom line.
1
These arguments based on past impeachment proceedings have much less weight than the author (and one-hundred others I've read) seems to imagine. The country, for those who came in late, is a vastly different place than in 1973-74 and different enough even from twenty years ago so that historical analogy is pretty much worthless. Much of this advice article indeed provides evidence of how this is so.
5
Democrats should lead by the example of compassion and "when they go low we go high" credo. Just accept Donald for who he is. What's the worst that can happen until 2024? By then the DNC should have had ample time to bring up a stellar candidate.
4
The rule of law matters. And having Donald’s offenses as part of the historical record is important for the future of this country, and for the world at large. Americans are often so insulated that they forget the rest of the world is watching us, wondering what ever happened to America.
5
"Overreach" is an overstatement. This President breaks laws as he breathes. He is an ethical abomination. We are living a nightmare. This grifter needs to go.
2
"Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival."
Except it can be argued that 1) it was not necessarily unfounded, 2) Hunter Biden is NOT Joe Biden, 3) just because someone is running for office should not preclude them from investigations anyway (just as Trump is being investigated now), 4) the word 'bribe' is a stretch, 5) it is common practice to withhold aid from countries for leverage, 6) there is no smoking gun from Trump's mouth/text/emails directly.
Worthy of investigation? Sure. Worthy of a censure? Sure. Unethical? At the least it can be argued it is. Illegal? Doubtful. Impeachable? Only at a partisan level, this should really be no more than a censure from what I have seen. Guilty and removed by the Senate. Not even close, I don't think you even get all the Dem votes from the evidence so far in what has been a heavily partisan tilted investigation.
"Cover-up of criminal activity and misuse of federal agencies can neither be condoned nor tolerated.”
Except here, from what we have seen, there is no cover up of any clear criminal activity. In Nixon, you have illegal break-ins and illegal wiretapping, clear crimes. 'Misuse of federal agencies' is so broad that is meaningless.
By the above definition Obama should have been impeached for misuse of federal agencies in the Fast and Furious scheme along with the cover up by Eric Holder afterwards.
5
Actually this isn't confusing/complicated at all. But the Republicans will keep up their faux confusion because that's their only defense. No matter how fast you read aloud revised testimony (e.g., Jim Jordan), it doesn't work.
To be perfectly honest, if this was about Stormy Daniels I wouldn't care. But this is a big deal. We need to protect our country.
1
All of his violations matter. An unbelievable, unaccountable and unacceptable record.
How can anyone defend this ?
@julia The problem is that none of this is black and white criminal, which is why we have a political process to address the matter. The problem is that a political process, in this day and age, is simply too partisan on both side.
And you can believe Trump acted unethically and not defend him per se, but believe that he has not done anything that deserves removal from office. Remove from office has never been done in our history and only two impeachments have ever been done. The last one, Clinton, should NOT have been done.
And speaking of Clinton, it is easy to not defend him, he clearly lied under oath, a clear-cut crime, but believe he should not have been removed from office for it.
The smoking gun tape came out because the House went to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. The Democrats so far have got nothing. The Clinton impeachment settled once and for all that lies even under oath were not sufficient for impeachment of a President owing to the do-or-die support of some members of his party. Today's Republicans have virtually cemented that finding and expanded it to include breaking all limits on executive power under the Constitution.
The final nail in the coffin will be if they support Trump even if he has betrayed the United States, and that can only be proven by having the courts force the perpetrators into undergoing investigation and giving testimony.
I think limiting the impeachment charges to just Ukraine-related conduct is a mistake. Remember, Senators can vote to impeach by finding a reason to vote in the affirmative on any one of the articles charged. They don't have to have the required super-majority on the same charge. They just need the two-thirds to impeach. What appeals to one Senator (Ukraine, perhaps), may not appeal to another (emoluments, perhaps). You want to give Senators every opportunity to vote in the affirmative. Some may find cover by voting for one article they think they can defend and voting no on the others. For example, they could say they didn't think the Ukraine business was impeachable conduct and voted no, but they found the facts required an affirmative vote on another article.
The same is true for the American people. Give the people the list and let them decide for themselves. It is also much more convincing to see the breadth of the charges laid out, rather than one narrow controversy. They tend to have a compounding effect.
History also demands a full accounting. Just follow the facts, lay them out, and let the Senate and the American people decide. Please Democrats, less hand-wringing and over-thinking and more principle.
1
@David Richardson "They don't have to have the required super-majority on the same charge."
Just to clarify, you need the 2/3 majority on at least one of the articles of impeachment. Taken to the extreme you could have a 50-50 vote for guilty on Article 1 and then a 50-50 vote on Article 2 with all Senators flip-flopping and that is NOT a guilty vote. So, you could have all 100 Senators vote guilty on at least 1 article and NOT have the president removed.
It is taken article by article, not all summed together.
In response to Republican comments:
Clinton's behavior hurt his wife and the young intern, but not the American people or our foreign policy. If Trump's behavior was so harmless, why were so many people in the foreign service furious and willing to risk his wrath by testifying? Trump tried to bribe the Ukraine, our ally, to interfere in our election by damaging one of the Democrats' stronger candidates, thus helping Putin, an enemy of democracy, who is interfering in various democracies' elections, not just ours. Are you by any chance under the impression that the Russians live as well as we do? I assure you that they do not, and we do not need a corrupt, Putin-style dictatorship in this country.
1
@Barbara
I really don't get why, in the Clinton affair, there is never any mention of the potential for blackmail.
Monica even looked like the classic 'foreign operative' in movies, and she was by her own admission there to seduce Bill. It turns out that she was just a ditzy young woman, but the same circumstances, with an actual foreign operative, could have kept Himself blackmailed for a very long time. And even as it was, the situation DID influence foreign policy, try googling "Monica's War", where Bill ordered bombs dropped as a distraction.
I call it treason. But that's my perspective on the current occupier of the Oval Office. He is poison.
1
It seems this “scholar” who is a witness for the GOP has given them all they need to justify a vote against impeachment.
Doesn’t this demonstrate the need for broader charges?
“Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearing by the committee’s Republicans, offered the lone dissent, arguing in his opening statement that Mr. Trump should not be impeached.
In a 53-page written statement submitted to the committee, Mr. Turley made it clear that he is not a supporter of the president and believes that the Ukraine matter warrants investigation.
But he plans to say that the Democratic impeachment case is dangerously “slipshod” and premature.”
2
One cannot impeach a president on such slender charges. Impeachment will only end in conviction when there are many charges that together clearly describe a pattern of high crimes and misdemeanors showing widespread violations of the oath of office to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States.
Of course the current composition of the Senate and the paralysis of the party formerly known as Republican by the sheer audaciousness of Trump's violations of all bounds and norms means there will be no conviction no matter what the charges and evidence, but the House must still do a complete job. As Turley (a witness before the Judiciary Committee today) says in his opening statement, principle sometimes forces us into places we do not want to be.
3
@Percy00 You can always impeach, but the key is if you can get a guilty verdict in the Senate after you do. Now, SHOULD you impeach is the bigger question, and much of that is purely political in nature.
1
"The best story line is the simple one: Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival. There is more, much more. But that’s enough."
That = BRIBERY. And withholding those dollars redounded to the benefit of Ukraine's and US's primary enemy, Russia. That = aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the definition of TREASON.
Case closed. No other high crimes or misdemeanors need be charged or tried. We have BRIBERY and TREASON.
3
Representative John Jacob Rhodes, a Republican Nixon loyalist who served as the minority leader in the House, stated it most directly: “Cover-up of criminal activity and misuse of federal agencies can neither be condoned nor tolerated.”
I fear there is no trump loyalist in the GOP who will ever have a similar awakening.
7
Progressives want blood, and they will never settle for a reduced set of charges. They are usually wrong because they have a very poor read of the country's support for their thinking, almost always overestimating it.
5
@AACNY, Progressives are wrong to think a huge number of Americans support the laws of the land, so we should ignore the laws and let criminal politicians run wild? NO! We can't let Trump get away with his tsunami of crime. This isn't an election, it is a legal crisis, a national crisis, not a reality TV show.
7
@AACNY: Your sanguinary allusion falls apart when you consider that domestic terrorism almost exlusively caused by those on the right.
3
@Hector
Laws of the land? Democrats demonstrate very little real knowledge of the law, having first alleged criminal accusations of Russian collusion and now for, well, whatever they're now alleging.
Democrats don't respect the law. They've spent the last 3 years trying to use the law to take down a president.
The only crisis is the mockery democrats are making of a legitimate election.
2
How ironic that the advice to not 'overreach on impeachment' refers to the criminal overreach of the law that the accused is being tried for.
Regardless, the damage already done by this unfit president and his cronies, including those of our most formidable sworn enemies, has effectively brainwashed the majority of 'Americans'
who will reelect him for at least another four years.
Good night, America.
The point is that Democrats are showing how to govern carefully, constitutionally, legally and with decency. And set against the shame of this slovenly administration (and their despicable invertebrates in Congress) that's something most worthy; and ultimately more important than impeachment.
1
There is no sane or intelligent analysis of events resting finally on a conclusion that Donald J Trump should not be impeached and removed from office now. Truly the master of messaging obfuscation to a degree unmatched by his overall persona of an unintelligent, incurious, & uneducable buffoon, he is closer to the one he most adores on the world stage—Vladimir Putin—than Silvio Berlusconi, making him all the more dangerous to a self-governing society based on sober-minded analysis of the problems facing the culture he illegitimately leads onto an historical abyssal plane. He richly deserves the condemnation of impeachment more than anyone who has ever held the office before him.
The obvious trouble for those of us opposed to his wrecking-ball approach to governance is the base who refuses to abandon him and the congressional Trumpublicans in both houses who will disruptively vote for a ham sandwich as a means of keeping their dear leader in the powerful position he stole in 2016.
DJT will not be removed from office by these proceedings. About the best that can be hoped for is that Democrats are skillful enough to tar him just enough that sufficient numbers of strategically placed voters officially end his nightmare of a presidency at the ballot box in 2020. Any other outcome from these proceedings would be welcomed just deserts for the damage he has wreaked on our system. He does richly deserve the humiliation inherent with impeachment, but we must not hope for too much.
3
@Brackish Waters, MD "There is no sane or intelligent analysis of events resting finally on a conclusion that Donald J Trump should not be impeached and removed from office now."
Sure there is. From no crime being committed to no-harm no-foul, to okay it was a crime but not worthy of removal from office.
Remember, there have been exactly TWO impeachment trials in our entire history and ZERO removals from office. With an election coming in less than a year there are very valid reasons that even IF you think the president should be removed you would vote against it and let the voters have the final say on the case you have laid out.
Clinton CLEARLY committed a crime, was not removed from office (proper verdict) and the voters had their say in the mid-term elections.
His 13,000 lies are enough for me--Trump deserves impeachment for those. Toss in the bribery and obstruction, and he's good to go. Let the other criminal charges follow after he is removed from office, and jail him for life.
5
When in the future people look back on the Trump impeachment they should not feel it was just a bout a phone call anymore than remembering Clinton's lie.
He will not be removed from office....so the record should show that he is guilty of many articles of impeachment including violating the emoluments clause of the Constituion, obstructing justice and failing to uphold the Constitution with his assault on the press and the First Amendment. Let the Republicans try to fight the overriding sins of this Presidency. The country must never forget how a President undermined the Constituion at so many levels. If he is reelected it will be whatever Trump wants and he will be a king and not a president.
5
Even if Democrats produced the ultimate smoking gun it just wouldn't matter. Republicans under Trump's spell would simply dismiss it as they have done again and again. This isn't the Nixon impeachment or the Clinton impeachment. The political playing field is vastly different now. There is no possible universe that Republicans will vote to impeach the president and I feel that it is best to lay it all out and let history be the judge. Sadly, that is the best that our country will get out of this.
4
Respectfully, Fredrickson does not know what she is talking about. As an ex-prosecutor and longtime state and federal litigator, screenwriter, and novelist, I find this president's actions to describe a coherent, perfectly consistent theme vis-a-vis the 2016 and 2020 elections--and one which any high school-educated juror could understand: get elected by any means necessary, and to the Devil with the rule of law, ethics, and allegiance to our national security interests.
Let us pray that Schiff and other experienced prosecutor-turned-lawmakers do not simply throw up their hands in the face of a modicum of complexity--especially where the jurist presiding over the trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is more than capable of handling it.
6
The only way we will remove Trump from office is to vote him out in 2020. That is the bottom line to all of this, no matter which articles of impeachment are pursued, and no matter how just the cause.
I really wish that Democrats would focus on winning over the Senate, keeping control of the House and securing the Presidency. Once Trump is out of office, then rightful pursuit of criminal liability on his part can be pursued.
This isn't 1998, it isn't even 2016 we are living in in terms of there being as least some moral upstanding Republicans. We are living in some alternate universe where Republicans have cast their lots with the most amoral man to be elected President. They are upholding his lies, obstruction of justice, and his violation of election laws. And this from the Party which claims to be the Party of "family values".
I was distraught on the night of the election in 2106. If could have seen the future, I would have been horrified.
"If something doesn't give you joy, then get rid of it" (to paraphrase and with apologies to Marie Kondo). Trump is not bringing joy. Vote Trump and Pence out of office in 2020. Then we can experience joy once again. In fact there will be dancing in the streets, at least on my street.
2
As democrats learned when they went home for midterms, Americans didn't care about Russian collusion. They cared about health care, jobs, wages, climate, etc. in other words, once they left the beltway, democrats learned what their constituents really cared about.
I can almost guarantee that their constituents will care even less about Ukraine than they did about Russia. The Times rarely reports how democrats are met back home with demands that they get back to focusing on these other issues.
3
@AACNY
And just WHO are you to say that Americans don't care about Russian collusion, when it has the ability to undermine the very foundation of our Republic?
I happen to care very much about the interference of any foreign country in our elections.
I suggest you speak for yourself.
5
What you don’t mention is the myriad of bills addressing the very issues you mention, passed by the House, and now sitting in the Senate, dormant, because Mitch McConnell refuses to bring them to the floor for a vote. Democrats can and do walk and chew gum at the same time.
Also, funny you mentioned health care and climate change. What plans to Republicans have to address those?
1
@N. Smith
Politico reported on this in 2017. It is you who doesn't speak for most Democratic voters.
3
Don't overreach on impeachment? How can anyone "overreach" when the entirety of Trump's administration s engaged in a criminal activity. A person can't spit in the District and not hit a co-conspirator. Don't overreach! Honest citizens should throw the whole cabal out bodily.
6
"Democrats, Don’t Overreach on Impeachment"
Democrats, Don't You Dare Think You Have Won Something Until You Have Won Something"
Unlike Nixon's impeachers, you are faced with a Republican Party prepared to spit in the face of America.
A party that considers enduring public ridicule and endless calumny a test of their fitness to stand behind their messy excuse for a President.
The more sober old heads of old fashioned media mock and expose these sorry minions of the Right, the larger their badge of honor, the closer their place to The Adored One.
I know we prefer not to discuss it, but the Republican worship of Donald is a death cult.
You made a great start with your public panel. Then you stopped, just as people began paying attention.
Now you have a self-interested, hide-bound, inside the beltwayer punditing that you need to stop now.
No you don't.
Don't lose focus. Don't junk it up. But you need more, much more, to win over the citizens you hoped to win over.
You need to demonstrate resolve. Do not dare to wrap this up before the courts have spoken on resistant witnesses. Do not let this moment pass without a supreme effort to have our President appear and testify, live and in public.
You fold up now, you lose.
You conduct backroom sessions and demurely report the results, you lose.
