Exxon has decreed that Trump shall be acquitted in the Senate.
For some reason Dershowitz seems able to breezily ignore the moral implications of his work protecting people like Donald Trump. At this point, after all the hate and idiocy and race baiting and child caging and election interference and dictator cuddling and *lying* (my god, the lying), that Trump is responsible for? In my mind he's become a kind of walking empathy/intelligence test. Continued support for him is a fail.
2
There are no strong points in Trump's defense. He's guilty, it warrants removal from office, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying traitor.
1
and never a mention of anything that would exonerate... no true defense, only attacks on the process and prosecutors!
color him quilty
3
There was a group of Republican Senators gathered outside the Senate giving their thoughts on the proceedings and they behaved like stupid schoolchildren reciting lies that their playground bully made up. There was no nuance in their thinking or talking. They feverishly denounced everything about the trial and egged each other on to put down the Democrats with slights. They took their cue from their "boss" and it was disheartening as only a loss of intelligence can elicit to watch people who are the shareholders of a democracy going down the drain.
3
The President didn't do anything wrong and that is why he directed everyone at the White House to not comply. He withheld all evidence because he didn't do anything wrong. Sounds like an inept leader just there, never mind the other accusations.
2
And who will defend Trump's minions who choose,
as is their right-personally, earned or not, to
BE willfully BLIND to temporary or more permanent harms
caused by/associated with The Chosen One's words and
deeds? Daily. All around US.
In our enabled WE-THEY toxic, violating culture.
Who will defend Trump's minions who choose to
BE willfully DEAF to the experienced existential pains of all too many; outcomes of Trump's personal unaccountability?
Who will defend Trump's minions who choose to BE willfully INDIFFERENT to the caging, neglect, and even death of powerless children? To the ravishing of Facts and TRUTH
by a twitterer who has desecrated the American Presidency and options for personally accountable politics?
Who will defend Trump's minions who choose to continue to BE IGNORANT in an era of limitless available and accessible DATA. Some reliable and some not.
A daily challenge to discern!
Analyzed information-KNOWING; some generalizable, some misleading and NOT!
Created UNDERSTANDING; some used. Much NOT!
Rarely achievable WISDOM, overcoming all too many ranges of barriers and all too few passable bridges for making much needed differences for menschlich living.
In defense of???:
A conflicted and divided nation of diverse Peoples!
Diminished mutual trust!
Diminished mutual civility!
Diminished mutual respect!
Diminished mutual caring!
Diminished spirituality; increased weaponized-religiosity!
Diminished mutual help, when and if needed!
Diminished ethics!
I continue to be depressed by the argument that the House should have fought through the courts when 45 instructed that subpoenas be ignored. To my thinking, impeachment is such a serious matter that this seems like lawyerly nitpicking. Are we willing to bow to a technicality and by so doing abjure any possibility of learning what those witnesses - those who were and those who weren't subpoenaed - could contribute to arguments on either side? This is plain cowardice on the part of Republicans. Either that or it is exactly what it appears to be: attempt at cover-up to shield 45 and to keep their own seats. To take the position that lies are truth, to do it repeatedly, moves our country into the realm of insanity.
2
We have our first confession in the trial and it is Alan Dershowitz acknowledging that his is a fringe interpretation of the Constitution in contrast to the consensus of the majority of constitutional scholars. He writes in a recent letter to the Times;
"While it is true that most other constitutional scholars believe that impeachment can be based on completely noncriminal type behavior, such as abuse of power, my independent research conducted over the past two years has led me to the opposite conclusion..."
No attorney worth their salt in a regular court trial would call forth this man as their expert witness...unless they had no other choice and were desperate to provide one to fit their narrative.
92
@Mr. Bantree: Isn't it interesting that Dershowitz has been researching Presidential Impeachment this issue for the last 2 years. Since Trump is only the third President in history to be impeached how can it take 2 years to do the research?
3
@Mr. Bantree: "While it is true that most other constitutional scholars believe that impeachment can be based on completely noncriminal type behavior, such as abuse of power, my independent research conducted over the past two years has led me to the opposite conclusion..."
Dershowitz is not a constitutional scholar. He is a semi-retired criminal lawyer who decided since his previous, very public, recorded and available, definite statement that a crime is not necessary for impeachment is not correct. It's sad to see Alan and Rudy trying to stay relevant by prostituting themselves to represent Trump. Not even Jonathan Turley, who has become famous as the right's "constitutional expert" agrees with him.
11
@Mr. Bantree
Dear Mr. Bantree,
Mr. Dershowitz claimed he has studied this issue in great detail.
Great! I look forward to the more detailed explanation of his position.
Still, I have a very jaundiced view of self-described experts. Saying you are an expert is not the same as making a logical determination of anything.
5
The weakest Trump complaint is that Hunter Biden was given a sweetheart appointment on the board of Burisma, while Trump's own daughter obtained 34 trade licences, issued with obscene haste by the Chinese, slap bang in the middle of trade negotiations between the U.S. and China.
I wonder why the comparison is never made.
13
@Hamid Varzi
Because neither Ivanka “Daddy’s Girl” nor Hunter “Richer Than Lindsey” are relevant to the question of whether President Grifter should be dragged out of the White House and turned over to the respective Attorneys General of New York, Florida, New Jersey, and California.
2
If impeachment is a shame, as the Republicans claim, it is a shame because they made it so. First, by gaslighting the American public into crediting the completely false and Russian-promulgated narrative about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections. Secondly, by refusing to participate in a serious and meaningful way: they know exactly the lies they are telling are not true, but they cling to them as a means to throw confusion and discord back at the People. And lastly, and perhaps more importantly, using the power of Congressional investigations in Bill Clinton's second term to prosecute an almost never-ending inquiry into his past and then-present. The Special Prosecutor started out looking at a questionable (by Republican standards) land deal, and ended with a deposition in which Clinton took a lawyerly approach to answering a very private question about his sexual relationship with an intern. The duplicitous, hypocritical and shamelessly political nature of that impeachment echoes today in their claims that it's a political witch hunt. If impeachment was debased, it was debased then, not now.
Republicans are to blame for ALL of it. And I hope they are held to account by the American People. Their stain must be washed from our Republic again and again and again, until the Party of Trump is relegated to the dustbin of history once and for all time.
5
Well said, bravo!
get trump on the stand, he says he wants to. give him 5 minutes.
2
Sadly, minds were made up long before the House managers presented their case to the Senate. Too many senators are more concerned with their personal interests, such as being elected again, than they are with the wellbeing of the nation.
2
No one seems to discuss DJT's brag that he has all the evidence which the Congress needs and will continue to hold it. Yes, I'm paraphrasing To me that is a crime because if a regular individual made similar statements to the police or another investigative body, surely, that would not serve to defeat an effort to convict.
3
Though they state he did nothing wrong the fact you can state he did nothing right to me holds more room for his ability to push the bar of corruption even higher for himself along with future presidents. The fact he is only being the person he has always been is and should be expected. When do the so called adults who enable him and his actions become accountable. There is not much to be done about a group as a whole who have become corrupt with a thirst for power. The damage done to our credibility as a country can be very extensive before our ability to vote them out of office becomes possible. The fact we won't learn how much damage has been and will continue to be done. Can not be really known for years, is a problem. I wonder what the debate was like when the forefathers decided term limits weren't as important as having the wisdom experienced people as a group learn together. They failed to see we as humans don't necessarily contain the same moral values prevalent amongst them. Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Is it not a good time to debate term limits for the sake of our republic, before a majority of those afraid of losing their power completely ignore the morality we should all naturally contain.
2
As long as Bush/Cheney et.al. (and Obama/Biden et.al. for that matter) remain at large and aren’t charged with war crimes, torture being the most obvious, this impeachment trial is a complete farce.
That’s a precedent we’re setting here.
Torture? Cool!
Qui pro quo, the bread and butter of diplomacy ? Oh, my god, impeach the guy!
Truly pathetic.
3
@Chris
1. He has been impeached. I think you wish him to be convicted. That’s a good idea.
2. If your bar is that anyone who participated in torture, even by deciding not to pursue prosecutions for it, is guilty of war crimes, then not only is every president from Washington on likely guilty, but all of us are also culpable. If you ever paid federal taxes, you bought torture. Just like I did. Just like Bernie did. Just like McConnell did. You may wish to draw a more nuanced line. I’d start with those who did it and who supported and still support its use.
2
Ridiculous.
Tax payers aren’t responsible for the betrayal of their elected representatives., looking at you, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
3
Jed Shugerman, a Fordham Law professor. “Once the Dems decided not to challenge Trump’s bad arguments for not cooperating, they also abandoned the ‘high crime’ aspect of presidential abuse of power.”
What does this mean?
This point is unexplained and leaves the reader hanging.
@Mimi
Interesting. If quoted correctly, Jed seems to be conflating the high crime of abuse of power with the high crime of obstruction of Congress. I suppose that there is an argument that Congress gave up the obstruction article by not spending a couple of years of litigation, while Trump continues to cheat and abuse his office. But that argument is weak in the face of the global nature of Trump’s obstruction. Neither Jed nor Spencer do themselves any favors when they do not understand even the basics of this impeachment.
1
I think he’s saying that going to court to enforce the congressional subpoenas is a condition precedent to a claim of high crimes. Pulled that out of thin air, I expect.
Surprised he hasn't been brought to court for his other "misdemeanors".
@Tekashi
I suspect that there are a few federal prosecutors just waiting for him to leave office. And a few state prosecutors who won’t wait that long.
My problem with all of these Congress-President disputes is, why did the Congress not take The President's refusal to cooperate to the Supreme Court?
1
@Donald Champagne
I think I can answer that. President Extortion was attempting to cheat in the upcoming election. Since the federal courts (by now significantly polluted with Trump/Federalist appointees) were slow walking these cases, it would have taken us well past the election THAT TRUMP WAS RIGGING before the evidence of that cheating would have been available to the House. (Sorry for the caps; this point just seems to escape many of us.)
1
Schiff was saying if Trump is re-elected it would be because of Russian influence, therefore, his re-election could not be legitimate. He concludes Trump must be removed from office before he is re-elected. But Trump is not on trial for crimes. How would that happen?
Schiff does not believe there is an electable Democratic candidate, therefore, he must delegitimize it before it happens. Isn't that what the Russians want?
1
@JoeG Hi JoeG. The factual response to your first question is that the GAO has determined that the incumbent committed a crime by withholding Ukranian aid bipartisanly authorized by Congress. The procedural response is that impeachment does not require a criminal charge.
My thoughts on your second question are that Putin wants the U.S. in chaos, divided, with its political institutions weakened, and its intelligence operations compromised. If he also can have a sycophantic president, so much the better.
Hope this helps you sort things out. You were looking for clarification, right?
@JoeG
Do your own homework. Start with a good book on the constitution. Breitbart is not a good book on the constitution.
The fundamental weakness of the House impeachment strategy is their failure to allege specific statutory violations (apart from mentioning them in committee reports).
Ample evidence demonstrates that Trump's conduct violated specific federal criminal statutes, including RICO predicate offenses.
An article of impeachment alleging that, while in office, Trump continued to be the leader of an association-in-fact racketeering enterprise and to engage in RICO conspiracy would have been easier to prove and more convincing to the electorate.
An article specifically alleging RICO would have allowed discovery and introduction of evidence antedating 2016 to prove a pattern and existence of the enterprise and would also have allowed introduction of Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and other misconduct evi.dence -- a a best seller even after Senate acquittal
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's the pattern, stupid."
