Too late and no kidding.
21
Believe?
Might be guilty?
Can you find a few more wiggle words?
He admitted his guilt on national television. He is not even smart enough to stop talking, to keep his mouth shut, even to deny the obvious. What more do you need?
How can anyone be proud of such a buffoon? He is nothing more and nothing less than a national embarrassment.
18
There is no more GOP. It is a Trump Cult.
19
Why didn't you try to publish this in Wall Street Journal 2 weeks back where your fellow Republicans would have had a chance to reflect on it?
23
i am not a lawyer, thank god, but i read the conversation and the impeachment queries in the house and the managers' case in the senate. i also heard the ridiculous rants by the president's lawyers. of course trump is guilty of the two charges. anyone with any decent amount of intelligence will come to the same conclusion. what shocks me, is that you voted for this flimflam man from the start. he started off as a pathological lier and he has lived up to that. he is a bigot, a misogynist and a very stupid man. and he has stayed that way.
14
It was obvious before he was elected POTUS that Trump was a lying narcissist who did not have the moral character to become POTUS. Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 should be ashamed either for being too naive to believe Trump was anything but what he appeared to be or, worse, ashamed because he knew what Trump was and voted for him anyway.
16
Mr. Harmon, I look forward to your Chris Wallace tonight and Fox and Friends tomorrow morning. Ha! Where were you a week ago?
8
A little late, dude.
10
Here! Here!
2
Thank you for using the tools God gave you - head and heart.
Thank you sir.
'...the words “do the right thing” recalled the way mob bosses made an offer that could not be refused...'
Michael Cohen testified to this way in which T communicates: T never explicitly says what he wants or what he wants you to do, but he dances around it, alludes to it, nudge-nudge, etc., and you know exactly what he wants. Cohen told us all about T's communication style.
Such a mobster. And Roy Cohn was T's mentor? Please. Mr. Mobster Con is SO obviously mobster-trained.
8
“May” be?
4
Do you Reason or do you Rationalize?
Easy to tell. Do you Debate or do you Slander?
The Republican National Committee has willingly engaged in a propaganda campaign, using Slander to attack all who question their warped evangelical view of the World.
There has been a Soft-Coup. The Confederacy has risen a 2nd time, led by old Mitch McConnell.
Every Senator that votes to acquit is complaisant in this Treasonous-plot to take over our Country.
What makes it treason, they accepted the help of the russians.
We want our Country back.
10
It’s not like you didn’t know In 2016 that Trump was a fraud, a liar, a thief, sexist, racist, ignorant and completely immoral. But you still voted for him.
12
WOW!! Gee ya think so? Maybe you just didn't get your golf membership in the mail yet. He would never stiff you.
8
How did we get here? The Republicans will do anything to retain power. They know Mike Pence would never win the next election. Why else would the Senate refuse to hear additional information? By being cowards, they have created a dictatorship.
6
Hmm.. a former federal prosecutor. It took you this long to figure it out?
11
Why would you vote for Mr. Trump if you were a former federal prosecutor? He was a obvious crook BEFORE he was elected!
10
A little too late on your opinion - closing the barn door after the cows are out.
5
To me there is alsoman element of blackmail in what he did; doesn't it seem that he was not only bribing, but also blackmailing the President of the Ukraine?
"In English law, a person is guilty of blackmail if, … with intent to cause loss [ the military aid] to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces and for this purpose menaces [in this case withholding U.S. aid] are unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand…
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
5
Trump and his supporters have made the bed.
Now we must all sleep in it, regardless of how we feel.
Kudos nonetheless to Mitt Romney and John Bolton, and any Republicans daring to speak the truth, even if it is too little too late.
Trump was impeached and will never ever be exonerated since he had no real trial. What a pathetic, Pyrrhic victory, and what a tragedy for our republic.
5
The question, Harmon, is why did you vote for someone whom we already knew to be corrupt?
7
There is NO doubt this despicable example of a human being did wrong. Just like he lies, lies and lies, he does wrong, wrong, wrong. The only astonishing thing is when he says something that is true and/or correct. His default position is to lie, do wrong, and never ever apologize for all the ill he has done and continues to do.
6
Sorry, this is just too funny.
They "are wrong".
He "may have".
Reads like an easy SAT question.
Give it up.
Really pathetic few years for the Dems. That's making a lot of us sad and angry.
4
Guilty of bribery? Why stop there? Trump is a wrecking ball.
4
Mr. Harmon, you do not say that you will vote against Trump this time. Are you voting for him again despite what you write? Or, do you actually have the conscience you would like us to believe you possess?
3
"Unlike Mr. Trump’s supporters, I believe the president might well be guilty of breaking the law."
Mr. Harmon, you believe Trump might be guilty of bribery? You are a former federal prosecutor and it's not clear to you?
Why is everyone so afraid of standing up to this offish bully? Is it because they feel his supporters will, at the slightest behest of the president, turn their anger against the 70% of Americans who happen to believe that Trump violated the law and that 51% believe he should be removed from office (USA today poll)?
Removal is based on Article 2 Section 4, not to be done at the polls but at the bar of justice. This is the purpose of Congress, to ensure that the president does not infringe on the limits of power delegated to them. Except that we no longer have a legitimate constitutional government for the three branches function as one, supporting the Dictator in Chief. There is little judicial oversight of his actions and the Senate majority abdicates their constitutional responsibility at his every whim.
The big bull in the china closet has seen to it since January 20, 2017 that if the Constitution is in his way, he'll just ignore it, violate it, and trample it underfoot. What is the difference between him and King George III? This is not an aberration but, I believe, will become a norm in America. It's truly frightening how perverted the presidency has become.
Trump has violated the rights of all Americans and he continues to do so daily.
4
USA now a Banana Republic in the hands of gangsters.
No amount of divining the apparently meaningless Constitution seems to make a difference in the hands of corrupt elected officials.
How sad.
4
So, Mr. Harmon, why are you speaking out now, when it's too late to matter?
And why did you even bother writing this for the NYTimes, where most of the readers have been saying this all along? If you truly wanted to try to have your voice be effective, you would have sent this column to EVERY Republican Senator weeks ago, and you would have published it on Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Federalist, National Review, etc.
Sorry, but this kind of safe, ex post facto acknowledgement doesn't do anyone any good; and it certainly doesn't assuage your silent complicity in the ongoing moral degradation of your Republican Party which allowed for Trump and Trumpism to arise in the first place.
2
The fact that the author voted for trump shows his lack of judgement in spite of now rehashing what the rest of us nunca-trumpers have known for a long time and as the Dems have proven beyond any reasonable doubt - just like we know this Republican mafia style pass on his crimes will give the trump even more encouragement to continue destroying the Constitution he and the author swore to protect - no doubt whatsoever.
2
The headline is very poor;. It makes a strong declarative assertion of presumed 'guilt' for something, followed by 'may be...' That's doubleduckspeak for certain.
2
A little late, sir.
1
Mr. Harmon, It's clear to me that a vote for Donald Trump in 2016 was a clear indication of your utter lack of integrity, common sense, morality and honesty. Thanks for the belated change of heart, it's pretty useless.
1
I have no respect for anyone who voted for Trump, no matter what they say now. He was always a crook; there was plenty of evidence of his stiffing small businessmen, his own lawyers, charities, etc. To expect a man of his age with a lifetime pattern of dishonesty to be anything but a corrupt president is ludicrous. And if you do that because you want certain Supreme Court judges, don't come crying about how you hate what he's doing to the Constitution. You asked for it; you put him there, and the only reason you are published now is to show that not all Republicans are quite as slimy as Mitch McConnell. Pretty low bar.
3
What is incomprehensible to me is why all the Democrats don't call this "show trial" the same thing that Republicans bleated about in the House proceedings calling them a kangaroo court. That is exactly what the Reupblicans ran in the Senate, a KANGAROO COURT- a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
1
What is the point of this "Op-Ed"? I know many middle school students who are capable fo this brand of 'deep analysis'.
Trump has always been a liar and a bully and a deadbeat. People do what they have always done if it works for them. How could you ever vote for him? Why are you surprised by the corruption. I am a housewife from New Mexico who does not possess your degrees or experience, but I saw this coming. Next time please vote Blue!
2
Another pointless article who's author admits to sufficient savagery of spirit as to vote for this buffoon. I wonder if some part of our distracted whiplashy current scene isn't in fact accelerated by these paid 'softeners' who pretend to facts and reasonability but end their thoughts with no result, other than bringing out the quibbling qualifiers to validate the senate's decision.
These articles only further groom the public into encouraging the thought that there are two sides to the story of the impeachment.
1
Anyone who believed Trump would do anything honorable, like appoint people with integrity to the bench, as you say you believed Mr. Harmon, was either a chump or now just making excuses for what you helped to create. Your litany of wrongdoing was obvious to anyone who saw behind the very thin curtain. So either you were fooled, which makes you a fool, or you support the rot that infects this country. Sorry, too late for mea culpas.
Thank, Mr. Harmon. Maybe you can get on Fox News and read this column. I'd appreciate it. I'm sure others would as well.
You helped vote him into office Mr Harmon.
A little late now for voters remorse.
Did you per chance learn anything here.... like maybe.. don't vote for a known conman and corrupt businessman for the highest office in the land? Probably not.
1
Could you imagine what the FOX news republicans would have done if Obama withheld aid to the Ukraine unless they announced they were investigating Trump's wrongdoing and laundering money from Russian oligarchs to pay off his debts?
1
Lots of people in these comments seem very sure that Hunter Biden should absolutely not, never, in no way be investigated for receiving $1 million/year for a no-show job at a corrupt Ukrainian energy company. At least not while his father, former chief envoy to the Ukraine, is a powerful figure in the Democratic party. Just no public interest in learning why that oligarch paid Hunter all that money. Asking about it is tantamount to treason. Getting millions from Ukrainian oligarchs is the God-given right of of all decent red-blooded sons of high American officials.
Standing over the corpse of the Constitution, having buried their own knife of greed deep into its back, the GOP, stand ready to receive the giving rains of the authoritarian government its scrambling to be on the controlling side. How will they create the second class citizenry, I wonder? By gunpoint? Which MAGA hat wearing neighbor of mine is going to tap on my front door with his NRA special? Are we going to be relegated by the color of our skin via app? Can Chinese facial recognition tech make the GOO drool any more? How about American fascists coming to power, via every dirty trick, and then what will any of us do?
2
You, like the lefty/Dems are a little late to the party--aqqital will happen today, so let's get to the election leftys--enough of the beyond, beyond, ridiculous, "he MAY HAVE broke the law." Just absurd! Oh, by the way, when someone says someone 'may have" done something, guess what that means by definition, they may NOT have done something as well. Enough of the silliness.
1
May have? Seriously?
1
I would also add Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, as well (18 USC 371). According to the Justice Department's own manual for prosecutors, “The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. . . . [P]roof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. . . . Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371." The manual goes on to use an election fraud case as an example, how interesting. "In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371". Trump, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, and others were all involved, it appears, in a conspiracy to defraud the government by undermining the integrity of the presidential election in 2020 through corruptly withholding funds for a "government administered program" in exchange for a fake investigation against his main political rival -- "a dishonest act."
1
"I took an oath at West Point that I would “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” President Trump took the same oath when he became president. He should abide by it."
Sorry--I'm not buying it. When you cast your vote for Trump, did you really expect Trump to "preserve, protect and defend"? You KNEW that you were voting for a man who knowingly defrauded thousands with his Trump "University" scam. You KNEW that he believed that because he was a big, important man that he had free rein to accost women whenever he felt like it. You KNEW, that he had a 40 year track record of ripping off contractors and stiffing creditors. You KNEW that he was a man of very limited intellect, a man with obvious psychological aberrations..
But none of that mattered. The only thing that mattered is that you
"believed that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would “say what the law is,” not try to make it.
So you got your boy--Kavanaugh, while Merrick Garland (and the people of the US) got the shaft. Counselor--make your case...explain why Kavanaugh is a fair interpreter of the Constitution while Garland is not.
Fine. How will you VOTE in November ???
There are many sayings along the line of "a fish rots from the head" or "one bad apple can spoil the barrel". Having Trump, a criminal, as president it is clear that Trump is effectively debasing the customs and institutions on which our national order depends; just consider how many no longer have any trust in various news organizations. Why did you believe the Senate would be immune to the Trump effect?
More significantly, as someone who served on the President's Commission on Organized Crime how could you have possibly voted for Trump? Trump's whole life in business has been full of associations with members of organized crime including Russians. Did you not know Roy Cohn's client list? Why did you think Trump sought out Roy Cohn? Hint: maybe it was because Roy Cohn was known as a fixer with many organized crime connections. Of course Trump speaks in the coded language members of organized crime use because that's what Trump is.
For those who have any doubts about Trump's preferred associations, just review what has been revealed under FOIA. On Trump's first Atlantic City casino Trump associated with the Phila-So. Jersey and NYC based Genovese crime families; engaged in bribery that got Michael Matthews, the first elected mayor of AC, 15 years in prison and Trump protected himself by being a rat - aka confidential informant to the FBI; which institution Trump often now attacks as corrupt - can't help but note the irony
1
Thank you for being an honest conservative.
I was beginning to think they had been a figment of my imagination.
I am in neither party but left of most Democrats.
I am only loyal to my family, the Constitution, and all of We the People of the United States.
I started out in the center, trying to embrace the new economics, and liking the democratic sound of "state's rights."
However, I collect and analyze a lot of information. The more I learn, the farther left I find myself.
As far as I can tell, the Right rejects reason. Facts, logic, math, and logic are their enemies.
(The Right is not stupid. They make very clever arguments for why we should have tenth century politics. They are just convinced that they would do well with in pure violent competition, so that's what we should have. But the Constitution says the opposite.)
If you reject reason, you reject the Enlightenment. The Right thinks that "freedom of religion" means that they are free to enforce their sex prohibitions on the rest of us. They keep saying we are a "capitalist country," but that is not in the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a capitalist country. We use markets, They shouldn't use us.
If you are against the Enlightenment, you can't be for the Constitution, because the Constitution relies on reason.
The Democrats are playing softball, and the Republicans are driving a tank around the field.
1
Frankly, I am more than tired of armchair pundits telling us yet again and in practically identical terms why 45 is guilty. If you, or the rest of us who believe that, had any measurable power right now, he would have been convicted and out of the White House. I want to see focus on how the highly intelligent House Managers and Nancy Pelosi found the courage to impeach him even knowing the GOP Senate, cowed by 45 and his prime enabler McConnell, would be too terrified to convict him. I want to read and hear encouragement for those courageous Democrats and I want to hear less carping about how those vying to displace the tyrant and his minions aren't doing it quite right for absolutely everyone. They are competing, as they should, to take on the most difficult job in the country - if not the world - from the most incompetent, vindictive, petty, venal, corrupt person ever to hold that office. It is an uphill battle in too many ways to count, and we need to give them space, money, time, and support so they can work it out. I trust one of them will make it in November. Then that person, whomever she or he is, will need every strength available to them personally and from the citizens of this country to begin repairing the damage.
1
Well I voted for Trump and he didn't commit any crimes, certainly nothing to the level of impeachment.
The impeachment has been a blessing for Trump's re-election. Highest poll numbers since his election.
The more you attack Trump the stronger he gets. A lesson the Democrats have repeatedly failed to learn.
Too late - and Americans don't want to listen to, or understand what you are saying. They seem to want to live in a fantasy world.
It's appalling to witness this.
The two articles of impeachment are only a small sample of a pattern of lawless behavior that Trump has engaged in on a continual basis.
He sees himself as a dictator.
Trump believes that “I can do anything that I want”.
Republican Senators will wear a scarlet letter throughout history.
1
"Mr. Sondland testified that Mr. Trump told him: “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.”.....This conversation with Ambassador Sondland occurred several days after the White House became aware of the whistle blower complaint. The time line of Trump's statement makes it meaningless.
Thank you, Mr. Harmon.
American voters are leaving the Republican Party in droves.
Sure, Mr. Trump has overwhelming support among Republicans. That's because there is almost no one left in the Republican Party who is not a Trump sycophant. The rest have left, or been pushed out.
Mr. Trump has a very large piece of a shrinking pie.
2
If we want this tihs to pots, we need to think long-term. Targets to take on: the right-wing media network (a genuine conspiracy), Citizens United, and public education, specifically the abysmal lack of effective civics instruction. If Democrats had large enough majorities in the House and Senate AND the White House, ...
Trump broke the law. Of course he did.
In other news: “Scientists discover that water is wet.”
Organized crime only works for the criminal when there are law enforcement officials, judges, and the criminals themselves are fully complicit in the enterprise. How is the Trump White House not a criminal organization?
In order to vote for conviction you have to fully accept two assumptions: 1) there was absolutely no national security reason to investigate Hunter Biden. If you believe there was a reasonable suspicion Hunter was hired because his father was not only the Vice President but also the "point man" for Ukranian aid then it is absolutely within the powers of the Presidency to demand an investigation.
2) a candidate for President they has immunity for all non-violent crimes. If Kathleen Sibelius' (Obama's head of Health and Human Services) son had been hired by a pharmaceutical company under the same circumstances ($60K/month) an investigation would absolutely be warranted because she was never a candidate for President. Without the "political rival" label there is no basis.
I don't accept either assumption. Did Joe know what Hunter was doing? He got the prosecutor investigating his business relationship fired. This requires an investigation. Maybe they're both innocent? Trump didn't collude, the investigation was still valid.
HRC was not indicted for destroying emails after she received a subpoena (NYT, 9/16). This is a textbook definition of obstruction of justice. You can't pursue your defeated opponents? This is called immunity because you ran for President. I don't accept this either, no one is above the law.
For these and other reasons, Trump shouldn't have been impeached in the first place. It was a partisan waste of time and improved his re-election chances.
The headline should read "I voted for Trump, and I believe he is guilty of bribery." Why the double waffling with "believe" and "may be?"
2
The Republicans are all complicit (Mitt Romney is 1/2 an exception) in the illegal acts done by Trump. All of them are demeaning the Constitution, and all of those brave people who have fought, many of whom died, to defend it. Trump evaded military service with those bone spurs, but he was able to play tennis. I consider them all to be traitors.
2
So, you think Trump MAY be guilty of bribery? Wow, wait until you hear about all the rest.
Just 2 questions for the author - was the Supreme Court justice worth everything else that's happened in the last 3 years? And are you actually going to vote for him again?
1
Those Senators who are guilty of ignoring their sworn oaths are the ones voting “not guilty” in the impeachment trial.
2
The scary thing is "what's Trump going to do next?"
So I take it that the author will NOT be voting for Trump in the next election? He doesn't say.
Thanks but no thanks, Mr. James D. Harmon Jr., for inflicting Trump on America and yourself.
But you deserve respect for your honest introspection that few Trump supporters and none of GOP politicians save Romney is capable of.
"I Believe He May Be Guilty of Bribery"
"May Be"?
1
Mr. Harmon, you voted for Trump. Despite his known misogyny, despite his known bigotry, despite his verbal abuse of gold star families, despite his sarcastic remarks about John McCain, despite his refusal to release tax returns....