You allow Trump to withhold every key witness, you lose.
You have done extraordinarily well until now. Do not settle down, or you lose.
2
It's a little like the Big Lie theory of successful propaganda. His impeachable offends are so many and so blatant they become unwieldy to prosecute. Especially since such a formidable plurality of the electorate, given their druthers, would do precisely what he has done - in spades. What that bunch define as Law and Order is Our Law and Our Orders.
3
Precedent is irrelevant.
Trump's malfeasance and corruption is like nothing in our history, and though there is some similarity to Nixon's behavior, Nixon pales by comparison. But more importantly, we were a different country then
Trump could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and the Senate will never convict. The real resolution of the impeachment case will be in the general election.
The voters outside of Trump's base must be convinced of his duplicity, treachery, self-aggrandizement, criminal behavior, and contempt for the rule of law. Convincing involves overcoming the extreme disinformation and distortion campaign of Trump, the Republicans, Fox News, Rush, and other elements of the media.
We can't depend on this being done by documenting and explaining a violation that is somewhat technical in nature and that is already being trivialized. Blatant obstruction of justice was laid out by Mueller and was glibly brushed aside and dismissed from the public mind.
Trump's sins are egregious and vast. They must be exposed.
Documents and witnesses need to be pursued relentlessly.
The House must be intrepid.
4
@Jim Hugenschmidt "The real resolution of the impeachment case will be in the general election."
And many will argue that with the election less than a year away that this is the PROPER avenue.
Citing the Nixon impeachment inquiry as a guiding example doesn't make any sense, quite frankly. This is a new world. Congressional Republicans have already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they will support the President no matter the reason for withholding the funds to Ukraine. I'd prefer to see what else they are willing to ignore and what else they might be complicit in. (Nunes.) How about money laundering? How about tax fraud? How about campaign finance violations? How about sexual assault?
Look at everything the Dems unearthed when they went poking around the withheld Ukraine funds. Is there any doubt that there are a litany of other crimes and corrupt schemes that this incompetent, brazen administration has failed to properly cover up? Keep investigating! Keep them on their heels!
3
Nonsense. Include it all. Every last disgrace.
Since, A) there is absolutely no chance of his being convicted in the Senate, and, B) there is no chance of Republican voters being brought to whatever remains of their senses thus bringing increased pressure to bear, the simplicity or complexity of the narrative is moot.
The only value in the exercise is to have it on the historical record that the country was victimized by a criminal and traitor in the Oval Office, abetted by the entire Republican party.
4
Too late. Just heard Nadler’s opening. He lugged the Russian conspiracy back into it. Now it’s politics and off-point.
3
@Alberto Abrizzi Now? It has been politics and off point from day one. It has been off point by the parade of witnesses talking about diplomatic norms and making a big deal about he president removing a diplomat. Just the setup of the rules for the process has been off point - e.g. Dems being able to call three constitutional legal scholars, GOP only one.
1
Surely multiple articles of impeachment can be broken down into short, simple bullet facts, digestible by even the most simple of minds.
1
The title of this article certainly isn't helping the authors clear wishes along any, that's for sure. Way to go Einstein, but at least you got us clicking and commenting, that's what's important here, right?
lol
I dunno, this seems wildly off the mark to me.
The Democrats have largely - pretty much exclusively, actually - focused on the Ukrainian affair in these impeachment hearings.
The result? Predictably, the GOP has concocted a wildly false and convoluted conspiracy theory as refutation (it was Ukraine who meddled in the 2016 election), and its right-wing media ecosystem has gone into overdrive to disseminate such nonsense. Now this wild conspiracy theory is part of the conversation, confusing portions of the public and taking focus away from the real crimes.
Let's not forget that Trump is illegally enriching himself from the presidency each and every day he is in office. This is, at least in my lifetime, unprecedented. Not only that, it's even simpler to explain to the public than the Ukraine story, and efforts to refute such charges end up stinking of defensiveness. I find it bizarre that Democrats have not focused on this at all.
(I'd also point out the thousands of cruel family separations - though to be fair, this country is so morally bankrupt that I'm not sure they'd carry much weight. Even among liberals, these egregious human rights abuses are yesterday's news).
Although I did not have the patience to read the whole interesting article, I think I, a third party activist, agree especially since I don’t even know, outside of being so ‘offensive’ - at the very best, what the President did anymore?
3
@Suzy Sandor
First it was whistle-blower's complaint. Then the phone call. Then the alleged quid pro quo. Then it was bribery. Now it's obstruction.
The bottom line is that the president asked for cooperation into our own DOJ's investigation of Ukraine's involvement in our 2016 election. He withheld aid for 6 weeks. He allegedly withheld a meeting.
This is what democrats want to impeach him for. They are crazy.
4
It is incredibly tragic that so many of our fellow citizens do not care, or care to understand the corruption of this president. Ask your friends where they get their news, I suspect the answer is either one source, or multiple sources with the same political bias. And let's face it, all of the mainstream media either leans left or right.
What surprises me most is my numerous (all well to do and college educated) friends that don't see the corruption by Trump. The answer I get is we need Supreme Court seats, or the economy is great.
It shames me that they are so narrowly focused. Trump is making a mockery of our values as a nation.While that alone should cause him to lose in 2020.
However the Democrats the Democrats need to come together and quit flying so far left of center. If they continue we get four more years of continuing corruption and lowering of our great nation's values.
28
@Mark I take exception to the notion of equivalence in regard to arguments found in opposing media sources. The notion that one must entertain both 'sides' of fact belies the concept of what facts are. Similarly then, one must read the notions and writings of 'flat earthers' in order to fairly arrive at a reasoned conclusion. These are false equivalents.
16
Mark, I am a former Democrat recently registered Independent, Trump’s personal behavior is distasteful, but I am with him on his policies: I like that he is pushing the members of NATO to pay their dues; I like it that he is trying to fix trade relations with China, Europe, Mexico and South American countries; yes, I am thrilled that he recognizes the harm that illegal immigration has caused this country in job, social dependency, crowded hospitals, schools and and closing an open border that allows anyone to enter or bring in drugs.
I want Trump to declare the Mexican drug cartels terrorists.
The alternative, Democratic Party is just to terrible and radical to permit to rule this country.
And yes, I am black.
5
@JRS ; Sorry to hear you have fallen for all these short sighted narratives pushed by far right (not even any decent Republicans as you can tell by articles written by so many Republicans on this site). Yes, he allegedly forces NATO to pay more meanwhile he has opened the doors wide open for Putin to step in and step on. You might be too young to remember what the cold war looked like. Only through our alliance with NATO countries have we been able to build a dam to stop Soviet's/Russian aggression. Trump has created huge holes in that dam. As for Trumps' behavior, maybe you like to live in a dictatorship, I don't.
13
One of the persistent problems this country faces is the obsessive concern about keeping things simple so that the least intelligent citizens can understand them. Enough of that. Modern life, including political life, is too complex to simplify issues without distorting them. Our elected leaders have the duty and obligation to consider all the complexities of politics and then make decisions. It is a dereliction of their duty to only consider the issues that "simple" people can understand.
2
Strongly disagree
That approach plays into Trump's hand
In the impeachment proceedings, the majority must stop letting Republicans repeatedly dismiss the Russian investigation, Mueller, and "the process" of the impeachment investigation
Every time that is done, someone needs to respond
Just list the multiple indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of members of Trump's team resulting from the Mueller investigation,including the money recovered
Every time they question "the process", they should be reminded how they implemented the same process in their multiple Benghazi investigations-we'd like just one, please
And every time they mention the Mueller "witch hunt, someone needs to remind the public that Mueller left the decision of obstruction of the investigation to congress, who has every right to investigate and impeach
Do not limit the charges to Ukraine
Tax fraud, and obstruction of congress MUST be addressed
4
@Gary Williams "Tax fraud, and obstruction of congress MUST be addressed"
How can you charge tax fraud, Congress has not even seen his taxes and we don't yet legally know if they will. The cases are still in the courts.
Ditto for obstruction, the questions are being played out in the courts.
There is not real impeachment case for these until the courts are done ruling.
1
"demonization of the news media" - is that a charge?
Virtually every American despises the media. Which media sources they hate varies, but the idea, that demonizing the media is a valid beef against anyone, is laughable.
If you stop to think about it, the First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to hate the media, and tell other people that they do.
5
@Peter Zenger
It was Obama who actually jailed the media. Trump just gripes about them.
2
@AACNY
Obama jailed the media. And what is your news source for this -- FOX???
4
@N. Smith
Correction: Threatened to jail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html
1
By failing to charge Trump with crimes such as violating his oath to the Constitution and stealing money earmarked by Congress to fund his own pet projects, Congress is creating a precedent for future presidents to do the same thing.
Investigating all questionable actions by the president is not "overreach"; it's doing their job.
3
@Charlesbalpha Congress does not charge crimes, impeachment is not a criminal process.
Presidents have power to move funds around, many have done so in the past and the only way to stop it in the future is for Congress to pass a law. Which they will not do because the Dems want to do similar things when they are in power in the executive branch.
The courts will sort it out in the meantime.
1
"Mr. Clinton was accused of having an affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, and then lying about it. The Republicans took full advantage of this simple story to advance their claim that a president of questionable morals should not remain in office."
Utter nonsense. Here are some of the supporting points for the two Articles which were voted in by the House:
- willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee
- willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him
- allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action
- attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action
- encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit
- encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand
- allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence
- attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness
- allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony
All this is far more than merely lying about an affair.
2
@HurryHarry Yeah, folks don't seem to get this. It is pretty clear cut that Clinton broke the law and he was not remove from office. IMHO rightfully so.
Trump has skirted the boundaries, but there is has been not clear cut case yet of any law breaking. Much of it is still in the gray areas and is why it is in the courts.
Bribing a foreign government to advance his re-election is cause for for impeachment, but it is not the worst crime, as terrible as it is. Instead, his refusal to let subordinates testify and his order telling them not to testify is the worst crime of all. It is a clear case of obstruction of justice and this is in direct opposition to his oath of office as well as to the constitution. Both houses of congress need to pay close attention to this direct affront to our government, our country, and to their responsibilities as representatives of the people!
4
One of the great ironies of these impeachment proceedings is that Trump and his movement, such as it is, have always claimed to be opposed to globalization, yet he is clearly guilty of having globalized Watergate. He has taken the only two high crimes and misdemeanors identified in the Constitution, bribery and treason, and taken them, not to mention their attendant election interference and rigging, to the world stage. I suppose in Trump’s perverse view of matters, globalization is perfectly fine, so long as it involves corruption, malfeasance and mendacity.
1
We have a ‘president’ with a junior high school mentality.
A total incompetence, a liar, a bully and a crook. A disgrace to this country and the world. Impeachment? He should be dragged
Out using the 23rd amendment to the constitution.
1
Wrong. Less is not more. It's not 1972 or 1998 - it's 2019. Just a few items that should be on the indictment list:
• Bribery/extortion - soliciting election interference from a
foreign government
• Witness tampering
• Violation of the Emoluments Clause
• Campaign finance violations by paying off two women
during his 2016 campaign
• Illegal use of charity funds
• 'Abuse or violation' of public trust/violation of oath of
office/lying to the public
• Incitement of Violence
• Profiting from Office
• Obstruction of Justice
• Mishandling Classified Information
• Misappropriation of funds
• Tax Fraud and Public Misrepresentation
• Obstruction of Congress:
- Refusal to Comply with Subpoenas
- Refusal to Comply with Impeachment Inquiry
• Criminal conspiracy
Trump is not going to be impeached by the Senate anyway, so why not get the entire story out to the public? The man is a walking criminal syndicate.
5
Corporations should be on trial
The dictator has already taken over, he is Putin, the darling of the Republican Party, how could Putin gain such control over the Republicans ??
There are many hidden stories in the naked City of D.C.. This impeachment is a farce. I dare NYTimes to print this. Corporations should be on trial.
1
Sorry, we don't impeach presidents for destroying norms. In fact, we sometimes elect them to do so. In Trump's case, a bull was legitimately elected, and now democrats are trying to impeach him for breaking dishes.
Good luck with that.
9
@AACNY
It's hard to argue against the evidence. If anyone needs "Good luck", it's Donald Trump.
4
“A bull was ‘legitimately’ elected.”
Hahahaha. Bullsomething was elected, but legitimacy had no part in it.
Trump is a lawless criminal and the sooner he is got rid of, the better off the nation will be.
3
@N. Smith
Trump will not only survive this impeachment handily, he just might get elected because of it.
It has stiffened the spines of his supporters, most of whom actually show up to vote, and has exposed the democrats to charges that they've wasted their majority trying to bring him down instead of passing meaningful legislation.
4
I am a Republican who was actually hoping grounds for impeachment to materialize. They have not, and Schiff did overstate his case in a report that reads as biased and partisan.
From the start of this, I thought impeachment would hinge on two issues: (1) did Trump withhold the funds to force the investigation into Biden; and (2) what was Giuliani's role.
Neither question has been answered definitively against Trump. Re 1, it is not clear to me what Trump's actual motivation was. He seems to have been more interested in validating his theory about Ukraine's interference in the 2016 election than the Biden story, and it is not clear that he was doing so for purely personal reasons. Just as Democrats have pursued every angle of the Russia interference narrative, Trump is arguably pursuing national interests in pursuing the Ukraine narrative and in defending the validity of his election.
Re 2, Giuliani's involvement still raises questions, but that's it. I did not see any evidence in the report of Giuliani's involvement that went beyond what we already knew.
The report validates the grounds which already existed in support of a censure of Trump. But it will not result in more than a partisan impeachment and will not result in a conviction.
7
You tell me, sir, if ANY President has ever conducted law enforcement investigations against his political rivals by hiring private investigators and bypassing the Justice Department entirely.
Sir, you have been lied to. All of our intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. And the Justice Department had already informed the President that the Ukrainian theory was a debunked conspiracy theory.
Last: You know perfectly well that the President’s ONLY concern was the ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation. Sondland’s testimony made that very clear. Trump wasn’t looking to prosecute Biden, he just wanted the announcement — the campaign dirt, and he wanted a foreign government to give it to him, and he tried to use $400 million taxpayer dollars to do it.
3
@Marshall
"You tell me, sir, if ANY President has ever conducted law enforcement investigations against his political rivals by hiring private investigators and bypassing the Justice Department entirely."
President Obama's DOJ conducted law enforcement investigations against political rival and candidate Donald Trump. That's the whole FISA mess that's under its own investigation right now. And Steele was a private investigator, by-passing the DOJ.
3
@Marshall
I think Trump's conduct was highly improper and worthy of censure. But I won't pretend to understand his actual motivation. Trump strikes me as a conspiracy theorist, and I don't doubt that he bought into all the theories about Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election interference. Getting the new Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into that also goes beyond the purely personal and into a more constitutionally gray area for me. It also goes into an area of Trump being the guy that voters elected, for better or worse.
All of that just doesn't add up to an impeachment that will gain bipartisan support or credibility.
The Dems are putting the hatred of the President ahead of rational thinking. What good will it do the country to go through with this sham when everyone knows he won't be removed. We will have an election next November and the American people have the final and most appropriate decision. This circus is nothing but a temper tantrum by people who couldn't accept the election results. The impeachment shows the Democrats don't trust the judgement of the voters. In the end, this will ensure the re election of Mr. Trump. If your try to kill the king you better not miss, or the payback will be fierce.
11
“Unfortunately for House Democrats, the complexity of this story does not help their cause. Mr. Trump has destroyed so many norms, has been credibly accused of breaking so many laws and has otherwise engaged in such a dizzying array of possibly impeachable behaviors that any intelligible story line has been blurred, if not obliterated. The enormity of his alleged transgressions works, perversely, to his advantage.”