1
These legal arguments are irrelevant. Live by "it's political" die by "it's political." At this point the Republicans don't care if Trump stays president. They need him as a candidate. They have nothing else, and if he is gone the Democrats will have a free walk into the White House, and thus they will have no reason to cater to the center in any way in who they nominate.
I have nothing against lawyers. Like any other profession they are serving a purpose. But like any other profession we need to be clear when the purpose is not being served. For example a social network or search engine which compromises the security and wellbeing of its users is not serving its purpose correctly anymore. In much the same way legal analysis can fall off the edge of the two-dimensional piece of flat paper and fail to serve the 4-dimensional to multi-dimensional universe it exists in.
For example, Gorsuch's argument re the trucker - with caveats that he thought the law was dumb, the trucking company's retaliation was dumb, but the trucker should have still stayed in the truck and frozen to death, or been amenable to losing his job. All he had to do was ask why the heater in the truck was not working. If it was the trucker's fault, he needs to realize he was operating a vehicle without the proper safety equipment and should expect to be fired for his negligence. If it was the company's fault then they need to explain why they sent this trucker out in a defective vehicle and did not offer him a timely remedy.
Instead, being an over-educated, upper-middle-class American Aristocrat he pretended like the law is an infallible and inflexible dictum handed down from the Gods and he was just there to state it even if he thought it was not sensible and even plain wrong.
A simple test is "will I consider this justice if it happened to my friends and also my enemies?"
It was truly terrifying to listen to the Republicans today. They weren't interested in putting up a legitimate defense against the House charges-- which I suspect they know cannot be done. It was nothing but twisting words around to make the Democratic House members look like the guilty party.
Sure, it's easy to defend anybody against any charge if you're free to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.
2
One thing that Trump HAS actually accomplished is to take a great many "middle of the road" Democrats (those of us who actually may have voted for the candidate, and not the party if they thought them best qualified) and turned them into avid voters who wouldn't vote for a Republican if they descended from heaven riding on a cloud! The truly SAD thing about all of this is that there appear to be a significant number of people in this country who wish to remain blissfully ignorant to what is probably the greatest threat to our Democracy that we have ever faced. Abe Lincoln would be in tears to see what his party has become.
2
@David
Interesting visualization, but I suspect that the best the current Party of Trump can manage is someone ascending from hell on a goat. May true republicans find a way to take back their party.
I saw Trump obstruct justice on national TV. I heard Trump admit to extortion (quid pro quo). I read his "transcript" as a confession, I cannot get any other interpretation out of it, though I listened to the GOP explanation and tried hard. I heard his minions brag about it. NOW, Do I believe the defense or my lying eyes?
2
For dozens of reasons there is no democracy in the US: Anti-democratic Electoral College, legalized bribes AKA "campaign contributions", Citizens United (unlimited corporate money in politics), anti-democratic Senate (it takes 80 CA voters to equal 1 WY voter in Senate), gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, etc.
So the fact that our Russian-controlled "election" stuck us with Trump may not be absolute proof that democracy doesn't work. But it sure has caused me to question it deeply for the first time in my life.
Perhaps democracy is not the best political system, especially when there are propaganda networks like Faux Noise and lots of low IQ, low information voters.
But mostly I blame capitalism. It's anti-human, anti-environment, and anti-democratic. When money is all that matters, it doesn't allow for good things, like humanity and the environment. It brings out the worst in people. Trump is proof of that. He's the unethical, vulgar byproduct of vicious capitalism.
All I know for sure is that I very frequently wish I had been born in Canada, France, Switzerland, Norway or some other civilized country. I'd be happy in a country run by Justin Trudeau vs. the dictatorship of Putin's knuckle-dragging mouth-breather and the right-wing mobsters who support him.
2
The amazing thing about their defense is just the hate-filled lies that are not really meant for the courtroom at all, but for the hard core Trumpist base watching at home. I am a lawyer; I go to court all the time. It is just shocking to see an attorney like Cippolone get up there and make arguments he knows to be legally and factually unsupportable, hoping that by shouting them they will overcome their obvious lack of a legal or factual defense and convince enough people watching on conservative state television that nothing is amiss and they can go on hating their countryman as they have since 2016. It's embarrassing for the legal profession and the country to see this awful spectacle.
1
I’m a lawyer too. I share your pain.
Reaching and thin doesn’t begin to cover my thoughts on the arguments presented in this column. That it is offered as support for a failed and run amuck president, and to shield those Senators who refuse to look into White House closet of evidence, is preposterous - which leaves the Constitution unprotected.
That this column is offered by any newspaper as a ‘fit to print’ attempt for a balanced consideration underscores how weak the defense of Trump is. Isn’t fit to line the bottom my chicken coop.
To use the phrase “in defense of Donald Trump” is to miss the point completely. There is, or should be, no defending Donald Trump in the role of leader of the free world, not as he plays it. He has no positive character or leadership traits, none, zero. What he has going for him is a certain canniness in the exploitation of weak-minded and desperate Americans. The majority of voters has seen him for what he is since the escalator ride or before. Anything he is perceived by his supporters to have accomplished while in office is the product of smoke and mirrors and spin, always the exhausting, mind boggling spin. Politicians and power brokers in his corner are bedazzled by the money he commands or terrified of the axe he somehow wields through the voters he has mesmerized. He is the personification of every flaw in a system riddled with them, the nightmare the country's founders must have known could come true, an embarrassment to himself and the country alike. One cannot defend him. He is a mistake that should never have happened - didn’t actually happen, using the popular vote as a yardstick. Now that he’s upon us, like a tick that is already attached and sucking blood from its host, he must be carefully and thoroughly removed, such that his teeth are not left in the wound.
House Democrats are doing a phenomenal job presenting the case against Trump in his impeachment trial. GOPs attitude, and the willingness of each single one of them to destroy our institutions, is nothing less than disgusting.
1
I am assuming the Republicans would have been ok if Obama blocked Hillary from testifying on Benghazi. And they will be ok with President Biden not letting his staff cooperate with requests for congressional testimony next year.
1
Hate for a president is not grounds for impeachment, nor do the articles of impeachment rest on that.
Extortion is.
1
What struck me in listening to the Democrats' presentations was the incredible level of meddling in Ukrain's internal affairs by the US , long before Trump came on the scene. I'm especially thinking of Nadler's presentation, along with his use of the tape of Yvanovich, which I'f heard before, but heard again in a new, more critical light. What came across is that the Ukraine is not an independent country. It is an American satellite. Trump became aware of the satellite relationship & figured he didn't have to take Ukraine seriously.
@Jenifer Wolf
Nah. It is a country in dire straits that can either be supported as an important if flawed geopolitical ally against an aggressive and anti-Democratic Russian enemy, or that can be played like an expendable satellite by a grifter in the White House.
The feedback from "legal experts" supporting the impeachment process is ridiculous. They are Dems, not legal experts.
1
Between the absurd legal argument being made by White House Lawyers that only a federal crime is an impeachable offense, at the same time that AG Barr is taken a position that a president cannot be charged, tried or even investigated for any crime while he is in office, the net effect is to say that a President cannot be impeached under any circumstances.
mitch and trump are attempting an overthrow of the government.
1
It is sobering that the newpaper assigned an opinion writer rather than a legal scholar of note to write this piece. That itself is sort an indictment of journalism, rather than the president. The case deserves more than that. Please keep your first team and notable outside experts on your coverage of this case.
@Mordechai Xin
No legal scholar not already disbarred would make these arguments. Somebody has to write the stupid, so we can all see just how stupid the defense of the indefensible can be.
No one has spoken of Mr Trump's character in his defense. No one has suggested that lying, cheating, deceit, slander, self-dealing would be out of character for this impeached president.
No one. Trump's address to the world at Davos is a telling demonstration to the lengths to which the man will obfuscate, prefaricate, lie, stretch, fabricate, to create the illusion of success. On the economy, jobs, factories, clean air, water, etc. Mr. Trump did not hesitate to deliver one easily refuted lie after another.
Bill Clinton delivered 4% annual growth to Donald's 2-3%. Obama delivered quaterly GDP growth of 5.5% and 7.8 million new jobs in his last 3 yrs vs Trump's 7 million. The new 'factories' Trump touts each employ under 5 workers.
Air quality ranked #10. Forever Contamination in major water supplies.
We think we'll believe the career State Department officials and even the indicted Mr Parnas (he's got receipts), the emails and text messages, whose testimony demonstrate Trump's abuse of power, attempt to extort and engage a foreign country into helping him win an election. Again.
1
The fundamental flaw in this entire impeachment -and this cuts to the heart of justifying executive privilege - is that there is zero evidence that Trump had any personal political motive in asking help with uncovering massive American corruption and grifting at the highest level of US government with the verifiably corrupt pre-Zelensky Ukraine regime. The Biden's business activities stank to high heaven and were screaming for investigation. On the other hand the motive of the Democrat Congress in pursuing impeachment has been evident and manifest – and clearly and repeatedly articulated –
since the day Trump was elected. Indeed, he is not being impeached because of the reasons stated in the articles, rather the reasons stated in the articles are but the latest attempts to achieve what the Democrats have been struggling to achieve since 2016. There is no human alive who, if one tries hard enough and long enough,will not yield some act or error that will provide an ""A-ha" moment to embarrass them. But to relentlessly spend three years searching for that pimple speaks more to the malevolent intent of the accuser than it does of the accused. Hence it is and always has been a witch hunt.
1
The subheading is more accurate than the heading!
It's all too obvious. Trump in Davos says they can't prove it because we have all the evidence and we're not sharing it.
Republican senators leave the room so they don't have to hear it.
Shorter version of Trump defense:
la la la la la I can't hear you. Gimme!
2
There is no defense. He is indefensible.
If high crimes and misdemeanors require violation of a criminal statute, why doesn’t the Constitution say that?
3
@AnthroBill The House has the right to define high crimes any way it chooses in impeaching the President. The Senate has the right to accept or reject the House’s definition insofar as convicting the President. The voters have a right to pass judgment on the actions of all concerned. In every sense of the word, all of these decisions are subjective. No enumeration of what constitutes a high crime - whether or not it is enumerated- changes that equation.
2
They will get away with it as long as our democratic republic operates under a skewed system where the minority, no matter how uninformed or prejudiced, can rule over the majority of decent Americans.
All of that red you see in the electoral map represents a lot of land, but not people. Land has a bigger voice than people. There will be huge consequences for this.
75
@Doug Right, but these are the United States of America. Fundamentally, we are a union of states. The states are prioritized, which is why the Connecticut Compromise resulted in an upper chamber (Senate) with equal representation from all states and a lower chamber (House of Representatives) proportional to the population in each state.
Republicans very generally support more limited federal government and stronger state control. This is an ideological difference.
7
@aenews Your last statement is full of irony seeing how the Republican party, the party of Lincoln, was fully involved in limiting the Southern states' rights to maintain their economic system based on slavery. And up till that time the representation of the Southern states in the House was based on population plus 3/5 of their slave "property." That compromise, used to entice the former Southern colonies to join the Union, was of course scratched, but effectively reinstated during the Jim Crow era by Southern Democrats with States' rights now controlling voting rights. "Generally" is not a good word here in historical context.
4
We have to look at when the Constitution was written and exactly what was written. Mr. Bowie tries to apply modern day criminal law to what the framers were trying to protect the country against.They were cutting the ties to a Monarchy who had absolute power. They wanted the United States to be ruled by three branches of government, not by a dictator. To suggest that it is acceptable for the President of the United States to pressure or bribe foreign powers to influence our elections in his favor is beyond commons sense. What we have here are lawyers trying to bend the law and find loopholes to weaken our constitution in a very dangerous manner. The President cannot be above the law. That makes him a dictator. If he can make secret deals with foreign powers for his own benefit then he has too much power. If he can deny the American people from hearing witnesses and learning the truth then he has too much power. The Office of the President is supposed to be used for the people not for himself. You can quote whoever you want, but this is as clear a case of corruption as you can get.
