Trump Impeachment: What crimes to include

[Safe-Keeper]

Find a crime that The Donald has committed that you don't have to explain to ordinary people why it's a crime, and then you'll have something that can win.

He's done and said horrible things since day one without his disciples caring, but you have a point.

Though yes, as another poster said, the country is in a sorry state if the reason why "I'm witholding my government's money unless you dig up something about my political opponent" is terrible has to be explained to the masses. That's like banana republic-level corruption, or something I expect out of some Sub-Saharan failed state.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of what to include in my post here. It's very good.

Brookings Institute panel discussion on the impeachment.

 

[portlandatheist]

If you have to explain to your people that soliciting help from a foreign government (under threat of withholding funds if they won't) to attack a political opponent then your country is in a very sorry state.

You are correct. Our country is in a very sorry state indeed.

 

[dudalb]

Pretty clear by now that, barring new developments, it's going to pretty much just focus on the Ukraine charges.

 

[dudalb]

If you have to explain to your people that soliciting help from a foreign government (under threat of withholding funds if they won't) to attack a political opponent then your country is in a very sorry state.

I think it's more a certain poster is trying to be the Contrarian way too hard.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Pretty clear by now that, barring new developments, it's going to pretty much just focus on the Ukraine charges.

I wouldn't bet against something worse oozing out of the swamp, but it's 100% certain there will be new developments in the Ukrainian shakedown. Like this:

New Details Emerge on Ukraine’s Trump Admin Lobbying Blitz

Lobbyists representing then-Ukrainian President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky's campaign met or corresponded with 10 Trump administration officials in the days surrounding Zelensky’s April election, according to foreign-agent filings with the Department of Justice.

Those contacts, which occurred throughout April, coincided with an effort by President Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to press for additional scrutiny of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son’s business dealings in Ukraine, efforts that are now at the center of an impeachment inquiry into the president.

Wow, Trump was fighting against corruption in Ukraine starting in April. What a hero. Modesty kept him from telling us, of course.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pretty clear by now that, barring new developments, it's going to pretty much just focus on the Ukraine charges.

How do you know that?

So many people in this thread are all full of conclusions that are unsupported. Listen to (or read the transcript) of the Brookings Institute analysis I linked to. Maybe you won't be so sure of yourself.

From the Brookings Institute Panel link:

SUSAN MADE A POWERFUL CASE FOR QUITE A FEW ARTICLES RELATED NOT JUST TO UKRAINE BUT TO OTHER MATTERS. YET JOHN, CHANNELING THE MODERATE DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE, SUGGESTS THAT TOO BROUGHT WILL BE PROBLEMATIC AND TO ADD AN ELEMENT, I'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT YOU NEED AT LEAST MULTIPLE ARTICLES SO SOME REPUBLICANS MIGHT BE ABLE TO VOTE NO ON SOME IN ORDER TO VOTE YES ON ONE AND IT ONLY TAKES ONE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND POLICY INTERACT IN THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

 

[dudalb]

How do you know that?

So many people in this thread are all full of conclusions that are unsupported. Listen to (or read the transcript) of the Brookings Institute analysis I linked to. Maybe you won't be so sure of yourself.

From the Brookings Institute Panel link:

Based upon everything I am reading that Pelosi and Schiff want a narrowly focused inquiry.

The Kitchen Sink approach might be emotioinally satisfied but from a legal POV is not a smart way to go.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Based upon everything I am reading that Pelosi and Schiff want a narrowly focused inquiry.

The Kitchen Sink approach might be emotioinally satisfied but from a legal POV is not a smart way to go.

So you didn't bother to look at my link then. Got it. Everything is so simple when you make decisions and draw conclusions based on those little black and white cues instead of taking the time to actually look at the full list of pros and cons.

Those are only two of many choices. And it's not about emotional satisfaction, it's about the pros and cons. Too few charges and you can lose the case just as easily as too many charges. In addition, not including the Mueller obstruction charges means you are saying that is OK for the next POTUS to do the same.


BTW, I heard Schiff myself and he did not say he was looking at a narrow focus, but if the news media cut the sound bite off after his first sentence and ignored the second one, that's what you would have heard.

 

[fishbob]

He keeps winning.

I'm not saying y'all are wrong on the moral issues, but in
terms of strategy and public relations, he seems to be doing ok.

Re the OP. You have to convince people that there's a very serious issue. Nothing that happened before the whistleblower scandal meets that standard. Don't try to dredge them up again in the hopes that things will be different this time.

Fox News, let me repeat - Fox News, has started calling out some of Trump's minions on the air. You have to be losing pretty egregiously for Fox News to start acting like news.

 

[PhantomWolf]

(or read the transcript)

From your quotes it seems to be a wall of unformatted capital letters. Even the small bits that you post are unreadable, no one is going to read the entire thing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fox News, let me repeat - Fox News, has started calling out some of Trump's minions on the air. You have to be losing pretty egregiously for Fox News to start acting like news.

To be fair the actual News part of FOX is and has always been reasonably good, it's the non-news News parts, such as Hanity and co, who are so far right leaning it's amazing that they don't fall over.

What this has done is to start a bit of a civil war on FOX between their actual News Anchors and their News Commentators to the point that several have apparently been told to stop sniping at each other on the air.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Find a crime that The Donald has committed that you don't have to explain to ordinary people why it's a crime, and then you'll have something that can win.

As opposed to the intricacies of email servers and classified data, those are easy sells. And of course Benghazi too simple easy crimes for anyone to see. Why were they able to grasp those crimes but obstruction of justice is of course beyond any republican to comprehend?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Right.
Having a son who gets a big salary is proof of your corruption, but paying hush-money to adult film actors and covering it up during a campaign is somehow ambiguous.

 

[Belz...]

What this has done is to start a bit of a civil war on FOX between their actual News Anchors and their News Commentators to the point that several have apparently been told to stop sniping at each other on the air.

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

 

[Tero]

With Barr as his ally, Trump could push this thing going very far until December recess and then to January.
Would that help him? The more time we wait, the more items Trump will face.

 

[rockysmith76]

Colluding withe Russians, Inciting Civil War.

 

[Belz...]

Colluding withe Russians, Inciting Civil War.

Inciting violence is certainly something that could be thrown at him.

Hell, there are so many things that it would be nigh impossible to throw all of them at him.

 

[Dr. Keith]

disagree.

Impeachment is a political process, and the Mueller Report was an attempt to make it judicial ... which in hindsight was bound to fail with a President who only cares about what he can get away with. Moreover, there was a strong sense in many voters to let bygones be bygones.

The Ukraine Scandal is political in a way that is of immediate urgency, something that cannot be solved by waiting to get Trump voted out, because, unlike the Mueller Report, it concerns the Future, not the Past.

Very good post. Especially the highlighted. People can be forgiving if the bad action is in the past and really didn't pan out to be so horrible after all. (Look, I still have my job.) But, being caught in the process of doing the bad act all over again is more of a problem for most people.

Not all, probably not my mother-in-law, but most people.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, as I read the things, but IANAL, the obvious crime(s) is that Trump solicited a bribe from the President of Ukraine as well as illegally soliciting aid from a foreign nation in a US election. That last one being the kind of collusion Trump has been denying he did with Russia.

Am I too far from the mark on this?