The above statement is, to keep it straightforward, simply hogwash. List all of Trump’s multitude of transgressions on the Constitution on this go around so that the American people can see Trump’s enormous perfidy.
1
Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath, not for 'having an affair'. In this day and age it seems that simple facts cannot be presented accurately. Sad.
6
Please overreach, you might even cause some Democrats to not impeach. That would be great and devastating for Democrats of both the house and the Presidential election field. Please do what you want with our president, he will get re elected because of it.
7
It rather detracts from your message that you seem to have the main charge against Trump somewhat backwards. Trump's crime is better described as illegally demanded a bribe:
18 U.S.C. § 201 deines bribery thusly:
"being a public official . . . corruptly demands. . . accept anything of value personally . . . in return for: being influenced in the performance of any official act"
As President, Trump is a public official, who demonstrably demanded a thing of personal value (dirt on a political opponent) in exchange for being influence in the performance of official acts (holding a Whitehouse visit and releasing aid)
2
@Alex Except that the statute is full of interpretive words.
"corruptly demands" - What is corrupt as what is a demand? Withholding funds is a normal process all presidents have used. And where is the real demand? And where is the text/email what shows Trump did this?
"accept anything of value personally" One could argue the value is to the country and public for investigating a potentially corrupt situation.
"dirt on a political opponent" Since when is Hunter Biden running for president?
This case would certainly lead to a not guilty verdict in criminal court, IF it even went to trial. Now, impeachment is not criminal, so there is not that burdern, but some folks, to remove a president, would want even MORE of a burden of proof.
1
Unlike Nixon, Trump’s supporters are not just loyal, they are devoted with the kind of adoration I’ve never seen of an elected leader. Until you’ve actually spoken with a Trump devotee, you can’t understand the level of fervor he inspires in his followers. Republicans in the House and Senate understand this better than any of us and know that it would be political suicide to cross Trump whatever the magnitude of the “smoking gun.” We are pretty much assured at this point that the Senate will not vote to convict, so why not let the Articles of Impeachment address the full extent of Trump’s crimes and misdemeanors. This way future generations will be able to see what actually happened when we elected a self-serving sociopath to our highest office.
3
I refuse to accept that every current Republican Senator has become a mindless Trump toadie whose only purpose is to protect his criminal behavior, no matter what. Surely there are some who retain some semblance of pride and moral duty to themselves and their country to see clearly where the path to redemption lies. They are being given a rare thing--a chance to show moral courage and stand for the good of the country in a tumultuous time when the future of democracy is in the balance. I have hope that they will show us that they are not just self-interested cowards, after all.
1
Trump has violated a trust so serious it was put directly into the Constitution itself as a reason for impeachment!!
The Republicans now have the chance to decide whether they follow the law or their cult leader.
The world will be watching. History will be taking notes.
2
While I certainly understand the logic of “KISS” (keep it simple, stupid) in this situation, there’s at least one compelling reason to add additional articles of impeachment: Impeachment offenses are NOT PARDONABLE—it says so right in the Constitution. It doesn’t need to be a comprehensive list, but the House should consider very carefully which offenses they don’t want to see Trump pardoned for by President Pence.
@David Walker Impeachment offenses are not criminal, all they would effectively do is prevent Trump from running for President. It pretty much means that IF convicted in the Senate and removed from office that Pence could not remove the Senate conviction.
Pardons an also be preemptive. Ford pardoned Nixon for any criminal charges that would end up coming from Watergate.
Completely disagree with the author.
Supposing that the American public really can't get their heads around the fact that the president is a serial offender (I find this patronizing and probably incorrect), the fact of the matter is that Trump is being impeached because he's a crook.
His list of offenses is long, and if you send all of them to the Senate they are forced to serially minimize every one of his offenses.
If you want to bring the hammer down, impeach Trump on a dozen charges or whatever and then go right at Republicans who supported him: These Senators (and Representatives) have zero standards for personal conduct. Do you want to live in a world where laws matter, or where these guys do whatever they want because nobody holds them accountable?
It's all on the public record then.
1
When the bar is set so historically low; "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any voters." how can we expect any Republican lawmaker/Trump sycophant to vote for impeachment of this corrupt president? The Trump-Republican party has officially decided that The U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws are nothing to them, they may as well call them "fake news". The coward will not even allow anyone in his camp to testify. Totally disgusting to see our democracy destroyed for the sake of one truly bad, mentally unfit, man.
This mentality is part of the problem. Gaming out the best message, triangulating "what plays," pretending that we are in any way, shape, or form in a similar political zeitgeist as the Clinton era, or even more laughably, the Nixon era, and treating voters as essentially too stupid to understand what an abuse of office looks like, all of this is equivalent to admitting what the current administration has laid bare, and why it still has any supporters at all-- that the rules are to be applied subjectively, we just disagree on the partisan particulars. Just stop.
2
President Trump, I encourage you to sue the author and the New York Times for saying that you have been "credibly accused of breaking so many laws." Public officials can sue, when there has been a showing of malice, as in this case.
2
It appears democrats are focussing on the one issue when they should include the many other constitutional sins he has committed. Really point up the mess he has made of the presidency, such as the forced separation of families seeking asylum. Cruel and unconstitutional.
One bad move versus a chronic pattern thereof? And the one move involving Ukraine, which enjoys slight public interest or respect? Where the Bidens also fed at a chronically corrupt trough? No, to have a shot at removing Trump, or if not using impeachment to build public mistrust and disgust for his louche and dangerous ways, a pattern must be demonstrated. Obstruction of justice and misleading the people from the outset, yes. Consorting with crooks, many in jail for their Trumpian dealings, yes. Ukraine caper alone? Weak beer, especially in the heartland, where the 2020 election will be decided.
It’s not enough because Republicans no longer care about having a constitutional republic and will do nothing to preserve it. The best approach is to educate the American people. Include the emoluments clause article of impeachment, and more importantly, an article of impeachment regarding trump’s ongoing giving of aid and comfort to the enemy. His refusal to even acknowledge that Russia engaged in a cyber attack on our country leaves us vulnerable. His refusal to acknowledge this fact means that nothing is being done to counteract it, and that it will continue unabated. Furthermore, he and his GOP sycophants regularly disseminate Russian produced propaganda and disinformation. Simply put, this is treason.
Can you imagine FDR going to the microphone and saying that regardless of what all of the military and intelligence agencies are telling him, that he’s talked to Hirohito and they didn’t do it. Why would they? it was obviously done by China, and we should be supporting Japan because it has actually been helping us out by invading China in the first place. That’s trump’s story. And it’s treason.
The vast variety of lies, outrages, almost-crimes, and apparent crimes surrounding Trump are his best defense.
The strategy is brilliant in its simplicity: put up so many "decoy" offenses that it confounds the attacker and confuses--or bores the public. This has become quite easy to do in recent years. Most people are not interested in lengthly speechifying, no matter the subject. The more that the Republicans can be seen to be reflexively partisan, the more the Democrats appear to be doing the same, the more diluted the case for impeachment becomes.
Stick to the top three, strictly impeachable, Federal crimes. And get it done.
What is the author's point here? The Democrats have conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism throughout the whole inquiry thus far and the President has had every opportunity extended to him to defend himself. He has repeatedly refused those opportunities, and even has interfered in a lawful investigation and intimidated witnesses, in real time.
Trump SHOULD have been impeached on violation of the emoluments clause more than a year ago, in a just world. There is ample evidence that he's in blatant violation of it, and either the law is the law or it isn't. This is the most corrupt administration in United States history and it's all right in our faces, every single day.
The Democrats have stuck to the story line. Where is the overreach? Trump brought this on himself and gave the House no choice but to start an investigation. I'm tired of hearing about how the Democrats alone must carry the burden of saving the country. It's the REPUBLICANS who are enabling the President's criminal behavior.
133
@PubliusMaximus
I do not think the editorial claims overreach. What the article is saying is that adding additional charges, no matter how legally justified actually helps Trump to muddy the waters.
8
@PubliusMaximus An old proverb - KISS aka Keep it simple stupid. In short, the audience is not the legal eagles on the Senate side of the building, the audience is the voter(s) who put them there. They can understand a simple lie. They cannot understand, however legally correct, a complicated story.
3
@Jasr
Add the fake Trump charity. "The play's the thing [to get] the conscience...."
1
Yes, this article is a clear argument that the President did serious wrong on one occasion and should be impeached for it.
But this is more than a legal issue, and the public knows it. We saw it in the House Intelligence hearings, and we see it every day in the assertions of Republican squakboxes. For that reason, that is, pressuring the Republicans and their audience, I think that the moral argument is more powerful. By that I mean, wrap up a package that shows Trump as totally unfit for office, based on a list of his egregious behavior.
That list would read just like the American Declaration of Independence. The wrongs listed there committed by the King of England sound just like Trump and associates because their notion of government is the same-the king can do no wrong. Many Americans have died to protect the idea that we are a democracy, not a monarchy, or authoritarian state, where Trump would be at home. His favorite people are Putin, Xi, Kim, and henchmen like Giuliani, Cohen, and Manafort.
And yes, there are many Americans who, in my view, have to support the Strong Man concept of rule, because they are perhaps only semiconscious victims of it already.
Taken together, fighting Trumpism is what this impeachment is all about, and the Republicans know it. Best to get it over with, and call out Trumpism for what it is. I believe Americans will understand that.
@Dave R. "By that I mean, wrap up a package that shows Trump as totally unfit for office, based on a list of his egregious behavior. "
So that would be one of your Articles of Impeachment? You would not even get all the Dem votes on such a broad based argument.
We have had TWO impeachments in over 200 years. We have had ZERO removals from office. To remove someone you better have clear cut, clearly proved evidence of a serious crime. Trump has artfully lived in the gray areas and no matter how many of these you find, you should not remove a president unless you have a black and white clear cut serious crime.
And by serious, I mean SERIOUS. Perjury is serious crime and Clinton CLEARLY committed it, but was rightfully not removed from office.
1
All the things matter. Coupled with the Mueller report, Trump has demonstrated he is a clear danger to this country.
The problem with this argument is that the Republican spin, though dishonest in the extreme, is having resonance with the people Senators fear the most - their base. But even they can't spin the prima facie evidence of Pence's cross Ireland stay at Trump hotel as a violation of the emoluments clause. How difficult would it be to add that article? (Even if they don't want a month long investigation into all the others.) And how about the violation of the constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the treatment of children in cages? Would be worth the price of admission watching Nunes and Jordan tie themselves in knots explaining why Charles Manson was entitled to soap, showers, and a toothbrush but innocent children were not.
If as seems likely, the craven Senate Rebublicans will acquit we must at least confront all of Trump's crimes. History is watching.
@Patrick Flynn "prima facie evidence of Pence's cross Ireland stay at Trump hotel as a violation of the emoluments clause"
Even IF you could prove that Trump ORDERED Pence to stay at that hotel, you'd be a laughing stock if you used that to charge that for impeachment. How much is Trump enriched by a few nights stay in one of thousands of rooms available 365 days a year?
And even IF you someone gets everyone to agree that it was a violation, no one in the Senate with any sense is going to remove a president over a few pennies that might have trickled up to him.
Remember, Clinton CLEARLY committed perjury. A clear crime, a clear 'high crime' and was not removed.
Degree matters a LOT.
1
Here are two unreconcilable claims:
1) Trump denied Ukraine aid that it should have received.
2) Trump sought to bribe Ukraine with the aid.
These claims cannot both work. If Ukraine "deserved" the aid, then the charge against Trump is (1). If Ukraine did not deserve the aid, then you want to go with (2).
1
@James Thomas
They are perfectly reconcilable. Trump refused to give Ukraine money to which they were entitled unless they did him a favor.
4
@Charlesbalpha
But is Zelensky then guilty of accepting a bribe? And if so, then it is illogical to claim that Ukraine deserved the aid.
If Zelensky is not guilty of accepting a bribe, then it is illogical that Trump offered one.
I have been surprised by the fact that Republicans, particularly those in Congress, are seemingly unconcerned by the implications of all this on the future. What will happen when a Democrat does the same types of things that Republicans are allowing Trump to get away with? And, why aren't Democrats making more of that themselves? We are a shortsighted culture, but are we that shortsighted?
2
@g. harlan
There are a lot of lawyers in Congress, but they don't seem to understand common law and precedent. If a law goes unenforced, it can not be enforced against somebody else in the future because that would be considered discriminatory .
1
@g. harlan Same questions were asked, but in reverse, during the Clinton impeachment. Hypocrisy on both sides.
No matter the outcome of this impeachment. We have a constitutional duty to speak truth to power. If it does not conclude with a removal, still the right thing will have been done. It isn't about politics so much as it is about doing the right thing. There is no real political advantage to having Pence appointed as president. The GOP will still be in the WH and the Senate will be GOP majority.
What impeachment will accomplish is that a number of human beings said, this isn't right. These actions are wrong. It isn't always about winning. It's about being truthful.
4
I agree -- but only 50%.
The formal impeachment itself makes sense to be limited to the Ukraine issue. That narrative needs to be simplified and clarified for the public -- something that is hard for Democrats and most media to do.
But beyond that, the Democrats in particular (I'm one) need to develop a far more strategic and broader initiative about Trump's overall labyrinthine scandals, corruptions, and immoralities -- an accurate story that can be broadcast to the public in such a way that the depth and breadth of his venal 'leadership' can be revealed. It's as though a Ken Burns' documentary should be made, shown, and rerun to display the degree of the man's ability to tarnish and destroy the fabric of America and its people.
For many not in DC or on the coasts, Ukraine remains irrelevant, a blip on their personal radar screen. With Democrats focused on either the impeachment or electable candidates, we've been numbed by this narcissist's death grip on our country. Assuming the Senate will not vote to throw him out of office -- a far more sweeping "public relations" campaign prior to the 2020 election needs to be set in motion.
1
I disagree. I see no reason not to include the Mueller report findings and the issue of emoluments as well as the Ukraine issue.
3
One opinion of fact, which may be true, seems almost irrelevant in view of the onslaught from the GOP deniers. The Republicans think they have the cake and they're going to get ready to eat it. Hopefully they'll get to the poison before November 2020.
1
As came out in the inquiry of the Intelligence Committee, a State Department report had verified that corruption was not an issue in the Ukraine aid just a few months before Trump withheld funds. Trump has released two reconstructed transcripts, in neither one did he discuss general corruption in Ukraine. The only investigation mentioned in one of the transcripts was against Biden. Therefore, the Republican talking point that Trump was worried about general corruption in Ukraine when he illegally withheld the funds is a bunch of propaganda.
Also, The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 also requires the President to inform Congress of any withholding of funds, or even just deferring the funds, allocated by Congress. Trump didn’t inform Congress in a timely manner. This is a crime under the I.C.A. that short circuits Congressional control over the budget, which is a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
Trump’s actions were not only unlawful, they directly went against the Constitution. If Republicans in Congress fail to understand this, I’m sure they will remember it next time a Democrat does the same sort of thing.
1
This is hardly due process. He has been convicted many times over in the court of public opinion by many. And unfortunately, the process as overseen by Schiff was a total sham.
So at this point, why worry about "overreach?"