104
@Teddi
The Federalist Papers were equally clear in the founders' concern that impeachment would devolve into a partisan exercise, debasing its importance as a check on a lawless executive. Dems have handled (and continue to handle) this as a partisan exercise from the start. The Senate GOP will see to it that it ends as one.
5
@MinnRick It was and is "a partisan exercise" by Dems ONLY because Republicans refused to acknowledge the patently obvious (for partisan reasons): that their president was and is a danger to this democracy and the world. Republicans handed the protection of the country over to Democrats, who rightly stepped up to defend it against their morally bankrupt colleagues across the aisle.
18
@Teddi
We know that Trump will surely lose the popular vote again, and predictably by much more than 3 million votes as he did in 2016.
Obviously Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act himself, which was illegal according to GAO. He never used rogue operatives like Reagan to do his dirty work of Iran-Contra behind the scenes. That explains Trump's frantic efforts to cover up and prevent witnesses from testifying. Yet another scandal or impeachment may not prevent his re-election in 2020.
The system needs to be overhauled and soon. The Constitutional has blown its gaskets, the engine of democracy is leaking oil, overheating and smoking. Since the 1800’s the Electoral College always swings toward Republicans at the expense of the majority: Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B Hayes. Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison. Bush II over Gore, Trump over Clinton.
Strangely that Reagan’s scandal didn’t prevent another Republican (GHW Bush) from winning the 2004 popular vote against Democrat Kerry, but only by a slim margin. I’m sure the EC would have came to the rescue either way.
4
Republican senators underestimate how many people are mad about this. They think the country is evenly divided. No, it’s not. The hardcore Trump base was only ever about a quarter of voters, and it’s decreasing.
Do they consider how many Republican voters have left the party? I live in Alabama and I can name a half dozen who have left the party. So when they poll Republicans, do they realize that the pool is much smaller today than it was 4 years ago? I don’t think they do. This is why they have lost so many seats! Wake up! Lindsey Graham, you’re going to lose your seat. Susan Collins, you’re going to lose your seat. Cory Gardner, you’re going to lose your seat. Martha McSally, you’re going to lose your seat. And most importantly, Mitch McConnell, you sir are going to lose your seat.
Is this really a hill worth dying on?
120
@Corrie Mrs. McConnell will lose her coveted position in our tainted Administration.
12
@Corrie I hope you are right about whats happening in your state and maybe other parts of the South.
20
@Corrie-Agree 100%, but watch the GOP use every means possible to subvert, suppress, purge, and gerrymander the vote. The Roberts' Court conservative Supremes legalized purging voters from the roles and Wisconsin, Georgia and other Republican-led states are accelerating this effort--on steroids. As you know, Alabama's Democratic senator only won office because enough African-Americans walked, registered, and canvased fellow citizens--making the difference.
5
This is the first piece I've seen in the Nytimes giving an objective view of the impeachment hearings. It's shocking to see it here.
I always had a low tolerance for political speeches. Even as a kid when I heard Kennedy's 'Ask not what your country can do for you' speech I couldn't help laughing. How can anyone take the Senators statements seriously with Schiff, Nadler and Schumer leading the charge. The best quote so far "Ukrainians are fighting Russians over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
How many see this as a coupe or at least understand some people will see it that way? They should have listened to Pelosi.
4
I am ashamed to say that I now turn off the TV whenever a Republican law maker is at the microphone. I never thought I would ever do that. I can no longer tolerate the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and diversions the GOP tries to foist on us. How do I know they are lying? I know because I see video , with my own eyes, of behaviors they deny , listen to respectable people testify under oath, and read the school boy bullying via trump tweets.
I just can't take it anymore.
186
@Jeri P
What a great comment.
For me, it started with Trump himself, a couple of years ago, when I muted the sound whenever Trump appeared.
Now it's all Republicans. Literally all.
25
How can you not laugh at both parties when they speak about morality, patriotism, truth, justice, and the American way?
What is the aim of diversity? To be the same?
I’m with you but I did donate to The Lincoln Project - a group of Republican “Never Trumpers” who are trying to help.
7
What I did not see in this article is any defense of the Trump/Republican claim that the Senate has no legal or moral obligation to hear from all of the witnesses with direct knowledge of the relevant facts. Unless and until Trump's attorneys stipulate that all of the factual allegations made by House Managers are true, withdraw any disputed factual allegations they have made themselves about the merits or the impeachment process, and relegate themselves to arguing that what Trump is accused of doing do not constitute impeachable offenses, the Senate must hear from the witnesses with knowledge.
139
@Jay Orchard
Dear Jay,
The Defense will argue against all the various accusations, but in the end they are going to fix their final argument as; all Trump did was engage in hardball political tactics, which they will argue are not illegal nor impeachable.
I understand this argument, but are we ready as a nation to accept this conduct as "part of the process"?
Personally, I am not, but "...we are not men we are devo..." :-) "Whip it. Whip it good."
All the best,
Garth
5
@Jay Orchard
In an honest proceeding, yeah. You are confusing things. This is a criminal conspiracy to acquit.
12
@Jay Orchard
Testimony from witnesses in question could already be in the record - if it was possible to get - if the House had bothered to do its job and fight the necessary legal fight with the White House over its claims of executive privilege. The House is the investigative body in all of this and it is their job to gather witness testimony. But Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler punted on that fight because of a dire need to the country for an immediate trial, which they then proceeded to ignore by withholding the articles for a month. Democrats have only themselves to blame for any lack of witness testimony and McConnell and the rest of the GOP caucus is under no obligation to call them.
2
The most significant aspect of Trump's defense is not the 110-page smokescreen invented by his lawyers. The single most important thing is that they are doing everything in their power to prevent evidence and witnesses from being brought into the proceeding. Because as soon as the American public begins to see their Senators having to consider what really happened, there might well be a reckoning.
318
@Jim
Donald J. Trump is on trial, but so is democracy on trial.
If we allow Trump to get off, scott-free, democracy may fail.
I am glad Democrats have the courage to make their case.
And perhaps, in 2020, we will see a new democracy wave.
Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA."
(Prophetic "Democracy" song, 1992)
30
@Jim
Unfortunately I reckon his supporters don’t care and will shrug it off as a deep state fake news conspiracy.
It’s pathetic.
13
@Jim
It's not the Senate's job to assimilate new evidence in an impeachment. That's the House's job. If all of this 'new' smoke is actually backed up by real fire then Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler should gather up their troops, initiate an additional investigation and pass additional articles. Same goes for witnesses. If testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney and others was needed then it was on the House to fight the legal fights with the White House to overturn their claims of executive privilege and compel that testimony. It's not the Senate's job to subpoena witnesses that the House chose not to.
7
Look at the Trump impeachment as a 21st Century version of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. The jury here will not convict, no matter what the evidence, because the majority of the Senate either truly believes or holds as a matter of political survival that it is more important to punish the accusers than to do justice.
However, as every criminal defense attorney will tell you, they have represented many clients who were not guilty, but a very few who were innocent.
The one-sided malicious partisan demonizing of president Trump will end today. Legal experts, state attorney generals constitutional scholars and independents are finally speaking up in defense of Trump. What some politicians who have been saying there is no there there will be in full display in the senate beginning tomorrow. Senators referred to as the silent jurors will have their say and then the final nail in the casket of the impeachment articles will seal the impeachment charade and the US congress will get back to doing what they were elected to do.
Putting an end to gun violence, providing sustainable options to usher universal health care, immigration reform, environmental protection without loss of jobs but more jobs, middle class tax cuts, reduction of national debt with across the board spending cuts, homes for the homeless, paying close attention to the alarming spread of the Wuhan Corona virus etc. Any way that is my wish list whether congress wastes its time or not that will be what this independent will determine on how to vote in November 2020.
3
@Girish Kotwal
When has THIS Senate and Majority Leader been "doing what they were elected to do?"
Namely, when did this Senate and Majority Leader spent one minute "Putting an end to gun violence, providing sustainable options to usher universal health care, immigration reform, environmental protection without loss of jobs but more jobs, middle class tax cuts, reduction of national debt with across the board spending cuts, homes for the homeless.."
Four hundred bills have been sent from the House to the Senate and McConnell has put them in a dead pile.
This impeachment trial is something you should be paying attention - abuse of power applies to McConnell (as well as to Trump) and he should be impeached next.
5
@Girish Kotwal. You state that you are a "independent" voter. Independent voters often say that they tend to read and study a bit more than those who have committed to the 2 BIG Parties. This may be true for some, but not most.
I certainly know very little about you, but in your three main points, it appears you are less than an Independent than you believe. I read, listen, and occasionally watch news in many platforms. I haven't seen the "outcry" of support for Trump, as anyone, it is poor form and illogical to refuse to cooperate and block others from doing so and then complain about unfairness in a process you chose to not participate in. The GOP today will try to defend Trump, but their performances will be laughable in the light of day in the real world. As far as your idea that the GOP Senators struggled to remain still and calm, they know that a silence rule invthe Senate protected them from themselves. I do like some of your ideas that Congress could ake action on and I would to your list. But, Half of Congress has done that work. The House has sent and continues to send legislation on those matters - the GOP Senate refuses to it's work. As an Independent, your views closely resemble the views of the GOP.
3
good grief. Here's another Trump follower unwilling to distinguish between his blind partisan devotion and FACTS. Is he actually saying that using the power of the presidency for personal gain is "politics as usual" and we should just get over it?
2
The Republican arguments in defense of the president resemble their arguments against climate change.
Even if 99.9% of the scientific community finds the data on global warming incontrovertible, if you can find a couple of scientists who say differently, then you have an 'argument.'
It isn't really global warming if you still have cold days in January.
And the ultimate argument: 'So what? It isn't such a big deal. Get over it and move on.'
Global warming isn't global warming, by majority rule. Impeachable offenses aren't impeachable offenses, by majority rule.
There is no defense. Only contradiction and a lot of smoke blown in our faces.
Thanks for your article, which is of course more to the point!
14
So here is the Trump legal position, boiled down:
Trump cannot be impeached unless a "crime" has been committed. And "abuse of power" is not a crime, so there can be no impeachment.
And anyone who serves the president doesn’t have to cooperate in any of this by supplying documents or testimony due to “executive privilege”. So he really can't be truly investigated anyway.
And in any case, the House process was unfair and deprived Trump of due process even though Trump chose not to participate and ordered numerous people not to respond to Congressional subpoenas (under the guise of executive privilege).
And even ignoring all of that, Trump's supporters say there is zero evidence he did anything wrong anyway, despite whatever all of those people, documents, emails and text messages say, as introduced in the House proceeding.
Taken together, these arguments, none of which find language in the Constitution to support them, essentially make Donald Trump our permanent king and beyond the reach of the Constitution or our court system.
16
@Jack Sonville Consider: only if each of US, in our many roles, created self-identities as well as identities attributed to US, and accepted, as well as in our daily behaviors-actions-reactions, in ranges of environments, situations, "happenings,"networks, choose to remain with the built-in limitations of words and not go beyong them into effective actions. By ourselves, as best as one can, as well as with others. With those whom we know as well as with "strangers," who may yet "transmute" into kin, ken or...
Remember the Army- McCarthy hearings and Joseph Welch's voice: " At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Consider Samuel Beckett's semantic gift:
"Ever tried.