No Sir, like much of the other side of America - we and I don't trust anything you say.
2
Thank you for standing up so clearly for the truth, and the safety of our democracy and constitution, nevermind our national security!
The American people have voted, through their representatives that they do not care if their President is a lawbreaker. Just heard on the radio a gentlemen say that he hated all of Trump's misdeeds and thinks he is guilty of most, but if he votes for Democrats they will raise his taxes. So there you have it. Our representatives are indifferent to moral imperatives and illegality because the citizenry is.
Our legal system has been corrupted and we must, we must know everything about that, in the open. Pat Cipillone must be investigated. No frothing involved .To realize that the most important trial in America was tried on behalf of the US President by lead council who was plainly involved from the get-go in the scheme is something that should make the country scared to its core. And Congressman Nunes and his staff member Derek Harvey?...and the "Chief Thespian of the Senate" Lindsay Graham and Attorney General Barr...how were they involved and gas-lighting the country during all this. For the sake of the country, this must come out and cannot become precedent.
Nice try, Mr. Harmon. Stating the patently obvious in no way absolves you of responsibility for knowingly helping to bring to office a man utterly unfit to hold it. The outrageous precedent set by the fiasco "trial" we all just witnessed is a direct result of your decision to back so obvious a danger to the American republic and rule of law. Nothing you say or publish denouncing the "legal" basis of Trump's acquittal can remove the permanent stain to your standing as an officer of the law and Constitution you are sworn to uphold. The only thing true citizens want to hear from you and your ilk is an admission of your poor judgment, an apology for subjecting us to the nightmare that is now unfolding, and a vow to remove from power, by all legal means at your disposal, this existential threat to our democracy. Spare us the self-justifying display of moral acuity and pedestrian legalese. Forget mild recrimination. You should be horrified at your past decision--and ashamed of daring to say anything about it.
1
This week Mike Bloomberg hit back at Trump, who had mocked Mike’s height, by referring to Trump’s lies about his “fake hair and spray-on tan.”
Trump supporters are lapping up bling with orange fluff attached to honor their anointed one. Apparently Trump’s signature hair is a Thing with them.
Thinking outside the box, here’s an idea: We are a visual species. Images are powerful influencers.
For a new slogan from Democrats: Take a Look at Trump in 2021!
If some clever photoshop artists created a virtual image of a bald Trump and if that image went viral... I wonder if that visual of an old man WITHOUT his trademark orange mane would lessen the ardor of his devotees. Trump is incredibly protective of that overhanging mop. For narcissists, their perception of their public persona is critical. They hate ridicule, though I have to wonder what Trump sees in a mirror: fake tan, white bags under his eyes, silly shelf of orange hair?
“Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” Book of Ecclesiastes.
Okay, so let's see, that makes you, Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol as the lone Republicans who have finally spoken up. We need more people on the right to stand up against this bully instead of enabling him. Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, ... I'm talking to you! So many Republicans devoid of moral courage.
There is no maybe for anyone who looks at the evidence.
If Trump bribed Ukraine - and it's difficult not to come to that conclusion - how inept was Schiff et al not to charge him as such? This doesn't excuse Trump, but certainly discredits the House.
I'm sorry. I'm lost here. What do you mean Mr. Harmon.
'May' have broken the law?
45* wouldn't recognize the law if he was playing golf with the law.
And oh yes, he would be cheating while playing golf with the law.
Uhhhh....just what part of the GAO Report did they get wrong about Trump breaking the law ??
Trump's so-called luck is about to run out Nov. 2020 !!
Weird. Harmon is a former Fed prosecutor who understands organized crime and he admits to voting for a guy who: ran a scam charity (organized across state lines); a scam University (organized across state lines); was found guilty of money laundering when he ran NJ casinos (in an organized fashion); ripped off investors in said casinos; violated civil rights regs by refusing to lease apts. to POC (in an organized way); used illegal immigrants in real estate demolition; bribed Cy Vance and Pam Biondi; dodged estate taxes as proved by the NYT last year. (And there's more within the Trump Org and National Enquirer records.)
What kind of person who understands the Law votes for an organized crime figure like this for President and is now shocked! shocked! that further crimes were committed?
1
I totally agree and thank God that some Republicans, like the author, still have character. As a Boomer, I seem to remember hearing frequent references by my elders to the principles of democracy and fairness "that our forefathers died for." I cannot believe that any of my elders who risked and sometimes gave their lives in World War II and the Korean War would feel that the behavior of Donald Trump is anywhere near what they were fighting for.
4
Mr. Harmon, you state that "The Senate had a constitutional duty to hold a real trial. Instead we got a show trial."
I beg to differ. The Senate held no trial and abrogated their sworn duty.
2
I appreciate the sentiments expressed by this former republican federal prosecutor who voted for Trump. However, his article is a "day late and a dollar short" given the Republican Senators all but Romney voted to acquit Trump. Trump will have his day of reckoning come 11//3/20. Mark my words.
4
Any law abiding citizen who claims that they are Republican should question themselves as to whether they support politicians who follow and respect the law or re just looking for their own beliefs and benefits? If it is the latter, these people will still continue to vote Republicans while stating that their party broke the law.
1
From what little Mr. Harmon tells us about his life and experience, a West Point cadet and as a federal prosecutor, etc., it's fair to say he has served his country with distinction, understands the meaning of the constitution, and how important it is to uphold its values.
And yet, despite the chaos, exposed misogyny, race baiting and pathological lying that defined the Trump campaign in 2015 and 2016, Mr. Harmon voted for Trump, and seems almost surprised that Trump did things that caused him to be impeached.
So, I guess even the most simplistic comprehension of human psychology is something -- no matter how accomplished, no matter the professional degrees and accolades -- that remains beyond the grasp of some people. Sad!
6
The impeachment and trial were yet another attempt to remove Trump from office. This has been the goal since he won. Hopefully the House will flip back to a Republican majority and he can get back to work. Thankfully his reelection will give us another Supreme Court seat.
1
That’s all that matters, right? That and 2nd Amendment rights. He can break every law, as long as he appoints conservative judges and is pro-gun then all is great on the right.
1
Did the Ukraine undertake the investigation that Trump requested. Answer: No
Was the aid apportioned to the Ukraine, actually delivered within the time frame prescribed by law? Answer: Yes.
3
Lee,if a mayor asks a developer for a “donation” and in return talks of a held up project that could get passed and the bribe isn’t paid and ultimately the project is passed’ it still is soliciting a bribe , prosecuted all the time
Is attempted murder a crime? Answer: Yes
Did Trump cheat on all of his wives? Who cares about Ukraine. The man is without character or morals.
I don't know what it says about Trump fanboys but I read they think Trump impeachment was invigoration and exactly what Trump needed. How does a nation survive with voters like this. I honestly do not think the US will remain united if Trumpism continues another 4 years. I am sure that was one of the reasons Putin found Trump useful.
11
Is there a statute of limitations or other prohibitions to indicting the president after he leaves office? If not, isn't the clock ticking to when Trump is no longer president? If it is not a matter of "if", then we are just waiting for "when".
3
We now live in a country where trials don't need documentary evidence, where witnesses are forbidden to testify, where our chief executive defies the subpoena power of Congress, where sycophants eager for larger portfolios and are more interested in power than truth are running the Senate. God help us.
17
A rare but welcome peek at honesty.
2
This op-ed makes a good case for impeaching the entire GOP membership in the Senate. Be pretty hard to get a 2/3 majority for obvious reasons, though.
10
Thank you for taking the time to spell this out. I hope many other responsible Republicans will do the same.
2
May?
2
Are we ever going to hear from John Bolton and the rest?
5
As a former local prosecutor, I've tried dozens of criminal jury trials. I don't think the potential evidence these impeachment allegations comes anywhere near a showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This assumes that the statements of Mr.Bolton, and all the witnesses in the House proceedings, proved accurate (and beyond any effective impeachment); and also that all those statements were found admissible in evidence.
Just an aside: during this impeachment process, I've never tried any kind of criminal who has been afforded so little Due Process as our President. This grotesque abuse of our legal procedures has severely damaged any claim by this country to a belief in the "Rule of Law".
3
In your extensive law career have you ever had an indictment handed down by a grand jury? If so, what due process is required in a grand jury that was violated in the House proceedings? The Articles of Impeachment are an indictment not a trial.
When during the grand jury proceedings is the defense offered an opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence but refuses to participate? Is the defense refusal to participate because they claim the grand jury is a witch hunt failure of due process? You seem to be the expert, so please how that works.
Is it lack of due process when the trial jury makes the rules of the trial? Is it lack of due process for the jury to coordinate with the accused prior and during a trial? Is it lack of due process when the group coordinating with the defense do not allow evidence and witnesses?
If you are discussing the Whistleblower, as a government employee I could call the Waste, Fraud and Abuse Hotline and receive anonymity in a report of potential wrong doing. If they found through further investigation that the report was valid, my report would remain anonymous. Which is the case in this investigation.
7
Have you ever tried a case where the jury is comprised primarily of defendant’s own sycophants? Where the defendant is allowed to have closed-door meetings with those jurors? Where the “foreman” (McConnell) publicly declares that they have no intention of rendering “impartial justice”? Where the defendant is permitted to blithely refuse to comply with any and all subpoenas? Where the defendant is allowed to threaten, harass and otherwise attempt to impede witness testimony?
Then stop pretending Trump was being railroaded. In a court of law, tried by a jury of his PEERS (not sycophants), forced to speak under oath or remain SILENT, Trump would be in far more danger than he ever faced in the Senate. This is the reason he’s terrified of indictment. Like Manafort, Stone, Cohen, etc., his corrupt GOP allies would not be able to save him from a US jury. And never mind whether he’s tried in a “blue” or “red” state. And not the likes of McConnell and friends are cynical enough to bless Trump’s abuses of power.
1
Very unfortunate that this op-ed wasn't published last week.
10
Sir, a strong rebuke to the President and your Party. Thank you for your honesty and (wait for the Twitter response), bravery. Perhaps it is time for you to partner up with a certain Mr. Conway and others and begin to work towards restoring the integrity of the Republican Party and the dignity of the ideals it once stood for. A long road lies ahead.
10
The standards for presidential behavior will now become what? What does this bode for the future of America?
4
Given that virtually every republican congresspeople voted either against impeachment (in the House) or against witnesses, etc., and a fair trial in the Senate, my question to you is why are you a republican?
Where are the republican voices rising up against their own party leadership? Op eds are fine, but standing up for our constitution might require sacrifice, like publicly disowning the party.
140
@oboebrad
Money.
18
@Grove
What Grove said. Or job security, which amounts to the same thing.
6
@oboebrad This is why am am a FORMER Republican. Too bad I don't live in Utah (Mitt Romney's state). Senator Romney has shown integrity and moral character... the two Senators from Georgia... Nope. But here's the good news-- both are up for election this November and I'm not the only Georgia voter who is chomping at the bits to make them both Ex-Senators.
19
Please please please send this analysis to Nancy Pelosi quickly - the Democrats should sue him in court about his illegal behaviour as soon as possible! If he is acquitted in the Impeachment process there might be another chance to get him removed by the courts (if they are not rigged, too).
2
I think "extortion" is more of the correct description for turning off aid to Ukraine. Bribery involved something being offered that the bribee is not otherwise entitled to. Extortion involves the threat of negative consequences.
Trump was already putting the bad consequences in motion, while he more-or-less simultaneously made it clear that he wanted a certain thing. Perhaps no one ever verbalized that "we're doing this unless you do what we want" but they didn't have to. Blocking the funds sent that message. It's more a explicit threat than "nice country you got here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it" (which I think we would agree is extortion.)
3
@Bruce Rozenblit
Let’s hope you’re right about Trump’s future.
But a few snags could be 1) he refuses to step aside from office, ever; 2) he dies or becomes even more irrevocably impaired while in office; or 3) his party finagles some sort of post presidency immunity.
You can count on one thing, though. If he ever appears in court he’ll be navigating a metal walker for fake sympathy. It seems to be the new criminal trial accouterment for accused males.
4
Next time, try to see the bigger picture before you vote. Appointing Supreme Court judges is not the only thing a president does. It doesn't really matter who's on the Supreme Court when the president and his courtiers have declared our laws null and void.
4
You're not the only one Mr. Harmon. We should keep in mind that just about all people coming forward and also Mueller, etc. they are Republicans! many appointed by Trump himself! It turns out only Democrats are interested in the truth to come out.
5
Suppose you wanted to go and spend significant time
with your Congressional Representative or Senator.
How much time do you think your Congressmen would give you ?
Any ? Or would you be told to write or email your concerns to their office.
Suppose you added that you made it know that somehow, someway a donation of $ 5,000,000 would go to their
their campaign, financing laws being ignored during the meeting.
A very nice dinner at a very nice Washington, D.C. would be quickly arranged, or the Congressmen would be willing to fly,
at Taxpayer expense, to meet you wherever you might be.
Anyone who denies such a stark reality is purer than the undriven snow and as naive as a fawn.
How did the Clinton's and Obama's become so wealthy after their time in Office ? The powerful Elites take care of each others and rarely do Prosecutors like Harmon ever convict them for their obvious crimes.
The open question is whether Trump knew that he should not
"Wheel and Deal" with Mr. Zelensky like he does with everyone
since he was in the crib ? Or did he think that the well paying
position Hunter Biden was given, making more money per month than most Americans, though wholly unqualified, as arranged by Joe Biden, was a form of corruption and ongoing bribery.
Nixon agreed to China's request for representation at the UN by agreeing to decrease China's aid to North Vietnam, and thus bringing North Vietnam to agree to sign a truce, just before the
1972 election - was that Bribery ?
3
Well, you got judges. Lots either unqualified or underqualified. What do you think they'll do to the law?
5
Donald Trump broke the law. No "maybe" about it. And his "party" doesn't care. We are halfway to outright tyranny.
7
Harmon, like many morally corrupted Republicans, tries to justify his poor judgment in voting for Trump, but his realization that Trump is a serial scofflaw comes too late to be meaningful.
4
The author's opinion is pure applesauce, and appeal to authority ("as a former prosecutor: blah blah) is a logical fallacy.
Quid pro quo is the very basis of foreign policy -- diplomacy to influence foreign action that would be favorable to one's own nation. The WaPo piece that appeared three days before Trump's call with Zelensky implicated Hunter Biden in funny business, and Biden is on record bragging before the Council of Foreign Relations about bribing or extorting the former government of Ukraine to oust its prosecutor, Shokin, who has since filed an affidavit in a court in Austria to the effect that the reason he was ousted was because he had an active investigation into Burisma and he was close to interviewing Hunter Biden about that company.
Trump has a Constitutional, statutory, and Ukraine-treaty duty to seek the Ukraine's mutual assistance in investigating potential corruption, and the publicly available facts indicated the potential that corruption had occurred. For liberals to get "a touch of the vapors" over all this is like Claude Rains in that scene in Casablanca -- only your ire should be directed at Biden, not Trump.
We need a new game plan, Democrats. Maybe work on all his weaknesses, there are many and watch him implode.
1
Couldn't we do all of those nice things without the current president? Why can't Pence take the ball for the rest of the year, maybe even run a campaign himself, against the removed President?
A President who will, in a very short time, go on National TV, and Twitter, to ask Putin in front of the world to NOW investigate Mr. Biden, and Mayor Pete, and Mrs Warren, and of course Mr. Sanders, so that they are besmirched and give the public a reason not to vote for them, and to vote for him instead.
He can ask that Putin's trolls ramp up the disinformation campaign, ask him to please try to get less voter turn out in key states where it benefits him. He can ask that the voting machines be hacked to alter vote counts. He can probably get away with asking for some folks to just disappear, and still have no penalties or restrictions placed upon him. Why?
According to his AG, if he commits a crime, the justice department cannot indict him - this from the Mueller debacle. And if he commits a high Crime, a political crime such as obstruction, he can be investigated, but not removed even if impeached as long as he has the Senate Majority. And he does not have to cooperate in any way with Congress, the Supreme Court, or any intelligence service. This, the impeachment trial has shown.
Mr. Trump, will you ask for volunteers to test this murder in plain sight theory, or just impulsively shoot the next reporter who vexes you?
2
If only facts and the law mattered to members of the Trump cult. Alas, they do not. Trump himself stated the governing principle during one of his ‘rallies’: “What you’re seeing and what you’re hearing is not what’s really happening.”
Watching a sitting President of the United States deliver that line, before a bellowing mob of unquestioning, willfully ignorant red-hatted supporters, who appear ready to erupt into violence at the slightest provocation - and occasionally do - is something I never could have imagined I would live to see. Nor did I ever anticipate that a ranting, raving, flagrantly racist and misogynist loudmouth like Rush Limbaugh would receive the “President’s Medal of Freedom” with much fanfare and approval from the “Party of Lincoln.”
But here we are. It isn’t a good place to be. Anyone who lived in Germany in the 1930s can attest to that. They’ve seen it all before. One hopes we are able to turn back before it is too late. The present Senate majority certainly will not help us do so.
4
Kudos to you, Mr. Harmon. It's a shame there aren't more people like you, who are willing to speak out the person you voted for violates the law.
"...an official “need not state the quid pro quo in express terms” for a crime to have been committed."
So we should lock up both Joe and Hunter Biden then? The never-Trumpers never stop.
1
MAY?, MIGHT HAVE? come on. absolutely.
Trump is guilty of bribery and the senate GOP is guilty of conspiracy.
2
Mr Trump concealed his telephone conversation details with President Zelensky on July 25 2019 for 2 months, until the whistle blower complaint came to light.
He must have recognized he was doing something wrong. Even today, the White House has not released the complete, unredacted transcription, despite Republicans' professions otherwise.
How Republican Congressional legislators can side with the President, is beyond belief.
2
So, Mr. Harmon, why not resign the party? It's not as if the party is assigned to be Trump's attorney and defend him regardless. No. They have chosen this path and have forsaken the country. Why be a member of a party that supports what is wrong?
2
Would any of the GOP senators who heard the testimony for the impeachment of the President be willing to speak anonymously as to any threats, veiled or otherwise that they received from GOP chain of command if they voted to convict?
Please, for the sake of our democracy, the state of our nation tell us what happened behind closed doors.
Thank you to those who have sufficient courage to speak the truth about what really happened when the evidence was very compelling and properly presented.
3
I voted for Trump and I disagree strongly. This impeachment is a purely partisan exercise in over-reaching. Desperation in evidence as well. He will certainly be re-elected. You Dems may have helped that, so pat yourselves on the back.
2
Please provide some examples of what you think would be considered impeachable behavior.
Partisan? Yes. Reelection? No.
"may have"?
yawn
10
"... may have...". My first reaction? If you can't get off the fence by now, who cares what you think? We've heard every side of the story. My second was to ask who you are and where you're coming from. My sense is that you're convinced bad stuff is happening but you still believe in "American wheels of justice..." and that the country will sort things out. I'm not an example of religious belief, but... "Let us pray...." The United States needs deliverance in some form.
Thanks for an honest statement by a Republican. It shouldn't be shocking, but it is. And yes, a child who has recently been taught basic lessons of right and wrong would have no problem seeing through the smoke and mirrors that the Republican party has used to intoxicate the voting public. Seems that most Republicans are just too tired from working three jobs, binging on Netflix, and mocking democracy to actually think clearly anymore.