4
@Kimbo he will get his due process during the actual trial in the Senate. Just like an actual Grand Jury hearing the investigative phase of Impeachment is the gathering of evidence. Once the evidence has been gathered then the House votes to Impeach or not Impeach based on the evidence. Considering that the evidence they have found is overwhelming and the Trump Administration refusal to defend themselves by Obstructing Justice including not turning over documents, ignoring subpoenas and witness intimidation which can be found on the President's Twitter timeline Trump will be impeached. Now whether or not the Senate ignores the evidence and decides to keep him in office will be up to them. How much the voters punish them for keeping this inept mob boss in office will be seen in November 2020.
2
@Kimbo your understanding of the legal system is laughably bad. Impeachment is part of due process and Schiff is operating by the same rules laid out by republicans. In terms of analogy to the criminal legal process impeachment, the procedings in the house are the equivalent of a grand jury investigation. If the impeachment resollutions pass and are sent to senate, that would be the equivalent of a legal trial, where the president get's to face his accusers and defend himself.
In fact the procedure has been more than fair to Trump, since they have been held in the public with his loyalists given equal time to defend him. Schiff even invited Trump's Lawyers to give testimony (which they refused), all this while Trump was actively obstructing the investigation by blocking subpoenas and instructing people not to testify. None of this would be allowed in a standard grand jury investigation, so please tell me how this has hardly been due process?
2
While the author is correct from a constitutional, and institutional, standpoint, it's looking more and more like the Ukraine bribery charge is not going to move the needle of public opinion, let alone any Republican senators. In general, people don't care much about foreign policy unless it involves large numbers of US troops on the ground and the idea of a US president leaning on a foreign leader to get something his wants seems like business as usual, something all politicians do. My fear is that in the absence of something nobody can spin or look away from--like a clear money trail to Putin--impeachment will be shrugged off by many as more hyper-partisan politics and Trump's "total exoneration" will become an effective campaign bludgeon.
3
This whole charade is going nowhere fast. It’s way too convoluted for Americans beyond the beltway to understand. Most are busy with their own lives and are not following it to any degree. It will all get sorted out in Nov 2020 and not before.
7
Don't impeach!
Don't hand the gavel to Mitch McConnell. He will do mischief.
Do continue investigation and wait for appeals decisions on subpoenas to Mulvaney, Pompeo, McGhan, etc. Issue subpoena to Bolton. Let it drag out because of administration obstruction.
Turning this over to the Senate is simply NOT a productive act.
2
The author has one item of fact wrong. Trump is not accused of offering a bribe, but of soliciting one for himself, of extorting the Ukrainian president to make a public announcement, on American television, of a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden. As such, the articles of impeachment should indeed include a blatant violation of the emoluments clause. Soliciting a bribe is far more egregious than offering one.
2
I think there should be at least three articles of impeachment:
1. Abuse of power in the Ukraine by replacing the national security interest of the U.S. with Trump's re-election in 2020 by damaging his lead rival Joe Biden with a fake investigation. Using leverage by impounding authorized military aid a White House visit to achieve Trump's political benefit. Bribing a foreign power to interfere in our election.
2. Obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation and the Impeachment inquiry.
3. Violation of his oath to see the laws are faithfully executed by numerous acts of negligence, corruption and malice. Harming the values of America by Trump attacking the media, attacking individuals and over 13,000 lies since inauguration.
There are many more acts of wrong-doing, but this is enough to make the point. Let the Senate not convict and make the 2020 election be about who should lead the country. A corrupt would be king or a normal Democrat.
3
When talking to the American people, a three word sentence is about all they can handle. Anything with nuance or vocabulary is way too confusing and their collective brain turns off. Trump understands the intellectual capacity of the American people because he functions at about the same level. He speaks in very simple third grade language, such and such is bad, very bad or they are a disaster while he is great, good, perfect, amazing, greatest ever. There is a reason his largest support group is old white guys with very little education. The simpler the Democrats can keep it, the better the chances they will penetrate the fortress of ignorance that surrounds Trump. Those with intellectual curiosity, deductive reasoning abilities and general knowledge don’t need to be persuaded, they know.
1
What if Democrats vote on a "complete" list of "chargeable" transgressions, but only pass the "convictable" ones? Yes, at this point no article of impeachment is "convictable", but that could change between now and a trial vote. Democrats main job at this point is to convince the public and change the poll numbers. That's only way to get leverage over Republican Senators to even consider conviction. Looking at the Republican's defense and considering the guilty vote of the Trump supporting Manafort, the mechanics for getting Republican Senators to defect is in place. The only leg they have to stand on is "we don't care". History will not judge that apathy kindly. Growing awareness of that prospect ... is our job too.
More accusations creates more distractions, more confusion, and less attention. Today's Wall Street Journal front page headline is about food stamp rules.
2
We should throw the book at him. We should have impeached him on the Mueller report. Democrats are weak and the GOP knows it and that's why they keep winning.
1
"The enormity of his alleged transgressions works, perversely, to his advantage." Thanks for this sentence as it says it all. There's so much slime on Trump the slippery fellow continues to dodge and slither through the election, the women, the tax returns never shown, the paper-towel throwing in Puerto Rico, the cages with people, including children on the border, the departure from treaties that matter from Climate Change to Iran, and Ukraine, where we started w/Trump and Manafort, now behind bars. Lock him up.
I disagree with the whole premise of this article. Democrats should list all the charges, each and every one of them, so all can see the blatant pattern of corruption and malfeasance at the core of this REPUBLICAN president's tenure. Democrats should enforce their subpoenas, expedited in a court of law, and haul the whole gang of sleazy operators - Pompano, Giuliani, Mulvaney before the Congress. They don't comply, 50K fines per day and when they don't comply after that, lock them up in the prison beneath the Congress till they do. We're not dealing with a loyal opposition here, we're dealing with traitors. Stop handling them with kid gloves. Let his REPUBLICAN enablers, supporters and co-conspirators be hauled before Congress to defend his illegal and un-presidential actions and statements. Let the REPUBLICANS acquit their criminal president and then defend their votes to acquit before the American people next November.
Trump is the symptom; REPUBLICANS are the DISEASE.
1
On February 16, 2018, a federal grand jury in Washington D.C. signed an indictment against 16 Russian actors--military, corporate and intelligence. Special Counsel Mueller III signed off on the indictment. Russians posted allegations of voter fraud in Iowa, North Carolina and Broward County, Florida on behalf of the Trump Campaign. Russians created bank accounts in America using PayPal to pay for Trump Rallies and advertisers. Russians stole US citizens social security numbers, home addresses and birth dates without their knowledge or consent to open bank accounts to pay for social media. Russians penetrated and hacked into an Illinois State Voter Computer system. The US Senate Intelligence Committee reports this Russian Interference in 2016.
The Mueller Report Volume II then points out that Donald Trump ordered Don McGahn and Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller. Trump's denial and coverup of Russia interference should be included in the articles of impeachment-not Ukraine alone. Refusing to make witnesses and documents available to Congress is also impeachable.
The House of Representatives has a sacred duty to protect the United States of America by drafting relevant Articles of Impeachment. Obstruction of Justice and a coverup as reported in the Mueller Report are just as important as Ukraine bribery. Enough with the White House corruption and lies.
2
Impeaching Trump for ALL of his corruption and conduct is NOT overreach. This is yet another opinion piece in the NYT attempting to influence and instruct Congress about how to NOT defend our Constitution or represent the health of the American Republic, which is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people. If a criminal robs banks, traffics drugs, commits rape and serially murders people, you don’t give him a ticket for littering a gum wrapper! Trump’s corruption and the corruption of his entire circle is wide and deep. A slap on the wrist will do nothing.
1
I hate to be cynical but I fear that McConnell and his sycophant GOP cronies have already decided to acquit Trump no matter how damning the evidence of bribery and extortion.
Ok wait, are Dems impeaching for Russian collusion? Or obstruction of justice? Or quid pro quo? Or bribery? Or extortion? I’m dizzy from these hoax claims. And I’ll make a bet; when this scam ultimately fizzles ( as anyone with a brain knows it will), the next target will be ‘emoluments!’
4
Nixon comparisons are silly. John Dean was the key. No Dean here.
Plus this is 100% partisan (some and more to follow democrats will jump ship).
Plus GOP controls the senate, so nothing will happen there...
The only result will be more digging and more dirt on the Dems and the public is moving away from impeachment not toward....
On main street it's a non issue and believe it or not, most people do not read the WP, this paper or CNN.
Dream on but the results will be worse for the Dems not better..
33
@Mike The US Congress has a sacred duty of oversight essential to our very democracy. Are you suggesting it should hinge on the supposed ability of your "main street" to grasp complex ideas?
(And: The fact that this is indeed 100% partisan is on the GOP alone, and to their shame. There should be no partisan difference of opinion on the treasonous behavior that has come to light.)
43
@Mike The only reason why there is no Dean is because they were kept from testifying under oath.
29
@Mike after decades of trumped up scandals and endless investigations of the clintons, they found exactly one lie about a personal affair.
but sure dude, this one is 100% partisan.
20
This is all about process regardless whether a single Republican votes to impeach either in the House or Senate.
We do indeed live in interesting times.
I agree with the author. " The best story line is the simple one".
Keep it simple.
Especially since this president is such a master of diversion and the evidence and testimonies of that one charge involving his involvement in the Ukraine is so strong.
And anyone who saw Fiona Hill, former Ambassador Marie Yovanovich or Lt. Col. Vindman in his full dress uniform, is unlikely to forget the discipline and composure with which they answered all questions and withstood the withering barrage coming from the Republican bench.
They kept it simple.
The president knowingly withheld funds in exchange for damaging information on a political rival, and only released said funds after his actions were disclosed.
This constitutes a misuse of federal property.
Case closed.
1
Trump does something most weeks, if not days, that warrants impeachment.
The irony is that he has set the bar so low that people have come to expect behavior from him that would be impeachable were it to have been any other President.
Just imagine the GOP response if Obama had done what Trump did in relation to Ukraine. They would lose their collective minds. The GOP is the party of hypocrisy. They are utterly shameless and contemptible.
172
@Andrew if Obama did what Trump did, Republicans would have lost their minds. Trump did what Trump did and Democrats lost their minds.
What an argument.
1
@Andrew: Correction; The Republicans AND Democrats are the parties of hypocrisy...
1
@BBVet
Look again.
3
The constitution allows for impeachment for multiple offenses. ("Treason, Bribery; or other high Crimes and Misdmeanors"). And I think that the Congress has the constitutional duty to lay out all the impeachable offenses for which there are strong evidence. History is watching -- Congress needs to state unequivocally that none of this is okay, or risk opening the door for future presidents to behave just as badly.
1
Why did Constitution Famers deem--No Foreigner can be President? The framers were genuinely afraid of foreign subversion. A Foreign Government was invited by Trump to subvert our Democracy. Impeachable Offense.
2
"The Fault Horatio is Not In The Stars, Horatio" but in the number of charges.
Whoa. The writer sets up a false dichotomy between a Johnny One Note Indictment and a Sumerian King List.
Ukraine is readily understood; so is the Trump version of Cover-Up. A well written charge -- and the Intel committee and its staff have just shown they can write -- of public corruption through many violations of the Emoluments Clause could persuade average Joes and Janes that the President is a crook.
We have a new example of corruption; the President has apparently overridden DOD legal objections and forced the Pentagon to award a contract for building a slice of the Wall to a major campaign contributor. SecDef Esper ought to have resigned but apparently likes his job.
If the charge is readily understandable the shoe fits. The problem lies elsewhere, in the surrender by Trump's base to the notion he is God. "The Fault Horatio, Lies Not In the Stars But In Ourselves." It's possible Newtonian physics -- "a body in motion tends to remain in motion" --has taken hold of Impeachment, so that cascading revelations, like the telephone logs, break through. If not, so be it. The better the record the harder it will be for Trump to escape the judgement of history in the 2020 elections.
2
The trouble with the simple narrative is that many people do not believe it reaches the gravity of impeachment. In the complex narrative, the impeachable offense is not any one of the individual acts, it is the pattern of behavior, the serial abuse of office by this President.
I am not a lawyer so cannot say which approach is the better one from a legal standpoint but I can read the tea leaves from discussions with Democrat and Republican friends, and I cannot see the simple narrative resulting in conviction in the Senate. Only when the public is moved will the Senate move toward voting for removal.
2
The Democrats can do whatever they want speaking truth tp power, but power will prevail. The Republican held Senate will not convict the president of any wrongdoing.
But the election in November 2020 is a different story. This is what the Democrats must focus on in these hearings, providing clear, concise, and irrefutable evidence to be used against Trump in campaign 2020. Ultimately, it will be the voters— the body that elects—and not the elected body, who will vote truth over power.
56
@JD you might be correct about the voters, but the way the electoral college functions now, the voters may not be heard, yet again. 2.8 million people did not want 45, and yet we've got him anyway.
11
@JD
Stop giving Republicans cover to ignore the Constitution by predicting they will ignore their oaths of office. By constantly saying they won't convict, you take away the shock value when they don't convict.
If you keep saying they have a responsibility to convict, than you can say you are shocked when they don't.
5
@AACNY
Wow, I get to agree with AACNY!
The electoral college is in the Constitution. Don't attack the Constitution. It won't be amended this year.
Unify moderates and the left to win.
6
"Unfounded charges?" Vice President is in charge of Ukrainian relations with US, his son gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian company, the Vice President allegedly gets the investigator of the company fired, and the Vice President lies about whether he knew about the investigation and hundreds of thousands of dollars -- that doesn't prove Biden is corrupt (as opposed to his elitist assumption that he's entitled to benefit from his position), but it sure raises interesting questions that require an investigation.
And why all the agonizing about an investigation? Surely, if Biden is innocent of any wrongdoing, he would be cleared by an investigation. As it is there are all those doubts out there.
2
Not the way it happened.
2
@james
Not sure who the Democratic genius was who picked Ukraine as their impeachment hill to die on. It was a tragic mistake for the Bidens.
Hunter Biden now appears in NYC papers with splashy headlines about his stripper "baby mama" and strip joint escapades, all while dating his deceased brother's widow.
4
@james So why didn't Trump request the DOJ investigate? Republicans were in the majority from 2016 through the end of 2018, so why didn't they investigate Biden and his son?
1
Agree ! And please, who ever is making the case from now on, always mention the Biden vs Trump polls of June and July. This key element is always missing, and it gives context to all the Trump demands, and more importantly it show a motive for his unconstitutional actions.
Where are these 'republicans' today? "The Republicans took full advantage of this simple story to advance their claim that a president of questionable morals should not remain in office. The statements we tracked divided into easy categories; some members thought the affair was enough to sink the president, while others thought the lying was the impeachable offense."
At the end of the day, Congress should reflect the public's opinion of Trump's transgressions. Here is a summary for Nixon, Clinton, and Trump. You be the judge:
Nixon: Net job approval rating: -36%. Percent favoring impeachment and removal: 50%.
Clinton: Net job approval rating: +28%. Percent favoring impeachment and removal: 31%
Trump: Net job approval rating: -13%. Percent favoring impeachment and removal: 51%.
This is not a popularity contest, it's about the public understanding whether a president should stay or go. And in Nixon's case, the 50% removal threshold was reached very late in the long Watergate saga.
6
KISS... It will be hard to get frazzled voters to pay much attention to any impeachment effort if the arguments are too complex. Multiple claims are also easier to refute by the GOP disinformation machine (Fox News, etc.) where they only need to FUD any one of multiple claims to raise doubts among the few undecided voters.
Speaker Pelosi was right. Until "Ukraine" it was possible to justify waiting for next year's election, but this required Congress respond. It's their sworn duty.
2
Clinton wasn't impeached for "lying about an affair", he was impeached for lying about an affair under oath and committing perjury; a felony in all 50 states. Why is this important point constantly glossed over?