Ever failed.
No matter.
Try again.
Fail again.
Fail better!"
The "center WILL hold" if each of US chooses to contribute to making a difference that makes a difference. As best as each of us is able to.
Given who, and what, we ARE.
Are not and are not likely to BE.
Are yet to BEcome!
The impeachment trial, occurring at the highest level of our government, literally realizes the theatrical genre of Theatre of the Absurd. It could be a play by Ionesco or Havel.
If this is how the Founders wanted it, why would they put impeachment into the Constitution in the first place?
There is no rational, legal or coherent defense.
He needs to be convicted and removed from office.
25
The strongest case in favor of Trump's impeachment and conviction is his extraordinarily clear corruption and abuse of power. The 2nd reason Spencer is wrong is that an impeachable offense is of course whatever the House of Representative decides it is, according to the Constitution. The Constitution does not prohibit impeachment for any reason, but rather instructs the House to consider high crimes and misdemeanors as reasonable grounds of impeachment. A misdemeanors was considered by the framers of the Constitution to be definitely a valid reason for impeachment, and a misdemeanor is not a high crime.
13
The Republican defense of Trump is essentially: We can do whatever we want to do,because we have the votes. The rest is theater and window dressing. Still Democrats are doing the right thing by prosecuting the case. But they must not forget that the real redress is to put forth the candidate who can win the presidency.
Like him or not, the candidate who can win Michigan Wisconsin Pennsylvania and hopefully North Carolina and therefore the presidency is Joe Biden. Mainstream America is not ready for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and neither has the personal touch. See David Brooks column today.
16
And if we nominate Joe Biden, the young people will stay home. They are where the votes are to win, not the narrow slice of Obama/Trump voters which most likely won’t change their vote back anyway.
1
@Smilodon7: The younger generation in my family, who have no student debt, say that most of their contemporaries are so buried in student debt that they cannot start their lives, which is why they like Bernie Sanders and his promises of student debt relief.
2
I’m not sure this article, which presents the pragmatic reality of scholarly opinion, will be appreciated by partisan NYT readers who already have their mind made up.
If democrats can’t see that this impeachment debacle hurts them with moderate Americans, then they are more out of touch than I feared.
8
@Jason
The impeachment process should not be determined by the possibility of being hurt ‘with moderate Americans’, whomever they might be, but by Constitutional law.
16
That does not make Trump less guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. The Republicans consta the attack the process, because there is no plausible defence of his actions. The White House blocked testimony from all the principals because they would have had to lie under oath.
@Jason If Republicans can't see that their screeching denials of an impeachable offense hurts them with thinking Americans, they are more out of touch than I feared.
There are also people who believe the earth is flat.
38
@John
And who believe that global warming is going to destroy humanity in 12 years.
1
Sorry
These legal discussions are dumb
Lawyers can twist anything to fit their ideology (the Supreme Court shows that) or for their client (anyone defending some celebrity monster).
Given that - there is no basis for discussion and no one to trust. No one.
So what - you can make up some legal argument for or against based on “expertise” - really you are just making it up to fit your viewpoint.
If so many smart people can’t agree on the empirical nature of something than it’s worthless.
We used to agree more and have a more fair process - but instead we have a dumb president that has destroyed truth given he lies on a daily basis with his party just standing by like spineless minions
All of the principals the republicans stood for - free market, strong family, and balanced budget has been thrown out the window because of their insecurity around power
So in this environment, you expect us to patiently read some legal arguments? No way - that ship has sailed.
12
@Spandex Pony Yeah, there's legalities which the USA (and the world) seems to run on, Monty Python style. But there's also ethics: what is the right thing to do.
Trump has behaved extremely unethically in many respects. This is the part where I don't get Republicans though the ones I know see their support for Trump as casting a wrecking ball to the status quo. But online and on these forums, people support his actions as though he was in the right.
There are a lot of mistakes people make. Trump never admits to the ones he makes, and keeps making up stuff as he goes along, with extremely poor English. Sure Obama once said 57 states, and if you asked him, he'd say he was wrong. But Trump? He'd draw a map with a sharpie showing the 57 states. That's the difference.
6
How lovely, and how nice. But hark -- there is societal-legal justice, and there is real justice. A rapist gets off on a technicality: that's legal justice. He hurt your daughter and you dispatch him forthwith -- that's real justice. I wouldn't mind if Donald Trump were impeached because of one child in one cage. That would be real.
23
Excellent comment!
When Gang GOP refuses to do its Constitutional duty, we will do ours on Election Day.
29
Trump to Staff after learning of WhistleBlower:
"No Quid Pro Quo is our Story
Now is Zelensky going to get the dirt?"
Trump figures Quid Pro Quo is foreign and what he was doing was American so it was perfect phone call
2
Only a person completely lacking the capacity to engage in critical thinking and mature ratiocination could compile such a nonsense litany of lame excuses for the egregious unethical behaviour of the current POTUS.
Thought experiment: Ask the question: "Is it right?"
15
If Republicans want to say "he's our guy and we're not removing him, no matter what" - fine. Just stop with the cynicical "arguments." It's dishonest and unseemly.
22
@Tim C - “Unseemly” is such a perfect word to describe the behavior of the Republicans and so many of the things now happening in our once great country under this simulacre of a presidency. It’s a “quiet” word but a powerful one. Thank you for using it.
We hope that we as voters know the difference between right and wrong. Stop parsing words..Trumps legal team must know they are ruining our country by trying to define right from wrong with squeaky legal definitions
His lies and cheating..his bullying and name calling are wrong.
Throw the bum out
and Make America Sane Again!
15
Anyone who watched Law and Order knows that 'intent follows the bullet' which simply means once you pull the trigger, whatever the consequence may be, it's on your head. Trump's purely selfish 'we'd like you to do us a favour, though,' request to the Ukrainian president is a bullet that hasn't yet stopped ricocheting though it's already done serious injury too many to enumerate in a brief comment.
9
Declaring war on Canada is not a crime in the US criminal code. So it's not impeachable? Give me a break.
6
So the NY Times Editorial Board and a few leftist Trump hating professors are reason for the American people to believe this impeachment is just.
Come on NYT you guys are embarrassing yourselves and American journalism.
4
Seeking foreign assistance against your political rival and using the power of your office to force that assistance is treason in my book. Impeach and remove.
19
"In Defense of Donald Trump" makes the article sound like an argument in favor of the president....while it actually just goes over the arguments from both sides.
Bad choice of wording for the title, NYT. Your op-ed board has really been slipping as of late....
6
I would compare Trump to a criminal the police have seen at crime scenes for years but were never able to pin down a charge. The police have every reason to believe the criminal committed dozens of crimes but they only got him red handed on his last bank job. The evidence might not be as strong as the DA would like, the charge not as high as the many other crimes for which the criminal is known to be involved but they believe they must charge him and let the chips fall.
Trump has corrupted the presidency in dozens of different ways. It is, in fact, tiresome to even try to remember a small portion of those actions. Is it impeachable to call military generals idiots and losers to their faces, as Trump did at the Pentagon? Is it impeachable to say America kills lots of people, too, when asked about the murderous Putin? Is it impeachable to take money from the military to build a wall that the Republican Congress wouldn't support? Is it impeachable to act like he has no idea what he is doing, insulting anyone and everyone when he feels like it?
Trump is as close to an outright criminal as we are ever likely to have as president. The articles themselves are just the "bank job" on which he was caught.
16
I’m not sure what the point of this article was. The Times can do better than this.
2
“'It’s bad to refuse a lawful subpoena, but the appropriate remedy is to go to court to argue its lawfulness,' tweeted Jed Shugerman...."
That's just absurd. The Democrats did go to the courts to force the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn to testify and the courts did rule that he must, but he still hasn't testified because of appeals.
So the Democrats should wait till the case winds its way through courts, possibly all the way to Supreme Court? By the time all the appeals are exhausted, the election will be over and the subpoenas will be pointless.
7
Exactly, and this point needs to stated time and time again to make sure everyone understands it.
It keeps getting mentioned in passing, and the electorate SQUIRREL! is notorious SQUIRREL! at being distracted SQUIRREL!
Enough already! Stop giving voice to liars.
3
Cipollone blatantly lied in the well of the Senate on day one. He whined that Adam Schiff didn't allow Republicans into the House SCIF (Sensitive Compartmentalized Intelligence Facility). That is 100% false.
Any member of the 3 investigating committees could attend, and many Republicans did. Cipollone is just like his client: lie, lie, lie because Trump's base will believe whatever they say. Cipollone should be disbarred for lying in the trial about something where the facts are so easily checkable.
https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/pat-cipollone-called-out-for-brazen-disgraceful-and-shameful-lie-about-impeachment-investigation/
13
Impeachment and conviction is different from any statutory crime, because there is no "punishment" as such--just removal from office. No fine, no prison time, no other sanction. Thus the notion that a president must be guilty of violating a specific criminal statute to be removed from office is not valid. The definition of wrongdoing is poltical; so are the consequences of conviction.
But there is a how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? quality to the arguments against conviction (and impeachment in the first place.) Plainly the president was illicitlytrying to undermine a rival for re-election, someone who might prevent his re-election. Just as plainly, waiting for the courts to rule would be inappropriate, because the election probably will take place before the courts complete their work. Just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, learned apologists for the president must not prevail with arguments that undercut common-sense understanding of wrongdoing, and the consequences that wrongdoing ought to bear.
9
To say that Obstruction of Congress is not an impeachable offense is to give the president permission to obstruct his own impeachment inquiry. This is tantamount to stripping Congress of its constitutional authority and obligation to protect the country from a grossly unsuitable president.
What president is going to agree to be impeached if, by mere refusal, he/she can halt the proceedings or render them ineffective by fiat? I never dreamed that I would say this but I have actually developed some respect for Richard Nixon. He, at least, had the decency to resign rather pretend he had done nothing wrong.
20
Bokat-Lindell misses the most overwhelming and obvious legal defense of Donald Trump, which was the same overwhelming and obvious defense of Bill Clinton: the framers of the Constitution intentionally removed impeachment of an elected President from the control of partisan politics altogether, by requiring a 2/3 vote of the Senate for removal. Close legal arguments are hopeless, no matter which side outpoints the other. You can win or lose an election by a small fraction of the total vote; you can win a civil trial with a slight preponderance of evidence; but impeachment is another animal altogether. It has to be an overwhelming consensus on removal by Senators (not a consensus of legal experts on arcane legal theories), or it isn't at all. The Republican Senate will crush this exercise in partisan posturing. Everyone's time has been wasted.
3
@Tom Wolpert
The cynacism of “Everyone’s time has been wasted.” is tough to take.
A willingness to stand up and fight for what is right, especially when you will likely lose, is the very definition of courage.
Trump will always be an impeached president. The eloquence and reason of Adam Schiff and the house managers’ presentations of the case against a corrupt president cannot be undone. Neither can the nonsensical arguments the president’s lawyer’s will be forced to offer. Defending the indefensible.
Most of all, should the Republican senators choose to deny truth, to support injustice and a criminal excuse for a president — tens of millions of American voters will see their hypocrisy for what it is.
Tom, none of this is a waste of time.
There will likely be many setbacks in the fight to restore our democracy. Many of the defeats will be necessary steps to achieve a greater goal.
Leave the guaranteed, rigged victories to the Republicans. They have become the Party of the Stacked Deck. The party of Trump, the Prince of Lies.
They only fight the cowardly fight, the fight they’ve fixed so they’re sure to win.
Patriotic Americans are better than that.