6
It seems that the obvious charge is blackmail: unless the Ukrainian President did what Trump asked, Trump would block the US aid which has already been committed. Why are the using the term bribery, which is offering someone something they would otherwise not get?
1
@GG Two things: (1) what you describe is extortion, not blackmail; and (2) soliciting a bribe is bribery, not just offering one.
1
The Senate Republicans, by refusing to let Bolton testify, and by acquitting Trump, have abandoned whatever principles they possessed. McConnell may as well draft a bill to change the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance to I pledge allegiance to the brand of Donald Trump.
7
You are damn right that the evidence now publicly available does support the charge of bribery against Pres Trump. And almost every Republican senator is voting to acquit him of this charge. This means that Republicans have no respect for "The Rule of Law" or the Senate or the Constitution which they swore to uphold. They are all guilty of "Perjury"* for lying under oath to defend the Constitution and then voting against their sworn avowal.
*Perjury was the impeachment charge brought against Pres Clinton.
11
Of course he broken the law. But that’s not what matters here. What matters is that the majority of the Senate does not care.
12
Furthermore — he does not acknowledge wrongdoing, expresses no remorse, and suggests it’s ok if he does it again.
The president’s state of mind should be a substantial factor.
9
Most of these comments pose similar questions: “How can this be happening?” “How did we get here?” “What in the Sam Hill are these senators thinking?” It’s all there — incredulity, anger, frustration, doubt, despair, disgust ...
Our future is a scary crap game right now. But anyone who, at the very least, is looking for an answer to the “why?” of this Senate sycophancy shouldn’t have to look too far. The GOP toadying is an intoxication. If you haven’t been there, you can’t understand. The combination of power, influence and unfettered luxury is more potent than any opiate. The withdrawal symptoms would be crippling. Keep riding in the bar car of the Trump Express and you’ll have all your prescriptions refilled. And the Treasury pays for it! All it costs you is your integrity, your ethics, and the virtues you may have once sworn by.
17
You had better believe that if it was a Democratic president accused of the exact same thing as Trump the Republicans would be howling that not only was it a crime, but a treasonable offense.
They’ve added a new twist to Nixon’s statement that “when the president does it, it’s not a crime”, now it’s when OUR president does it, it’s not a crime.
They are all rank hypocrites.
Harvard, time to give Dershowitz the boot.
330
@Hmmm
I am a non-partisan who is for convicting Trump and removing him from office.
But your comment is just partisan propaganda. Democrats did the same for Clinton as Republicans are doing now. Remember, one charge against Clinton was for perjury. Perjury is clearly a crime and certainly an impeachable offense. And I think perjury is at least as severe an offense against the American public as Trump's withholding aid money to a foreign government is order to get a personal benefit.
@Errol Taking two steps back, beyond cheapening the office, Clinton's actions did not put the country at risk; and yet, the GOP voted to impeach and convict him. Many considered his prosecution in this light, i.e., he was trying to cover up an affair with a consenting adult. Trump's actions were treasonous and, as we all know by now, did put the country at risk, e.g., denying military aid to an ally trying to defend themselves against Russian aggression, demanding that a foreign power interfere in our elections. I don't see the two cases as being anywhere close when it comes to protecting America, a President's first responsibility.
27
@Errol
I agree that Clinton should have been removed for lying under oath.
He put himself in a position where he had a choice between publicly embarrassing himself or violating his oath of office. He chose violating his oath of office (just as Trump chooses to do 24/7).
The lesson for Republicans is that Democrats paid for that decision. As the incumbent, Gore might have won. As far as Congress, Democrats had control of Congress about 4 out of next 20 years. Saving Clinton from impeachment was not good for the Democratic Party.
Republicans are now 100% responsible for Trump.
5
Apparently, the oaths taken by the POTUS and those administered to the Senators when they took office, and again when the trial began mean NOTHING to Trump and the Republicans. Our country has devolved to this under the most mendacious "president" in our history. Welcome to MAGA.
7
Sorry, but there was no case for impeachment. Trump has every right to investigate corruption and what Biden did was completely corrupt.
3
Except that was just the cover story AFTER he got caught. It’s so blatantly made up. If Trump is so concerned about corruption why is he not asking questions of aid top other countries where corruption is endemic? Why did Trump not express concern until AFTE Biden rose in the polls? It doesn’t pass the smell test.
4
That is not Trump's job. Period.
1
@Nycdweller Trump didn't investigate corruption (that what the US DOJ is for and they work for Trump). He was asking another country to just announce an investigation (not to actually conduct one). That announcement doesn't do anything to fight corruption since it's not a real investigation. If Biden is completely corrupt then where is the US DOJ and the federal charges? Why didn't Trump direct an investigation right here?
Prosecutors of both parties see crime in motive or even mixed motive. Jurors cannot read minds and there should be no such thin as a thought crime. The impeachment fiasco may help all to reexamine this mental cancer that underlies our criminal justice system. We should defend (not promote) bias and hate and punish real, not potential, harm.
2
Thank you Mr. Harmon. But with no disrespect intended for your sophisticated grasp of the law, what you write is to this lawyer so achingly obvious that I was (and still am) left bewildered that the Dems did not include "bribery" as an article of impeachment. Why? Why? I simply don't get it. And I never will.
First of all, "bribery" is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitutional impeachment clause as an impeachable offense (fittingly for this president, right after the word "treason"). So that's the legal part.
And then there's the politics of making "bribery" an article of impeachment. Everybody understands what bribery is and why it's wrong. The abstract "abuse of power" not so much.
The strategic folly of failing to explicitly charge "bribery" was made heart-breakingly clear during the impeachment "trial." It opened the door to Trump / Fox News / Hannity and all the craven GOP senators banging the propaganda drum that there could be no conviction because no crime was charged. And it also set the stage for the execrable Alan Dershowitz to make his crazy argument that there can be no conviction because Trump was right to conflate his personal interest with the public interest -- an argument which Adam Schiff rightly characterized as a "descent into constitutional madness."
The Dems never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
14
@Barry Schreibman excellent point. If you are going to impeach, impeach for what you believe is a obviously a crime. Black and white. That was a huge swing and miss. Why would these Harvard and Ivy lawyers not do this. Also, why in the world did the Democrats not engage outside counsel? After what went on in the House, hire objective counsel, and more professional ones.
For GOP senators supposedly agonizing over this vote because they think Trump’s behavior was wrong but not impeachable, there’s a simple middle ground. Censor it.
A censure at least makes Congress look as if it’s trying. If there’s no censure Trump suffers no consequences whatsoever for what everyone agrees was bad behavior.
5
What about the crime of extortion? Trump essentially threatened to have the military aid withdrawn until after he got what he wanted from Zelinsky. Isn’t that extortion?
4
So, bring new charges and have the next trial. I don't see how that's double-jeopardy, nor would it make good sense - if someone beat one murder wrap, to pass on charging the same person with a different murder, or, a crime related to the first murder. Being Civil doesn't require you to be polite to the point of being ridiculously polite.
2
Refreshing to hear that James D. Harmon, Jr, is someone who took an oath and is actually abiding by it; not so in the case of Trump and his Republican sycophants in Congress. Sure Trump broke the law, but he is able to get his posse to shield him from accountability. So what's next?
2
All the fraud in the WH had to do to "break the law" was solicit a favor ("a thing of value") from Zelensky, which he not only did, but released notes of the phone call verifying that fact.
And here is the law he broke:
"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads (53 U.S.C. 30121) Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.
Simple. Beyond that, he was (and no doubt IS) attempting to rig the 2020 election, to his personal benefit (who else?).
Our government is broken.
5
OK - so you voted for him in 2016. You now say that you think he is guilty of bribery. Is that enough to make you change your vote in 2020? Trump's dishonesty and corruption was on display for decades before he ran for President. In the minds of millions of voters, including you, that wasn't enough to disqualify him from being President. Now after seeing how he has corrupted the office of the Presidency, are you ready to grow a spine and publicly announce that you cannot support such an amoral, incompetent and corrupt man? Nothing is going to change until people of good character take a public stand.
13
So tell me, will you publicly commit to not voting for him again? Or do the political benefits justify knowingly betraying your country?
7
Is anyone listening, let alone voting Senators? The obvious is glaring.
2
@ELSIE Ah, Sen. Romney just did.
Let's see, you voted for someone who was corrupt (there are a number of situations that have been documented) because you wanted SC justices to your liking and now are claiming buyers remorse. I feel sorry for our country when people make such decisions.
5
"President Trump took the same oath when he became president. He should abide by it."
Well, he's constitutionally unable to to that!
4
Great piece but wouldn’t this have been a little more helpful last month or perhaps last week?
7
Trump may likely try to pull something else dirty and illegal, and soon. Prepare for a second impeachment. This time, impeachment will be on the eve of the election. Watch out Mayor Pete - after your apparent narrow win in Iowa, you are about to be swift-boated.
5
"... the words “do the right thing” recalled the way mob bosses made an offer that could not be refused — the threat and reward clear but unstated, without explicit incriminating language."
Funny, but that was exactly the interpretation I had of Trump when on tape he said of Marie Yovanovitch "Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Take her out. Okay? Do it."
"Take her out." The connotation of that phrase is well established; it is one of those nifty phrases that no one could possibly misunderstand to imply "kill her".
Of course, Trump did not say "kill her"; he said, "take her out." Yet, if Yovanovitch had turned up dead the next day, for any reason, would Trump have questioned it?
Or would Trump simply have thought it was time to make a list of others to be "taken out"?
Trump is dangerous, and the Republicans know it. They simply won't do anything about it because he calls himself a Republican.
That makes the Republicans dangerous.
5
While I commend the author's introspection and change of heart, I can't help but think of the fact that this highly educated and intelligent man voted for a man with paltry intellect, despicable morals, no experience, a history of deception and thievery, just so he can appoint judges who would "say what the law is."
If Mr Harmon can suspend disbelief or stick his head in the sand or cover his ears or whatever it is he did when he pressed the voting button, then what can we expect from ignorant, struggling people looking for a way out? This whole thing is hopeless.
6
Soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election is election tampering. It's A crime. Two crimes if you bribe the foreign official.
2
You're right.
He "May Have."
Hence the need for the House of Representatives to go through a very detailed and deliberative process to gather witnesses (they had 18..that's a lot) and documents (they had tens of thousands of pages) and force testimony (they didn't even try this) before presenting the case for trial in the Senate.
And even then, if Maybe he broke the law..which law did he break?
We heard Schiff use the precise words of bribery, fraud, extortion and yet not one of those words..let alone evidence..is in any of the impeachment charges that nearly every single Democrat voted for in the House.
Shame on all those Democrats.
Funny thing is that the only credible Democrat on the issue appears to be Collin Peterson from my state who uses this solemn and prayerful occasion of Pelosi's every 10 years to tell her to stick it where the sun don't shine.
He did it on ACA..and he's still in the House.
He did it on impeachment..and he's still in the HOuse.
Too bad we don't have any principled Democrats anymore.
Such a shame...partisanship 24 hours a day.
1
While reading this, I thought this guy is pretty smart. However, when I reached the end and he said he voted for Trump, I came to the conclusion that he is a man who is not too bright. Anyone with any brains has always known Trump has no morals and wouldn't vote for him.
5
The funny thing here is that it does not take a genius or a seasoned lawyer to see the bribery/extortion Trump perpetrated on Ukraine.
It's staring all of us right in the open.
4
Did Barack Obama break the law when he used the IRS to go after conservatives? There certainly is enough ammunition there to believe that is a possibility. Yet the Republicans (who had a majority) did not go after Obama, try to impeach him, disrupt the Country.
Just asking....
1
Mitch McConnell deserves impeachment and removal from office for breaking his oath of office by failing to carry out his Constitutional duties, ie refusing to consider Merrick Garland, for breaking his oath to be an impartial juror and failing to run an actual trial when presented with articles of impeachment.
12
We all know he did it.
What we can't get is people who are supposed to know better to enforce the law.
12
Sorry to say the premise of this article is wrong.
11 CFR § 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations....
(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Though in domestic criminal or civil suits "of value" might mean anything of value, concerning the law specific to foreign donations to poltical campaigns, "of value" phrased as it is, is interpreted to mean "tangible."
The other parts ignored is that Joe Biden was not running against President Trump, but in fact other Democrats. In law you cannot "assume" in an open and competitive process that Biden would be nominated. Then you have the element of who was being investigated, was it Hunter Biden, soley stating his own influence with his father being VP?
And, finally, if a person commits a crime overseas it is very legal for that person to be prosecuted in the U.S. So the involvement of AG Barr, is entirely withih the realm of the President. The President in the Constituion, except for a few explicit actions, is independenly responsible and has the authority to conduct foreign affairs. So he can say, "Barr go."
I won't get into his budgetary authority except to say for national security purposes he can embargo overseas funding.
3
Your approach would create a catch-22 for presidents in office that would prevent the government from investigating any foreign crime by a candidate for office.
If what you're saying is true, any candidate for president may conspire with a foreign party to commit crimes, including crimes to undermine an upcoming election, and if the incumbent president demands that the foreign president investigate his opponent for committing such crimes, and threatens to take action against the other country if there is no investigation, the president may be impeached and removed from office.
Of course, the foreign president may be reluctant to investigate because of domestic political concerns, and without outside pressure may let the situation play out.
There is simply no situation in which investigation by the executive branch of a crime is illegal.
In fact, in the investigation of crimes police will even go so far as to make payments of cash and create situations just short of entrapment. These are perfectly legal.
2
Thank you for writing this article. At least one Republican who believes that the law should apply equally to everybody.
4
Like you, I took the same oath. And, I repeated it each time I was promoted. I'm outraged that Trump has so boldly trampled our oath in the pursuit of his own gain. I'm equally outraged at the utter cowardice of the Senators who will, despite clear and convincing evidence, vote to acquit him later today. I believe that the voters who are able to know right from wrong will vote against Trump and the Senators who voted for his acquittal. There are just too many honest politicians who will be repeatedly pointing out the behavior of the president and the cowardice of the Senators for it not to take hold and be believed.
Yes, bribery should have been included in the articles of impeachment the House passed and sent to the Senate.
And I get it why you said "may have..." Only after conviction is it correct to say Trump did commit bribery. And, due to cowardice, that won't happen today.
6
It is a moot point; Trump can do no wrong. If Trump decides to incarcerate Pelosi for any reason (say, disdain expressed towards presidency), the Senate Republicans will support him 100%.
5
What is the definition of "corruptly" for purposes of impeachment and for bribery? Just stating the term, and assuming something is corrupt, is not sufficient for me.
Sorry, but I don't generally buy the "thing of value" in politics/government. And that basically got rejected in the Mueller report on the big Trump Tower meeting. There is a lot of tit for tat in politics and government, and that is and should be corrupt or illegal in only extreme and limited seasons.
Is there any written or other evidence that Trump was doing what he did for "political gain"? I understand the common sense view of it. But has he or anyone ever admitted that it was for political gain? It seemed to me that the press and Dems just assumed that. My view is that that critical piece of evidence/proof was missing or inadequate, unless I missed it. While I am not saying the assumption is wrong, there are other explanations, like just fighting corruption in an apparently corrupt country. And proof would be necessary,.
My view is that Dershowitz is the leading scholar on impeachment, and is a very very smart. I don't agree with the author's view on D's arguments.
I'm a longtime lawyer and was a government major in college. I head Dershowitz speak a few months ago, and have read his hand out materials on impeachment.
2
@Green26
Even freakin' Derschowitz doesn't believe what Derschowitz says. I would quit taking him seriously in public if I were you, Greenie. Man has no shame whatsoever.
2
The "show trial" sets a dangerous precedent. If, as the distinguished author of this article intimates, double-talk does not suffice to obscure a violation of statute and case law, then such tactics, as they have in the past, could be implemented once again to start a war without Congressional sanction. No one in his right mind wants that, not the Russians (RF) not the people, and ostensibly not members of Congress. Yet this afternoon, some people will vote to acquit Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors, and their number will, it is thought, succeed. Though it might represent a colossal waste of taxpayers' money, it might, given the opinion expressed by someone in the know, be worthwhile for the House of Representatives to try again to have the President removed from office, in order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Otherwise, the U.S. might find itself involved, with or without Congressional approval, in a catastrophic war, involving stealth aircraft and all sorts of other insanely noxious weapons of war.
2
The Republican Party does not care if Trump breaks laws as long as they get what they want for policies and keep their seats warm in the Senate where they can continue to participate in insider trading and other tactics to line their pockets with gold.
8
But Joe Biden didn’t? Let’s be honest there is enough corruption to go around for both parties. Let’s hear a cogent explanation of how Hunter Biden landed a position on the Board of Directors of Amtrak given his complete lack of business, finance, or railroads. The same for goes for his involvement in the Ukraine and better still running some Chinese money. How do I get one of those no-show jobs, inquiring minds want to know.
2
@T Smith To date, no violation of law has been found regarding both Bidens.
Until the time evidence of crimes is found, you are making a false assumption here.
8
It's a bit late to be weighing in now, don't you think? Not that it would have made a difference one way or the other...
3
Whatever excuses his defenders put forth, it is obvious that Trump's supporters want to send the message that breaking the law is not a problem. You are appealing to a Republican that has long ago been driven from the party, if not literally, certainly philosophically.
4
A "real trial", would have involved several people (Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, to name a few) who would most likely have had to commit perjury to cover up the crime, so it was never going to happen, especially because McConnell considered the impeachment trial a political matter. It was a constitutional matter and the nation deserved better.
16
The house should have played hardball and charged Trump with bribery.
A significant number of R. Senators are now saying that yes, Trump did wrong, but it's not enough to warrant removal.
If Trump did the thing, which the evidence seems to point to, and the R. senators are willing to admit, then he should be impeached again with a charge of bribery, the subpoenas issued and fought in court, if necessary, and with a process that is immune from R. complaining.
Congrats on a new record, Mr. Trump - impeached twice!
13
For years, we've watched America's democracy eroded before our very eyes - and been unable or unwilling to do much about it. Look at all the money in politics - it's obscene. Everyone knows that if you have the money, you can get whatever law you want passed. And many people are OK with that. People would wring their hands, cry to the heavens - but otherwise do nothing about it. Many others watched, got disgusted and simply stopped voting. Others bought the line that it was someone's fault somehow, ludicrously, based on that person's identity - the gays, the feminists, the blacks, etc. etc. Trump is just the logical conclusion to all of this. He is, in a nutshell, what we've probably deserved for some time. People keep making excuses for not getting involved, for sitting on the sidelines, ignoring all this: as long I've got my share, it's fine, right?
Now we are about to find out just what people are willing to do to save their country from a despot. Will Americans finally start to act to defend the Constitution? Will they get off their duffs to participate in local government? Or will they sit at home and watch Netflix or play another around of Candy Crush while complaining about not having the time? Will they engage with neighbors on the issues or will they shy away because they don't want to offend anyone? Will we stand up? We really are the architects of the future here. So, what's it going to be?