8
@Adam maybe because that perjury was the result of a years long fishing campaign that finally found something that could be pinned on him.
With the Clintons the GOP established a permanent assumption of guilt, which justified unending investigations and trumped up scandals out of nothing, until they finally got him in a perjury trap about salacious personal details.
but sure. He perjured himself.
3
@Adam : nobody glosses over the details of the sordid ken Starr attack on a president, for one trumped up offense after another. Clinton was a popular president doing a good job for all. Clinton lied about sex, which anybody over the age of 16 understands- under oath or not, stupid it may have been, but we had empathy for his errors in judgment. Finally, neither the affair, nor lying about it harmed the nation in any way whatsoever.
2
Maybe because nobody really cared about consensual sex, and the reality that the Republicans elevated lying about it to a high crime?
1
Sometimes, the grievances of people are more -- extend more -- to more than just the law, extend to a whole mode of arbitrary power, a whole mode of arbitrary exercise of arbitrary power. And that's what we have here.
[...]
There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop!
Mario Savio, Berkeley, December 2, 1964
4
Trump’s impeachment must include Treason.
Having conspired with Putin, Trump is following Putin’s orders to denounce the findings of the Mueller investigation that were beyond doubt: Russia interfered in 2016.
Further, Trump falsely blames Ukraine for 2016, knowing it’s not true but following Putin’s orders.
Worse, Trump uses this “Ukraine did it, not Russia” pretext as a reason to weaken Ukraine, by withholding Ukraine’s military aid to defend itself against Russia.
Weakening Ukraine weakens Europe— Russia is breathing down their necks.
Trump is a Russian agent.
This is the way Europe ends
This is the way America ends.
8
Republicans: "We'll defend Trump no matter what he does."
Democrats: "Okay, well then we're going to make a huge list of all the horrible things you're looking the other way on."
Republicans: "Do your worst, LOL. Trump 4EVA."
Democrats: "Back to the list, then."
Republicans: "What list? LOL."
1
Throw the book at Trump.
Hit him and his Republican sycophants with a massive tidal wave of his clearly impeachable offenses. Do not hold back.
Show the entire world that America will no longer tolerate Trump's lies, deceit and corruption.
He is an embarrassment to our nation and a grave threat to our national security.
This is the Dems one and only shot to impeach.
Hit him with everything.
Make each and every Republican go on record to defend this, the most blatantly corrupt and dangerous president in U.S. history.
41
Obstruction of Congress is a slam dunk AOI.
Trump's multifaceted stonewalling tactics are beyond refute.
Any senator who fails to vote yes on obstruction is
willfully moving our country toward fascism.
22
This President is so lawless that it is virtually impossible to overreach. The truth will set this country free. What I do want to see is a rock solid case made against the President in whatever form is decided upon. A superb start by Adam Schiff. His report out of the intelligence committee is straight forward and understandable by anyone. What I want to see from the media (ahem...) is the price the Republican Senators will pay if they decide to give this lawless President continued sanctuary. Now that's a headline I can get behind.
14
I keep changing the NYT headlines to insert republicans and it seems much more appropriate. Today it is:
'Republicans, Don't Overreach on Denial'
or -
'Kamala Harris, What Positive Notes Did She Provide to Save Our Democracy?'
2
I always thought that if Republicans had focused on perjury— an actual crime— as opposed to adultery, they might have been gotten further with removing him from office. But, politicians being politicians, they cynically thought disgust over Clinton’s moral turpitude would get them across the finish line with the American people.
Democrats risk making the exact same mistake when they focus on what an awful boss Trump is or that his foreign policy is bad for America. Trump’s character and policy choices, however awful and misguided, are not impeachable offenses.
Worse yet, they allow Republicans to simply respond “You don’t have to like the President. You can hate him. You can think he’s completely off base about Ukraine, even to the point where you think he’s hurting American interests. But being a bad person and benign and at your job are not impeachable offenses.”
Democrats don’t have to narrow down the quantity of charges if their are many impeachable offenses, but they should not try to make this a showcase for Trump’s bad character and bad decisions. Focus on anything and everything he has done that is an impeachable offense.
It’s the high crimes and misdemeanors, stupid.
2
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not his affair. The Senate did not vote for removal.
3
Oh please. Typical Dem response: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
3
One word: treason.
3
Your whitewashing of what Clinton did shows that you have no credibility to judge Trump. Clinton did not simply have an affair and lie about it. He preyed on an intern half his age, using a vast power disparity to control the relationship that would have gotten a university president, for example, fired. More importantly, to cover up his conduct, he lied about it repeatedly under oath in order to deny another victim of his sexual predation her fair day in court. He also attempted to suborn perjury by a government employee subordinate to him, his secretary. He used the full power of the executive branch of the United States government to smear, intimidate, and threaten potential witnesses against him. Furthermore, the course of the investigation revealed multiple accusations of sexual crimes by Clinton, including the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, but Democrats at the time refused to even read Broaddrick's sworn statement to the FBI.
6
@Charles we really do live in two countries now. Nothing in your allegations is fact based; not for one moment was Clinton a danger to this nation.
1
This argument assumes that there is a snowball's chance that he will be convicted or resign, as Nixon did. There is no reason to hope for either. If anything, these articles should follow the letter of the law as closely as possible. They will be one of only a handful of impeachments which will be later cited as precedence. If they go off the rails, it will come back to haunt them in their next administration. If they stick with the facts, then if the Republicans try to return the favor in the future, they will have to stick to the facts.
If the Democrats can make the case of a violation of the Emoluments Clause, then by all means include it. If not, then don't include it, address it in legislation. It's that simple. If you can't prove it, don't include it.
7
Bribery, Abuse of Power (for those, like Will Hurd, who will irrelevantly try to claim there is insufficient evidence for statutory bribery), Obstruction of Justice (Mueller report), and Obstruction of Congress.
They are all important, but the last may be the most. If Congress only had the whistleblower report, deemed urgent and credible by the IG, and an absolute and effective refusal by the Executive to produce any evidence, that would not only be sufficient to impeach and convict the president, but make it necessary to do so—or we would have lost our Republic.
That brave public servants defied the Executive to provide evidence sufficient to support impeachment for Bribery in the constitutional sense does not diminish the threat of that high crime and misdemeanor.
6
The Republicans seem determined to forgive and forget. Their arguments that the voters should decide might hold sway if the accusation is based on 9ne incident and naive Trump just didn't know asking for a favor is a crime, besides maybe he *did* believe Ukraine is corrupt.
When you throw the book at him, you demonstrate a pattern of criminal activity --- and if the GOP is determined to say none of it was criminal, you have a pattern of consistently choosing Trump's personal gain over the country's national interest.
3
Keep it simple, short, and focused, so that "the salt of the Earth" understands it. For a definition of "Salt of the Earth," see Blazing Saddles, for those of you who are young.
1
Ms. Fredrickson, I disagree. Wholeheartedly.
As we have already seen, House and Senate Republicans have fallen in line on Trump's basic defense regarding his bribery in Ukraine: "I did nothing wrong." They will deny, deflect and obfuscate to evade the clear cut evidence of his guilt in this single accusation.
From there, Senate Republicans will swiftly vote to acquit and Trump will claim full exoneration of another "witch hunt." By November 2020, the impeachment will be buried under Trump's endless barrage of improprieties and assaults on decency.
A more effective path, legally and politically, would be for House Democrats to throw the book at Trump. Spell out, in granular detail, every one of his impeachable offenses.
Then make House and Senate Republicans defend every single one.
Moreover, American voters need to know the full extent of Trump's corruption and malfeasance.
What you propose, Ms. Fredrickson, plays right into the hands of Trump and McConnell.
7
@Civic Samurai - I wholeheartedly agree, throw the book at him. The general public will readily ignore and dismiss a narrowly focused article of impeachment as merely a technicality. What will get their attention will be a pattern of misconduct. The report sent to the Judicial Committee is a fine example of clarity and clearly illustrates a pattern. It also leaves room for expanding on the articles of impeachment as new evidence is revealed.
2
@Civic Samurai ,agree. These republicans need to be exposed for their defense of this monster. For that reason I’d like to see dems push on the obstruction issues— not sending evidence, not allowing testimony. Force the administration and their gop toadies up to scotus. Embarrass all the right wing justices in the process, especially Roberts— whose umpire game is oh so tiresome, and the 2 new boys— whose very presence harm us all.
1
This advice is similar to that which questioned the wisdom of bothering to impeach him at all — because, after all, the Senate won’t convict him. That advice, and this, are similar: acknowledge the dumbing down of American politics and try to play along. I disagree. If the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has clear and convincing evidence of criminal wrongdoing and/or abuse of power they should spell it out. Numerous former federal prosecutors have already stated there is enough such evidence on multiple counts that they could have handed down indictments blindfolded.
Bottom line, the Democrats should do the right thing and act on their highest understanding of what the Constitution and justice system call for. But even in a very practical political sense, if the articles of impeachment are kept to a minimum, Republicans will simply use that to their advantage ... “See? It wasn’t much. It was just this one little thing, and for that the Democrats want to remove him from office.”
8
Agree - press on with the ironclad ones. Forget about Nunes et al - small prey - they will keep flapping their wings furiously – they will fall from exhaustion.
Trump, has more extramarital affairs, a lot of “Whitewater” stuff and the Olympic Gold Medal in lying, will be charged with crimes which go to the core of your Constitution. He is literally tearing that “sacred” sheet of paper.
It’s difficult to grasp, in real time, the gravity and seriousness of these events.
I enjoy your comments, but do not understand why you keep referring to the United States as “your country.” Compa, es su pais tambien. (Your country too)
This is a uninformed opinion. If you look closely at what Pelosi and the Dem leadership has been doing since March, they have been using the federal courts to obtain financial information from Trump since March of this year. The Ukraine scandal was leveraged as a tactic to get House Dems in purple districts to vote for opening the inquiry. The real iron-clad case is financial crimes including money laundering for the Russians. Recent court rulings have all gone in favor for the Dems. Patience. Don't be distracted by opinions like this. Let justice take its course.
8
No, every instance of breaking the law matters. Especially by the president. These aren't speeding tickets. They are tamping with the fundamental ideals of our nation/state. Bribery, yeah, it is a problem. Emoluments too. Sexual assault/harassment too. Business dealings too. Policy for sale too. And the list goes on, and on, and on. Every one of these crimes should be investigated, and prosecuted and catalogued for future generations so this NEVER happens again. Further, this pursuit of justice should not stop just because there's an election. Law doesn't get put on hold for elections and enforcing it shouldn't either.
6
Part 2 of the House Intelligence Report which document's Trump's blanket unconstitutional obstruction of Congress makes more compelling reading and is easier to grasp.
4
The writer should have pointed out that around the supposedly narrow case of Ukraine, multiple Articles of Impeachment are possible and indeed necessary. One that sticks out like a sore thumb is obstruction of justice. Another is abuse of power, since trump showed contempt of congress in shutting down, even temporarily, the aid to Ukraine that it had mandated.
09:20 EST, 12/04
3
That a president can be so corrupt that we do not know where to focus is truly a sad commentary on those who elected him. After all we knew this about him before his election, but just enough chose to ignore this embarrassment of negative riches to elect him. It seems that many chose to see Trump as tough and the corruption only bolstered this opinion. If there is one great tragedy in all of this it is that our moral senses are so obscured that we no longer honor the up right leader, but that a mobster can be elevated to our presidency and our cynicism has grown to the point that all politicians are seen as corrupt justifying the ultimate corruption of Trump. But it is the GOP who initiated this by smearing and opposing President Obama who was truly an up right man.
3
I look at the Trump impeachment as the OJ Simpson murder case of the 21st century. Although the evidence of guilt is clear the verdict will be acquittal by those who think that the defendant was wrongly accused.
At this point the best thing for the Democrats to do is to go with the claims based solely on his extortion of Ukraine. Let this play out. And move on to the election.
Every Senator (Republican or Democrat) should be forced to go on the record with their vote on every one of the impeachable offenses Trump may have committed. Make them defend a “not guilty” vote on Abuse of Power, Emoluments, Obstruction, etc. as we approach the 2020 elections.
4
Why not impeachment him now for the singular offense of bribing a foreign power with U.S. funds, and then systematically impeach him after he wins re-election for the laundry list of his additional crimes and misdemeanors?
It could run like consecutive seasons of the Apprentice and feature the firing (and jailing) of all his complicit family members and Nunezesque lackies.
C’mon Mr. Burnett, a desperate nation needs you.
1
“Unfortunately for House Democrats, the complexity of this story does not help their cause.”
Really? You’re an attorney and you can’t follow along?
Trump demanded that the President of Ukraine publicly announce that Ukraine was investigating the Bidens before he would release Congressionally-approved military aid.
How is that “complex”?
1
I disagree. think there are three articles of impeachment that have to be made; and most Americans can understand three ideas (I would hope).
The Democrats simply have to say that Trump abused his oath of office in 3 critical ways:
1. He violated campaign laws by withholding aid and seeking to smear a political opponent;
2. He used his office to enrich himself and his family; and
3. He obstructed Justice.
The line has to be drawn, now and against future presidential abuses of power. If Congressmen/women and Senators vote to against, then run ads that hang their anti-Constitution and Russian propaganda around their necks.
4
"There are many obvious parallels between Mr. Trump and Nixon, including their venal behavior, demonization of the news media and the fact that both investigations have included evidence of break-ins into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. "
I have never heard a charge that Trump or the modern day Republicans attempted to break in to Democratic National Headquarters. Please point to any authoritative reporting (NY Times or Washington Post articles would be helpful)
As for these other charges, "venal" behavior and demonization of the news media are not impeachable offenses.
This article is a mirror image of the entire impeachment process against Trump. Lots of adjectives but no meat.
A bunch of White House employees say they don't like Trump and his policies. Not heard from were any White House employees who would say they do like Trump, because Adam Schiff refused to allow witnesses on the Republicans' list to appear.
Nancy Pelosi said impeachment should not go forward unless it was bipartisan.
So where are the Republican votes against Trump ?
Wait for the tax returns and obvious evidence of treason. Just another of this man’s multitude of crimes that you will willfully overlook.
@Chuck Burton
Democrats have been predicting “obvious evidence of treason” for three years.
Even you admit it’s not there yet.
4
Actually, the complexity of Trump's law-breaking is better handled by simplifying language rather than reducing the number of charges. Experienced prosecutors know this and do so in complex trials.
Fredrickson writes: "Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival."
Why not say 'He bullied, then bribed our Ukrainian friends who are fighting Russia. He used Your tax dollars as a bribe just to hurt Biden.'
Then add the simplified list:
'He wrecks trust in America with his constant lies.'
'He misdirects funds voted for our soldiers to spend on his wall.'
'He abuses helpless children instead of reforming immigration policy.'
'He invited Russia and China to interfere in our elections, and Russia did!'
'He has treated the presidency as his personal piggy bank, cashing in every which way.'
'He has cronies break laws for him and waves possible pardons in return.'
'Freedom of the Press? He calls then Enemies of the People!'
And so on ... Say the charges in sound bites people easily understand, not legalese.
1
The very title of the article is an indictment of the indictment. Dems can't get around the fact they voters are almost exactly divided on this issue. Trump is an obnoxious and abrasive, but that is all he is guilty of: cutting deals (you support my program or I won't support your program) is integral to politics.
1
The smart thing would be to impeach on just Ukraine now and, if Trump wins again, have the financial corruption ready to go for round two. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't impeach multiple times.