1
“Mr. Sekulow and Mr. Cipollone argue that “abuse of power” is not a crime defined in the federal legal code, and so it cannot be considered an impeachable offense.“
The government itself found that holding up the Congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine DID violate the law, the Impoundment Control Act.
Further, the framers did not find it necessary for there to be a criminal act in order to meet their understanding of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
12
So what we have here is the lawmakers themselves struggling, in the absence of absolute and commonly accepted laws or legal precedents, to achieve the legal consensus that Trump should be removed.
If nothing else, Trump's presidency has shown us the glaring flaws in the law that should be remedied with clearly written, inarguable statutes. For starters, the electoral college should be abolished. Equally important, the SCOTUS should be the body that decides a president's fate, with trial managers appointed by both chambers to argue the case in question.
But for now it is what it is. Trump is going to remain in office, and his impeachment will create new, dangerous precedents. It will mean that he, and future presidents, can break the law at will and not be prosecuted for it. It will reinforce the common knowledge that privilege permeates our system of justice. It will mean that the processes of democratic government don't apply to the king president.
It will be an interesting test of the new regime if Trump publicly murders an American citizen. So far it seems that even then Republicans would vote for him anyway.
6
@progressiveMinded Having SCOTUS decide this would remove it from a "political" process to a "legal" process. In this case, the justices would have already dismissed this case. There was only one fact witness and he stated that Trump told him No "quid pro quo". All the other TV witnesses or opinion witnesses would not have been admissable. PS - keeping the electoral college is needed because America is not only a contry of people, but one of states. And if the EC was eliminated why would America leave the Senate as is?
1
Professor Krotoszynski argues: “the chamber will be establishing a startlingly dangerous precedent: that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to investigate effectively criminal wrongdoing within the highest levels of the executive branch....." Yes, but it goes beyond that. By refusing to turn over even what in ordinary circumstances would be routine agency correspondence, records and documents, the Administration is denying Congress the ability to investigate any activity of the executive branch, criminal wrongdoing or not. That is the Deep State on steroids! How can we possibly have a democracy if any or all actions of executive agencies are beyond the scrutiny of Congress? It's the sweeping scope of the Administration's stonewalling that turns an isolated dispute that could be litigated into obstruction of Congress that calls for impeachment.
29
Republicans only cry foul in a trial when one of their own is is being impeached. This is a Constitutional Impeachment not a criminal trial. If impeached, Trump doesn't go to jail or prison, he just loses his job. The Republicans know that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" have no criminal law meaning. It is clear that in the Biden/Ukraine matter that Trump threatened to cut off aid to Ukraine unless it phonied up evident about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. We have several Trump Administration witnesses to Trump's actions.
13
I don’t know if this is the proper place for my comment but I just want to add this to the conversation.
The Republican Senators who are so ready to acquit Donald Trump (but secretly know that threatening a perceived enemy to get what he wants is exactly what Trump is all about) should think this through a little more.
What happens to them if Trump thinks they’re not being loyal enough to him? Would he, newly emboldened, not ask foreign countries to investigate them as well? Trump has no real loyalty to anyone but himself, he would throw anyone under the bus. And they all know it.
Looking at you, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, etc., etc., etc.
14
Wait ... the Republican Congress impeached Clinton for obstruction of justice, for basically lying about his affair, which is no crime at all, just a personal embarrassment. Here we have Trump actually committing a crime (as attested by non-partisan GAO) in addition to obstructing justice.
No President in the history of this country has sought to involve a foreign country in US elections, and Trump has done this repeatedly .. Russia, asking China to hack, and pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
The way Senate is trying to cover up is a national embarrassment, and the Republican Party and the senators are digging their own graves, as will be apparent come November.
13
@RSSF when did perjury get dropped from the list of recognized crimes?
3
@Jason For lying about an affair that Congress had no business investigating to begin with, with zero policy implications, no foreign involvement, with zero dollars transacted or benefiting anyone. The sole purpose was to embarrass the Clintons. To even equate what Trump did with this is bizarre.
Trump's supporters will do everything to obfuscate the issues at hand and try to shift the discussion -- to Clinton or Biden or someone else. Trump's impeachment is NOT about whether Biden did anything wrong or not -- that is besides the point. It is everything about Trump committing offenses for which he was impeached.
6
@RSSF what are you talking about? Perjury is a crime. It doesn’t matter what the context is. Your comment makes me continue to lose hope that democrats have any semblance of pragmatism. It’s all emotion and pure hatred of Trump.
In defend of Trump? Deadline White House is one of the best news shows we have right now. Ms. Wallace & most of her guests are Republicans. They don't lie to the viewers.
Maddow only reports news & refuses to report what they say only what they do. What a novel idea! To report the news on a news show.
Why do most of other 'news' shows have surrogates on as experts that they know in advance will lie for Trump?
That's how we got here.
Remember the 2015/16 news cycles?
As a result,our country is falling apart & it's time for all news organizations to stop giving a platform to those who lie for Trump or any other politician.
Read a 'Stable Genius' & be prepared to cry. The America we knew & loved before 2016 is over forever.
6
@PhillyBurbs Maddow is 100 percent opinion and punditry. She used to be a news journalist, but not recently. Her work is first rate, but it is not news reporting.
Donald Trump has mounted no defense, has blocked all evidence and has prevented all critical witnesses who have participated in a primary way from testifying. Innocent people don’t obstruct. This entire presidency has been a crime spree since the Trump got the republican nomination with republican complicity.
19
The real problem is not that the republicans and trump's lawyers are presenting plenty of palaver and disinformation.
The real problem is that the NY Times and liberal news media repeat their disinformation when trying to explain or dispel their arguments. They also wrongly use complex sentences full of legal or analytical logic.
Counter the repubs' claims, by using simple language - the gist of the issue. Millions of voters lack critical thinking skills, so make it simple for them.
____________________________________________________
These are the core of Impeachment charges:
1) trump blackmailed Ukraine.
2) trump ignored Congress' subpoena's, which is illegal.
Most American legal experts agree that both are illegal, that trump did both, and trump should be removed by the Senate.
____________________________________________________
Our concerned/liberal media need repeat only such simple statements, over and over again. Unfortunately, to fix the massive disinformation, we must keep it simple for the millions of uneducated Americans - whom we must educate.
7
@Incredulous of 45
The unwashed masses won't even bother to read any news from "liberal" sources (that is to say, any outlet critical of their Master)--Donald has listed the media enemies and has strictly forbidden them...
1
@Incredulous of 45 agreed!
1
It's so absurd to go through the charade of picking any of this apart as if it's a genuine legal debate. If the person arguing is a Republican, most of the time it will be an argument that Trump is not guilty of anything, or guilty but it's not really a crime, or guilty but this is a "dangerous precedent" to start caring whether Presidents are guilty of impeachable offenses as laid out in the Constitution.
If the person arguing is among the rest of the population, which includes Democrats but also quite few Republicans like Bill Kristol or Joe Scarborough, it will be an argument about how Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses and then some.
Don't get me wrong, these aren''t two equally valid and logical arguments, as the majority of the population agrees, Donald Trump is clearly guilty of impeachable offenses including the worst and most dangerous high level corruption the country has ever seen.
I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to lay them all out as if genuine legal debate is going on, this is at at this point 100% tribal, and Republicans defending Trump would, and have, make the opposite argument if they thought it would protect Trump.
This is the real lesson that too few are getting. Mitch McConnell refusing to even give Merrick Garland a hearing was before Trump. The hard-core, take no prisoners, if we just refuse to be reasonable in any way the country will let us get away with anything approach was already well underway and is now destroying our Democracy.
6
The frustrating thing about this whole affair, for a normal human being, is that all the debates are conducted in a pretend world where the most pertinent & obvious facts are irrelevant. I mean, for instance, the fact that the President used designated military aid as a bribe to get Ukraine to pretend to be participating in a phony investigation, that he bragged about doing this, and that he did it because he thought it would help him deceive American voters. I mean, for example, that most of the Republicans in Congress know that the president did this, and that he has done worse, and that he is pathologically incapable of honesty, but they are too afraid of (or too grateful to) Fox News & the right wing media to be honest. I mean, finally, that the Democrats are pretending that getting rid of Trump, apparently because he brags openly about the sort of criminality & dishonesty that most of the GOP practices more discreetly, will restore a functioning democracy that hasn’t existed in decades.
2
Two guys have read the Golden Rule. One just read it for the first time and the other has been teaching university classes on it for 30 years. The professor concludes a new theory on what the Golden Rule means, but the now other guy doesn't know how to treat the people he meets, until he has had a chance to review the new expert opinion.
The legal defense of Donald Trump can be summed up in five words. But before we get to the boiled down legal defense of Mr. Trump, let us first acknowledge that the Republican Senators don't need to hear a legal defense argument since they were and are determined to acquit the president. They made that decision before Speaker Pelosi sent over the articles of impeachment.
My fellow Americans please don't be upset that Republicans took an oath to be open minded, to listen to the House impeachment managers, to listen to the president's legal defense, to have a fair trial and then render an impartial judgment, but won't. This will not be the first time Republicans have sworn an oath they had no intention to obey. They did that when they entered Congress.
Now what about the five words that sum up the president's legal defense? These five words also explain why Republican Senators and House members feel safe that they can acquit the president and claim his impeachment is a hoax.
The president's defense team and Republicans in Congress believe, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE STUPID. Those are the five words summing up the president's defense and what Republicans are counting on to stay in office.
The president, his defense team and Republicans in Congress don't believe the American people can tell the difference between a corrupt, self serving president and an honorable president serving the people. They think you can't tell the difference, or that you don't care. Can you? Do you?
11
@JABarry You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, I think that was Lincoln's take on it, But now maybe you can fool almost all of the Republicans all of the time?
2
@JABarry Exactly right! I think the Democrats should adopt your five words as a mantra to be repeated from now until election day every chance they get. It's simple, adaptable and most importantly it's true: The Republicans believe the American people are stupid!
Millions of Americans will be thrilled when this impeachment insanity is over and we can get back to things that matter. Like finding a way to vote Trump out of office. This is like watching a football game when you already know who wins...Team Trump.
Want Trump out? Vote him out. Stop this silliness.
This is 2020 as all of you in our society know.
This man in the WH that we call our P is not the P of the people, he is the P of self. His party is the party of the party, do nothing Politicians.
Common sense dictates that the P as well as the republican party doesn't care about justice but cares more for party.
It's time to clean house of all politicians that don't do the work of the people, for the people.
Remember what the republican party has been for over 180 years. ME ME ME, Put ME back in office.
This party of Abe is a disgrace to the citizens of the country.
3
Most folks could not find Ukraine on a map. This is not translating to compelling political drama. This impeachment commits the cardinal sin of being incredibly boring and therefore meaningless to most Americans who work and can’t watch CNN 24/7. Do we really want read that senator-jurors are allowed to drink water AND milk!? This whole thing is worse than slogging through the last thirty minutes of The Irishman.
2
I know this off point but could we get some actual information about the medical conditions of the soldiers who "experienced" the incoming missiles from Iran a few weeks ago. I know the President has diagnosed them as just having headaches but even though he truly is a genius he really is not a neurologist.
3
The title is mis-named, leading one to infer the author is defending Trump against the charges.
The sub-title, while less dramatic, is actually an excellent and accurate description of the piece, contradicting the title.
Of all the damage various Presidents have wreaked on the Nation and Constitution, none, not even Pierce, Buchanan, A.Johnson, and Nixon together, begins to compare to the damage done by THIS President in just 3 years.
The facts of what Trump did is not in dispute, and had Bill Clinton or Barack Obama done so, the 53 Republicans would ALL be ready to convict--and probably 14 Democrats would as well, just like the Republicans lead by Barry Goldwater and Howard Baker did in 1974.