14
Politicians want to get re-elected till they die or retire. Who knows what else other than not getting enough votes threatened the Republican senators. But whatever may have happened, this ain't over yet.
4
Hmmm, so Mr. Harmon never noticed the birther stuff, or the Access Hollywood tape, or the numerous reports of fraudulent activity in the Trump company before the 2016 election? Never saw footage of the man at his MAGA spectacles?
Or he did see these things but then decided that Trump would safeguard the constitution because he would pick the right judges?
Congrats on your awakening Mr. Harmon! A little late, I'm afraid.
16
THE WRITER, James. D. Harmon, Mr., former city and federal prosecutor as well as being head of Organized Crime during the Reagan adminisration, gives clear, detailed analysis about Trump's having broken the law by engaging in bribery. The member of the House and Senate are living in a bubble where they are unaware of the opposition forming against them. Come election day this November, We The People will make our voices heard. The major impediment is going to be the Russian interference at every level. It's started already, I believe, for it was all too convenient to sabotage the Iowa caucuses using computer software that was no doubt vulnerable to Russian hacking (or the hacking of any other hostile nation for that matter). The outcome, having Pete Buttigieg declared the winner is too convenient for the GOP, as they know that, despite his obvious gifts as a politician, many voters are not yet prepared to accept a gay man as president. I hope that this observation proves to be incorrect. But I fear that it is not.
5
The author fails to address the following: The DoJ examined, and rejected, the notion that the investigations are a "thing of value" at least for the purposes of the campaign finance laws. Not considering this issue, even if you disagree with it, makes his reasoning flawed. And possibly fatally so.
4
Barr was implicated in this scheme and did not recuse himself. He is as corrupt as Trump.
You’re talking about Trump’s DOJ, the one with Barr, who is an accomplice if bribery is the charge? The Bill Barr, head of the DOJ, that auditioned for the job by opining that essentially it isn’t a crime, if the PRESIDENT does it?!
1
I'm consistently disheartened by how lonely the voices of long-term Republicans like Mr Harmon's are in accepting the obvious about Trump.
11
Your column is very much appreciated. There is still time it appears for Republicans who voted for Trump to have buyer's remorse. One only wonders why all the red flags that went up prior to the 2016 election did not get the attention of these now regretful voters! Harmon goes over arguments eloquently stated numerous times by Adam Schiff. Still, throwing his weight behind the Democratic managers all helps.
6
It is now clear that the only trial that will take place will be in the court of public opinion and we'll have to rely on the press to keep that courtroom open. The only witnesses that will appear will be only those courageous enough to take on a sitting president and his cronies in the Senate.
I'd put the odds on a U.S. democracy surviving 2020 at about 50-50. In all my worried thoughts during the Watergate crisis I never thought I'd see our Senate fail us so completely.
23
@Jack Hartman
Agree
But please recognize the government has been failing us with the same failed policies for the past 40 years. This is what has led to Trump and Bernie in the first place.
7
I guess to some prosecutors, anything can be twisted into a crime. I'd like to see you distinguish all the circumstances where politicians take legally authorized actions where there is a political benefit sought and received. Obama asked Putin to say nice things about U.S./Russia relations in exchange for cancelling the installation of defensive missiles in Poland. Bribery? What about if CPAC told Trump that he would not get its endorsement unless he moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Bribery only fits if you invent a double standard.
Impeachment managers had to fib and say that Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens was for his personal benefit, in addition to his political benefit. Why? Because ALL politicians act on mixed motives which take into account political impacts. How is getting Biden investigated a personal benefit? No money or tangible benefit was involved.
For me, the bottom line is that the Burisma/Biden entanglement needs to be investigated. The assertion that all was proven to be above board is an outright fiction. Nothing has been debunked. If Biden is cleared, fine, but any fair person would admit that there is the appearance of a conflict-of-interest that should be explored.
6
@Chris-zzz The investigation of Biden was for Trump's personal political benefit to help him get re-elected. It has no other political purpose at all and served no national policy of any kind. There was no reason whatsoever that Ukraine should investigate the Bidens, or that Trump insisted that the Biden/Burisma investigation should be publicly acknowledged by Ukraine before he would release the funds. This simply benefited Trump personally and directly. I don't want him using public monies for this purpose.
27
Let’s see if I understand correctly. What you’re saying is that it looks suspicious that Biden (the Obama administration) would INSIST on investigating Burisma. Is that correct?
You think it’s suspicious that Biden (the Obama administration) and our European allies would get rid of a corrupt prosecutor general (Shokin) who REFUSED to investigate Burisma and other companies?
Since the replacement of Shokin RESULTED in the investigation of Burisma, your logic seems off.
Btw, there was an investigation in Ukraine by Shokin’s replacement that cleared both Bidens of any wrongdoing.
Where is the investigation of Trump that clears him of wrongdoing? What do you think about Trump’s attempted bribery scheme? It looks like you’re not bothered at all by real corruption.
The removal of Ambassador Yovanovich was in itself likely the crime of bribery. In exchange for his official act, done with no legitimate purpose other to satisfy private interests, Trump received substantial PAC donations, the free legal services of a Guiliani and the quest for dirt on the Bidens. The removal was done at the behest of known contributors without appropriate advice and counsel. Guiliani’s pro bono legal work was rewarded by the removal of an impediment (the removal of our corruption fighting ambassador) paving the way not only for the hunt for “dirt” but for Rudy to advance his and his client’s questionable business goals.
Had this allegation of bribery been added to the articles of impeachment the public would have understood the depth of Trump’s corruption and the Republicans would have been confronted with criminal conduct they could not easily excuse without looking like accessories after the fact.
12
Thank you, Mr. Harmon, for speaking your truth. It is welcome this morning by this one citizen, who believes that the State of the Union is fragile, a prime target for those who are ignorant about all things in life but for greed and power.
13
Thank you for putting country over party!
13
Great!
5
Why publish this now? And, to this audience of readers?
3
Headlines are not written by authors, but by Editors, this one was not as sure about Trump's criminality as the author...
His offense was clearly bribery as our Founders understood it. The argument that we have to reference current Federal criminal law to define the term and the offense is ridiculous. The Founders were writing the FIRST, and ultimate, Federal Law, no other existed at the Founding. What did exist and was drawn upon was a long history of English Common Law, under which the President's actions would have clearly been charged as bribery.
We have reached the Rubicon. If we re-elect this President we will have endorsed his debasement of both the Office and our Constitution.
After over 50 years of intense interest and involvement in the politics, history and government of our Republic I must admit that the pit in my stomach that has been there since Comey announced the reopening of the FBI probe into "the emails" foretold her defeat and all we have seen. In my gut I understood the fatal attraction of Trump's easy way...
Hillary, the Evolutionary, barely edged the Democratic Revolutionary, Sen. Sanders, and in another cock-eyed result of the 1911 House Re-Apportionment Act, was herself edged in the Electoral College. And the result has been appalling.
If there was one lesson I could teach today it would be for people to understand that nobody gets all they want.
Compromise. Politics is the Art of the Possible. I'm Voting Blue, No Matter Who.
Whom...
13
The difference between the oath you swore at West Point and the Presidential Oath of Office spoken by Trump is you had the ability to understand the seriousness and sacred nature of your oath, sadly, Trump has no such capacity.
10
The Constitution, as written, means nothing to this President. The whole impeachment "trial" was a sham since there were no witnesses. It is such a crime that the President believes he is above the law, and It is sad that Congress will not stand up for what is right. What a bunch of cowards. I am ashamed for the United States of America and repulsed by the actions of this administration.
10
What happened in 1933 Germany is happening again.
19
It sounds as if the Republican Senators, save Romney and Collins, are guilty of fraud of the highest degree.
2
Imagine you were caught speeding. In your car you have a date time stamp video of the road and speedometer at the time you were pulled over. The judge asks for your proof and you say, "You can't make me!" Any guess what the judge would do?
Impeachment is the process of a grand jury (the House) submitting their case to the Senate (Jury) who listens to the evidence provided, and makes a determination. Unlike a criminal process (i.e. speeding) In this case, they are limited to the testimony of transcripts and verbose lawyers saying "You can't make me." Instead of voting for the breaking of the law because no evidence to the contrary was submitted, only "..you can't make me..." they vote to acquit. Does that sound reasonable to anyone?
246
@Luis K Actually, you wouldn’t have to respond at all. If the court wanted the evidence and had probable cause they could issue a search warrant for the data. Otherwise, you would keep your mouth shut. You do recall the 5th Ammendment?
1
@Luis K Your hypothetical doesn't match the impeachment: T was not accused of a crime by the impeachment house. And its not for the jury to find evidence not presented.
1
@Luis K To use your description of events " because no evidence to the contrary was submitted..", why was that? Because there was obstruction of justice" on the part of the president (One of the two articles of impeachment). So, since ample evidence was provided to demonstrate obstruction, why and how do "they vote to acquit" ? So, no, it does NOT sound reasonable, at least to me.
2
The GOP defenders keep harping on the fact that Trump didn't get the announcement he was pressuring Ukraine for and they eventually got their aid, though no White House visit to legitimize Zelensky to the world has happened yet. However, bribery was clearly attempted here, even though it was not completely successful. If you offer an officer anything to avoid getting a ticket, he can arrest you for even suggesting such a thing. This was more than a suggestion as this campaign to discredit Joe Biden and cast doubt on Russian interference had been in motion for months in return for what Ukraine needed and Congress has approved, it not just a phone call in July. And while Zelensky avoided the CNN interview to do Trump's bidding in the end, Joe Biden was smeared, doubt has been cast on his character over completely and totally fabricated charges.
I'm exhausted and stressed by this President as many people are. Those of us not in his thrall are aghast at the stream of lies, corrupt and secretive dealings, cozy attitude towards autocrats, bragging about things he either hasn't done, will never do, were done before he was elected, or are actually bad for the country. His furtive behavior and complete obstruction of Congress - be it the investigation into Russian interference - with or without collusion, or this investigation into exactly what was he trying to get from Ukraine - is something that will haunt and diminish Article I powers for years and years to come.
12
I can accept the view that Mr Trumps actions were wrong but removal from office is not justified.
What I can’t stomach is those that want to absolve him of all malfeasance. Don’t they realize how that enables this and future Presidents to get away with such actions? Is that really what they want?
3
Thanks, Mr. Harmon. If I could ask you one question, it would be, "Will criminal defense lawyers, moving forward, cite Trumps' lawyers in criminal cases, in their efforts of defending clients?"
4
If the mayor of a town withheld funding for the police department unless the Police Chief announced an investigation into the mayor’s political rival there is no doubt that that mayor would resign in disgrace and likely be charged with a crime.
14
Congress has determined that the President is above the law so he cannot "break" it. The country will regret this stance forevermore.
6
Where was Mr. Harmon a month ago? I hope this column eases his conscience for standing silent as Trump broke the law and McConnell covered it up. Those of us that have been paying attention know what happened with Ukraine and what is happening with America's slide toward authoritarianism.
It's a sad time for our country.
16
With Trump having broken the law with what we can, yes, call bribery, his own lawyers in the White House, the ones defending him in the Senate, are themselves lawbreakers for having hidden evidence by sequestering the transcript of the call in an inaccessible server. The Republicans in Congress are now likewise complicit.
6
Meanwhile, the GOP, sitting in either the House or Senate, are clearly “unindicted co-conspirators”. The whole disgraceful, spineless bunch of them.
12
What has become clear is that V.P. Joe Biden broke the law. What has become clear is the prevalence of corruption that occurs with political elites and occurred during the Obama administration and was ignored by the media.
1
Which law exactly did Joe Biden break?
Surely you must know.
10
Deny and deny and when the facts become irrefutable say that others have done worse before.
Sorry but it is no defense; your guy is a crook.
10
@wes evans What law did he break? Thanks in advance.
Once again: Trump is not THE problem. He is their A-bomb, but it is "they" who are the problem - the Republican Party.
There are two kinds of Republican: Rich ones and dumb ones.
The wealthy, for all their wealth, are not emancipated from their human frailty. They still want ever more and they can't get ever more without taking it from the rest of us.
The super-wealthy are in a different category still. The entire system has now been designed to catapult them away from the rest of humanity and into the realm of demigods.
Nobody should have been allowed the power of a billion bucks. This is human foolishness to the max.
5
Senators can vote how they choose, but for the Senate to conduct a "show trial" is unconstitutional and un-American. Show trials are what the world saw in the Soviet Union, a one party dictatorship.
11
"May have?" The House proved their case -- even Republicans said they did. So, there's no "may have." Trump DID break the law. Call it what it is.
18
What if President Obama did it? What if Joe Biden had leveraged military funding for a country to get it's assistance in exposing Trump's tax returns?
3
But neither Obama or Biden did such.
1
@logic Russia has that information lol.
3
@Tom Hayes correct
2
I never understood why the Democrats didn't use the word bribery in Article 1 of Trump's impeachment. He clearly did exactly that. Why are politicians so afraid to call Trump's actions what they were?
8
Thank you for stepping forward to make your case against a fellow Republican, something that Republican Senators have failed to do despite evidence and would never do in any case. As Trump has said, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and it would not effect his enablers the ranks of whom Republicans in Congress have joined. It does not matter that the house presented a strong case, that Trump withheld vital evidence or that the president's defenders barely presented a valid defense at all. The outcome was predetermined and Trump is now above the law.
6
Fundamentally, the Senate trial is to determine whether the President should be removed from office, not whether he broke the law. Criminality is indeed an input to this decision. But it's just wrong to think that the President should be removed if you can prove any violation of law.
2
Violation of law is not strong enough a reason to remove a president from office! Wow! Republicans are all in for the CRIMINAL CLASS. I deeply fear for my country. Next, Trump will march into the House and demand that Schiff and Pelosi be locked up for treason against HIM!
Sadly, Trump is the Republican Messiah. We should all be quaking in our boots.
Excellent summation. Now do the real reasons why Anthony Kennedy retired so Brett Kavanaugh could be forced onto the Supreme Court once the Republican Senate had decomposed to the point of full corruption.
7
Yes, most of us know, even without any legal training, that Trump broke the law, and further, that Republicans who refuse to vote to convict him are guilty of breaking their sworn oath.
The only questions I have that you could answer are: Why would someone like yourself, a supposedly intelligent person, actually believe the lies spouted by Trump even as a candidate? What will you do when the Republicans vote to acquit him? Rather late to be sorry. And what will you do when the conservative SCOTUS that you wanted Trump to deliver, fails to uphold the lawful subpoenas issued by the House and Mueller? But no matter what you do now, or then, it won't change the fact that you are complicit in Trump's crimes.
9
Your very compelling analysis is moot. It will not change the mind of a single Republican senator or a single Trump-base constituent.
Facts, logic, and precedent don't matter anymore. In the words of Trump's #2 cynical toady sycophant, Mick Mulvaney:
"deal with it."
8
The President held up funds designated for another country. Those funds were used as incentive to coerce a foreign government to dig up dirt on his opponent.
That’s extortion and bribery.
Then the President tried to hide his actions and he prohibited his staff from upholding their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution, this Country.
That’s Obstruction of Justice.
President Trump flagrantly broke the Law.
According to Republicans...he is ABOVE the LAW.
13
Wrong by all accounts he Broke the Law.
2
President Zelensky was not asked to announce an investigation into “former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.” He was asked to announce “We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.” The proposed announcement did not mention the Bidens,
Asking for an investigation of Burisma is not the same as asking for an investigation of the Bidens. On Nov. 20, the newly appointed Ukrainian prosecutor general announced he was expanding the scope of the Burisma investigation to include embezzlement of state funds. If. Democrats contend that an investigation of Burisma is tantamount to an investigation of the Bidens, they have to concede Joe Biden is under criminal investigation. This is something they are unlikely to do.
2
Did you read the transcript of the phone call?
Jim Harmon is an excellent lawyer and prosecutor. I know because I have opposed him in a criminal trial. He was tough, certain, and uncompromising. But I am disappointed in his excessive caution on this subject. There is no doubt of the facts. Even the Republican senators now admit that Trump "crossed the line" in demanding Ukrainian assistance in the 2020 election in return for releasing the hold on the military assistance funds. So why does Harmon equivocate and write that Trump "might well be guilty?"
The bribery statute clearly makes it a felony for any public official to "directly or indirectly corruptly demand ...anything of value personally ... in return for ... the performance of any official act."
Not only is Trump guilty of a felony, but so is his team. See, https://londonsbh.blogspot.com/search?q=What+if%3F
We have no remedy now, except for November 3, and maybe not even then if the Dems cannot get their act together.
6
It is against the law for a foreign country to contribute to a US election. Trump solicitation of that crime is itself a crime.
52 USC 30121: It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
8
Exactly. At the very outset of this thing I recalled this statutory provision and I’ve been astonished that it has not been cited by the press or by Congress; we are certainly entitled to an explanation why this does or doesn’t apply. At the very least it is pertinent to whether “criminal-like” action took place.
The impeachment managers should have just played “The Godfather” in place of their closing arguments
4
Well whoop-de-doo, anyone who hasn't kissed Trump's ring knows he broke the law. You're back there at he "may have" after he already admitted it. You're irrelevant.
5
He BROKE the law.
8
Too little, too late.
5
Democracy will die not in darkness, as the Washington Post's motto suggests, but in broad daylight today on the Senate floor.
7
Please stop saying "may have"! "May have" don't cut it. It is weak, weak, rhetorically pitiful. Just say, "What the President did is a crime," if you can't come up with anything better.
4
Enough. Get over it. Stop this craziness.
2
You state that Trump 'may' have broken the law. The evidence seems clear, and abundant, about his criminality. Why the doubt, sir?
316
In America, we historically have believed a person is innocent until proven guilty. For those who still believe in our judicial system, they will not unilaterally declare guilt until it is proven in a court of law.
18
@Louise Cavanaugh Which can never happen since POTUS can not be indicted...So now what?
18
@manfred marcus They DID charge him. It's called "impeachment." They brought two articles of impeachment against him. That label of impeachment will be on his presidency whether or not the Senate convicts him. In previous impeachment cases, there was a special counsel who had access to all evidence. This time, Attorney General William Barr refused to appoint one. The House had to act as special counsel. Trump refused to turn over evidence and allow witnesses to testify. Is that the way an "innocent" person acts? Especially when he's in power?
34
From the start I thought the House should have included bribery if they wanted the articles to have muscle. A strong case also could have been made for Trump's blatant violations of the Emoluments Clause.
Sadly, Pelosi didn't have the votes for that, so they settled on a watered-down version. Not that it would have made a difference in the GOP Senate, but now Trump will be acquitted and play victim while claiming exoneration.
3
Hey James, Trump won't abide by the oath, says this fellow Republican. If you care about it, you should vote for anyone (even Sanders) but Trump in 2020, as I will be.
9
Clearly two investigations are called for. One of Mr. Trump's apparent crimes. The other why Republicans in the Senate have acted as his PR team. We will not get either, but the public can render its verdict come November. Not justice, not what is needed, but what is left on the table.
4
I have been wondering what excuse the Republican party would have come up with if President Trump had said to Zelensky, "You pay me $10,000, and I will release the military aid." A billionaire doesn't need $10,000. How much is the Presidency of the United States worth?