1
I have no idea if Ms. Fredrickson is correct or not but perhaps the saying of the famous Talmudic sage Rabbi Akiva, about 2,00 years ago, might be apt:
Tafasta Merubah, Lo Tafasta, translated as-
all covet, all lose
or also translated as : grasp all, lose all.
My guess is that the Democrats will go for the big picture and throw at Mr. Trump everything including the kitchen sink.
If they do, they may get 4 more years.
2
If you asked the vast majority of Americans to point to Ukraine on a map, they couldn’t do it. If you asked the vast majority of Americans to define “emolument”, they couldn’t do it. If you asked the vast majority of Americans what they think of Rudy, they’d say he’s “America’s Mayor”. If you asked the vast majority of Americans if having sex with an intern and lying about it was bad, they’d understand perfectly!! Most people are exhausted already, so adding more (and more, and more, and more...) abstruse charges is simply preaching to the choir, and convincing more people that this is just a political game. Sure, it makes the Dem base feel good, and adds fuel to the righteous fury of many people, but it is ultimately counterproductive - they weren’t going to vote for Trump anyway. The only solution is voting.
1
Of all Trump’s corrupt accomplishments, we do need to pinpoint the exact crime, don’t we?
2
All pointless nonsense. Even if the Democrats have the competency to impeach, the Senate will acquit without debate. That will end the entire matter. With public sentiment divided along partisan lines as usual, Trump will be re-elected the way he was elected in 2016 - without a majority, but elected by less than half the populace because of the Electoral College. The Democratic voters will just be another minority. The balance of the voting populace, the courageous free-thinking "independents" will be, as usual, too cowardly to take a stand one way or the other. Welcome to Amerika, home of the freely elected dictators.
And yet another totally negative and defeatist post. I read them everyday here and it is obvious that the result you are supposedly decrying is actually exactly the one you want. There is no end to Republican gaslighting.
Perhaps the author is right. Unfortunately the conclusion is that Americans are too simple and ignorant to comprehend the real story and must be told something that doesn’t exceed the complexity of a child’s tale.
1
Is there not a recording of Trump’s calls with Zelensky?
Rather than a transcript?
1
Let's go back to the previous Witch Hunt "Back in 1998, House Republicans put together a fairly straightforward case against the president: Mr. Clinton was accused of having an affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, and then lying about it". How on earth does "lying about a dalliance in the Oval Office deserve removing the Head of State?????
But because the Republicans had their partisan political hate-fest, it is OK for Nancy to turn her House into a 2020 campaign organization.
President Clinton made the mistake of thinking his "under oath" followed the rules of law and fair play. If Trump had been dumb enough to do the same, we would not have this endless ego-posturing circus / "hearings" designed to sway popular opinion in the direction of a political party terrified that they are not putting up their Best and Brightest and need a sleazy alternative.
Rubbish. If the Senate is going to vote no regardless of the evidence, then Dems should throw the book at Trump with a full statement of his countless high crimes & misdemeanors.
There are so any that people (including the news media) tend to forget unless they're written down.
Let's write 'em down -- if only as a favor to future historians.
2
What if Democrats put all their eggs in one basket and lose? If they come up with more charges after that, the GOP could ask with some legitimacy -- why didn't you bring that up before?
The Committee vote on the 3 Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, as it relates to the Republicans on the Committee, were: Art.1; 11 no/ 6 yes; Art. 2; 11 no/ 6 yes; and Art.3; 15 no/ 2 yes.
The myth that Senator Baker's famous question about Nixon's knowledge turned the Republicans to see the light for the good of the country is rubbish, as the FACTS demonstrate. You couldn't even get a majority of House Republicans on the Committee to do the right thing!
The author wrote "The statements we tracked divided into easy categories; some members thought the affair was enough to sink the president, while others thought the lying was the impeachable offense."
The Republicans didn't impeach for lying. If lying were an impeachable offense every president back to George Washington, the cherry tree aside, could be impeached. They impeached Clinton for perjury, a felony.
They also charged "obstruction of justice".
There was video of Clinton's perjury. The blue dress proved perjury.
For political reasons, even though Clinton had committed a felony while in office, the Senate chose not to remove him. The following election the Republicans lost the house.
I have noticed the lefties/Democrats keep describing Clinton's impeachment charge as lying about an affair. It was for a felony, perjury.
31
@AmarilloMike
Lying under oath (about an affair or anything else) is the definition of perjury. Lying about an affair is an accurate description of Clinton's impeachment charge.
23
@AmarilloMike
You state that Clinton committed a felony. Yes it's true that Clinton wasn't removed from office for that crime, but he did suffer other legal consequences.
We also have the Constitution, and that document delineates a set of rules our leaders are sworn to follow.
Breaking one's oath to protect the Constitution, is a higher crime than felony. You can't write laws that supersede the Constitution.
Simply put, Trump violated his oath to the Constitution.
Felonies are meaningless in this case.
That's why Trump should be impeached.
And please stop calling us lefties. We are American citizens who happen to care about the President following the Constitution.
That Constitutional oath seems to mean nothing for today's Republicans.
46
@AmarilloMike
Pretty thin AM, and not true.
The GOP held the house, the senate and won POTUS in 2000, following the impeachment.
The GOP lost a few seats but held a narrow majority under Denny Hastert. (We know what he did)
7
The author is spot-on here. If the Dems choose to include the multitude of Trump's sins, it will be easy to dismiss the whole thing as re-litigating the 2016 election, or sour grapes that the Mueller report was a damp squib, etc. Besides, the Ukraine affair has elements of many of the laws Trump has broken. Last, once Trump is out of office, he can still be charged with crimes, so it isn't as though he'll get away scot free (unless statutes of limitation expire).
It isn't worth trying to convince Trump's base; they'll stick with him no matter what. But there are enough voters who could be persuaded of his guilt, and the simpler the message the better.
Wrong. The point of this impeachment process is not to convince the GOP majority in the Senate to vote to remove Trump. The point is to convict Trump in the court of public opinion, with a clear narrative of his pervasive corruption and abuse of power.
That would force Republican Senators, especially those running in 2020 for the 23 seats held by the GOP, to choose between voting to convict Trump, which would provoke primary challenges from his know-nothing base, and voting to acquit, thereby impeaching themselves in the eyes of independent voters and patriotic Republicans.
The evidence of Trump's pervasive corruption is clear and overwhelming, likewise for abuse of power. Presented clearly, those will be more persuasive than the issue of Ukraine, which most Americans can't find on a map. Giving Trump a pass on those IMMENSE issues would be a grave default of constitutional responsibility.
3
Trump committed dozens of impeachable and illegal acts. His Ukraine blackmail scheme is but the most recent example.
The more counts the better. Let GOPers defend them all in next year’s election.
134
@Demosthenes Gladly!
@Demosthenes
While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I think you've missed the point.
If you pin Trump on one irrefutable offense, the Republican Senate will have to retire or die before anyone forgets their vote on acquittal. If you bring in a bunch of other issues, they'll attempt to hide behind the white noise. "What is 'collusion' exactly?" and so on. There's a good argument for a narrow impeachment. History can sort out the rest.
4
It's not scattershot to include all the viable transgressions against the Constitution. Hold him and his administration (and non-government employees, like Giuliani) accountable. They all must be held accountable.
2
The writer here begins by recounting how Republicans in their attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office "took advantage of this simple story" about him having sex and lying about it and recommends this approach, failing to include the tidbit that it failed for Republicans then.
I will never in a million years understand how this common wisdom took root that a rushed, narrow, approach to impeaching Trump is the best way to go, when evidence and logic all points the opposite way.
As it stands now, Republicans in the Senate will certainly acquit Donald Trump. Mitch McConnell for one knows this, one thing he can do is count votes, and he's been practically drooling at the chance to have the vote handed to the Senate as soon as possible.
On the other hand, hearings have brought public opinion to the point where 50% want Trump not just impeached but removed. This is parallel to what happened with Nixon, where support for impeachment was 17%, and then after public hearings laying out Nixon's crimes, support for both impeachment and removal rose to 58%. Yes the tapes gave that a boost at the end but there have been plenty of pieces of evidence already that people have called "Trump's Nixon tapes" and very likely more would emerge.
This means that continued hearings are the logical way to go. "We can't have hearings during an election year" is concern trolling, and Democrats shouldn't listen to it. Republicans never would.
2
Exactly, keep it simple. Perhaps, another simple way to put it is this. If Mr. Trump had asked the Ukrainians to make a $1 million donation to his campaign in exchange for the release of $400 million of US aid, nobody would suggest he had not abused his powers as President. The fat that he asked them to investigate Biden (instead of giving him a cash donation) does not change the result in any way - he abused his office.
1
The Ukraine bribery scheme should be the focus of the impeachment but it is essential to demonstrate the pattern of lawlessness and corruption that has infested this administration from its inception. The best way to do that would be to include prior evidence of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
95
@Robert O. The Dem's had best be careful in throwing around a charge of obstruction. Once this gets to the Senate we're likely to see all kinds of obstruction claims against democrats and the previous democrat administration.
@BBVet regardless of how narrow or wide the impeachment articles are we will see the GOP launch a smear and disinformation campaign the likes of which we have never seen. Lets let them look like the corrupt fools they are as did Rep Schiff masterfully in the Intelligence committee hearings.
3
It's important that this president is impeached in the House. It's tragic that most Americans don't really care much for this action. I am an immigrant from a (then) communist country (Romania) who came here in late '79 in order to escape a totalitarian system. For me to hear that American citizens don't care that their president is a security risk to our country, a soon to be impeached criminal who works backroom deals with foreign agents against our own citizens, is beyond alarming and tragic. After 40 years of living in theStates as a tax paying citizen, making a life and career and having a small family, I am leaving for the latter part of my life to live in Canada, with my Canadian wife. This country, while mainly good to me, has truly disappointed me, particularly in the last 19 or so years...since the debacle that brought us GW Bush. The system, sadly, is being dismantled and tragically Americans "don't care."
272
@Alex M. Pruteanu Mr. Pruteanu, you have nailed it. It is both astonishing and tragic that some 40% of the country cannot see through the Donald J Trump scam. The fact that both parties have been essentially "bought" by a small subset of people holding the country's wealth does not auger well for the future. Still, the 2020 elections do we, the people, a chance to clean house. We can only hope that the Democrats can get their act together... something that is by no means assured.
18
@Alex M. Pruteanu
It is indeed tragic.
I have already started to think about post-2020 and what I need to do if Trump wins reelection, through foreign interference (even voting manipulation since the Republicans don't support paper ballots), fraud, voter suppression, misinformation, and the neglect and indifference of my fellow citizens.
I will do all that I can to ensure the Democratic candidate wins, but I may try to follow you to Canada if the nation keeps on this path.
16
@Alex M. Pruteanu It's not that most don't care, its that most American's see this as what it is, pure politics. The Democrats are doing this because they love their country. Their doing this because they love their power and they want more. What is interesting about this situation is that the democrats are doing what they have always done, rely on an emotionally, self-serving segment of the electorate to keep them in power. What's changed is that a large portion of that segment is now "woke" to how they have been used as pawns by the party throughout the years. What makes this even more crazy is that the democrats in Congress still haven't realized that fact and still believe that they have a lock on all the sheep that have been in their fields for the last 30 years.
5
Sorry--I strenuously disagree. If they follow your advice, his supporters will bray, "You mean you are going to impeach the President for one inappropriate word ('though'), in one phone call?"
Democrats need to force McConnell's Senate to deal with his persistent pattern of obstruction of justice, his persistent obstruction of Congress, and if it can be proven, his persistent violation of the emoluments clause. The Mueller Report documents the extensive obstruction of justice; the persistent obstruction of Congress is ongoing and blatant. trump's attempted shakedown of a foreign country is just the tip of the iceberg.
While the attempt to coerce Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election, and the following cover-up, is more than enough to justify impeachment, the rest must not be ignored.
Failure to perform the oath of office through abuse of power, violation of multiple laws, and a continuing pattern of disregard plus violation of the laws in the Constitution must be the central theme of impeachment. The bribery is just one example. To focus on this sample without acknowledging the continuous pattern and conspiratorial behavior with other members and associates, makes it possible to have members decide that the one act is not enough to remove him from office. Proof of betrayal to the country is much more difficult to deny as removable. While the bribery charge is, perhaps, the most transparent and simple to explain, it must be presented in context with the overall pattern of illegality.
1
I respectfully disagree. The Ukraine affair seems clear enough, but there are gray areas that Republican sycophants will exploit. The emoluments issues are not terribly useful, because too many Americans and members of Congress think profiting from everything is the American way. The Mueller report is too cumbersome and, thanks to Comrade Barr, has been diluted in the minds of too many poorly informed Americans.
The primary issue is obstruction of Congress. The president's many unlawful acts are troubling, but his efforts to forever distort the balance of power in our country is the most severe violation and the one behavior with the most pernicious long term consequences.
There are many things that he should not "get away with." Obstruction of the investigation and impeachment inquiry is the "get away with everything" card.
2
I want every legitimate impeachable offense Trump has committed since inauguration to be listed in the Articles of Impeachment. While the Senate will never convict, there is an overwhelming need to re-assert without ambiguity what the “rule of law” represents in this country, and that Trump, or any future president, is still subject to that law. Throw the book at him.
7
@tls: That would be fine but naive. Key witnesses and documents have been and will continue to be withheld, which allow Trump and the Republicans to claim hearsay, not true evidence. With or without an extended list of impeachable offenses, Trump will be "exonerated" by Justice Roberts and the Senate.
What a blow to democracy!
@tls. I totally agree! I think it's time for some major amendments to happen to our Constitution. The world has changed quite a bit in the past 200 + years and we now see how both parties can twist and misuse the Constitutionalists for their own benefit. Citizen's United must go! No more "we won't even consider your nominee for SCOTUS because you're in your last year as President." No more, changing laws as you leave office to prevent the next person to hold that office, from governing effectively, etc. Let's (as Americans) demand that changes be made to clarify procedures to prevent future transgressions.
1
If the Senate in 1998 wouldn't convict Clinton of his well-documented crime of perjury, I doubt they will convict Trump of the more ambiguous allegations of bribery. I'm sure Trump tried to get Zelensky to investigate Burisma/Biden, but that's not the first time a president has asked a foreign leader for help related to his campaign. Remember that Obama asked Russia to go easy on missile defense until after the election, when he would "have more flexibility."
Democrats in the House leadership have exercised commendable discipline so far in the impeachment process. Uppermost in their minds has been the need to limit the scope of the inquiry, and make the case against the president understandable to the public. The only advice I have for the House leadership is to keep up the good work.
3
@William as obvious as the guilt of Trump is, it is equally obvious that the public is incapable of fully understanding this as the polls show. I have no faith in the American "public"
4
The House needs to create articles of impeachment that reflect all of trump’s wrongdoings, briberies, crimes and misbehavior. Regardless of the articles, he will certainly be acquitted in the senate, but the articles will be an indictment of what is not allowed by presidents in the future. These articles may form the basis for new legislation outlining what a president can and cannot do as they fulfill their oath of office, and further define the limits of presidential power. Please do not limit the potential outcomes of this impeachment process.
8
The scope, breadth and depth of trump’s total and complete trashing of the Constitution and his oath of office is breathtaking. The trail of his decades long involvement in N.Y. real estate reveals a similar mind blowing track record of his mob like level of crimes. I would like the book thrown at him, with such force and detail that no one will be able to support this aberration of a tainted 2016 election victory , who without any doubt will go down in history as the man who almost destroyed our democracy, as described by our founders.