Sadly, Trump WILL be "acquitted" and all the Democrats can do is put his crimes before the public, and the Republican Senators complicity.
The popular theme is that Clinton was stronger after Impeachment but that forgets that in the next national Election, in 2000, we ended up with a unified Republican government under President Bush, Speaker Hastert, and Leader Lott. It wasn't until one Republican, Jim Jeffords, left the GOP and caucused with the Democrats that we got divided government, until the 108th Congress when Bill Frist (R) became Majority Leader.
3
While it's possible to argue in a law school seminar room sort of way that no actual crime needs to be committed to impeach a president on the basis of 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' here in the real world, unless impeachment is pegged to an actual crime [Clinton's perjury, for example], it will lack political legitimacy and will almost certainly fail. Abuse of power is just too vague and is inherently subjective - Republicans and Democrats can look at the same facts with one side seeing the glass half full and the other side seeing it as half empty. The side with the most votes will win - it will have nothing to do with arcane legal arguments. Obstruction of Congress is too broad and could be applied to just about every modern president including Obama. In the end, this was a quixotic effort born of anger at the 2016 election. If Trump is reelected, it will be seen, despite all the media spin, as one of the great blunders in modern American politics.
2
@J Clinton himself was accused of Abuse of Power in addition to perjury, and current Republican Senators voted to convict on that charge. Thus, precedent already argues that it is an offense.
6
No wonder you had to beat the bushes to find a supposed expert to claim impeachment requires commission of a crime. Conviction of a crime results in a term of imprisonment (which can be suspended) and/or a fine or other financial penalty.
Impeachment is more like a personnel action, resulting in loss of a position in government. No prison, no fine.
The difference ought to make it clear that a criminal trial and trial of an impeached person are not the same.
4
Amid all of the sophistry, I think first that 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors' means what it says it means: Offenses committed in or on behalf of the highest office in the land. As such, these offenses are peculiar to the office and the ensuing damage is assumed to be magnified by having originated there. Accordingly, these offenses require a specific remedy--impeachment.
As for the process of impeachment and trial, although we have analogized it to a criminal trial it is hardly like a criminal trial at all. The penalty upon conviction is permanent loss of the public office. In this way, it is more like being fired than being convicted of any crime.
In the end, a party that would have Trump as its standard bearer is hardly likely to be offended (or even surprised) that Trump assumes it is a sinecure. Nothing in the man's makeup or background suggests that he has any concern with the Constitution or the niceties of precedent or decorum. Nor is anything he says or does particularly concerned with the welfare of the United States. His concern is with himself and his own power and financial well-being. To the degree that Trump has any other concerns, it is solely with his 'base.' Republicans cannot imagine that Trump has committed an impeachable offense because he is doing exactly what they hired him to do.
So, in my analysis, an impeachment is better analogized to whether Trump has committed a 'fireable' offense rather than any class of statutory or common law offenses.
8
There is little doubt that the Senate will not convict but perhaps some sweet justice could be obtained if Trump was forced to pay for the money he illegally held for his own purposes. What would be the charge for borrowing nearly four hundred million dollars when you are known to be a dismally poor credit risk for a period of the several months in question at one of those payday loan businesses which he would then be required to pay into the U.S. Treasury?
Wouldn't that be sweet?
3
Requiring a statutory justification for impeachment might make some sense if the purpose of impeachment were to prosecute or punish a president.
But the purpose of impeachment is the protection of the nation from a president.
37
This is an excellent summary of the legal arguments from both sides of the aisle. I learned a lot from this article!
4
The Republican senators will unequivocally defend their president until the end of this hearing and will never remove him from office despite all definitions of abuse of power as purported by the Democrats. Ultimately they will appease their base by merely censoring his behavior.
Censure will save face but will be a mere act of reprimanding him for inappropriate conduct. When the president is censured, it serves only as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of his presidency, nor are there any other particular legal consequences. Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the Constitution or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. In reality it means little and the president will inevitably dismiss it as such and consider himself to be exonerated from this "witchhunt" just as he did after the Muller investigation.
4
And within a day he will be back to extorting other countries & asking them for help to get re-elected.
I agree with most of this but since when was Donald Trump not afforded the right to defend himself during the House impeachment investigations? He never offered to provide any exculpatory documents or to present any witnesses to testify on his behalf or to personally submit to examination by the House. He had plenty of opportunities to do so but declined on every occasion. May he reap what he's sown.
25
@stu freeman
ANOTHER person who doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand the legal process.
The House sits, in part, as Grand Jury. When have you EVER heard of someone being investigated a chance to "defend" himself in front of a Grand Jury?
The 6th Amendment covers this:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. "
The accused has the RIGHT of defense in the trial, not before.
Art I, Sect 2 says: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT."
Art I, Sect 3 says: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS."
Just like the 6th Amendment tells us the Accused gets to defend in the TRIAL, but not before, so, the Impeached individual ONLY gets to defend in the TRIAL--and that's the Senate's job, not the House's.
But the President's advocates DID defend him in the House--Collins, Jordan, Nunes, etc.
So the assertion is meaningless, and pointless.
5
@Dadof2 You're correct that the president is not afforded a constitutional right to defend himself during a House impeachment investigation. On the other hand, he- like Nixon and Clinton before him- was granted the opportunity to have his attorneys participate in the hearings. UNLIKE Nixon and Clinton, however, Mr. Trump declined to have his attorneys participate, claiming that the process was "very unfair" to him. Furthermore, he was joined in that assessment by Republican House members and Republican senators who are still blaming House Democrats for their perceived "unfairness" towards this "president." I imagine that Speaker Pelosi should have provided some additional balance by telling 41 of her Democrats that they would not be permitted to cast votes at the end of the process.
3
@Dadof2 Which is to say that House Democrats freely granted Pres. Trump the opportunity to have legal representation at the impeachment hearings even though they were not constitutionally obligated to do so. He preferred to evade and insult them. That's on him.
4
There is a very simple and obvious reason why the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not and could not have been meant by the framers to refer to violations of federal criminal statute: because when the Constitution was written, debated and ratified, no federal criminal statutes yet existed! Nor did the framers have any idea what crimes would or would not eventually be encoded into federal statutes. Even bribery, one of the two specific impeachable offenses listed in the Constitution, would not be encoded in federal statute until 1962. So, to take the Republican argument to its logical conclusion, one would have to say that the word "bribery" in the Constitution was a reference to nothing at all from 1789 to 1962, because there was no federal statute defining it!
Combine that with the fact that "high crimes and misdemeanors" was a legal term of art, with a very specific meaning, that had a 400-year history under English law -- the system under which Madison, et al., had received their legal educations -- dating back to the impeachment of the Earl of Sussex in 1388, and the entire line of argument is shown to be an utter absurdity.
Republicans want us to believe that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is just some vague, generalized term. It was not and is not. A "high" crime, as opposed to an ordinary crime, was a crime against the public trust, and as such could only be committed by person in high positions of public trust.
177
@Mark Kessinger:
There is an excellent document prepared in 1974, just prior to attempts to impeach Richard Nixon. This document was a rigorous legal analysis done at that time -- to try to explain to Congresspersons, the media, and to voters -- about the same issues currently misunderstood by many.
This official government document masterfully summarizes why the Founders used the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". It explains much more. Go to p4 of this PDF (Table of Contents), to find what you're interested to learn:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20160622/105095/HHRG-114-JU00-20160622-SD004.pdf
Something I learned here is that while the President has pardon powers, the Constitution specifically says pardons cannot apply to persons impeached. So the earlier-heard claim that djt can simply pardon himself is false.
Likewise, pages 8+ explain why our U.S. Constitution uses that oft-misunderstood phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It has a very specific and (legally)-technical meaning.
Fascinating!
5
@Mark Kessinger "A "high" crime, as opposed to an ordinary crime"
A very educational comment that most people, especially Republican Senators like Lindsay Graham, need to read.
I've also heard "ordinary crimes" referred to as statutory crimes, low crimes, and common crimes.
The term "high crimes" makes sense to me when you consider that some of these crimes can put the national security at risk (as Trump did), put the election and therefore democracy at risk (as Trump did) and the rule of law at risk (as Trump does every single day).
8
@Mark Kessinger
Maybe you can explain what Jed Shugerman, a Fordham Law professor means by this: “Once the Dems decided not to challenge Trump’s bad arguments for not cooperating, they also abandoned the ‘high crime’ aspect of presidential abuse of power.”
This point is unexplained and leaves me hanging.
Where do we go from here, when a future president can confidently ignore congressional oversight by using Trump as a precedent? Congress as a coequal branch of the government should not have to ask another branch (judicial) for permission to use its constitutional authority to demand both documents and witnesses from the executive branch. Congress should be able to issue immediate arrest warrants for government officials refusing to comply with their lawful orders. The judical branch could then review those arrests as necessary.
18
@ak Thats why we have a third branch, to adjudicate whether the presidents executive privilege is valid or not.
If the president then ignores a court order we have obstruction.
The alternative would allow the majority opposition party to ask and be entitled to anything, everything. That’s more than a check on the executive branch
2
@Nestor there was no assertion of executive privilege, only a blanket decision not to cooperate with a "flawed investigation." Agreed that the legislative should not automatically have access to everything, but using the courts as a delaying tactic and refusing to cooperate is also unconstitutional.
5
@Nestor
I believe there’s a small problem with your argument.
Congressmen and senators are elected.
Federal judges are appointed, by presidents, and they’re confirmed by the senate.
In the event that a corrupt president and a mindlessly partisan majority in the senate (same party as the president) work together to pack the federal courts with partisan judges... Where are we then?
This business of packing the courts with partisan judges has gone on for decades. Bringing the judiciary into this is, saddly, not a viable option at this time.
2
Trump has no case. He should be placed in handcuffs, escorted from the White House and sent to prison for the rest of his natural life. And that would be treating him more kindly than he deserves.
Anybody who conspires with Russia to destroy and threaten the entire nation is a bigger threat than any terrorist or any foreign enemy the US has ever had!
Lock him up before there's nothing left to save!!
201
@NY Times Fan - totally agree
6
@NY Times Fan
The Republicans have sufficiently undermined the government to save Trump. They own and control many key positions.
They are going for the brass ring.
9
@Grove-What are they willing to give away to get it? Trump is setting the economy up for a recession and nearly started a war in the Middle East. His appointees are undermining the foundational charters and missions of the government agencies and departments they head. He's offended just about every constituency except for the extremely rich who own 76% of the country's wealth and evangelists. There are not enough Republicans to keep him in office--without voter suppression and other illicit acts. Will Republicans in Congress choose to go down with the Trump ship? He taints everything and everyone he touches. Expect defections--once they come up with a song sheet that gives them political cover.
8
Does anyone else find it odd that a Fox News contributor ( Dershowitz) who helped to acquit a black man that 95% of all Fox viewers would tell you was guilty as all get out for murder is being not only supported by those same people but was hired by trump???
33
@JD for the record.. Dershowitz is a liberal democrat that was banned by CNN
not odd, ironic.
3
@Nestor
For the record, any person who argues that there must be an actual criminal act to be impeached is a supporter of an imperial presidency, and in no way is a liberal democrat. And I keep seeing him on CNN. Perhaps he is tired of trying to defend the indefensible to an educated audience.