4
All of politics (by definition) - from the first request for donations, the implied promise to fix the pothole on your street first to the threat to close a military base or not to consider one for the ambassadorship - fits the 'legal' definition of intimidation, extortion, conspiracy, soliciting and most of all bribery. Our democracy cannot function without the 'quid pro quo' of negotiations, horsetrading and 'compromise' in pursuit of political success.
We must define the distinction between politics and crimes as the bright line of direct, SUBSTANTIAL personal (not political) financial gain in exchange to a specific act, and free our Presidents from the harassment of every prosecutor scheming to advance their careers.
The extreme disenfranchisement of the voter by Impeachment should ONLY be employed with bipartisan comity for high crimes where there is NO OTHER REMEDY.
Apparently you do not distinguish between the speculative promises a politition makes to constituents to whom he is accountable and foreign parties who are legally barred from making campaign contributions. Nor do you distinguish when those contributions are solicited under duress while violating the polititions oath of office and other legally mandated duties.
2
This is the same argument the House Managers used in the trial. That Trump attempted to bribe. There may be a prima facie case of bribery but every case in America has a prima facie case of something when it goes to trial. That's what the trial is for, to determine if there is more than prima facie evidence. That there is hard, verifiable evidence of the breach of law. In this case, the evidence was based on intent, which is almost impossible to prove. But, Harmon, the author, was a prosecutor and prosecutors always believe the accused is guilty. That's their job. Unfortunately, they have to prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And the House Managers didn't do that.
2
Yes, obstruction can be successful. But that was charged too. Tough to win a just verdict though when the Jury has pre-annonced their intent to violate their duty.
2
The intent is only impossible to “prove” if you close your eyes and refuse to consider or even look at evidence. If the intent to investigate the Biden’s was not for purposes of smearing a political opponent, then why was only the announcement of the investigation by Ukraine sufficient and important? Why are the Ukrainians even needed to start? Why doesn’t the justice dept investigate, why is the president’s personal lawyer the front man if it’s not personal? Further “proof” of intent lies also in the fact that outside the White House inner circle no one knew the reason for the holdup of the aid. If above board it would have been clearly announced as official policy (as in fact was Biden’s insistence that the corrupt prosecutor been fired) not hidden until a back room deal was completed. Your assertion that the intent was not provable ignores the testimony of all the existing witnesses and ignores the stonewalling efforts of the White House, which all clearly point to intent. If there is still any doubt of intent then deciding to stop pursuing additional evidence makes even less sense, unless you insist that the president can do whatever he feels like and is subject to no restrictions or laws which is essentially what the president’s defense argued.
2
If there was a provable charge of bribery, why wasn’t it included in the Articles of Impeachment? The key word here is provable. Think about that for a while and then move on.
1
While I don’t disagree with anything written here, I am amazed that anyone thinks there is a question about whether Trump requested, pressured, bribed, or extorted the Ukraine by withholding congressionally approved aid to the Ukraine in return for helping him in the upcoming election.
We are far past that point. The issue is Republican refusal to hear the evidence—not whether there is evidence.
13
This article fails on its own terms. The author asserts that the president "corruptly" demanded an investigation into the Bidens and Ukrainian election interference (the latter of which has been widely reported, e.g. in Politico, not widely debunked). A president asking a foreign country to do something, and withholding aid to pressure that country, is not bribery unless the president acted corruptly. Corruptly would mean that he acted for a personal purpose, not in what he believed--with his broad discretion to make such judgments--was the public interest.
Hunter Biden making millions from a Ukrainian energy company for little work, while his father was chief envoy to Ukraine, is worthy of investigation on its face. That such an investigation might help Trump electorally does not mean he can't do it. We want presidents to do things--like improve the economy, sign trade deals, make peace, etc.--that we, the voters, approve of. That a president thinks an action will help him at the polls does not make that action corrupt (this was one of Dershowitz's main points).
The author simply provides no evidence that Trump acted with a corrupt purpose. Without that evidence, all the talk of favors and fired ambassadors falls flat; quid pro quo without a corrupt purpose is just the normal horsetrading of foreign policy.
And no, failing to disburse aid on time, as the GAO found, does not make the action corrupt. That law has its own remedies, far short of impeachment.
2
If it’s worthy of investigation on its face, it’s worthy of an investigation by our own Justice Department — confidentially, so as to protect the interests of innocent parties. That’s the way we do things. The rest is claptrap.
1
@Kev How do you think our DOJ would investigate corruption in Ukraine other than ask Ukraine for help? Send the Hardy boys?
2
Here’s the problem with your argument: Why did Trump ask *Ukraine* to investigate Joe & Hunter Biden? Why ask a country you consider to be corrupt and unreliable to investigate corruption of your own citizens, whom you could perfectly well investigate at home? And why make this request via unofficial back channels where presumably the public would not find out about it? And why withhold aid...unless you knew this investigation to be so illegitimate and unproductive that it would require an “incentive”? The willful blindness of those who claim these actions were just routine politics makes me despair for this country. 53 senators and the people who would vote for them again have lost their moral compass and are operating like a crime syndicate.
3
I thought it WAS illegal to accept foreign aid meant to influence a US election, no? To ask for that aid would therefore also be a crime, no?
Also, I don't understand the argument from the Rs saying "Ukraine received the aid in the end." Trump attempted to use aid to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate Biden. The fact that he got caught and didn't succeed doesn't matter. If you attempt to steal a car, but are caught, aren't you convicted of attempted robbery?
5
This OpEd is a breath of fresh air. It defends regular order, which is the third party to our debate about Trump. Regular order is not a Democrat or Republican property. It is how we get things done outside partisan wrangling.
Mitch McConnell shamefully rejected regular order when he scheduled a Soviet-style show trial instead of an impeachment trial that would also end with the exoneration of Trump that McConnell desires. In doing so, McConnell opted for the exercise of raw power instead of law and regular order. He made our Senate a totalitarian body, no different in function than a Soviet Duma or Politburo.
7
The Republican law and order crowd has, as it has in so many other ways, abandoned any pretense of ostensibly long-held principles and convictions.
The charade of standing firm against lawlessness, at least when it comes to Donald Trump, has been abandoned. His defenders don't seem to care about the facts or the rule of law, and in the process, they are selling their own souls, and the country, down the road.
For Trump's defenders, what used to be "my country, right or wrong" has become a cri de coeur of "my president, even when he's wrong."
4
Clinton also broke the law by committing perjury. However the Senate decided that wasn't sufficient to remove him from office. I think the same thing applies to Trump.
1
@J. Waddell there’s a big difference between having an extra marital affair (trump does know about having committed it himself a few times) and depriving/delaying security funding to an ally so that you can get dirt on a political rival. Big difference. confused Christian conservatives do that, switch moral values off and on, at convenience.
12
@J Waddell. I wonder what Ken Starr, who investigated Clinton and then defended Trump for what you call the “same thing,” would think. Seems to me you’re calling Starr a hypocrite.
1
May have broken the law? Has anyone every read 18 U.S.C. Chapter 41 on extortion? It's a felony all of whose elements Trump has met from the evidence adduce to date, not to mention that which was hidden under the fallacy of "executive authority."
3
@Carl Ian Schwartz
Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you.
1
They’re not “wrong.” They’re lying. There’s a difference.
6
If we are going to continue to drag this out, and not move on, I would suggest the author write the entire truth about the two items below. Come on and do your job of "reporting"
Key evidence? I don't believe the Times reporting qualifies as evidence. How about we mention the Bolton video stating that Trumps call was proper? I that Sondland was told "no pro quo" as he stating during the depositions.
This is not reporting the news. Come on..
The key evidence establishes several things. First, as The Times has reported, John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, says in a forthcoming book that Mr. Trump directly told him that he wanted to withhold military aid to Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelensky announced an investigation of the Bidens. (Mr. Trump has denied that.) This so clearly appears to be a quid pro quo that Mr. Trump’s own ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, actually called it such.
1
Attempted bribery or attempted extortion. Attempt is a crime and is punished as a completed crime if a substantial step is taken toward completion. U.S. vs. Resendez-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-107. Trump's denial of the quid pro quo, after the whistleblower's complaint was made public, is no different than any wrongdoer's denial after s/he has been caught. Anything that Guiliani said is not hearsay as per Fed. Rul. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A),(C)-(E). Trump's July 25 call is code: when organized crime wants to extort someone, the criminal doesn't say: "pay me protection or I'll burn you out." He says "you have a nice store here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it." Anything of value includes intangibles and anything which could be of value to the extorter. U.S. vs. Sun Diamond Growers, 941 F.Supp. 1262, 1269-1270; U.S. vs. Roth, 333 F.2d 450, 453. The whistleblower's identity is irrelevant as per Roviaro vs. U.S., 353 U.S. 53. Sondland's opinion that Trump wanted a quid pro quo is admissible. Fed. Rul. Evid. 701.
What we have here is a case of jury nullification. Lamar Alexander basically said so when he said the House managers proved their case. The Rs would vote to acquit regardless of whether Bolton and the others testified and all the documents were introduced into evidence. As Trump said, he could get away with shooting someone.
5
I remember being extremely disappointed when the George W Bush administration used cherry-picked data and outright lies to push us into war with Iraq, and thought that this was surely the worst president of my lifetime. Trump, with his outlandish and public criminality, almost makes me think of Bush Jr. with nostalgia.
7
Just face it, Trump outsmarted his opponents...again. Sure he’s guilty. But by asking for an investigation into something truly questionable, like Hunter Biden/Burisma, he gave himself and the Republicans just enough cover to weasel out of it.
And politically, if the Democrats had just used Ukraine as an election talking point,
they might have damaged him. But now he can play the victim and the burden is back on the Democrats to explain themselves.
1
@Max
Outsmarted? I don't think so. 45 is so without honor, he has the ability to lie without any thought to what dishonesty means to his self-respect. That's hard to combat if a person won't stoop to his level of dishonor and has self-respect.
45 is a pathetic excuse for a man.
We usually think of politicians and bribery in terms of politicians being bribed. Remember NJ's 'Bridgegate'? Members of Gov. Christie's inner circle attempted to strong-arm a mayor into endorsing Christie by interfering with commuter traffic on the GW bridge. That is kind of a miniature version of Trump himself and a few cronies seeking to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating Biden over nothing.
Like Bridgegate except that Trump himself was directly involved (Read the transcript) and that Trump also broke the law by delaying funds already allocated to make it an offer Zelensky could not refuse. A bribe using almost half a billion dollars of our money, not his own. If, as the Constitution states, Bribery is a High Crime, then the one offering the bribe is guilty whether it is taken or not.
2
too little too late.....
2
I'm afraid the author is preaching to the choir. Anyone with a minimally intact brain knows Trump committed bribery and obstruction of justice. The problem is that every member of Congress who accepts anything at all from a lobbyist is engaging in an act of bribery, even if they are not the individual offering the bribe. They're numb to the criminal aspect of it. They know it's a crime but they can't admit it or they are admitting their own criminality.
Trump has served to teach me one thing. Politics is, indeed, dirty business. It's not the fault of our founding fathers that the Constitution is ambiguous. Language is ambiguous. Someone with evil intent can make words seem to say something else in a nuanced way. The founding fathers just never anticipated how important money would become or how much greed there would be in the centuries following them or how much dishonesty the people would come to accept for whatever reasons they can rationalize it with.
Trump, his layers, and the Republican Party have shown what a con man and his henchmen can do to the dream of a democratic nation's rule of law—may it rest in pieces.
570
@Gerithegreek518 You are on target. Very few politicians can come out of a government job poorer than when they went in. They are all, including the accusers, in cahoots with some monied enterprise or organization. Money corrupts people's vision and clouds the mind. No longer the truth is truth. After all has been said and done, Giuliani was right: the truth is not the truth; it is only what we make it appear to be the truth. If scientists thought that way, we would be in real trouble (and this has already happened.).
23
@Gerithegreek518
Yes. Politics is dirty business. It is also useful for doing good things and we have a long and strong history of a government that looked out for us. This administration is not that. They are removing the last vestiges of the social safety net, increasing stress on middle-class families and causing more climate change. It's time to push back and say to them, "It's our turn now!"
20
@Gerithegreek518
If Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, why was that charge not included in the articles of impeachment?
If he is guilty of bribery, why wasn't that included in the articles of impeachment.
You are making the argument, apparently, that Schiff, Pelosi and the House Democrats don't have minimally intact brains. You are correct.
The case of bribery is common sense obvious. It might be time to accept that Republicans in office and a large part of the American people just don't want and/or believe in democracy; but something entirely different.
1
Let's face it, all but two of the members of the GOP are also guilty of bribery, since they have traded their impeachment votes for money to remain in office. No wonder they feel that Trump is one of theirs and a little bribery between friends is to be expected.
7
Wow. Maybe they should re-impeach him and guarantee a Trump reelection.
1
@Tom Walters - So what you are saying is it was a mistake to impeach the president for breaking the law. The House is the grand jury for the Senate. They found sufficient evidence to find wrong doing, even without the presidents help. It was up to the Senate to prove the case with evidence and witnesses to find the real truth. They did neither. If the Democrats are crucified for standing up for Democracy then lawlessness has won and we forever will be changed as a country.
4
Mr. Harmon, you claim the President "MAY Have broken the Law" - YOU on the other Hand, ARE absolutely WRONG.
BUT I hope that you are SURE that the Clinton Foundation and Biden Family are as corrupted as the Organized crime families you prosecuted.
@malka I think you are confused, it was trump who stole from trump foundation and had to return $2 million. Oops
7
The Republican senators know this deep down, they just don't care.
5
I’m surprised that the NYT has decided to run this op-ed today when, in a few hours, the Senate will vote to acquit President Trump of the impeachment charges. Rather than reanalyzing and relitigating an impeachment that was flawed from the start, the Democrats and media need to now focus on the November election. Let the historians examine this impeachment with the clearer vision that comes with time. Even Donald Trump was smart enough not to utter the “I” word last night in his State of the Union address.
Wow, Harmon is making this argument just in time for it to have no impact whatsoever on anything. Thanks!
3
Our President is a crook. And the Republican Senate has agreed to drive the get away car. How do we ever recover from this?
10
It appears that the DNC overuse of words like "obviously", and "clearly", and "illegal", so forth and so on.....
Easily swayed former prosecutor James D. Harmon!
....
Absolutely NOTHING in the Impeachment Document is "clear".
It is all "vague", with no defined crime.
I am sorry if that hurts a lot of people's feelings....but it is all Political Agenda. It is ALL deception.
....
Now. If we are determined to find Donald J. Trump guilty of this vague "crime"........then every single politician in WashDC is GUILTY also.
And Mr. Harmon has a very very big job ahead of him.
And if he is not up to the task, then it is the American People's Obligation to remove Mr. Harmon from his office.
What is this headline? "May?" Don't we have definitive laws? You either broke the law or you didn't. And no person is above the law.
1
Witness testimony and documentary evidence show President Trump did not ask President Zelensky to announce “an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter,” as the author alleges. House managers introduced the House Intelligence Committee’s report into evidence. The proposed announcement appears on page 122 of the report. It reads: “We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.
The proposed announcement did not mention Joe Biden or Hunter Biden, but the Ukrainians considered it politically sensitive because Hunter sat on Burisma’s board. Ambassador Kurt Volker testified that he told the Ukrainians to “drop” the matter and wait until they had a new prosecutor general.
Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified he grew to assume there was a quid pro quo, but after Ambassador William Taylor expressed alarm, he called the White House to ask for clarification, and he president told him there was no quid pro quo.”
Volker testified the Ukrainians never worried because he assured them they would get the aid. President Zelensky and his aides have publicly and repeatedly said there was no pressure or coercion.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf
So, who will you vote for in this year’s Presidential? Or will you just refuse to vote?
2
Oh dear, this is no time for the use of the weak subjunctive "may" in our language. Starting with Michael Cohen's testimony on Trump's payments to silence porn starts Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal - conducting domestic campaign interference, already, from the start, Trump broke the law. His Ukraine quid quo pro extortion was simply more breaking of the law. The GOP has been conned by the con artist that Michael Cohen named in his testimony. They have placed loyalty to an autocrat above the truth, the law, the Constitution, the nation, and with regard to his and their insane climate change denial - they have placed themselves against life itself.
4
Did he break the country is the real question. He and his GOP enablers offer a special form of treason.
“May” doesn’t cut it
The whole thing is lawless.
How can this possibly end well?
Congratulations republicans, for America's downfall.
3
Mr. Harmon, I congratulate you. You are one of the few Republicans I have heard from who actually cares about the law in a way that is not completely self-serving. As for the Constitution, someone appears to have scribbled all over that document with a big black Sharpie.
3
So what?
An impeachment in the House of Representatives and a hearing on that impeachment in the Senate isn't a trial.
It is sui generis in our constitutional republic.
The House Managers aren't criminal prosecutors.
The White House Counsels and private lawyers aren't criminal defense lawyers.
Trump isn't a criminal defendant.
The Senate isn't a criminal jury.
Neither the federal rules of criminal evidence nor criminal law and procedure are relevant to an impeachment.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States isn't a criminal trial judge.
Stop treating the American people like they are a bunch of idiots who can't handle the truth about the nature of our divided limited constitutional republic of united states.
1
It is deeply disturbing to see and hear all the twisted up interpretations to, on the one hand, justify an immoral position or present an “other side” argument. The emblematic phrase used by the Human Stain after Charlottesville fiasco that “there are very fine people on both sides” sums up the idiocy of what is called a dialogue. The range, depth and sheer ignorance of what us being destroyed us breathtaking.
We are both on the proverbial “burning platform” and ARE it.
If you want to absolve yourself of the guilt and poor decision to have voted fir DJT then to be taken seriously any commentary needs to begin with a confession, plea for attention to articulate yourself and a rigorous, thoughtful and soul searching explanation gir how you could have imperiled the country, constitution and rule of law.
As citizens everyone’s entitled to their opinion (unless it involves hate or solicits violence), and a sense of decency is the price of civilization but if you expect respect and that us a higher bsr.
At this point if you voted for the Human Stain in 2016 then you are dumb, naive or delusional. To remain so makes you anti American. You “think” he broke the law and committed impeachable offenses?! REALLY - what was the clue?
It is staggering to me that anyone could have thought he’d be competent or decent as a President. One wonders how badly he would have been defeated without the help of comrade Putin.
Save us your 20/20 explanations. They are shallow.
1
But what about Joe Biden's firing of Victor Shokin, the Ukraine prosecutor investigating corruption in Burisma Holdings, the corrupt Ukraine gas company that paid son Hunter Biden MILLIONS....
1
@99percent But what does that have to do with the Drumpf's wrongdoings? Even if there was wrongdoing by the Bidens (NOT) it sounds too much like a 2 wrongs make a right argument. I guess there are people (and a POTUS) that were never taught that.
2
Trump views oaths much as he does paying taxes: they are an invention for suckers who give credence to that other hoax, the one called integrity.