8
Essential Fact:
"Trump used military aid in his negotiation, leveraging not his personal fortune, but taxpayer money as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine’s president. Since the American government had voted to give the money to Ukraine, Trump withholding it to solicit information that would benefit himself strengthens the argument of the abuse of power, adding another layer of misconduct."(Quartz--Hang on a minute, did Trump break the law..) 11/4
2
I think it’s imperative that the democrats stick to the abuse of power for personal gain clearly set forth in the phone call. The democrats have to keep the story line simple because Trump’s supporters are simpletons. In order to get the 2/3 vote for impeachment required in the Senate, over 30 republican senators have to vote to impeach. We know that they have no real interest in saving our experiment in democracy. The only thing they are motivated by is self interest. They will listen to their constituents. As was the case in the Nixon impeachment, the inevitability of impeachment became clear only when 2/3 of the country thought Nixon should be impeached. The only way voters are going to demand impeachment is if there is a clear story line.
So, forget Yovanovitch, emoluments and all of the egregious abuses of power, including contempt of Congress. Stick to the July 25th phone call to Zelensky.
2
The implicit premise of Ms. Fredrickson's essay is that Trump's impeachable and criminal offenses are separate from one another. But they are not: they are all tied together. His conduct as documented in the Mueller report was to commit and cover up an effort to secure foreign assistance in the 2016 election. (So, too, were his illegal payments during that election campaign to women with whom he had had affairs.) His Ukraine scheme was a renewed effort to subvert the 2020 election. Trump wins elections by cheating and breaking the law, which is why he cannot be allowed to continue in office. Yes, focus on Ukraine, because that's the election threat that remains before us. But it's all ONE story.
4
It is difficult to advise the Democratic controlled House committees on this. With this President there is a distinct possibility that more than one impeachment proceeding maybe needed.
Not only may he be emboldened to commit worse crimes (beyond treason and bribery) if not removed from office but there is also: (1) The level of Russian influence over him and members of his Administration (2) Future disclosures after release of his tax and financial records and (3) The onslaught of new testimony after the Supreme Court rules that the House subpoenas must be obeyed. There is even the possibility he may not obey Supreme Court rulings.
If known crimes are not included in this round of impeachment- then the question may be asked why- and whether these crimes actually fit the Constitutional test. I believe that obstruction of justice and violation of the emoluments clause clearly do meet this standard. As such, they should be included in this impeachment round. Future proceedings can address further foreign entanglements, additional corruption, disobeyal of the Supreme Court, etc.
2
It may be a good idea to keep the articles of impeachment simple, but the simple charge is not that Trump offered a bribe to Zelensky, he solicited a bribe from Zelensky. Trump's performance of his official duties required him to disburse military aid to Ukraine and to meet with the President of Ukraine to demonstrate the US commitment to oppose Russian aggression. Trump requested a "favor" from Zelensky to perform these duties, which is solicitation of a bribe, exactly the behavior that the Founders determined to be grounds for impeachment.
3
I’m all for throwing the book at Trump, but let’s remember that Clinton didn’t merely lie. He committed perjury.
2
@Tom Johnson: Trump committed perjury the moment he took the oath of office.
1
@Anna Hard to argue with that. But the under-oath nature of Clinton’s lying is too often glossed over in summarizing the grounds for his impeachment.
Wrong! There is what is right to do! the Republicans have already made clear they put power and party before our democracy. they have a plan to rebut the Ukraine charge The range of charges will be harder to rebut and the public need to hear about them-again - in the Senate trail. They also need not rush this process due to political calculation. there is much more st stake here and history will look back on us all.
3
I believe the probability of impeachment of the president is most certain with a democratic majority in the House. That said, listing all his transgressions would force republicans in the Senate to go on record to assent to each one. Those who are facing a tough re-election deserve to twist in the wind while writing (and providing video for) their democratic opponents.
Taking the side of evil deserves an immediate consequence.
6
So should we just kind of give up on prosecuting criminals because the nature of the crime is too complex and difficult for the average citizen- or the average Republican member of Congress- to comprehend? Heck, then maybe we should go back to counting peoples' votes at 3/5 fractions because we can't trust them to do the right thing on their own. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if it is difficult and the outcome is uncertain. In this case, that would be impeaching Trump. Just because it's what the right thing to do is. For the long-term health of our country.
8
@Mr. SeaMonkey:
Exactly right!
We invest our trust in juries every day to sort out complex legal cases, particularly financial crimes and other complicated conspiracy scenarios. And, most juries don't have the depth of context available to the public through these hearings and access to related reports.
Even if the Senate chooses to ignore the findings, the facts, and the testimony provided, the public will be provided with the last clear chance to put the country back on the path to being the republic intended by the Founders.
3
@Mr. SeaMonkey Well said!
While author makes good arguments for keeping it simple, prosecutors often throw the book at the accused and later negotiate down to just a few charges.
If there’s just one charge there’s no room for negotiation.
19
Democrats could hardly overreach on a President who literally argues in court that the law doesn't apply to him. Yes, it the impeachment will fail to persuade the corrupt Republicans in the Senate, but that just means they're determined to go down with the ship. The only danger to Democrats would be not having the courage to stand up to Republican's admitted lawlessness.
Let's not let the myth of Donald Trump's brilliance get in the way of the reality. In the same way that Obama was a new and charismatic figure in 2008, and just another politician in 2012, Donald Trump was different and exciting in 2016, and an ineffective loud mouthed braggart in 2020. The entire year has gone by, and Donald Trump and his cronies haven't landed one single punch against his accusers. By next year, he'll just be a worn out record, repeating the same old scratchy tune.
4
Disagree. If he's re-seated in November because he has destabilized the world, we'll need more to get the Senate to save the country.
2
If the House only impeaches on one secret phone call, then the Senate will simply say, it doesn't rise to the level of removal.
Meanwhile Trump's complete disdain for our system of government and his ignoring all checks on his power will go on while he hacks the 2020 election.
In order to show that Trump's INTENT was corrupt, we need to document the completely corrupt CONTEXT of the Trump presidency. Yes, there are many rude and destructive things that Trump does that are not High Crimes, but to ignore Trump's long history of attacking and violating the Constitution on TV would be leaving the real case for Trump's removal unmade.
Trump makes his intent known every time he speaks. Even his followers know that he thinks he is more important than the rest of us. That is why they like him. The Constitution did not make the President more important than the rest of us. It made him an equal citizen with extra responsibilities. The President has wide latitude to use his power IF his intent is to enact the Will of the People. That is not what Trump is doing.
Trump literally governs like a king, because he knows that if he gets away with it long enough, he will be King.
Like a king, Trump calls his critics "treasonous," calls for VIOLENCE against citizens without due process, demands personal loyalty from public servants, takes payments from foreign countries, allies with foreign countries against the People, obstructs investigations, etc. On TV!
EXPLAIN ALL of the HIGH CRIMES!
45
I believe there is danger in leaving some of Trump's crimes off the impeachment list. To do so would imply that those offenses are acceptable. They are not.
The Ukraine affair, obstruction of justice and breaking the emoluments clause are each worthy issues for impeachment. To leave them out would give cover to any other criminal who gets elected President, and that includes, God forbid, a Trump second term.
27
Despite what this author recommends, the articles of impeachment should summarize, at the very least, every violation of the Constitution that Trump has made. And this list is long.
It should also be written in a manner easy for everyone reading it to understand.
The Republicans are not going to impeach him. Indeed they seem prepared to support every thing he does and spin facts into falsehoods so obvious that even they must fully comprehend the truth.
The advantages of a clear and complete record of Trump's aggressions will help voters understand the need to rid our country of as many Republicans as possible when they vote next year. This is the only way to enforce the Republican party to change it's current philosophy of "me first, the Constitution second.
23
Clinton's impeachment seems so simple now. How naive the country was! He was charged with lying, something Trump does every day, to Congress, to the American people and to himself. Trump has changed the way we view one of the very basics of our way of life-- our concept of what is right and what is wrong. Millions of Americans now believe that it is acceptable for the president to use federal dollars to entice a foreign government to investigate the president's political rival. Even Nixon's role in the Watergate cover-up pales in comparison. In fact, had Nixon's impeachment happened now, he could claim that the tape showed he was "perfect" and that there is nothing wrong with breaking into the rival party's headquarters, and millions of Republicans would agree with him. Trump has changed America so much, and changed Americans as well, and our very idea of what behavior we will tolerate from elected officials. Lying is the least of it.
31
I agree with you. As "bribery" is specifically enumerated in the constitution as an impeachable offense there is no need to foster an argument and a distraction over the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
2
Perfectly put. And even easier to grasp there is this. No hero ever named his or her sword "Oathbreaker." But I think the Democrats will include at least one indictable crime in the articles of impeachment in order to keep that narrative moving forward. They have no intention of letting Trump walk away when his term finally ends. The Senate will acquit him, of course, and Donald Trump will face a gut-wrenching decision. Does he chance a run in 2020, knowing that if he loses he will be indicted and possibly jailed? Or does he find an excuse to quit while there is still time for Pence to pardon him without facing obstruction charges himself?
4
@Billy Glad
Or does Trump doubles down and makes sure that all voting machines in key states are programmed to vote Trump.
Ivanka's chinese patent for voting machines could be very useful to Trump in 2020.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-ivanka/china-grants-more-trademark-approvals-for-ivanka-trump-firm-including-voting-machines-idUSKCN1NB0TL
First, the impeachment committee must not rush through to meet some arbitrary deadline. Second, they must bring context to the picture so that moderate Republican and independent voters understand that the Ukraine shakedown is not an aberration, but is of apiece with the morally bankrupt nature of the Trump administration. Third, they need to make it meaningful to these voters to shake them out of their reluctance to speak out ...ie if Trump is willing to sell out our National security, do you really think he cares about your paycheck, your healthcare or the viability of Medicare/Medicaid....
5
@Syd Singalong Trump supporters just do not care what Trump does. Somehow Trump tapped into a moral cesspool that many Americans live in and has run with it, to wit his exclamation, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Leaders of the House Judiciary Committee should follow this advice. The central charge against President Trump is succinct and damning in evidencing an abuse of power. Moreover, the facts of that abuse are contained in the July 25th call transcript Trump himself released, the context and import of which have been confirmed under oath by numerous officials working in service of the U.S. government. President Trump’s subsequent obstruction of Congress in refusing to deliver subpoenaed documents and ordering other officials to ignore subpoenas to testify before House committees reveals not only consciousness of guilt but defiance of the Constitution, a clear and present danger to the continued existence of our democracy.
2
The real question is not what constitutes "enough" evidence to impeach Mr. Trump and remove him from office. The real question is what high crime or misdemeanor would convince the American public and most especially the Republican Party to admit the president is unfit for office. The Mueller Report offered clear evidence of obstruction of justice, and the nation just shrugged. The crisis we face is far greater than the crimes of a renegade president. When one of the two dominant political parties in a great nation loses honor and integrity, in part because its constituents believe their leader infallible, the nation's future becomes not a matter of law but a matter of raw political power. This is the climate that produces tyrants and totalitarian regimes, and thus the ultimate danger to the republic.
7
This article contains the best one-sentence summary of the president's impeachable conduct:
"Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival."
Each Democratic senator who votes to remove the president should memorize that sentence, to explain their vote.
.Of course 20 Republican senators won't vote to remove him. Perhaps one or two will. The voters will decide next November whether to vote out this president, along with some of the elected officials who have enabled him.
8
Caroline Fredrickson asserts that “the best story line is the simple one: Mr. Trump tried to bribe a foreign official with American government dollars to announce an investigation of unfounded charges against a domestic political rival. There is more, much more. But that’s enough.”
But the recently released House Intelligence Report does not allege that President Trump offered President Zelensky a bribe. The word “bribery” appears on pages 8, 66, 147 and 215 of the report. On page 66 and page 147 it applies to allegations against the Bidens and on page 8 and page 215 it appears as part of a general discussion of what constitutes constitutional grounds for impeachment and Congress’ oversight functions.
1
@William Case The report does not determine what the articles of impeachment might eventually be. It provides evidence and testimony from which to make that determination. The document provides a suggested blueprint for further investigation and discussion by the Judiciary committee, which will decide what the specific charges will be. So the word "bribery" need not be leveled angst Trump in this report. It is the evidence of Trump's extortion, not the word itself, that is important in the House Intelligence report.
There is no question that Trump attempted to bribe the President of the Ukraine to announce a criminal investigation against Biden that would help Trump defeat a political opponent. However Trump’s proposal was not viewed as a bribe by Ukraine’s President nor acted upon. In criminal law an attempt to commit a criminal act without completion is itself a criminal act. The same standard does not apply to an impeachment process which is inherently political. Trump’s bad behaviour does not warrant impeachment.The voters can impeach Trump in November 2020.
3
@Milton Lewis I really would like to think you're joking, but then I remember how many people actually believe what you're trying to sell.
He needs to be impeached. Who cares if it's in an upcoming election year. He committed crimes for which he needs to be held accoutable.
End of story. accountable
2
@Milton Lewis
Oh for God's sake, the WHOLE WORLD knows that Ukraine's president has to keep his mouth shut about Trump in case Trump gets re-elected.
This is well-stated, but the reason is not so much simplicity as whether impeachment is seen as primarily political or not.
The Republicans are desperately trying to frame this as a mere continuation of the opposition which Trump has inspired, which would allow them to characterize this too as politically-motivated, which is all the Republican base needs to be satisfied and stop paying attention.
But the plain fact is that the Democrats have literally had impeachment forced on them due to the President having been caught dead-to-rights running an extortion scheme for his personal benefit out of the Oval Office. In this situation impeachment is not only not political, it is extraordinarily dangerous politically, since it offers Trump another persecution story-line going into an election year.
So the Democrats need to keep this focused. It needs to be crystal-clear what is at stake here: whether or not the powers of the presidency can be used in this way with impunity.
The question is not which member of the House or Senate is a Democrat and which is a Republican. The question is which of them are going to honor their oaths of office and which are not.
Our constitutional democracy will be shot to pieces if the president is free to abuse his or her power this way.
14
Congress, for whichever party controls it next session, 10 years from now, 50 years from now, needs to investigate and pass Articles of Impeachment on all that they can. It's less so that we remove Trump (which should happen but cowardly GOP senators will put power over country) but more so that Congress retains its authority to oversee the executive branch.
22
I could not disagree more. The difference between Watergate & Trump's many misdeeds is that back then you have a Congress that believed in the rule of law, the prestige of the Presidency, Separation of powers, Congressional oversight and the sanctity of elections. The Senate under Mitch McConnell doesn't believe in any of the above. Their sole focus is to remain in control of the Senate and this means that they will literally do anything to keep this joke of a President in office because they are scared of losing the Deplorables votes come election time. This is why they are openly spouting off Kremlin backed conspiracy theories during the middle of the impeachment investigation. The Democrats need to include every Impeachable offense. That way when the trial portion of it is treated like a joke by the Senate the American people can decide how much punishment the Senators who abandoned their duty to uphold and protect the Constitution should receive. McConnell, Graham & the rest of the GOP need to be shown that their abandonment of their sworn duty has consequences in 2020. If they ignore the literal laundry list of impeachable offenses then maybe this will be enough to convince the American voters that our Democracy is under attack from within.
139
@Eric
McConnell is the most dangerous man on the face of this earth. He has full control over Donald Trump, he knows it, and he does NOTHING.
7
@Eric I totally agree with you. Since many people only watch Fox and only get twisted distorted stories of Drump’s transgressions, all his violations must be enumerated over and over again.
6
@Eric
What about obstruction of justice by Trump, blocking testimony?
We can endlessly dispute what Trump attempted to influence.
But it is crystal clear, that Trump refused to allow testimony.