I despise everything about Donald Trump. Everything. But I have to agree that the crimes he is being tried for in the Senate, even if he did them, would not merit his removal. Why aren't we talking about the things that DO justify his removal? His war against the environment? His war against science in general? His beliefs that the budget doesn't matter? That Social Security and Medicare cuts will be on the table? The fact that he is increasingly inarticulate to the point of senility? Look, Donald Trump has never read the Constitution and wouldn't understand it if he did. Maybe we get the President we deserve, not the President we need.
6
@Eric
Wow. OK, here we go. Impeachment is NOT about policy disagreements, or if "you just don't like the guy"--Impeachment is about the sort of "crime" that only the president can commit, in terms of abuse of the public trust. If the Mueller Report wasn't so ambiguous in its conclusions, there is a lot of fodder there for impeachment in the evidence it uncovered. But the Democrats (correctly, I think) concluded that ambiguity is not tenable in the creation of an impeachment case.
Pelosi is right that when the Ukraine debacle showed itself, this was a simple and direct case of the sort of abuse of presidential power that merits impeachment. Only the president has the sort of power and access to resources of support of his decision making that created the situation of a quid pro quo in which Zelensky was pressured to conduct an investigation (or just announce one) in exchange for the aid and support already aspects of foreign policy.
When Trump conditionally withheld the aid to interfere, he acted as a tyrant in any of the corrupt countries he loves (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia). If he wasn't at least impeached, we wouldn't have much of a country anymore.
Maybe America will just be a a warehouse for the corporations that rule the world. Because if Trump is re-elected, there isn't much hope left for the sort of democracy the framers conceived.
100
@Eric
Agreed.
Perhaps the matter of the nine other human beings who were blown into pieces along with General Suleimani could be considered. Ordering an assassination for questionable reasons is one thing. Murdering nine other folks is another matter entirely.
2
@Eric: I agree absolutely. In addition, in the international arena, he has purposefully acted in such a way as to erode trust in the US among our allies. More generally, his actions and behavior have made us an international laughing stock.
These offenses are not a matter of political partisanship; the injury to America, and to individual Americans, can be defined in objective, often quantifiable terms. Unfortunately, these are not formally indictable offenses.
In any case, I'm not sure why the Republicans are shrieking the way they are about "annulling an election". If Trump is removed, they'll get the theocratically inclined Pence -- surely just as much to their taste as the sociopath currently occupying the office.
2
The arguments stated in this article regarding the necessity of a crime depends on this being a criminal proceeding in which the defendant can lose his liberty--in other words, jail. All of those arguments fail in impeachment where nobody goes to jail. Nobody gets fined . The president, at worst, goes back home, a lot richer and no wiser. There are no deep philosophical issues involved. Trump just loses his job and we all win back our freedom. The country will not easily earn back all the damage he has caused.
14
@Mickeyd lets not forget that by removing him we disenfranchise half the country. If we feel the country is divided now imagine where we’ll be if we kick him out without at least some bipartisan support. Nothing would go back to normal.
This is not an excuse for keeping a criminal who is damaging the country and soliciting foreign assistance for the election in office! Maybe his followers should have chosen who they voted for a little more carefully in the first place, then they wouldn’t have this problem. They could have chosen a different Republican. They didn’t. Now they must live with the consequences.
They have no credible defense. They have pathological denialism which is a psychological defense against the truth which simply cannot be tolerated and acknowledged by the tribe at present. So they will employ all kind of diversions, distortions, dissembling, discounting and just plain dishonesty. The people know what is happening in front of them. Make no mistake, even right-wingers know a cover-up when they see one!
27
The President was absolutely justified in demanding (if that is what he did) that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden as a condition of his releasing aid to Ukraine. The fact that Biden happens to be running for president does not inoculate him or Barack Obama from investigation and prosecution for running a criminal enterprise out of the White House. In the same vein, sitting United States Senator Elizabeth Warren promises to create a special unit at the Justice Department (if she is elected) to specifically investigate Trump administration officials for criminal conduct. Why is her action as a sitting senator any less impeachable today than that of the President? Because Trump haters let Democrats get away with anything?
5
@SHerman It has more to do with tying the military aid already approved by congress to the ask. Had he just asked without holding up the aid then your argument would be correct.
It is so easy to focus on Trump vs The Democrats, but the much more important question is our ally, Ukraine, vs Russia where actual lives were on the line in an actual battle. Our reputation and reliability as an ally were on the line.
Love Trump/ Hate Trump. Think about the longer term consequences. He won’t be president forever - I mean he is in his 70s and loves fast food at minimum.
He should have just asked sweetly without holding anything back, and had he done so he probably would have gleefully sent over all the documents that would exonerate him - just to make the Dems look like reactionary fools and secure the 2020 election. And he wouldn’t have had to store anything in an ultra top-secret system. But he can’t because he actually did put real humans in real danger in order to get a political favor.
This is an important distinction.
20
@SHerman ..."The President was absolutely justified in demanding (if that is what he did) that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden as a condition of his releasing aid to Ukraine."...Using tax payer money and the weight of his office for extortion is clearly a criminal offense. Not to mention that what he wanted was not an actual investigation of Biden, but rather a statement of investigation.
4
@SHerman If either of the Bidens was legitimately suspected of criminal behavior, a DOJ investigation should have been opened. At most, DOJ could have requested documentation from Ukraine.
Congress had appropriated the funds. The only correct action was to release them.
Neither of these things happened because this was Trump abusing his office.
3
If everything else was thrown out, his open, blatant and antagonist obstruction is reason enough for this guy to be resoundingly condemned in a bipartisan manner. This doesn't even include his frequent and equally open and blatant overtures to uncover the identity of the U.S. citizen who sought whistle-blower protection for his/her testimony. If the phony Republican Party was on the receiving end of this type of "above the law" behavior from a Democratic president, they would be red in the face with vitriol. The hypocrisy exercised by the Republican Party would be impressive, if not so dangerous to and used at the expense of the United States of America. I honestly wouldn't count of a Republican to be decent enough to admit 2+2=4 if to do so contradicted conservative news talking points. This impeachment process could easily include the entirety of the Republican Party for their enabling ways.
15
"There are a select few scholars, however, who say the consensus should be reconsidered."
There are a few "scholars" also who continue to insist that climate change is not mostly driven by humans.
Climate change IS mostly driven by human activity.
Trump is as crooked as a $3 bill.
Finding a few people who are just wrong or (more likely) willing to lie for personal gain is poor fodder for defending the null hypothesis.
12
@Nathan Hansard Scientific method and legal scholarship are very different animals. I will break out the champagne when Trump leaves the presidency, the sooner the better. But please don’t muddy the waters.
Extortion has no defense.
So these Op-Ed points of defense of the President are not applicable.
Or like Trump's hapless chief of staff Mulvaney stated "We do it all the time. Get over it."
So many admissions of guilt and hiding evidence within layers of security systems.
Boldface lies coupled with outright admissions of abuse of power.
Any defense of this president is laughable.
12
Trump knows that his supporters don't care about the quality of the legal argument - it's all for show - "Alan Dershowitz - a Harvard professor, who doesn't even like me - is defending me." "Ken Starr, the guy who thought Clinton should be impeached - doesn't think I should be impeached". As for Republicans, all they're looking for is something to hide behind. It's really as simple as that.
There is no defense of this president. Donald Trump is a dangerously incompetent man who actively promotes conspiracy theories. That in itself poses a serious threat to our security, because a grip on reality is important, but he is even worse because his are theories that serve the purposes of our adversaries. He is helping Putin undermine our democracy. And he is doing it because he perceives it to be in his own personal interest.
If Republicans really cared about this, there would be no question of whether or not he should be impeached. Al Capone, after all, was convicted on tax evasion. I have heard the idea that if the vote were held in secret, Trump would be impeached, but I don't believe it. They are not even trying to change the public's perception of him in any way. They are giving him everything he wants.
16
Trump’s legal defense may be argued by scholars or hacks
They may cite the Constitution or make partisan attacks
But the best defense that has allayed Donald Trump’s fears
Is that the verdict is in the pockets of a jury of his peers
No witnesses or documents will render his reign undone
He need not fear the appearance of a smoking gun
His lackeys are judge, jury and executioners on the loose
Trump gets off scott free, it is Lady Justice’s neck in the noose
We are not a monarchy where the king can do no wrong
But Franklin said, our Republic could be lost, a fleeting song
The dream of our founding fathers has been turned on its head
When blind partisan loyalty rules, our revered Democracy is dead.
15
@Asher Fried Awesome - excellent poetry. Need to patent your work of art. Brief, concise, accurate, honest and right on point. Thank you. Hope some brave sole will copy the above and post it on the bulletin board in the Senate lunch room. Wait, Schiff could put it up on screen in the Senate Chambers.
(Many are saying, lots of phone calls, thousands believe, groups are planning, polls show - that in the very near future all adherents of the infamous Tea Party will be transported north and dumped in the Hudson River. Use of Boston Harbor ruled out - would be an insult to our historical Patriots.
1
You win best post of the day!
@Gordon Jones
Thank you Gordon, but not in the Hudson, please!
President Trump believes he did nothing wrong.
I would bet that he would be willing to defend himself before the Senate trial, and think that he should be encouraged to do so.
He has a very great and large brain, better than anyone for that matter.
He is a very stable genius.
Republicans should be proud to let him come in and testify.
That would certainly end all questions for once and for all.
12
@Grove. In an interview during the 2016 campaign, Trump was asked if he had ever asked God for forgiveness, and he said no. Never vote for anyone who believes he is perfect.
3
@Grove
Dear Grove,
Unfortunately for the Republic, he has some very clever people around him that will drug his diet coke before letting him get in front of a real enquiry.
2
@Grove And I would only add that during his defense of himself he should wear a big red rubber nose which can be remotely honked by Chairman Schiff whenever a lie is told.
3
I really don't understand how they can continue to claim that Trump did nothing wrong. He solicited a foreign country to help him in his re-election by smearing a potential rival. Why did he go after the Bidens? Because Biden was the forerunner at the time. This smacks of Steve Miller influence. He's evil. Who are they going to go after next? I'm guessing whoever comes out on top after Iowa.
He blatantly threatened anyone who would show up to testify to the House. How is it that the Sargent at Arms wasn't sent to drag folks to testify? Those who had been subpoenaed should have showed up, even if they took the fifth.
2
The mental gyrations that these evil gas-lighters are going through are exhausting, depressing and demoralizing.
Listen. It's really very simple.
Free and fair elections are the lynchpin of our democracy. The Republican Party has already stretched the spirit of this foundation through their gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. Now, to that malevolent opus, we can add the latest chapter: using our FOREIGN POLICY, and foreign aid, to willfully sway the electorate through a campaign of misinformation.
It really is that simple.
You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, but a pig is a pig is a pig.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
Abuse of power is abuse of power.
Cheating is cheating.
......and no matter how many different ways the GOP tries to dress up the truth, they will never be able to obfuscate this in the long term. The amount of provable data is out there. The facts are not in question. The rules are not in question--not really. The only thing that is in question is whether or not the Republican Party is going to continue down this treasonous path they have chosen.
26
@GWE
Oh, and the rules that make it possible for a horrible person to be selected as the president of the United States by some machinery known as the electoral college. The citizenry of the United States did not elect Trump as President but lo and behold, he's in the White House. I am an intelligent person who pays taxes and votes in every election and I still don't understand how this happened.
7
Regarding Dershowitz:
If Dershowitz’s “two years” worth of research was worth its salt, he wouldn’t have to defend his position by calling those who question his conclusions “bullies” or “partisans.” He would be able to do what PhD students do across this country all the time and defend his ideas based on the merits of his findings. In his recent letter to the editor, I see no evidence to defend his position, just more name calling and self-aggrandizement.