2
Give me a break! Stop pretending that you are shocked or that you care. Trump’s true nature has been on display for decades. When he asked, “ Where is my Roy Cohn”, it should have been enough to clue everyone in to his mob mentality. Naïveté, blindness, deafness, and willful ignorance are no more of an excuse than ignorance of the law. I’m so tired of these wimpy justifications for supporting DJT. Admit it, you voted for trump because you couldn’t bring yourself to vote for a woman and you mistook his bombast for machismo. It’s too late to call or write your representatives or to do the right thing. The only repentance left is to VOTE him out of office, no matter the gender or sexual orientation of the candidate. Stop being lame!
5
May have?
"May Have"?
Many discussions have revolved around why the articles of impeachment did not include the crime of bribery or solicitation of influence. It may be that the dems knew that this round would ultimately fail. And they are keeping their powder dry for another round later or for the courts for when Mr. T leaves office. Which will happen one way or another.
1
Thank you for your conscience and for speaking out. The case you make seems obvious to me. And yet, here we are. I think the frogs are poached. No matter how grotesquely Trump flaunts the law or standards of decency, it will barely generate a "meh".
7
Sorry, impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. The Senators must decide if the President's actions are seriously harmful to US, not whether they are criminal. They can vote to impeach a President who has not committed any crime under the law, or they can vote not to impeach a President who has violated the law.
This is all discussed in several Federalist papers. In this case, with the election coming up, the Senators wisely tossed the whole problem over to the voters. Trump's opponent in the general election will have plenty to say about this, and the people will decide.
It does appear that nothing Trump might do could, in the opinion of the current Senate, justify conviction and removal for office. The so-called trial by the Senate is showing itself to be nothing but a partisan exercise and that should be regarded as a symptom of a failure of our two-party political system.
The world's oldest democracy should be able to do better than this.
3
One of the more valuable elements for discerning the truth in a real trial is cross examination of witnesses under oath. That can't happen if no witnesses are called. This Senate "trial" is nothing more than a partisan farce aimed at an acquittal of Trump.
16
The train has left the station. Zelensky has moved onto a cease fire in Ukraine. The Russians have reopened the natural gas pipeline through Ukraine. But in the US grinds on. The US had no business interfering in Ukraine. The bloody ethnic war the US encouraged is the scandal. Have you listened to Schiff's crazy bizarre fulminations? Pelosi calling anybody who doesn't buy her neo con fantasies as a Russian operative or treasonous. This impeachment was entirely political and it failed.
The president's defenders are never wrong.
They do NOT care about the law.
Trump could indeed kill someone (not Mitch McConnell) in the middle of Wall street at high noon with a zillion witnesses and he would get away with it.
The barely Republican majority in the Senate is never going to convict trump of anything. He is their bread and butter. Wouldn't want any of them to starve to death.
For them there are four words:
Power,
Money,
Greed,
Hate.
14
The sun rose
This morning
On a dead democracy
9
Yawn. ask ten prosecutors, get ten different opinions.
3
The legal profession is terrible.
I know. I was a lawyer for a lot of years.
Too many lawyers tell their clients whatever they want to hear to make a name for themselves, or whatever. The Democrats wanted to believe that Trump was a criminal and that Schiff could make him go away, so they let themselves be suckered by all of these “legal experts” who told them what they wanted to hear. And now they must face the backlash.
1
The Greeks of the golden age knew this. They scoffed at sophists.
1
So Trump MAY have broken the law. Republicans could care less. Why waste your time even writing about it!
1
@Eileen , it’s the constitution. Pelosi May have torn up trumps state of the union speech, but the republicans have torn up the constitution.
3
Finally, a lawyer--and a Republican, no less--saying in the same analytical terms what I, a lawyer, and all the other lawyers I know have been saying in the same way all along: The evidence is that Trump committed the high crime of bribery in violation of federal law. That's an impeachable offense by definition, and everything else is irrelevant. As for the Senate Republicans, I can't address them without using language that would make The Times refuse to publish this comment.
25
Mr. Harmon's argument that the President was guilty of the crime of bribery was floated by Democrats for a few days when the House impeachment hearings were coalescing, but then was dropped for some reason and did not make it into the articles of impeachment or the House's trial memorandum. I'm puzzled by this and am curious if anyone knows why it wasn't pursued.
4
Thank you for this opinion piece, Mr. Harmon. It's important to hear from principled republicans. I like this:
I took an oath at West Point that I would “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
6
Sorry, too late. Way too late. Maybe Democrats should try this argument out on a do over when they decide they would like to further strengthen Trump politically.
2
Wish you had spoken up a month ago! Bit late in the game. But the house can surely continue playing its role of oversight and check and balance so that it does not become a run away presidency. Many Republican lawmakers are law abiding citizens but they are willing to give the President a lot of slack because if they don’t they will be expelled disinvited dishonored by CPAC and such influential organizations that fund and finance their re-elections. Get it? It’s hard for someone like you non elected person (or political appointee) to understand fully the grip control President has over the Republican Party treasure chest. Today Melania will start fundraising for trump campaign. No one will question how Ivanka and her brothers parade all over the world flashing Trump logo label to promote their family business.
8
@petey tonei
Did you watch the "State of the Union Speech" last night? I did and it seems the the presidency is already a "run away presidency".
This was not a State of the Union Speech it was an reelection campaign rallies speech. Mr Trump as usual praised himself and mentioned some supporters to thank them. It was painful to watch the POTUS turn his back when Mrs Pelosi offered to shake his hand. However Mrs Pelosi displayed her scorn in her attitude and behavior in particular at the end when she ripped up her copy of Mr Trumps speech.
Mr Trump and his hissy fits is no real match for an experienced politician like Mrs Pelosi.
But then I am still annoyed with the political nonsense in Washington D.C. in particular with the Republicans who show no backbone when it comes to Mr Trump.
I am even more terrified of where my country is going.
Just an old white man's opinion...
4
Too bad, so sad.
It is a bit late to lament the decision to vote on one issue, the appointment of judges that agree with one's worldview.
There are no backsies on judges, and saying what Trump "should" do is only interesting. Everyone knows he doesn't care, and everyone knew it before he was elected.
5
He's the President. He can use any means necessary when dealing with other countries.
2
"President Trump’s Defenders Are Wrong. He May Have Broken the Law."
Sorry, Sir, but you are the one who is wrong.
You see, now that the Senate is on the precipice of their craven and total capitulation to Trump, thereby unfettering him completely to do whatever he wants, he gets to define what is legal and what is not. And in his ethos, and also that of his Attorney General, he can do no wrong. The guiding philosophy for America now is The President uber alles.
His belief is that nothing he does is illegal, because he is the President. This is Nixonian blather redux. But there is no mechanism left in our governance to stop him. Suppose Trump chose not to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue as he has posited, but to lob one of our shiny new low yield nukes at him instead. What would stop him from doing this? Aside from a few recyclable generals, nothing would contain him. He can do whatever his decrepit mind can conjure.
Trump has rendered our Constitution defunct. The only recourse left for America's survival is the last remaining bastion of our democracy - the vote. The question before the country now is this: Do we choose to keep our republic, or will we abdicate it to the asylum which is Trumpism?
7
Mitch McConnell is accountable to the big donors who have invested billions to preserve low taxes, friendly federal judges, and....well little else as evidenced by McConnell's inaction on most other issues. There is no way a "little" crime will convince McConnell that we have a corrupt, immoral, incompetent president. The end justifies the means. Remember when Mitch appeared on the C-span cameras before the hearings in the House were completed and smugly assured the nation that the Senate was ready for the trial? He seemed gleeful, mischievous. Then he appeared before Christmas assuring the base that he was totally cooperating with the WH in preparing a defense for Trump. He set a trap and the Democrats fell in like a bear starved for honey. What have we learned? Sadly, that crime does pay. And lies work to get votes. Trump's poll numbers are at the highest level since his election. Pinch me.
8
It no longer matters if Trump breaks the law. The GOP have sanctioned whatever he does from now on is OK so long as they think he can win the election.
The focus should not be on beating Trump. The focus should be on beating the GOP in the House, the Senate and at every local election. Let Trump have the White House. The Democrats had the White House and the GOP had Congress - they stopped everything Obama tried to do. Let Trump take the White House - then hog tie everything he tries to do.
7
“When the president does it, that means it is NOT illegal.”
Welcome to 21st century GOP.
5
You sound like a reasonable man and you have a reasonable argument. Too bad these are not reasonable times.
8
Mr Harmon states what is obvious. Trump's defenders tell us that Zelensky himself said that there was no pressure. We've all seen enough movies - and Harmon has seen the reality - in which the victim of the veiled threats hears nothing. "NIce place you got here: shame if something happened to it" is no more than the comment of an appreciative customer. The bitter taste left by it all is that the Ukraine caper probably did not break into the top 100 list of idiotic / reprehensible / criminal / immoral / incompetent things this man has done and of course he will crow about his upcoming acquittal. November cannot come soon enough.
3
Bribery yes, but worse, abuse and even treason: using the powers of the Presidency, the trust inherent to the office, to execute the bribe for wholly personal imperatives. That is, to cheat and win re-election by digging up proven false stories against Biden and to discredit the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller into the 2016 election which showed Russian interference in order to blame Ukraine in support of Russian claims..
4
Come on James D. Harmon Jr., The Mueller like half-way there headline "He may have broken the law"?! It's no wonder Trump keeps "winning". We go to gun fights with tiny little pocket knives.
2
It’s too awful that Alan Dershowitz has such a “star” standing. But since he does, and since the Senate is not impartial, the conclusion was already written. Crimes? Certainly. Didn’t the Senators who took oaths to be “impartial jurors” but went into the process knowing they would vote to acquit commit a crime when they took that oath?
7
Republicans say that what Trump did was not nice but it wasn't an impeachable crime. Interesting! If Hillary Clinton was sitting in the Oval Office, would it have been an impeachable crime then?
4
Of course his naive defenders are wrong. What we have is a Liar-in-Chief. Just about everything he said in the State of the Union was wrong, blatant lies. He keeps taking credit for things that President Obama put into place. But, probably the most important issue is his lying about keeping health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Wake up folks. While you are supporting him, he cares nothing about you. His mentality is, after me you come first.
It's all about him. Remember that in November.
7
Mr. Harmon’s dismay that Trump was not impeached for bribery in the House Impeachment articles would stretch the definition of bribery beyond a real exchange to hypothetically unprovable collateral motives. As a Grand Inquisitor, he would convict Trump for his state of mind — and a proverbial “ham sandwich.” As Prof. Dershowitz argued, that interpretation of the law distorts the meaning of quid pro quo— a Latin phrase for a tangible “pecuniary” (money, as in “talents”) benefit of an ancient Roman. Harmon’s rationale for impeaching Trump would include accusations of “reckless eyeballing” and “impure thoughts.”
1
If so why didn't the house charge him, all their lawyers, all their advise, this is pure speculation and Monday morning quarter backing. Nonsense!
21
@tompe
Perhaps now that John Bolton says he is willing to testify with first-hand knowledge about Trump's premeditation of this crime and effort to enlist his aid in committing it—or at least make a fast buck off a book about same—they can use that Republican's eyewitness testimony to do that.
Do you think it would matter, though, to a Senate that unprecedentedly responded to the breaking news of this disclosure by refusing to ask for it themselves>
You do know every Senate Impeachment trial there has ever been has called witnesses?
You can't call "Monday morning quarter backing" when the game is still on, which it is in the Senate this afternoon.
Why not end the speculation—and the finger-pointing at the House—and call in the Senate for hearing this newly-discovered, first-hand evidence? It's not too late to save American democracy, though time's a-wasting.
45
@tompe You are right. They should have. Doesn't make Trump any less guilty.
35
@tompe
Could you guys puh-lease go back and look at the rules under which the House - and, allegedly, the Senate - are supposed to play? The House can call witnesses - but the Senate is "supposed" to follow up. They submit findings to the Senate - which is then SUPPOSED to call additional witnesses, etc., etc. This is why it is a big deal the Republican Senator did not actually WANT to hear witnesses. This "impeachment" - from the GOP perspective and treatment - has been a sham. Members of the House were playing by the rules. The Republicans stuck out their tongues and said "nyah, nyah, NYAH! We don't need no stinkin' INFORmation! We have minds already set! (We're so smart!)" Kindly go review there rules for impeachment - oh! Never mind. You must be representing the GOP element. I forgot. You don't need no stinkin' "Constitutional" rules!
46
Anytime the Republicans can circumvent the laws of our country, aiding themselves and their boss rather than those who put them there, we are in trouble. That they see nothing wrong with the white wash of Trump is a story in itself. Protect him at all costs regardless of his criminal nature and his incessant lying. Trump will go down and so will these so-called Senate Republicans. But how much damage has Trump already caused our country? His roll-backs of Obama regulations alone will cost us dearly.
318
@Paul Raffeld
I think the key words in your comments are “white wash.”
19
@Paul Raffeld Can you believe that this is the same Republican Party that screamed "Imperial Presidency" because President Obama signed Executive Orders? Talk about hypocrisy!
2
Agree. As I see,it trump might as well said: "nice little country you have here. would be a real shame if something happened to it."
11
The argument that Trump committed bribery certainly should have been pursued more aggressively by the House in its impeachment articles, and I'm at a loss to understand why, as Mr. Harmon's piece clearly states that bribery was indeed committed. Especially given the Supreme Court's expected ruling later this year in New Jersey's Bridgegate case, we are at a point where the conservative Justices, along with the Republican Senators, may essentially redefine the bribery statutes in a way that gives far more latitude in interpreting the law, which in my view is exceedingly dangerous not only in the Trump era, but after too (presuming that there is an after, sadly).
4
Mr.Harmon's clear statement of what constitutes bribery is an intellectual breath of fresh air. I thank him. Where exactly does that put us all as a nation? No Senate Republican is expected to vote for impeachment. Does this present a real and present danger to the Republican Party? I fear it does. Mr. Harmon's argument also serves to underline the unmitigated tragedy that President Trump has effectively blocked all serious attempts by other more qualified Republicans to challenge him in the primaries. At this point, there is no turning back. Can the GOP survive this attack to its moral jugular? Only time will tell.
22
@Harold Jordan Esq. Yes. Mr. Harmon may be the last of his breed - a brutally honest individual with clear principles. I probably would not agree with many of his views if I knew them, but I'll admire him for his self-honesty. It's a breath of fresh air.
10
What’s the statute of limitations on this? Maybe he can be pursued out of office.
13
Definitions of white collar crime are notoriously broad and open-ended. What is “obstruction of justice?”- Basically whatever some ambitious federal prosecutor can convince a judge it is. RICO has been described as “the crime of being a criminal.” And does anyone really think Martha Stewart deserved to go to jail over some white lies she made to FBI agents about some otherwise perfectly legal stock trades?
Congress isn’t a court of law for prosecutors to try out new legal theories. What Trump did was morally questionable and arguably corrupt. But that should not be enough to remove a sitting President, and it will not be enough to remove a sitting president.
Time to move on.
1
Yep, time to move on to Trumps next official act of corrupting our election. I wonder if the Senate will think that him losing the election, declaring it null and void, and staying in the White House will be enough to remove him from office?
3
@Greg So, immoral and corrupt acts are not impeachable? A sitting president should not be removed if he acts immorally and corruptly?
I disagree.
But you are right in that in this instance such immoral and corrupt behavior will not be enough to remove a sitting president.
And so we slide a little bit further away from the ideals of our Constitution.
2
@Greg
White lies?
Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators. (Wikipedia).
Perfectly legal stock trades?
She settled with the SEC, paid fines and served a Directors/Officers ban.
3
The question isn’t that Trump broke a law. Everyone pretty much agrees about that now. The question for Mr Harmon and other Trump supporters is, will you vote for Trump in November knowing that he broke the law? This seems to be where law-and-order Republican spines soften up considerably.
Republicans know what Trump is and what Trump has done. They want everyone to see them wringing their hands about this, but, really, they don’t care. When they exonerate Trump today, “do the right thing” as Trump might say, they complete their immersion in Trump’s criminal enterprise.
The GOP fully transforms into the party that represents corruption and greed today.
33
@M Depends who he's running against. If he runs against Bloomberg or Klobuchar, then perhaps some of us will choose them. However, if it's Sanders or Warren, I can assure you that few, if any, will switch.
At this point, the ball is in the Democrats court. We'll see if they vote to return to normalcy or fight crazy with even crazier.
2
@M
Yes, the headline should have read "President Trump’s Defenders Don't Care If He Broke The Law".
6
@Mike C., Just like all conservatives, you are attempting to sway voters to trump. Sorry none of the Democrats running in this election are crazier than trump. Are you going to vote for Weld against trump, if Republicans have no problem voting for this destroyer of the country, why should they have any say in who Democrats vote for? Stop trying to push voters to the "center" while you rush to the far right!
3
After hearing excerpts from last night's SOTU and hearing that he gave Rush Limbaugh the MOF, I am even more concerned than ever. Add to that, the story in the Times yesterday about Trump and Deutsche Bank. If a person has not had his taxes thoroughly gone over and cleared, why should they be able to run for President? Taxes, like it or not, are a huge part of what makes this country tick. We can not, ever again, have a criminal, as President. The man is deranged.
72
The elephant in the room is that Trump is betraying America, and that the Republicans are providing him cover.
The strongest reason to impeach and convict Trump is that he endangers our National Security by repeatedly and consistently aiding a foreign power, Russia.
Secretary Clinton pointed out that Trump is Putin’s puppet. Speaker Pelosi told Trump that all roads lead to Putin with him. They are both entirely correct.
Convicted felons Roger Stone and Paul Manafort know the details of this, but they will not talk because Trump promised to pardon them if they keep quiet.
Trump’s tax returns would also show that he is in hock to Putin-connected Russian oligarchs, which is why Trump is so desperate to hide his financial records. Mueller was prevented from investigating Trump’s finances by Rod Rosenstein, and William Barr terminated the investigation prematurely.
Remarkably, virtually the entire Republican delegation in Congress is in complete denial of all of this.
The GOP has become the Gang of Putin!
46
@AKJersey Not in “denial of”, rather, “in support of”.
5
Really? He "may have broken the law?" This piece "could have been useful" but it is not.
6
Republicans. Don't. Care.
A little bribery is fine with Mitch McConnell and the GOP.
Lies are fine.
Criminal conduct is fine.
Quid pro quo is fine.
Putting the good of Trump before the good of the United States is fine.
Colluding with Russia is fine.
McConnell swore fealty to Trump and the rest of the GOP
has fallen in line.
I cannot wait to vote this year.
And I never want to hear about conservative values ever again. They have ceased to exist.
Vote Democratic this year.
Every election, every office, every seat.
A huge turnout is our best course of action.
Vote.
And when the Democratic president takes office?
He or she can do what ever they want.
34
Mr. Harmon is WRONG. There is no "may have" broken the law, any sensible and logical and OBVIOUS reading of the record clearly shows that he DID break the law. Stop equivocating.
22
And how did you regard Bush 41 surrendering to his attorney general's pressure to pardon Reagan's Iran-Contra felons? Yes,
Wm Barr, the authoritarian who now has usurped the DOJ to be his little kingdom. And your West Point commission as we note Pompeo and Espy's incredibly inept performances as Sec. of State and Sec. of Defense, respectively, you would have been wise to leave that unsaid. A poll of GOP senators who would agree with you would show enough to convict---if they were allowed to actually vote without fear.
