TL;DR: going toe-to-toe between conservatives and liberals about why the impeachment process happened, if it should have happened, etc. often comes down to a belief about what trump did, why he did it, (if he even did it) and if he did, was it even wrong, or illegal, or significant enough to warrant an impeachment at all. in the end, you just spin in the mud. in this article. i take a slightly different approach and isolate out and discuss as impeachable only those actions that are undisputed facts, often recorded on video, and often enough admitted by trump himself, often proudly. in the end, yeah, his offenses fell squarely into those the founders considered major enough to warrant impeachment.
yeah, we get it. there's a lot of stuff like, he did this, he didn't do that, you can't prove this, even the "other side" did that too, or even worse...
whatever.
like it or not, the process worked as designed, and the president was acquitted.
no use going toe to toe, trading punches, making points that are assumptions or opinions. it isn't going to resolve anything, and only results in shouting past each other.
so let's try something different.
let's sum things up by making a few points that are undisputed by either side, shall we?
undisputed point #1: trump asked russia to hack hillary to find missing emails, etc
this is not disputed. it's in fact video recorded. he repeats it often, and seems to be quite proud about it, defiant even.
giving foreign interests any influence or control of our internal political processes is one of the primary reasons why the impeachment clause exists to begin with. the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the person elected to the office which *presides* over how our government runs is fully defending it from foreign powers.
therefore, a fundamental flaw. it almost falls under the category of "you had one job".
trump on the other hand, went the other way with it. i'm thinking his position might be, why have power if you can't use it to help himself?
if you've got a problem with the steele dossier, then you have to have a problem with this too.
undisputed point #2: at best, trump ‘incentivized’ ukraine to dig into biden
forget the words "pressured", "extorted", or "bribed". ukraine wants and needs to stay on the good side of america, represented in this case by the chief executive, trump.
now that we're beyond whether or not a connection between aid and dirt can be proven, since the impeachment is over, now we're free to take a look at what happened, why and when; what was offered, why and when; what was expected, why and when; and what was ultimately done, why, and when.
let's say you need something from the president, that he has the discretion to give, and you talk on the phone with him about that stuff you need, that he has the discretion to hold up, if he wants to. he offers the help you want, then follows up that point with "but i need a favor though".
if you say yes, you figured that increases the chances he'll help you, nor or in the future.
if you say no, you figure that could risk the chances that he'll help you.
that's how favors work. zelensky may not have been "pressured", but the president of the united states at best incentivized a foreign leader to investigate a case, that trump believes shows strong indicators of corruption.
c'mon...
if you ask fox news, they were on both sides of the fence:
a. for some, there was no way trump linked aid to fighting corruption.
b. for some, trump had every right to protect taxpayer money by linking aid to fighting corruption.
the fact that fox news isn't even on the same page, says a lot.
if biden wasn't a presidential candidate, that call never happens and that favor never asked for. can that be proven? apparently not. but... c'mon.
but check this out...
trump was asked weeks later if he ever discussed corruption with a foreign leader that did not involve someone running for president against him, and he could not answer that. he said he'd have to check. we're waiting.
undisputed point #3: trump asked china to do BOTH
he has asked china to hack political opponents, and he has tried guilting china ("if they would do the right thing") into investigating corruption committed by the bidens.
and there's no debating over quid pro quo here. trump came right out and asked china to investigate. sorry magas, it's a fact.
here's the thing though...
trump doesn't just do stupid things. it's that when he gets caught, he often doubles down, seemingly as a message to say, it wasn't wrong then, and it's still not wrong now. it's almost as if he figures that if he doesn't double down, that's sort of an admission that what he did the first time was wrong. and for him, unwavering confidence is so much more important that doing the right thing.
undisputed point #4: trump is completely ok with accepting campaign assistance from foreign sources
he admitted it on national tv. says he wouldn't have a problem with it, he'd listen to it, he wouldn't contact the fbi. he said "it's called oppo research", even when it's coming from a foreign government looking to earn some favors and influence. when trump was told that the fbi director claims that it would be illegal to not report it, trump's reply "that's not how the world works". then later caved and said "ok maybe i'd call the fbi, but i'd still listen to it; there's no harm in listening".
according to the federalist papers, one of the primary reasons for the impeachment clause was to provide congress with a mechanism for performing overwatch on the executive branch, as a check and balance, and primarily to ensure that the president is defending the nation from foreign influence in the areas of authority covered by his office.
nope. trump is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. so much for conservatives loving those who "enforce the constitution as written".
undisputed point #5: trump's excuse that quid pro quo is used by presidents all the time
he's right. they do. quid pro quo (ie, negotiation, trade) is, in itself, not wrong. in fact, it's hard to get anything done without it. it is a valid and powerful tool, even in foreign policy.
but here's the thing. it depends completely on what's being traded and why.
shooting someone is, in itself, not wrong. it depends on if the person you shot broke into your house, threatening the lives of your family, or if the person you shot is a random innocent person in a shopping mall. it's not about shooting, per se. it's about who's being shot by whom, and why.
let's talk about trade. trump is great at trade. and he's doing his best making trade deals for the country, and for 50 years he's done a good job making trades for his businesses. he even wrote (allegedly) a book called The Art of the Deal. bestseller. well known for a few decades now.
we hired a businessman to inject some business smarts into government. business succeeds when it maximizes value for minimum cost. government usually isn't incentivized to work that way. so ok, elect a businessman president, and let's see how this goes.
the problem with trading when you’re the president is that as long as the trade benefits the country, great. but if it benefits you personally or politically, or even appears to, you end up in deep shit and you need the power of the US Senate to bail you out. trump doesn't appears to understand or care about the critical difference between those two.
undisputed point #6: the senate to the rescue
a. the GOP's position is basically, hey, the economy is clicking, and ok sure, he bent a few rules along the way, but when our enemies don't play by the rules, why put ourselves at a disadvantage?
b. trump's thinking, he's bent rules his whole life. why would he change his formula for success now? and if i was a supporter, i'd get that.
c. but in the end, as president you are entrusted with a lot of power, as long as you use that power in the context of doing your job for US. when you use it for you, or worse, use it to given foreign powers control over our politics, that's a huge problem. some would consider it treasonous.
not today though... not today. not by the GOP anyway.
they used to be against abuse of power. now they're all for it.
i almost can't wait until trump is out of office someday, and watch all the GOP career politicians start yelling about how much they were "the one who was against trump the whole way". ;-) they were all against him in 2016. they'll be against him again someday. it's coming.