While I would like to believe that time has made Dershowitz the caricature of the academic who has gone too far down an esoteric rabbit hole, his life’s work would suggest otherwise. Specifically, his pattern of omitting moral data when drawing conclusions seems more like a character defect than bias gone wrong. Further, Dershowitz’s fails to admit when he was (or is) wrong, even when his own opinions stand in direct conflict of each other. Taken together, these point more to an insecure human being who will do anything to get attention. Let us not forget his defense AND embrace of Epstein.
Of course, I’m sure Mr. Dershowitz’s will likely call me a “bully” if he reads this comment, but that word and “partisan” ring hallow when coming from a man with no moral compass. He is not “defending the constitution” he’s kicking the legs out from under it purely for one more chance to have any of us care what he has to say, it’s not heroic, it’s pathetic.
8
I can't even stand to read this artile just bc of its title!
There is NO defense for trump's deceits, manipulations and lies.
9
1. Why does this have to be stated so many times to sink in? Democrats did not use the courts to enforce subpoenas because it would have taken years for the courts to render a final judgement. It was not practical.
2. If a president has a religious epiphany while in office and decides to take a two-year vow of silence and sit in meditation all day, he is not breaking any law, but could nonetheless be impeached for failing to carry out his duties. More realistically, profiting from the operation of golf courses and hotels while president does not break any laws but is arguably impeachable because it violates the Emoluments Clause of the constitution.
11
To the GOP Senators:
NOVEMBER.
16
Interesting that the same political party that found Clinton lying about his extracurricular girlfriend to Congress is A-OK with their guy who lies often to Congress, tried to strong arm the Ukrainian president and has a ridiculous lawyer Giuliani running a substitute State Department, and withheld funding to Ukraine for his own benefit.
If we could mine the hypocrisy of the GOP Senators, we would all be rich beyond measure- they need to remember that the American people are not stupid and that we will remember.
12
I don't care if he has been narrowly charged or not, President Donald J. Trump used the power of his office to commit bribery in the light of day. This crime is under the umbrella of the Abuse of Power Article of Impeachment. I am certain that if the translator's notes confiscated after the private Trump/Putin meeting surfaces, we will see that Trump also committed treason.
13
Yeah I would love to see those notes. Very suspicious that he did that. How is that not a crime in and of itself?
The whole world has just witnessed a show trial without any witnesses. Shame on all at the highest levels of our government
who were complacent, complicit and have conspired to commit this disgraceful destruction of our democracy. The only peaceful recourse available to truly patriotic Americans is to vote out the current administration from the top down before it's too late.
Wake up, America. If not now, never!
9
I am a retired high school teacher, not a retired attorney. Please excuse my lack of expertise.
Don’t all of the lies Trump has told about this matter, since the whistleblower blew the whistle, count for anything? Can a president lie when questioned about matters of national security and criminal acts he may have committed, lie with imupunity over and over?
13
Great summary. Thank you.
2
The tragedy of the Trump presidency is that it will damage the structure of America's government after it. We must take seriously the Republican charge that their refusal to consider impeachment makes it purely partisan. After all, that's their belief. By pretending Trump hasn't violated his oath of office, Republicans can henceforth impeach anyone they think will suffer politically from it.
The imperial Presidency, which in the wrong hands could lead to nuclear war, is at hand. The military will be cowed, and given its conservative tilt, may fall in line behind a leader unfettered by oversight. We're entering an era of conflict unrivaled but for the pre-civil war era, but because of the current country's size and might is far more dangerous. With an unmoored President at the helm, decisions will be made that may wrench America apart.
Trump's second term is in the hands of the electorate, and the angels of their better natures may protect the country from it. But while Democrat managers have done a good job at laying out the case for Trump's treachery, this article shows what's up next. A seething, shouting diatribe of white male anger. Republican Senators and conservative media will parrot it. Much of the country will absorb it. The damage will be done.
44
@Brian-Unfortunately America doesn't have a secure or transparent election system or universal voter protections. Our patchwork of voting systems is vulnerable to hacking, manipulation, vote loss, votes being thrown out, more votes counted than eligible voters in a district, polls closing, broken machines, voter purging, voter suppression and other tactics proven to work to keep the majority selected candidate from taking office.
3
Donald J. Trump is on trial, but so is democracy on trial.
If we allow Trump to get off, scott-free, democracy may fail.
I am glad that the Democrats have the course to make their case.
And perhaps, in 2020, we will see a new democracy wave.
As Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA."
(Prophetic "Democracy" song, 1992)
20
This is what will happen: Senate acquits Trump. Trump loses in November. The Democrats continue to hold the house and pick up a few Senate seats (Republicans will still have a majority). The Congress will continue to investigate the illegalities of the Trump administration. In 2022, the Republicans lose the Senate, leaving Democrats in control of the presidency and the legislature. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, newly freed from Barr and under the direction of an ethical executive, will also investigate the avalanche of wrongdoing we have been buried under.
101
@Melinda
I would only add that in trump’s last year, a Supreme Court judge or two will vacate their seat and the Democrat-controlled Senate will refuse to consider trump’s nominee replacements. The GOP will go crazy, shamelessly claiming that the Democrats are obstructing trump’s presidency, oblivious to their hypocrisy. The following year the Dem president will nominate competent, young, liberal replacements, the GOP crying foul but powerless to prevent their appointment.
10
@Melinda
Perhaps that's the view from California (for which you can be forgiven, given the sapphire lens through which everything there is seen), but Trump is going to win in November. The economy is humming, foreign policy wins are accumulating and Democrats don't have anyone who can beat him in the states that will decide the election. Biden's the only one who'll make it even close.
I'd be more concerned with keeping the House if I were you.
Foreign policy wins like Trump almost starting World War III by assassinating a high level Iranian general. We already had one nasty world war because the wrong guy got assassinated.
1
Let’s do a pretend scenario. Speaking in generalities, the director of a state health lab has the capacity to assign and allocate funds for testing patient samples (state residents). State labs get a combined amount from various grants and sources... federal gov't, state taxes, APHL, etc. Now let’s say the director sits on these funds, allowing important human samples to go untested (right now it's flu, perhaps the novel coronavirus next month), until someone agrees to buy them a new car or house. They're not holding the funds ransom in an attempt to create better outcomes for lab employees or the health of state residents, but instead to enrich only himself or herself.
Should the director keep their job?
31
@BCD:
Believe it or not, your analogy is too complex for millions of Americans to understand. It is a sad truth that our media must "dumb it down" for them (as "Fox" so successfully does).
________________________________________________
The core of Impeachment charges are:
1) trump blackmailed Ukraine.
2) trump ordered his staff to ignore Congress' subpoenas, which is illegal.
Most American legal experts agree that both are illegal, that trump did both, and trump should be removed by the Senate. ________________________________________________
Our concerned/liberal media must repeat only such simple statements, over and over again. Unfortunately, to fix the massive disinformation by repubs, we must keep it simple for the millions of uneducated Americans - whom we must educate.
3
In a country where the truth mattered, the Democrat’s would have a slam dunk case that might take 4 or 5 hours to present. In a country where truth does not matter and where the President’s team is certain to take advantage of that, the Democrats have felt obliged to repeat the few facts that a corrupt system has allowed them to gather until I - a staunch Trump opponent — can barely bring myself to listen anymore. I don’t know what the solution is—maybe a few hours on the difference between truth and misinformation? But the Democratic case and the Republic are in trouble if they can’t perk things up a bit.
12
Isn’t blackmail a crime?
Does executive priviledge extend to other people?
If I ignore a congressional subpoena, can I avoid punishment for my crime if the president tells me, “You don’t need to obey that.”?
Aren’t there legal statutes concerning actions that are illegal for a candidate to take?
45
@Tom W :
Those exact issues are meandering through our Federal courts, on their way to the Supreme Court. Until then, each of the persons who have obstructed, are claiming their right to do so under presidential decree/protections (which do not exist in U.S. law). William Barr and his cohorts have made the CLAIM that such protections exist -- and their Claim will be tested in the courts and SCOTUS.
It is expected that most of their claims will be stricken down, and eventually all of these cases will hit the now very political SCOTUS. It is unclear how the SCOTUS will rule -- since their recent behaviors have been more to help their conservative cause than to protect the Constution or the nation.
We have a partisan political Supreme Court, and so we are in trouble! It's time to impeach Justice Roberts, for ignoring the Senators' abdication of their Oaths (to the Constitution), during this trial.
We must Impeach Roberts (after Nov 3, 2020) - if enough Democrats win in the Senate!
2
@Tom W
Dear Tom W,
Certainly blackmail is a crime. Why didn't the Impeachment Articles make this accusation?
Because in this case it would have been very difficult to prove...so the House is trying to make this case by inference, which is a very tenuous strategy indeed.
2
Perhaps the Senate Republicans who have said they are unable to be impartial should be threatened with impeachment for obstruction of justice if they are unable to fulfill their oath of office.
Maybe that will get their attention.
100
@Bronx Jon
They'll have their attention piqued when they're voted out of office. I've never contributed to elections out of State for Senators until this year. Bye Mitch, bye Lindsay!
21
@Bronx Jon :
I hope Chief Justice Roberts is also brought up on impeachment charges by the next democratic administration. That is the only way to remove a sitting SCOTUS judge.
Chief Justice Roberts is required to enforce the Senate proceedings, and is required to ensure the oaths taken by each Senator is upheld by them, and they behave according to that oath.
It is clear, as was publicly stated, that Moscow Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham (and others) are not upholding their Constitutional oaths. For this reason, Judge Roberts is required (by Court Rules) to sanction or remove those "jurors"/Senators from the trial.
Since Judge Roberts will not do what he is there to do (ensure the trial is run per Court Rules), he needs to face impeachment charges himself.
When a Supreme Court Chief Justice like John Roberts is clearly acting in a partisan and political manner, it is time to remove them!
9
They should have charged him with bribery. He solicited something of personal value in exchange for an official act. It’s pretty cut and dried in the Federal Code and any other federal employee would probably have been indicted and convicted in the same situation.
Bribery also has the added bonus of being specifically named in the Constitution as a cause for impeachment.
87
@Evan
I agree. I don't understand why they didn't.
2
@Evan
Democrats didn't charge him with anything criminal because he didn't do anything criminal. Not that Democrats didn't try and hang that label on Trump's actions in the media, after focus-group testing that it was more damning with the electorate.
Wonderful summary for the record. Thank you. The record will follow him into history.
10
Trump’s real defense: Impeachment is essentially a political process requiring a two-third vote of the Senate. And at least 40% of the voters think that impeachment is too drastic a remedy for what he is accused of doing. In short, the “who cares?” defense.
17
@Jay Orchard
So 60% cares and want him gone.
7
@Jay Orchard Then 60% of use do thing that Trump's actions require impeachment and removal. So, it is not important until 100 percent of Americans are in favor?
7
@Jay Orchard
Dear Jay,
You have summed it up perfectly. I care, but many more than me do not care.
3
The problem for impeachment proponents though is that if it comes down to debating legal arguments then you have already lost the case. You also run the risk of losing (if such has not already happened) the more important political argument that will be decided by the election. This rather weak legal argument was the smart one politically because it frames the issue simply for public consumption.
3
The real and only issue is that the Republicans have the votes to ensure Trump not being removed from office. They do not care about any of the other oft-cited 'details', precedents, witnesses-or-no-witnesses' issues.
Sorry!
45
@Fred p
Meaning that the Senate majority is complicit in the cabal that is the Trump administration. Shameful and embarrassing!
13
@Fred p
Meaning, we the American people should make them know that we care, and we are watching their actions very closely.
6