8
It's not "may have." Trump did break the law, and violate his constitutional oath of office, as did Republican senators. They have turned the greatest deliberative body into a rubber-stamp Duma for a corrupt president determined to make this nation a kleptocracy. In a stinging op-ed about the cover-up, the latest Economist says "the biggest indictment of Donald Trump's sham trial is that most Americans have ignored it."
11
Thank you for your insight. I can’t help but think at this point that it is the GOP Senate that has now “fixed a wrong” with an absolutely horrible wrong. In many ways they trumped trumps bribery with the most heinous of coverups. They too should be convicted.
17
I think most people attempting an intellectually honest assessment of the facts realize that president Trump broke the law. Those same people also realize that there will be no consequences for Mr. Trump arising from that fact. The Republican Praetorian guard has openly declared that their man in the White House is, actually, above the law. He need not concern himself with such common distractions as long as he furthers their ideology. That is where we the G.O.P., with its pathetic flag-waving and Bible thumping has delivered us.
16
According to Senator Rob Portman: "There may be circumstances where a crime isn’t necessary for a president to be impeached."
I guess that circumstance is called "Being a Democrat". His Op-Ed today was a joke. It's title was "Why I am voting to acquit President Trump" and essentially the answer was "Because I am a Republican"
19
It’s as if some people, like the author Mr. Harmon, just landed on planet earth 2weeks ago. This idea that we’re having a rational discussion about trump and his behavior seems like science fiction. The Senate is rigged - our democracy is an Oligarchy - we have institutional corruption in the GOP - We get it. I’m so tired of reading about people that all of sudden have come to this conclusion. Wake up.
8
“President Trump’s Defenders Are Wrong. He May Have Broken the Law.”
Hey, then again he MAY not have. Still telling for the next bombshell?
I would think that his behavior meets the criteria for treason. He withheld aid from Ukraine which aided Russia all for his own benefit. While this is a capital crimje, I would not recommend executing him but I do think that he should spend the rest of his natural life in a maximum security prison.
7
I appreciate James Harmon's column.
I do note that Mr Harmon did say at the outset, that:
Even without the addl testionial/documentary evidence(!) which his Republican compatriots in the Senate chose not (!) to hear or see; rendering that utterly credible potential evidence to be 'inadmissible' - because they cravenly said so....
that a "Prima facie" case for Bribery was already "established" via evidence "available... to date"
Unfortunately, Mr Harmon then makes his very first cite the absolutely credible evidence from the NY Times, re Bolton and the President's purported admission. But Harnon has already admitted that - unfortunately - this information is not part of what the Senate's craven R;s have deemed "admissible" evidence.
See Part A for Harmon's circular reasoning.
For the record I absolutelhy agree with Harmon's conclusion. But it appears that he has done a less than creditable job of proving his case. Perhaps some consultations with other attys, before publishing might help him in future.
In the mean time, and as a retired attorney, I will look to some other sources for better legal reasoning.
Neal Katyal or Laurence Tribe - one of the orioginators of thoughts on 'bribery' as a charge, come to mind...
3
Perhaps the House should have called you back in December. But in their rush to get it done, they lost the case.
Now, the day Trump will surely "beat the rap," you show up with your new theory of the case?
What's next? REAL proof that Trump colluded with Russia?
Even this Hillary Clinton voter is tired of this.
1
Really? You cannot see something you do not want to see. How much do you need?
A morally bankrupt party has condoned a criminal act by a morally bankrupt President. Republicans of conscience need to repudiate not only the President, but also the Party.
6
@Paul Panish Are there any left? Mr. Harmon may well be one among a dying breed of honest Republicans.
Dear Unanimous Senate -- Just because you are busy and other people are not "perfect" (as the phone call anyway) does not give you the right to acquit this wayward President who broke the law and principled protocol in overt violation of fundamental values of this nation and democracy itself. You can do more than one thing at a time. but you can't can have more than one set of values at a time. Laws should apply equally to all regardless one's personal stake in the outcome. To not Impeach-and Remove is to be even less perfect-corrupt in fact than the rest. And Corruption of "Fact" indeed.
1
Doesn't matter if he broke the law, because the rule of law has been neutered, as it was in Russia.
Think Trump got away with his real estate stuff because he got lucky? He just warped the rule of law with his money.
And now, he is appointed the judges, he owns the Supreme Court..
Must be nice to still have a belief that the rule of law applies to the rich as it does to the rest of us.
Hugh
8
Tell this to Rob Portman, not me.
6
@Just Thinkin’ even better go on foxnews and speak loudly!
Here NYT readers already know trump is guilty of lying bribery extortion cover up and high crimes and misdemeanors.
2
Mr. Harmon proves, anyone can be a lawyer or a doctor but maybe shouldn't be. Did he miss the information provided before the election on this President's character? Bankruptcies, divorces, sexual harassments, lies, criminal behavior, etc... All Mr. Harmon cared about were Supreme court judges, never mind the rest of the issues. Now he is lecturing us, who voted for Hillary, on impeachable offenses. Too little to late Mr. Harmon.
6
I'm still amazed Hunter Biden's bio isn't put before the public. Instead we get the Arthur Taylors of the world running with the smear.
Well the dead horse gets another beating. The problem is this: Republicans have felt like the whipping boy for a long time. The Clintons got away with murder. So it is their time to hold up the poster child of corruption and say "We can get away with it too.". The problem now is, most politicians engage in , well, politics. They reward friends and campaign contributors. They go along with what lobbyists want. They engage in behavior they think they can get away with. But they don't strong arm foreign countries using someone else's money. Trump filled the economic automobile that was cruising at 60mph with hi test gas charged on the taxpayers credit card taking the card way over the limit. When the FICO score comes back as 'poor', then Trump will start to make the lower income people pay to get that score up. So now he is America's hero. Who has not and will not temper his sociopathic tendencies. The question, Mr. Harmon, is are you willing to swallow your pride, take one for the team, and pull the lever for whatever Democrat is nominated? You know....hold your nose like many Democrats did when they voted for Trump. Or are you willing to accept four more years of division, hatred for others, lies, and corruption for a few extra dollars?
”...he should abide by it.”
He, Trump the person, long before MAGA, with a documented scoundrel’s past, rarely if ever, has abided by civil societies’ norms, mores, values and ethics. He gets away with a great deal because no one has stopped him. Yet. Many have enabled him to continue through their complacency and complicity.
Elected and selected policymakers, at all levels, everywhere, operate daily, by BEing personally unaccountable for their harmful words and deeds, as well as not stating, and doing, what is needed for achieving sustainable, equitable, wellbeing for ALL. Not withstanding the oaths they took. Such behaviors are “abided,” all to often, by all too many. Ordinary folk included.
The American socio-political “experiment,” with its diverse environments, peoples, beliefs, traditions, legacies, laws, regulations and states-of-being, and revised histories, relatively recent on the global-historical scene, has “abided” an ever-present, toxic, “ infectious,” anchored, WE-THEY culture. Violating created, selected, and targeted “the other(s).”
Willfully! With brief, heroic people intervening.
With much needed words: Mr. Welch’s words to the psychopathic Senator McCarthy-“ At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
With much needed deeds. On American soil as well as elsewhere.
How much longer will each of US abide what should not be said or done? Ever.
By unaccountable THEMs as well as by kin, ken and strangers?
Any time. Anywhere.
1
Even if Mr. Trump did commit a crime I believe he may have a valid defense of diminished capacity. It appears that he is suffering from a strain of the pathogen that is spreading around the world which has affected his brain and causes him to be under the delusion that he is a monarch who is above the law. Yes, the coronationvirus has reached the White House.
2
Didn't your West Point oath also including something along the lines of "I will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do?"
With the information available to you in 2016, you voted for Donald Trump so that he'd appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice (to fill an ill-begotten seat, I might add). If that wasn't, in your eyes, tolerating a known liar and cheater, how smart a prosecutor could you have been?
If it was, what is your oath really worth to you?
15
This isn't over. As soon as Trump is removed from office in Jan., he will be exposed to the full force and fury of our federal and state courts. There will be no private Trump lawyer heading the Justice Dept. The FBI will be unshackled. Contempt of Court charges will be in effect. His financial crimes can be fully exposed.
In short, we will finally get to have real trials, with real juries, with real witnesses and evidence, where any allegations of Trump's unlawful behavior can be vigorously prosecuted and defended under the rules of evidence and the laws of the land.
This will not set a dangerous precedent. The Republicans have been trying to put Hillary in jail for the last 40 years. They have continuously failed, but that has never stopped them. Trump is a terribly vindictive man who has intimidated and threatened all around him his entire life. It's time to return the favor. Doing so would be in line with a strict textualist reading of the Constitution. It's called upholding the law.
865
@Bruce Rozenblit
I very much wish you are correct. But I am confident that your view is a fantasy.
Presidents are already above the law. Ford's prophylactic pardon firmly established a precedent. The public did not even object when Ford issued it. The failure to prosecute Clinton for perjury is more evidence that presidents had become above the law.
The public actually thinks it is OK for presidents to be above the law. That is the saddest aspect of the whole issue.
41
@Bruce Rozenblit
you have more faith in your fellow citizens than i do.
the fact he was elected at all, was a stain on the country.
he had a long, documented history of being a lying crook.
didn't matter.
nor did it that all he did was insult his republican opposition while running for president.
and it worked.
doesn't say much for the 'character' of, say, cruz or rubio or graham that they've embraced him now.
130
@Bruce Rozenblit I agree, to an extent. But It's not the "democrats" that have been trying to put Trump in jail, it's his own Department of Justice. A whole lot of folks seem to forget or discount the fact that Trump (Individual #1) is named in the indictment that sent Michael Cohen to federal prison. Should he lose in November, the SDNY will move to charge him in that matter, and DOJ will pursue the blatant Obstruction of Justice charges that are outlined in Mueller report.
83
The man has no doubt broken many laws, before and during his presidency and will no doubt break more going forward. But here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter as he will likely get re-elected while the Democrats are left licking their wounds and lamenting how unfair the world is. What an utter mess - like watching a slow motion train wreck knowing someone just needed to change direction and take another track.
97
Whether Trump wins or not, the key to our future is electing a blue house and a blue senate. When that happens, watch how fast the spineless GOP (deprived of power and influence) will suddenly wake up from what they will call a “nightmare” and try to reclaim their reputation. Well, America, don’t let them do that. Never forget.
41
@DVAB I couldn't agree more with everything you say except for the modifier "likely" regarding Mr Trump's re-election.
He has more than $2 billion in is his campaign war chest. Ads will relentlessly pitch to gullible voters in MI, MN, NC, OH, PA & WI that he was "totally exonerated" during not one but two Democrat-led investigations. Other ads will mirror Trump's SOTU address, telling the soft-headed that he saved them from the threat of insurance denial due to per-existing while turning around the horrible Obama economy.
Dems would be well-served to forget about the White House and concentrate on taking back the Senate. A Democratic Congress is the only way America will be able to control a second-term Trump.
4
@VIETNAM VET They don’t worry about their reputation. Once out of power they go into Whine and accuse and block mode.
2
If Trump didn't technically break the law, he did break his oath to defend that United States, and now the Senate has broken the Constitution.
The patriots who founded this country, including my ancestors, would be appalled!
6
This seems to be another evidence that an uncanny self censure had a strong grip on the Democrats during the impeachment trial - another one being to hesitate to ask judge Roberts to decide on the witness question.
Criminals usually don’t discuss their intent in latin language so there’s no surprise that the president didn’t say „quid pro quo“. But even he went full latin when asking Zelensky for „reciprocity“ (read the transcript) which my education taught me translates to a bold „quid pro quo“. It’s literally there!
6
So if trump broke the law, what are his lawyers guilty of? What are the Senate republicans guilty of? Why would anyone vote for trump? Did you not listen to his debates in 2016? Did you not listen to him attempt to speak in sentences? Do you really want a country where some citizens are not given full rights because their lifestyles offend some religion’s sensibilities? I am glad you see the light on trump, but I only wish you and so many others had seen it sooner.
1
@MLE53 Google FFRF. You'll be glad you did!
Trump has sullied the office in so many ways some of which are captured by the author. He has trampled on the Constitution to be sure and even mocked our national anthem during the Super Bowl by dancing around as it was being sung. At least his wife and son put their hands over their chests and stood still. The only thing is that both were covering their chests with their left hands over their right sides and not presumably over their hearts. That’s a metaphor for this administration.
7
Senators like Lamar Alexander essentially admit that Trump abused his power in order to swing the upcoming election in his favor, (and in doing so likely broke the law as explained here) but they cynically claim that the remedy is to let voters decide in the upcoming election. It really makes one's head spin.
522
@Laura Yes! They're telling us to wait for an election which is already under suspicion. That's just plain silly.
33
@Laura ,
The GOP can't be trusted. When the voters decided to give President Obama a second term, thus giving him their confidence in choosing Merrick Garland for SCOTUS, what did Mitch McConnell do? They don't play fair because they are all corrupt to the core.
40
@Laura
It's worse than that: they are preventing voters from getting documented proof of Trump's interference in the 2020 election.
How can they pretend they are letting "the voters decide" when they won't let the voters have the full information?
26
Interesting, but at this point I'm afraid nothing more than that. The GOP has lost its spine and its soul. They like winning more than anything else and are as sure as Trump is (about himself) that complete GOP control of the government, indeed of the country, is in the national interest. Democrats are seen as dispensable people whose views don't matter and who should just go away.
Trump's popularity has recently RISEN to 49%, which is deeply troubling, to say the least. I would like to assume that many of his supporters are decent people who misguidedly support him because of this or that issue (abortion, immigration, his "toughness" etc.), but dislike his cruelty, nastiness, racism etc. That view is getting harder and harder for me to sustain as I watch thousands of those red hat wearers laugh at his cruelty and racism. I begin to think that more of them than I imagined are indeed cut from the same cloth as is their "chosen one."
399
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Anne-Marie,
Perhaps mercifully, I have never thought that any of his supporters are decent people.
When mocking a disabled man gets a laugh and more support, well that was it right there, correct?
How that wasn't the end of it is a national disgrace.
The gop has desired for the Democrats to just go away for quite sometime now. Using any tactic from outright vote theft to suppression, gerrymander and maybe just close down the polling place. Then there is the secret proprietary machine software courtesy of the gop!
Now the chosen one is Jesus to them, while they all revel in cruelty and lies, but yes, that is what they really want.
63
@Anne-Marie Hislop By the time Mr. Trump was elected, there was plenty of information about him available to everyone around the world. Anyone who took their responsibility as an American citizen seriously could be expected to have known what sort of man he is and was.
His election was a sign of what has become of the American people. It is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is the electorate.
16
@Anne-Marie Hislop Take heart - FiveThirtyEight has Trump at 43.1 approval and 52.1 disapproval. Nate Silver is a number cruncher and I'd trust him before this Gallup poll. Gallop skews republican.
13
The “democrats in the House brought a weak case, or didn’t work hard enough to get witnesses” argument is an admission of getting away with it on a technicality. Revered brands like Harvard, US Senate, or concepts like Democracy, Justice and Decency all diminished. The immense, hidden costs to the investment in national civility is breathtaking.
3
Mr. Harmon's well-reasoned essay provides a stark counterpoint to the weak defense of the President's actions published by Senator Portman in the same issue of the Times.
27
We know....as does the entire Senate. There is only one reason why they voted against witnesses and documents...to hide Trump's crime and guilt.
It's clear the GOP will campaign on keeping Medicare, SS and Medicaid...but intend to cut them because of their own massive deficit tax cut....after election.
They will campaign on health care, but wish to end the ACA....but only after election.
The GOP clearly intends to campaign on a false platform then use a victory as a mandate to do the opposite.
Legislation for the public good? All the Senate has to do is look at the bills passed in the House, a hundred or so.
The greatest deliberative body is now nothing but a hoax that prides itself on its very LACK of deliberation.
63
We know. The world knows.
The Republicans know. They just choose to deny it, ignore it or brush it aside.
But it is good to have a Trump voting, West Point graduated former federal prosecutor spell it out in pure legal terms.
64
I am a non-partisan who is not a Trump-hater. But I wanted him to be removed from office due to his financial corruption to benefit himself and his family.
No president has ever been prosecuted for a crime committed during his presidency (of course, if there were to be a prosecution would have to be delayed until his presidency ended). I think it would have been greatly beneficial to the American public if Nixon had been prosecuted, but Ford's prophylactic pardon prevented federal prosecution. I think is would have been greatly beneficial to the American public if Clinton would have been prosecuted for perjury. The fact that he was not practically invites future presidents to lie to us.
The American public has been ill-served by the lack of prosecutions. Doing so would make it crystal clear to all future presidents that they are not above the law, which would heavily influence their behavior in office. The exact opposite message was sent by Ford's pardon of Nixon, and every president since has received that message loud and clear. Ford's pardon sent that message in triple strength because it was a prophylactic pardon, issued before any criminal conviction. Indeed, it was issued before any criminal charges were even filed.
The saddest aspect of presidents now being above the law is that most of the public thinks that is OK. Unfortunately, I doubt there would ever be public desire to prosecute a president.
20
Of course you're right. What worries me now is how far he will go in the next 8 months.
28
Americans who are shocked at the GOPs enabling of Trump, despite his lawlessness, really would benefit from reviewing the history of the overthrow of Reconstruction in the South. Then, whites who were worried about the ascendancy of ex slaves, especially in government, resorted to extreme voter suppression, to restore white supremacy. Buttressed through Jim Crow laws, backed up by violence and conservative courts, the backlash lasted 100 years.
Today, much of Trumps appeal is to people most concerned about the so called browning of America, who perceive that minorities are again gaining at the expense of whites. Obama’s election realized their fears. Trump assured them that Obama was illegitimate, they narrowly installed him via the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and now the narrow GOP majority in the Senate is poised to keep him in power after refusing to hear the most damaging evidence against him. Like white southerners of yesteryear, they are not concerned about maintaining democracy. They are desperate to ensure that the “right people” populate the courts.
How long this latest reversal in America’s historic quest toward a more perfect union, with freedom and justice for all, lasts depends on how many people understand the challenge Trumpism represents, and whether or not they unite politically to end it.
120
If the impeachment saga has taught us anything, and it probably hasn’t, there isn’t a crime Trump could commit that would lead to his removal through act of government or voter disapproval. Many Americans and the entire Republican Party like the direction of the nation so... what’s the problem? Trump understands people won’t go as far as he is willing to go while others feel there are limits to punishment.
6
You wanted judges who would say what the law is, not make it. With a 220 year old Constitution, laws written more and more to leave giant grants of power to agency interpretation, isn’t that a bit of- fantasy?
I would really like to read a series of articles, from legal practitioners, scholars, writers, on a rewrite of our Constitution; updates, rethinking, inclusion of some case law rulings, exclusion of others. We must begin this process. I think an oath to ‘defend’ the Constitution, demands it.
