High Crime or misdemeanor?
The allegation against Trump seems to be that he used the might of the US government to TRY to force a foreign country to do an investigation into a political opponent. The word TRY is in bold because it is irrefutable that the two things they allege he wanted to happen - the withholding of Ukrainian aid and an investigation into Joe/Hunter Biden by Ukraine didn't happen. The aid was delivered and Ukraine did not conduct an investigation. So, at the very worst, even if the allegations prove true, we are talking about an attempt not a commission.
For purposes of this discussion I will assume as fact, albeit far from proven, that Trump demanded an investigation into a political opponent and did so under threat of withholding aid. If true, does that constitute a high crime and/or misdemeanor?
First, lets get the obvious out the way. It is not criminal for an American president to threaten a foreign government with sanction or the withholding of aid in an attempt to get them to do an investigation. Anyone remember Khashoggi? Everything from sanctions to military action was threatened by federal officials in concert with a demand that Saudi Arabia investigate his murder. That type of exercise of American power is not only non-criminal, it is a principal aspect of our foreign policy since we became a world power.
Similarly, if Trump did this exact same thing and was trying to force an investigation into anyone other than a political opponent, no one would even blink.
So, is must be that the force of the American government was used to compel an investigation into a political opponent? Obviously not. We just witnessed an administration use the entire Department of Justice to investigate a political opponent. Not just TRY to investigate - an actual all out investigation with FISA warrants and 24/7 surveillance over more than a year including during an election.
So its not the use of government power to investigate a political opponent - that's just old hat - been there done that. Rewind the tape and see if anyone ever even brought up the allegation that Obama should be impeached for conducting an investigation into his party's political opponent. Good luck!
So maybe the distinction is that the President was personally involved? Does that make sense? If a president presides over and is aware of an investigation using the full force of DoJ to investigate a political opponent, he is fine? But, if he walks over to the AG and says, hey you - go investigate my political opponent it's impeachable? That would make no sense. Hiding behind minions has never been a successful defense to anything.
So maybe what makes investigating a political opponent ok is if they actually did something? So, since Trump actually colluded with Russia, it was ok for his political opponent to use the full force of the government to investigate it. And because Joe and Hunter Biden "clearly did nothing wrong," any investigatin into them must be purely political. Oh wait, he didnt collude. Oops.
Anyway, predicating the decision to investigate on whether something was actually done is totally backwards. Investigations can not be limited to circumstances where we know someone did something. The very nature of an investigation is to determine whether someone did something or didn't and if we know they did it, then no investigation is needed.
So maybe it's that it was the combination of three things - (1) use of the American government, (2) to compel a another country to do an (3) investigation into a political opponent. Again, that doesn't seem to make much sense - either way its a use not "abuse" of power.
The hook seems to be that by involving a foreign country - one can pretend that the president is seeking an illegal foreign contribution to his campaign. First, it's important to note that all campaign contributions, even domestic ones, have to be reported. So if the difference is the donor (foreign v. domestic), then there was still a failure of the Obama administration and/or the Democratic party to report the donation that the DoJ made to the Democratic party for nearly 3 years. Sounds dumb huh? The DoJ made a campaign contribution to the Democratic Party by investigating Obama's opponent?Well that's right. It is dumb. But, how does the entity conduction the investigation change whether an investigation is or is not an campaign contribution? Either investigations are or they are not campaign contributions.
The bottom line is that the accusers are trying to pretend that the exercise of presidential power to do something they don't like is a high crime and/or misdemeanor. At worst it's an attempt to solicit a foreign campaign contribution which is no where near a high crime and/or misdemeanor.
For purposes of this discussion I will assume as fact, albeit far from proven, that Trump demanded an investigation into a political opponent and did so under threat of withholding aid. If true, does that constitute a high crime and/or misdemeanor?
First, lets get the obvious out the way. It is not criminal for an American president to threaten a foreign government with sanction or the withholding of aid in an attempt to get them to do an investigation. Anyone remember Khashoggi? Everything from sanctions to military action was threatened by federal officials in concert with a demand that Saudi Arabia investigate his murder. That type of exercise of American power is not only non-criminal, it is a principal aspect of our foreign policy since we became a world power.
Similarly, if Trump did this exact same thing and was trying to force an investigation into anyone other than a political opponent, no one would even blink.
So, is must be that the force of the American government was used to compel an investigation into a political opponent? Obviously not. We just witnessed an administration use the entire Department of Justice to investigate a political opponent. Not just TRY to investigate - an actual all out investigation with FISA warrants and 24/7 surveillance over more than a year including during an election.
So its not the use of government power to investigate a political opponent - that's just old hat - been there done that. Rewind the tape and see if anyone ever even brought up the allegation that Obama should be impeached for conducting an investigation into his party's political opponent. Good luck!
So maybe the distinction is that the President was personally involved? Does that make sense? If a president presides over and is aware of an investigation using the full force of DoJ to investigate a political opponent, he is fine? But, if he walks over to the AG and says, hey you - go investigate my political opponent it's impeachable? That would make no sense. Hiding behind minions has never been a successful defense to anything.
So maybe what makes investigating a political opponent ok is if they actually did something? So, since Trump actually colluded with Russia, it was ok for his political opponent to use the full force of the government to investigate it. And because Joe and Hunter Biden "clearly did nothing wrong," any investigatin into them must be purely political. Oh wait, he didnt collude. Oops.
Anyway, predicating the decision to investigate on whether something was actually done is totally backwards. Investigations can not be limited to circumstances where we know someone did something. The very nature of an investigation is to determine whether someone did something or didn't and if we know they did it, then no investigation is needed.
So maybe it's that it was the combination of three things - (1) use of the American government, (2) to compel a another country to do an (3) investigation into a political opponent. Again, that doesn't seem to make much sense - either way its a use not "abuse" of power.
The hook seems to be that by involving a foreign country - one can pretend that the president is seeking an illegal foreign contribution to his campaign. First, it's important to note that all campaign contributions, even domestic ones, have to be reported. So if the difference is the donor (foreign v. domestic), then there was still a failure of the Obama administration and/or the Democratic party to report the donation that the DoJ made to the Democratic party for nearly 3 years. Sounds dumb huh? The DoJ made a campaign contribution to the Democratic Party by investigating Obama's opponent?Well that's right. It is dumb. But, how does the entity conduction the investigation change whether an investigation is or is not an campaign contribution? Either investigations are or they are not campaign contributions.
The bottom line is that the accusers are trying to pretend that the exercise of presidential power to do something they don't like is a high crime and/or misdemeanor. At worst it's an attempt to solicit a foreign campaign contribution which is no where near a high crime and/or misdemeanor.
Post a Comment