It seems to me that obstruction of justice must be a focus.
The witnesses mentioned this, but they didn't emphasize it.
Ultimately, the fear is that democracy will be be destroyed.
I suggest a new birth of freedom after Trump's impeachment. In the "Democracy" song of Leonard Cohen:
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
3
Simply put, there is no equivalency between the Republican Party of Nixon's era and today's Republican Party. The dynamic has completely changed. Any appeal to Republican senators and other officials will prove fruitless. Three reasons for this transformation are many and have been well documented and discussed. Any appeal to support impeachment must be made directly to constituents, not elected "leaders." And it says something that even a direct appeal to voters is not a guarantee that impeachment will succeed. We're on the edge of a very real political if not Constitutional precipice.
49
@MikeBoma Sorry: "The reasons for this..."
@MikeBoma I would even argue that our entire Democratic Republic is in danger of collapsing. When the Rule of Law is abandoned, corruption and foreign interference in elections accepted and the separation of powers is abandoned then what are we left with? Sounds a lot like a Fascist Dictatorship to me.
5
It is a foregone conclusion that Senate republicans will not convict Trump on any criminal violation, up to and including the apocryphal "murder in broad daylight on the steps of the Capital."
As that is a given, it appears to me that the best strategy for the Democrats is a variation of "divide and conquer."
Keep this first impeachment focused on the bribery and insane conspiracy vis-a-vis the Ukraine.
As soon as that reaches its inevitable denouement in the Senate, begin a next round with respect to personal enrichment. That proceeding can also clearly include a charge of obstruction. Perhaps we will see those tax records before the 2020 election.
By the time that second proceeding ends, either the election will be over with a Democrat as the new president or Trump will be re-elected, in which case it really does not matter what any of us do as democracy in America will be effectively over.
Perhaps I mis-named this strategy. Would "rope-a-dope" be more apt?
Jonathan Penn
7
@Jonathan Penn What makes you so convinced that the President must be removed from office?
@Wherever Hugo he probably glanced at the mountain of evidence against him.
An obstruction of justice charge needs to be included, all the better to showcase his contempt for the rule of law.
75
@fgros In other words, you want to run this event following exactly the script of the Nixon Tribunals.
As if nothing has changed since 1972 election that upset so many misguided so-called "liberals",
Nixon ended the Vietnam War....and two months later he was punished with a Watergate Tribunal that used a minor crime, to which Nixon did NOT participate, to draw in all kinds of Pumped uP charges as Nixon attempted to defend him self.
Dont let the Politicians fool you again.
@Wherever Hugo Nixon participated in the coverup of the burglary which was his undoing. You don't need a politician to fool you. You've done an excellent job of fooling yourself.
1
I agree that less is more in this instance, as tempting as it is to include laundry list of the many impeachable offenses he has committed. The simple message is this. He tried through bribery to convince a foreign power to damage his domestic political rival and, when caught in the act, then proceeded to obstruct the ability of Congress to investigate this transgression in every way imaginable.
5
The main problem is that the simple narrative is not compelling enough to cause overwhelming outrage beyond the Democrat base (as shown by polls) and a broad array of charges simply looks like a laundry list of complaints by an opposition party looking to score political points for its own candidate in the coming election. Unlike the Nixon burglary which did occur and then covered up by the then President, the Ukraine call did not result in an actual investigation of Biden jr. or get criminally covered up by Trump who released a transcript later. The parallels while compelling are not the same and as Clinton’s own impeachment trial showed, even when shown clear evidence of a felony (in his case perjury), the result is not necessarily conviction nor long term damage to reputation. Before readers start screaming at my analysis please note I am explaining why this author’s thesis is no solution to how to successfully impeach Trump, not arguing the merits of Trump or the case against him from a moral or ethical standpoint.
14
One point, the transcript is not a transcript, it's a summary document. The entire call was placed on a secure server that is never used for such things. And we still haven't heard the entire call.
1
@michaelf
Rather than screaming, I will agree with you. Americans have a history of not understanding the big picture. Think about the run up to WWII.
They don’t understand that Russian leaders would like nothing better than to neuter the United States so they could become the world power they have always lusted to be. They don’t give a rip about Ukraine. They only care about their own little world.
The trouble with giving everyone the right to vote is they think they are smart enough to.
1
@SteveH
Obstruction of Justice.
I disagree. Anything that Trump did that was illegal or unethical and the list is never ending should be added on.
Your theory worked with Nixon because republicans back then put country over party, unlike now and Nixon only had one general impeachable offense ie his sins on Watergate.
Your theory worked with Clinton because he only had one impeachable offense and the country and majority democrats didn't buy it.
What you are missing is if a majority of swing state voters do no agree with impeachment now against Trump don't do it.
If doesn't do the democrats any good if they impeach without public support and aid and Abet Trump to another terms.
Better to remove Trump at the ballot box next yr. that at least now looks promising.
11
@Paul
Voting machines are being hacked. And who hacked our elections last time? (not Ukraine)
NYTimes: "A Pennsylvania County’s Election Day Nightmare Underscores Voting Machine Concerns”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/politics/pennsylvania-voting-machines.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
1
@JM thank you for your reply. While voting fraud from within but especially from without especially Russia is a big concern it doesn't mean you stop holding elections.
Although Russia certainly campaigned against Hillary there is no evidence that they hacked one vote.
Again while it is a big concern and pressure should be put on republicans to increase security there was more fraud back in the day ironically from democrats.
The famous one was in Cook county. It reminds me of Jay Leno's old joke, if you vote in a dictatorship you are dead, if you are dead in cook county you vote.
1
You are, of course, correct. With this president, where do you even start to list out all of his high crimes and misdemeanors?
That said, while I agree that keeping it simple is good advice, I also believe that you can simply state the charges against this president, setting forth a compelling case of overarching corruption and abuse of power.
My advice would be to provide a list of acts that are undeniable (even though the Republicans will argue otherwise). But force all Senators to say yes or no to simple statements of fact.
For example, the evidence is overwhelming that the president solicited a foreign government for help to undermine a potential political opponent -- or to at least _say_ they were doing so. Do the Senators think this is okay for a president to do or not?
The evidence is also overwhelming that the president obstructed justice by refusing to release any documents or allow senior officials to testify. Do the Senators think this is okay for a president to do or not?
He has also attempted to undermine the power of Congress to provide their Constitutional duty of oversight. Do the Senators think this is okay for a president to do or not?
I would not give Senators any wiggle room to nitpick an article as their excuse for not voting for it. Keep it simple, but force their hand. Their votes will not only go down in history, but hopefully come back to haunt them in November.
85
@avrds Very well said. My own thoughts are that the refusal to cooperate with investigations, in addition to allowing an adverse inference to be made, constitutes obstruction of justice, contempt of Congress, and, while we're at it, a failure to honor his oath of office.
So, as stated elsewhere, impeach him on bribery/extortion/misuse of the office for personal gain, along with soliciting interference from a foreign country in our election, then while that is still going on impeach him for obstruction of justice, and a bit later send over articles for violation of the emoluments clause.
We may hope that whispers of aiding and abetting Russia are heard; to me, that's actually one of the most important elements of this Presidency. Nancy Pelosi was right when she said “All roads seem to lead to Putin with the president".
11
@avrds
Trump stands on stage and says, "someone should beat that guy up." If the President is allowed to call for VIOLENCE against citizens without due process, than debate and voting don't matter. Violence trumps reason unless We the People strictly regulate state violence.
Trump says, "the Press is the enemy of the People," and calls for violence against journalists and news organizations, on TV. If the President can attack the Press, the Press cannot defend the Constitution, the law, it the People.
Trump publicly berates his own appointees that protect the Constitution instead of him, calls his critics treasonous, and demands loyalty from public servants. Government by loyalty is called Fealty, a feature of monarchy. No one owes loyalty to the President or Trump. Loyalty is owed to We the People and the Constitution.
Trump takes payments from foreign governments and calls the Emoluments Clause "phony."
Trump publicly obstructs investigations into attacks on our Elections by accusing the entire US Intelligence Community of "treason" with no evidence, while praising those that attack us.
Trump claims he can take away birthright citizenship, contradicting the 14th Amendment.
These are all High Crimes.
If Trump was a Democrat doing exactly what he has done, Republicans would charge him with ALL of his High Crimes, not build a complicated case about one secret High Crime, except to harp on the one phrase that matters, released by Trump, "I need a favor, THOUGH.".
6
@avrds
Do not keep it "simple".
Americans are not stupid.
Overwhelm us with all the facts and evidence.
It's all there.
Use it.
America deserves to have the full breadth, width and depth this president's lies, deceit and corruption.
Then we'll take action against the Senate Republicans who support this treacherous man.
4
This is a political as well as a legal situation, and the case has to be made to the American people for impeachment to stick. If a case of obstruction can be made clearly and forcefully, it should be added to articles of impeachment. In the present days, elected Republicans will only start turning on Trump if the populace starts turning more than they seemingly have to date. I agree that emoluments won't do that job, but the collusion and obstruction would strong charges to bring. The collusion case was brought forward clearly and forthrightly. The obstruction case needs to happen the same way. The Washington Post's illustrated version of the Mueller Report goes a long way into making the obstruction much easier to understand. If the Judiciary Committee can make its case, it should be another article of impeachment.
1
Keep it simple he can be impeached on other charges at a later time if needed as well. Trump has no power to divert my attention as I clearly see through the smokescreen.
11
Just about everything, in the oft-repeated phrase of the late Cokie Roberts, is "bad for the Democrats", at least when Democrats aren't tentatively pursuing the status quo.
Nobody in this cheering squad noticed that the Repubs didn't get where they are by being timorous and horrified? Or is getting nowhere the idea?
Life would be so much easier if the Democrats were reconciled to being the permanent minority party which, in return, gets to elect a center-right president every few years.
11
The articles of impeachment should not be drawn up with a view towards convincing the public (more than 50% want him removed already, according to some polls) or succeeding in the senate -- the senate will not convict even if Trump shot someone on 5th Ave! They should, instead, be drawn up with a view towards influencing the behavior of future presidents. With that view, EVERYTHING illegal that Trump has done should be listed in the articles of impeachment, so that no future President can look back and say, "Trump got away with it, so why can't I?"
236
@Ram
This approach will guarantee party line only voting, and the justifiable complaint of piling on; Trump will be defended by attacking the weakest of the many impeachment counts; the weakness of that count will diminish the rest of the cohort. Every future House majority of the non-presidential power will feel empowered to compile a laundry list of what it feels is inappropriate behavior in the president and impeach him or her on that basis. Yes, this impeachment activity establishes a precedent. But that precedent cuts both ways.
8
@Ram
I disagree. Look at history, when public support for impeaching and removing Nixon reached 58%, Republicans forced him to resign.
There is a number, we just haven't reached it yet. Yes, those were different Republicans back then, but the basic principle remains. No, Republicans won't suddenly become moral heroes, but when it become more politically costly to stick with Trump than abandon him, the abandonment will come in droves.
This really should be the message to Republicans: Since Trump's crimes here center on trying to rig the 2020 election, the election will now always be seen as tainted, as long as Trump is part of it. Always. The only way to avoid this is to remove Trump and run someone else. All of Trump's crimes that more than half the country now acknowledges, all of these will be connected to Republicans unless they abandon him.
13
@Ram
Democrats have only one option.
Take down everyone who was involved.
Phone records (and Sondland testimony) show Devin Nunes, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, Rudy Giuliani and possibly Mike Pence were all in the Ukraine scheme together.
Democrats must have the gumption to have all removed from office if they were involved in the coverup, this is how impeachment works.
Singling out Trump is a big mistake, in the words of Sondlland " We were all in the loop".
If Democrats are not willing to take down all involved(including members of congress), the impeachment of Trump will not work.
34
How about we get Trump to stop illegal activities and then maybe we can stop.
I find it interesting that all sort of authors keep saying that we need to stop fighting/listing/resisting Trump and his minions or at least back off a bit. Why stop? Trump's number of followers has not and will not change no matter what Democrats do.
31
@Charleston Yank - great idea. Specifically, how do you suggest we get him to stop his illegal activities??
@stevevelo
"Specifically, how do you suggest we get him to stop his illegal activities??"
Impeachment. That's the constitutional recourse that we have.
1
@GS - as we used to say when I lived in Brooklyn: “Impeachment, AND A TOKEN”, will get you on the subway. Impeachment is fine, but unless he’s convicted by The Senate (don’t hold your breath), he’ll still be President. The only way is to vote him out of office.
I would focus more on thinking about this country and what will happen to use when he wins re-election. He will either steal the election or just refuse to leave. And his minions will support him staying. We are in deep, deep trouble.
47
@Me
That’s one of the jobs of the DC police - physically removing the president from the White House.
It was just added to the job description....
2
@Me
“Refuse to leave”? I don’t get that one. He won’t be President anymore, he’ll have no authority. He can be evicted, the same way the Trump family has gone for years. What, you think the military will stand with him? They hate him as much or more than we do.
3
@James I simply don't know. I am afraid. I just don't think there will be a peaceful transition of power.
2
Democrats have already overreached. And now they're over-overreaching. Another week of hearings to go over the same points with the same people won't change a thing other than to emphasize how hyper-partisan the affair has become.
12
@kwb
"Democrats have already overreached."
No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. This corrupt, unstable, dangerous self-serving president needs to go.
3
While multiple articles of impeachment may be difficult for some to follow, I would argue that violation of the emoluments clause is easier for many to grasp than the Ukraine matter.
Many don't know or care where Ukraine is, but you only have to look at the guest register at the Washington DC Trump Hotel to see that the President abuses his public role for private gain.
114
@P Thayer I agree, but when naked bribery and treason can't be sold as impeachable- emoluments would seem a dead end.
I am puzzled, though, why the Dems don't include the hush money payments for trump's affairs. The Cohen case has been tried, Cohen is in prison, and Trump is individual 1 - the unindicted co-conspirator. The case is easier to follow than emoluments- and much more interesting to the public.
Stormy Daniels is not a sympathetic figure- but Karen McDougal- should she be allowed to testify- is quite compelling.
14
@R Ho you cannot impeach Trump for something that happened before he became POTUS and took the oath of office.
2
@C Murphy The whole point of Showing the checks from DJT to Stormy in the Cohen hearing. The pay-offs were being made while he was President.
6
As if the complexity of the case is relevant: the Senate will not send Trump packing, no matter what.
While it might be possible to peel off a few Republicans (Collins? Romney?), there is no roadmap to get 2/3 of this Senate to go against Trump.
Fredrickson is making a legal argument, but this is a political exercise. Her brief and distant experience from 1998 is not much to hang one’s hat on.
74
@Cousy
@Cousy is correct. Impeachment is a political exercise, not a legal argument. Correct, also is the assumption that the Senate will not vote as the House does.
So, it will be left to the voters in the next election to speak their minds regarding Trump's continuing as President. To this point in time, the Democrats have acted like spoiled children that did not get their ice cream and it is my opinion that the voters will remind them of the time and effort that has been wasted on a tantrum.
3
@Cousy
If you're conceding that the impeachment is merely an excuse for partisan political name-calling with no expected results, what does that say about the process or the Democrats who initiated it? No, it is important to stick to the law and legal formalisms, to show that this is a principled objection to a violation of the constitution, not simply a partisan hit-job that will be turned around to use against the next Democratic holder of the presidency, whatever their actions.
4
@Bill
Impeaching a president for secretly trying to coerce an ally into helping you win an election--and by doing so undermine that ally's safety, our foreign policy and our election integrity--is a tantrum?
This is a ridiculous and morally bankrupt position.
7