Doesn\u2019t Trump realize that the reason his allies are whining about process is because they have no defense to offer on substance? Maybe not. Maybe Trump is so delusional he actually believes that there\u2019s some substantive defense of extorting a foreign country to smear a political rival.<\/p>\n
Luckily for him, the rest of the Republican Party is smarter. They\u2019ll stick to carping about the unfairness of the hearings and, in a pinch, claiming that Trump\u2019s extortion of Ukraine is just a minor slap-on-the-wrist kind of thing, certainly nowhere near an impeachable offense.<\/p>\n
How long will this work? If the modern Republican Party is as shameless as I think it is, forever. We\u2019ll see.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A trifle lugubrious. Understanding the motivations of the Republican Party better might lead to an explanation for their behavior, though.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Andrew McCarthy of National Review<\/strong><\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n
The \u201cno quid pro quo\u201d claim is misguided because it is largely irrelevant to an impeachment inquiry. As explained in part one, we are not here talking about a criminal court prosecution in which a prosecutor must prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If a majority of the Democratic-controlled House was satisfied (or at least said they were satisfied) that an egregious abuse of power occurred, they could vote an article of impeachment even if a corrupt quid pro quo could not be proved to criminal-law specifications.<\/p>\n
More important, the president\u2019s camp should stick with and relentlessly argue his best point: The president\u2019s actions in conducting Ukrainian relations do not establish an impeachable offense under the circumstances. Let\u2019s consider the relevant issues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
McCarthy has the following points: “No harm, no foul” (laughably unethical), the Democrats didn’t give Ukraine any aid (so utterly irrelevant), “Assistance to U.S. investigations”, which frantically dances around the credible allegation that this is all about asking a foreign power to take actions damaging a political rival, “Investigating Vice President Biden\u2019s influence over Ukraine,” for which there is no evidence of corruption, but may be the best of the bunch, “Investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma corruption,” which McCarthy admits is a problematic defense, and “The Shadow State Department,” in which he attempts to justify Rudy Guiliani’s interference with United States’ relations with Ukraine.<\/p>\n
McCarthy has certainly mastered the art of writing authoritatively, but it seems every time I read him, he’s writing on a narrow subject beyond my expertise, or it’s impossible to take him seriously due to spinning.\u00a0And I’m troubled that he doesn’t see the cumulative misdeeds of Trump as a more than adequate reason to throw Trump under the bus.<\/p>\n
Andrew Sullivan<\/a>:<\/p>\n
\n… close to 50 percent<\/a>\u00a0or so of the country supports impeachment and\/or removal \u2014 far higher than previous polling for Nixon (until the summer of 1974<\/a>, when he quit) or Clinton (ever<\/a>). And the particular nature of the Trump offense \u2014 a secret attempt to pressure a foreign government to influence U.S. elections on the president\u2019s behalf \u2014 is smack-dab in the center of the high-crime category the Founders were obsessed with. I\u2019ve not been an impeachment fan, even as I have regarded the president as mentally ill and characteristically tyrannical from the get-go. I was long unconvinced by the Russia \u201ccollusion\/conspiracy\u201d claims, saw impeachment as\u00a0inapplicable in most cases<\/a>\u00a0of executive wrongdoing, and only\u00a0switched sides<\/a>\u00a0this year when evidence of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report became undeniable. But the Ukraine matter? If you were to look up an impeachable offense in a metaphorical dictionary, you\u2019d see Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas as illustrations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I think Sullivan sees the situation clearly, but then he’s never been a Trump or GOP<\/strong><\/em> fan.<\/p>\n
Greg Fallis’ post<\/a> title is all you need to know:<\/p>\n
\nbuy me some peanuts & impeach the motherfucker already<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
But Fallis almost feels sorry for Trump:<\/p>\n
Last night he attended game five of the World Series. He\u2019d spent most of the day being celebrated and celebrating himself for having given the order for a Delta Force team to kill or capture Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. Clearly, he expected that celebration to continue at the ballpark.<\/p>\n
It didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Some fans displayed a large banner reading \u201cImpeach Trump\u201d. A group of veterans behind home plate held up signs stating \u201cVeterans for Impeachment.\u201d When the park introduced some members of the military, the crowd began to cheer \u2014 but when the introduction included Comrade Trump, the cheering immediately turned to boos. Loud boos, measured at around 100 decibels. That\u2019s just slightly less loud than a chainsaw. And if that wasn\u2019t enough, a large segment of the crowd began chanting \u201cLock him up! Lock him up!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Why would Trump, knowing, if disbelieving, polls showing his low approval ratings, think he would be universally applauded? Because he’s transactional<\/em>. His latest act was a great achievement, and so now everyone should love him,<\/em> that’s the transactional way.<\/p>\n
Well, sorry. We all have memories. One good act – almost befouled by the pullout from Syria, reportedly – doesn’t make up for everything else.<\/p>\n
Enough for now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
My feelings on impeachment are, I trust, apparent – I’m for it. Simply on the volume of lies, if nothing else. How about others? Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare: President Trump\u2019s substantive defense against the ongoing impeachment inquiry has crumbled entirely\u2014not just eroded or weakened, but been flattened like a sandcastle \u2026 Continue reading