A companion article discusses the National Archives, clear violations of the Government Records Act- yet nothing is done. Why? As in other instances, it might take years in our judicial system.
Thoughts on adding, changing, jurisdiction definitions, processes, should also be up for discussion. “Justice delayed....” - so quaint, slides so easily from the lips....and nothing is done. As a fallen-away Republican, give us some solutions, ideas, possibilities. It would be refreshing.
14
@Jo Williams And that rewrite needs to focus on the Senate. The original vision - each constituent state regardless of size had equal representation - was a lofty ideal partially designed to ensure that the bigger states would not bully their little brothers. Now of course the little states have used their representational advantages to turn that notion on its head. When the Senate votes 51-49 to 'acquit' this president can we see a separate count which tells us the population numbers these votes represent? I suspect that the population-weighted vote would be something like 60-40 or better in favor of a guilty verdict.
3
This administration, this Impeachment process, has highlighted in bright red ink so many areas needing updates, rethinking. A Constitutional Convention, preceded by a few years of public, media discussions, is necessary. It is frightening, for sure. But what is beginning to happen - is even more so. Your point is one of so many that needs airing, discussion, debate.
1
Mr. Harmon, where in the U.S. Constitution do you believe it is written that former Vice Presidents, who happen to be running for a political office at a subsequent time, are immune from "investigations" requested by the sitting U.S. President by a foreign government, for conduct which may have occurred on foreign soil, and hence within the investigatory jurisdiction of that foreign government?
I'll wait.
6
@hula hoop This is one of the best examples of a "Straw Man Argument" I have heard in a long time. Classic!
Definition: "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
8
As has been reported many times, Trump did not necessarily want actual investigations. He was insisting on the announcement of such an investigation to release the money, not the follow through. If President Zelensky would have said, “We’ll investigate, but won’t announce anything until the investigation is completed in two years,” would Trump have released the money (sans any whistleblower report)? I sincerely doubt it. The announcement was what he wanted because it would have a negative effect on Biden, without making Trump look bad by announcing an investigation himself. If he had announced one, anyone not in his thrall would have said it was merely for political benefit in the 2020 elections. The theories behind the investigation had been debunked multiple times.
Why did he wait until Biden declared his candidacy before asking for the investigation? It has come out in all the hubbub that he was not behind the supporting of the Ukraine in their fight against Russian invasions prior to Biden’s announcement. And those tasked with determining if corruption was under control in Ukraine had already reported that President Zelensky was effectively fighting corruption before his phone call. If a noted crime boss had been caught doing the same sort of thing, RICO and other statutes would have been invoked to ensure prosecution of the crime boss.
4
@ Glen Thomas @hula hoop has not presented a straw man argument. Donald Trump did, in fact, present a quid quo pro to the Ukrainian president directly relating to Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in that country. Something was fishy in Denmark. And we’ll never know.
2
In addition to you and Donald Trump, 100 senators also took an oath to defend the Constitution. Sadly, the 53 Republicans had their fingers crossed behind their backs.
I fully agree with the arguments Mr. Harmon makes, but while they would likely be effective in a court of law before a jury of ordinary citizens looking at the facts of the case, that is not what we have in the Senate proceedings today. Those 53 Republican Senators also swore to do impartial justice, but they had already decided to acquit Trump before the House managers opened their mouths. The problem is the bad faith and immoral behavior inhabiting the right side of the chamber.
41
@Ockham9 The senators may have decided prior to the trial, but the House did the same. Two wrongs, a politicized impeachment, and a trial do not make it right. The Democrats started the impeachment talk the day he was elected and ran the 2018 elections that way. Let the people decide in November.
2
@NYC Bear Why do you think the framers of the Constitution inserted a method for impeaching presidents if, as you say, the people should decide guilt or innocence via election during the next presidential election cycle? My recall of American history evidences a strong and vigorous justification for the Congress of the United States, supposedly independent of the executive and judicial branches, to do their job, not avoid their duty to the citizens by failing to allow evidence to be admitted and reviewed after one half of their body did do their duty, whether you believe rightly or wrongly.
There is absolutely no way to justify Republicans' failure to do their constitutional duty. The scenario we are left with is exactly, in my view, what our constitutional framers feared might happen because they, too, lived under the thumb of a despot.
9
@NYC Bear
There have been reasons why Trump should be impeached almost from the day he took office. Mueller specifically said he could NOT clear Trump of conspiracy but neither could he convict. He further stated 10 incidents of obstruction of justice that, but for the stricture against indicting a sitting president, would have been actionable.
Pelosi tried to ward off impeachment, but, really, bribing a foreign government to cheat in the coming election......how can you ignore this? The Constitution prescribes impeachment for this very sort of behavior.
6
I think that "breaking the law" does not ring all that loud when the electorate looks at the history of presidential power. Lyndon Johnson comes to mind as a man who got mega rich by having his hand in every governmental cookie jar. Clinton was not found guilty by the senate when his crime was lying under oath....clearly a breaking of the law. Trump's crime seems, to the general public, more about breaking the rules than breaking the law.
5
@bellicose I don't quarrel with your characterization of LBJ - anyone who read Caro's brilliant (and still incomplete) biography has to agree. And we Democrats who flocked to Clinton's defense ("It's private sexual activity and nothing to do with a failed real estate speculation") should have known that it would come back to bite us. Clinton's personal behavior was appalling and at the very least made him vulnerable to those might have used the information for their own ends. If we had tossed hm out then how different history might have been. Al Gore might have served as President February 1999 through 2008; we might have been spared the illegitimate Iraq War; and we might be retreating from climate disaster.
Let's turn this around for a bit, once Mr. Biden announced he was running for President, no current elected official from either party could question his Ukraine activities since it would be a quid pro quo that elected official would be seeking an advantage over Mr. Biden.
3
@NYC Bear. Apples and oranges. “Announced he is running for office” is not the same as President of the United States. Digging up dirt on an opponent, totally fine. And his PACs and Fox News could have done that on their own. The NYT would have done it. If there was anything to find, they would have. Or the government could have investigated. This is not the government conducting an investigation. This is using the power of the office to withhold congressionally mandated aid to a foreign government in order to cast doubt on and weaken the leading opponent, for personal gain only. And what innocent person, ever, has sought to prevent evidence from coming to light.
21
@NYC Bear
There are processes for investigating an American official with foreign help. As Giuliani said: he did this for Trump's private good only. And using taxpayer money to cheat in an election with foreign help is bribery.
The very fact that Trump can offer not a single witness or document to show that he was working for the nation, not his own gain, says it all.
7
@NYC Bear I have no problem with anyone querying H BIden's activities in Ukraine. If they have evidence of foreign wrongdoing by a US citizen they should submit that evidence to the FBI for investigation. That's what they do. There's a clue in the name.
1
Yes, we understand that DJT is, by nature, an authoritarian who has always considered himself above the law. He is a consummate con artist who has captured the hearts and minds of Republican voters by identifying and indulging their gripes and fears.
The Republican senators find themselves unable to avoid becoming accessories to this crime against the Constitution because DJT owns the voters they depend on to get re-elected. The senators appear to be making the calculation that their new unbridled power will allow them to permanently transform America into a one party authoritarian system.
So far millions of Americans seem to be just fine with that. By the time a significant majority of Americans see the error of their ways, they will find themselves stripped of electoral or judicial recourse. We have already been told to "get used to it". We are facing the sad end to our noble experiment in Democracy.
46
The House Democrats had ample time to provide all the sworn testimony to prove this allegation. Including taking the Executive Branch to court to force testimony. Your column rests on no new information, or rather the same information that has been judged as deficient. Sorry, but it is time to move on.
4
@CJS
The Democrats proved their case. The jury was not impartial. It is never time to move on from a miscarriage of justice, and we never will. Trump will always be guilty. Sorry, but get used to it.
36
@CJS
What is clear is that even if the House had secured witnesses and documents, the GOP Senate would refuse to vote Trump guilty....even if he gunned down an innocent on 5th Ave.
They treat their oaths as jokes and vote out of self interest and profit.....fittingly for the the corrupt and criminal head of their party.
7
I am not a lawyer. But I know what bribery is, and damage to our national security involving a foreign country and needed ally is a crime to me. What the president did was bribery, and the aid was held up for months, until the scheme was exposed. But wait. The president said that his actions were OK because it is in the best interest of the country if he is re-elected. And that makes it OK. The Republican senators have now damaged the balance of power defined in the Constitution maybe irreparably. I worry for the future of our country.
126
Unimpressive. The question is whether or not Trump wanted to investigate wrongdoing which took place under Biden’s watch. Whether or not he wanted an understanding of the millions paid out to Hunter that seemed to correlate with his father’s actions as Vice President.
Whenever you hear the opposition describe the event they say it was an attempt to influence the 2020 election. But whenever you read the actual words, it was clearly an attempt to understand the events of 2014 through 2016.
The President is obsessed with that time frame in America’s history. As he should be. The Democrats have spun it forward to the current campaign and they never proved their case. Period.
He did nothing wrong and the Democrats have continued to allow their rage to control them. Without their hatred, would they have brought the case? I suggest, the answer is no.
3
@Arthur Taylor
It was all political from the get-go. Anyone with eyes could see that the Democrats were blinded by rage from the moment Trump was elected.
3
@Arthur Taylor then is it ok for future democratic administrations to behave this way? I expect that if they ever allow a democrat to be elected to the presidency, the republicans will return to their previous scandal mongering strategies that we saw when Clinton and Obama had the nerve to represent the majority of the country.
Trump's enablers have lowered the bar considerably. Watch it go up again if we elect someone who is not "real American" enough.
31
@Arthur Taylor Please explain why the President's only "corruption" concern was one that would damage a major political appointment. And, gosh, the President isn't bothered at all by the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election. He isn't trying to understand events of 2016, he is trying to obscure what all our intelligence services have agreed about interference in our election. The obvious fact is that nothing matters to this President unless it affects his personal welfare.
30
It's difficult to see the bribe Mr. Harmon sees.
The financial aid for Ukraine was aid Congress directed Mr. Trump to pay. Mr. Trump's role was the executive role of actually delivering what Congress ordered to be given. And so
he did.
So, where is Trump's bribe?
Does former prosecutor Harmon object to the President's prior diligence focused on Ukraine's progress on a previously announced criminal investigation into a credible claim that Ukrainian actors (Burisma) had corrupted the VP of the United States by lavishing money, perks and position on his son? Isn't that what the President is supposed to do if he takes his oath of office seriously?
Would Mr. Harmon prefer that President Trump had blindly passed along the money in disregard of this matter, or to encourage Ukraine to cover up the possible bribery of a US VP?
3
@Schwabcycler Do put these events on a timeline with these important milestones incorporated: (1) the prospect of Joe Biden as the most likely and strongest presidential opponent, (2) expecting a politically targeted investigation, the first of any that he advocated until a pending election, and (3) the prospect of being caught doing so.
3
He released the aid only once the Whistleblower complaint became public. If he was truly interested in Ukraine corruption he could have had the DOJ investigate in 2017 when he took office. He didn’t. Rather aid flowed freely in ‘17 and ‘18. It was only in 2019 when Biden announced that he pretended to care about Ukrainian corruption and even then he didn’t ask his own appointed DOJ but rather a foreign government dependent on the US for critical aid. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
6
@Schwabcycler
There are plenty of governmental procedures if Trump truly was concerned about Ukraine corruption and Biden's son. Trump's own actions follow Giuliani's statement that they both acted for only Trump's private gain.
If there were one witness, one document that showed Trump was innocent of bribery....attempted or successful.....he would have bragged about it --constantly, just as he did about his "perfect" call.
Now he is decrying socialism in medicine (despite the fact that socialistic Medicare and SS are very successful US programs).....to go after Bernie, who's now risen in the polls. (Soon he'll go after gay men? Buttiedge, he already denigrates any women running.)
3
The Times publishes opposing opinions is clear in having your article appear with
Rob Portman, a senator from OHio is voting to acquit Trump. What is. keeping republican senators from thinking as you and so many others do. Why do they focus on procedure and not overwhelming evidence. Can't they see that losing our state department, they people that told the truth at the House investigations is destroying the State Department and are all Trumps picks for cabinet posts EPA, Housing, Interior destroying all those departments and truly dedicated goveernment employees. Good. luck in convincing other Republicans to remove Trump at he ballot boxes in Nov
26
My guess is that if Republicans voted to remove Trump, they’d be sinking their own ship in November. I don’t think this is about saving Trump so much as it is about self preservation.
109
This is a balanced and knowledgeable article. There are Republicans, there are Democrats, and above all is the Constitution and the law.
In today's NYT, Senator Portman calls on moving on and addressing consensus issues. A majority of Americans want to get rid of foreign influence in elections and make our election process secure from hackers or fraud. Is this a consensus issue the GOP Senate will deal with?
139
@Monica C
Funny. Consensus issues?
--Over 70% of the US wanted witnesses and documents
--the majority of us want rules for guns that are sane
--the majority of us want healthcare that every other country has....for all without bankrupting us
--the great majority of us want Citizens United repealed
--the wealthy to pay their share of taxes
......consensus issues only when they support GOP ideas.
23
@Monica C "Is this a consensus issue the GOP Senate will deal with?"
Clearly not, since the House has already passed bills addressing election fraud that may not ever even get a hearing in Mitch McConnell's Senate, much less a vote.
20
@Susan
Too bad a majority is not willing to pay the taxes needed to support universal healthcare, ie, a 25% VAT.
3
The Republican grant of an unearned free pass to President Trump and to future presidents means investigations must not end and more witnesses must volunteer testimony or be issued subpoenas. How much of those "perfect" phone calls and other communications have not been revealed? Before voting in November, the nation needs and deserves a more full account of Trump Administration misdeeds. There's time for the House (and the Senate, if it would) to "do the right thing."
55
We all know that the President broke the law except for all who are sure he did not. Both groups will swear that the evidence supports their position.
When evidence is what you want to believe and not what actually happened; or to be a little bit nicer about it, when your alternative facts really mean that interpretation means more than empirical reality, you can claim anything.
The GOP's alternative interpretation is that "There's nothing to see here, move along, move along." As a result, they can say with dignity and genuine outrage, that accusing the President of anything, regardless of the underlying empirical or factual evidence, was purely political.
38
@Cathy That's not true. Republicans are not swearing that the evidence supports their assertion that Trump committed no crime. They are BURYING the evidence, because they know that it would prove him guilty. Why do you think the government is destroying VAST amounts of records in violation of federal law? Why do you think they prevented any witnesses from being heard in the trial?
EVERYONE knows the evidence will show Trump to be guilty. Republicans are just choosing not to acknowledge it because they have no integrity, conscience, or patriotism.
267
@Samuel
This was not a trial. McConnell admitted that he is/was working with Trump's defense team. No should should buy GOP senators baseless argument that what he did was wrong but not impeachable. How can McConnell held a trial and refusing to produce a singe witness or document.
60
I haven't been able to figure out why bribery wasn't one of the explicit charges made in the impeachment. It's impossible to claim it's not impeachable, it's shown by the evidence, and it's easy for the public to understand.
162
I imagine history will remember this as a historic misstep. What went on with Tribe that weekend? This article explains why it should have been bribery, but doesn’t really get at why it wasn’t.
5
@John Schwartz, It wasn't included because the Democrats had no case.
@John Schwartz
Because there wasn't any?
So we all know the president broke the law. Thank you for clearly pointing that out. The problem is that there are a lot of people who do not care that he broke the law. I for the life of me do not understand what people see in trump. What I see is a dead beet who has a ton of money because he plays the system. Other than voting him out what else can be done if there are so many people who just do not care that he broke the law. The law can only be enforced if people decide to enforce it and what we have is a congress that loves braking the law. So register to vote and then make sure you do vote.
245
@oscar jr : I think you meant to say "deadbeat", but I really like "dead beet" -- a highly evocative expression!
1
@oscar jr
I applaud your typo 'dead beet'. I know what you intended, but the image is absolutely delicious. In an appalling sort of way.
2
Members of the Senate are likewise under oath to uphold the Constitution, yet here we are. Trump’s election and presidency has caused a large erosion of trust in America’s government and elections. When some of these Senators declare they are voting for acquittal in order to allow voters to decide, but these same Senators do nothing to protect the integrity of our elections, we are left wondering exactly how far into the muck our country will slide.
323
@Louise Cavanaugh
Oath? What is that?
It's just an uncomfortable word for Republicans.
Raise your hand and take an oath? No matter.
Solemnly sign a piece of paper. Just a piece of paper.
They knew how they were going to vote.
Just a public act with no meaning behind it. No honesty or decency.
8
@Louise Cavanaugh
"“If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy” - David Frum.
That's where we are. This is the future. Democracy has been suspended.
The Democrats do not have the spine to fight in this realm. The high road will only bring defeat against an enemy that has rejected the rules.
Can We the People overcome a dictator and his fawning minions at a rigged ballot box? And if we can't, will we take to the streets as they do in other countries and demand democracy?
I doubt it.
12
@Louise Cavanaugh
I wonder what those same Senators who want to "let the voters decide" (a faux check and balance NOT spelled out in the Constitution) would say if this were trump's 2nd term.
What then?
More excuses, evasions and fabrication.
6
Sir, you would seem familiar with repeat offenders and evidence of prior conduct.
The year is young for encore performances.
63
Great work continuing the lay the foundation for more character evidence.
3
Mr. Harmon makes a convincing case that Trump committed bribery.
But the problem is not making a convincing case against Trump. The arguments made by the Democrats have already been beyond convincing.
"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
Republicans have no alternative but to acquit. What would they do if the did remove Trump in the impeachment trial? Run Mike Pence for President in November? Nobody would vote for him. Try to find another candidate? It's too late for that.
So they would lose the general election for President and - since many people vote the same party for president, house and senate - they would lose a large number of congressional seats. Even if they removed Trump and somehow kept him from tweeting, many Republican senators would still lose their jobs if they removed Trump.
75
@S
Agree - the Republicans are in it all the way. There is no way to turn back on their Faustian deal. They knew in 2015 that Trump was corrupt and unfit, but feared a third-party run so much that they meekly let him take over the party. Since then, he has ruthlessly purged all traces of opposition from the GOP, and equally ruthlessly has demonized the opposition. I've been voting since Reagan, and I never thought I would see the United States in a situation like this. There was appalling partisanship in the Newt Gingrich GOP of the 1990s and in the Tea Party reaction to Obama, but now we are seeing the Republicans reject the very rule of law. I'm stunned.
465
@David Bruce How are you stunned? This is exactly in keeping with conservative behavior. They've ALWAYS been hypocrites who have no genuine values beyond greed and controling other peoples' lives.
That's the part I don't get; the idea that ANYONE could be shocked by this behavior, after watching Republicans behave since 1965.
12
@S
And yet..... this is the absolute best argument for voting straight blue across the board. Do we want Congressmen who vote their own good over ours and our nations?
What an amazing one question test.....and the GOP fails. Maybe the Dems would too, but the bills passed in the House ARE for our national good.....while the Senate under McConnell and GOP leadership pride themselves on NOT legislating, NOT deliberating, NOT anything but rubber-stamping a man the know is corrupt, dishonest and unfit.
11