If Trump is Guilty Of Bribery, The Democrats Are Guilty Of Solicitation

Below is my column on the latest alleged crime by President Donald Trump: “Felony bribery.” The allegation shows not only a fundamental misunderstanding of legal standards but a fundamental failure in legal analysis.

Here is the column:

The headlines blasted the news: “Trump Accused of Bribery.” From Forbes to Newsweek, the latest crime was breathlessly reported after former George Bush ethics lawyer Richard Painter declared President Trump a criminal for raising campaign funds for senators who would sit as his jury in any impeachment trial. Over the last three years, such crimes have been declared by legal analysts with a certainty equaled only by their lack of permanency. It began with months of criminal collusion, which is not a crime, before evolving into treason, conspiracy, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other offenses.

None of those crimes are included in the impeachment inquiry approved by the House in a partisan vote this week. Despite Democratic leaders insisting the special counsel report gave “ample” basis for impeachment charges, the resolution was conspicuous for its absence of any discussion of these prior “clear” crimes. The whole Russian scandal appears mere prelude to the real criminal conspiracy focused on a July phone call, after special counsel Robert Mueller presented his findings to Congress.

Even on cable news, Painter has distinguished himself as a perpetual motion machine of accusations. He previously said that Trump could be impeached and removed on such grounds as a tweet referencing his ability to use nuclear weapons against an attack by North Korea. Painter also claimed that Trump met the “dictionary definition” of treason, based on Russian interference in the 2016 election. He called for the removal of Trump, under the 25th Amendment, as constitutionally incapacitated.

Now Painter claims that the use of a “vast fundraising network” for some senators seeking reelection in 2020 is a crime. He flatly declared that “this is bribery,” no different than bribing jurors. Any senator accepting such contributions, he insisted, would be “guilty of accepting a bribe” and “should go to the slammer.” Just because a president may face a Senate trial, he is not required to end political activity, particularly with control of Congress in the balance. If that were the case, an opposing party could shut down any political activity by the president by impeaching him.

What is curious about this theory is that Painter does not appear to have any ethical problems with the potential “jurors” including himself running on their support for impeachment. He unsuccessfully ran for the Senate seat vacated by Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota by promising to vote against Trump if elected. Last year, Time magazine reported that Painter “made clear that calls for impeaching the president would be a major part of his platform” and quoted Painter as saying that the removal of Trump was a “very important component” of his campaign for the Senate.

In their campaigns and fundraising, various members of Congress have declared that Trump is guilty of numerous crimes. Future Senate jurors such as Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren have raised money based on impeachment pledges and stating that Trump is guilty. Not waiting for a trial, fellow candidate and Senate juror Kamala Harris declared in the last debate, “As a former prosecutor, I know a confession when I see it. He did it in plain sight. He has given us the evidence.”

Candidate Julián Castro announced that Trump has not only committed impeachable offenses but should be immediately removed. Various House members have pledged to seek impeachment. Representative Rashida Tlaib has sold profane shirts with her impeachment slogan for $29. If Trump is guilty of bribery, then Democrats are guilty of solicitation.

Why is it ethical for a potential Senate juror to raise money or campaign on a promise of voting for conviction, before charges are brought and let alone tried, yet call Trump a criminal for raising campaign funds to keep control of the Senate? Of course, this is a standard that did not apply to President Clinton, who actively campaigned for and helped finance Democratic senators who sat in judgment at his impeachment trial.

The bribery allegation also contradicts the Democratic talking point that impeachment is a political process rather than a legal one. When some of us have objected that such claims of clear criminal acts did not meet the standard of the criminal code or prior rulings, experts have insisted that this is more of a political judgment. Representative Maxine Waters has insisted that this is a political judgment and that “impeachment is about whatever Congress says it is.” So why is it a crime to respond in a political way by fundraising to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate?

I have never agreed with dismissals of impeachment as a purely political process. The Constitution includes a legal standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that has long been defined in light of controlling legal definitions and case law. I disagree with former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who seemed to suggest that “abuse of power” cannot be the basis for impeachment because “abuse of power is not a crime.”

Abuse of power is clearly impeachable. If the Senate established such abuse of power in a quid pro quo arrangement with Ukraine, it could be the basis to remove Trump. However, the fact that abuse of power is not a standalone crime does not make it a purely political judgment. It is based on the misuse of public authority and trust in carrying out duties defined by law and practice. It is a difficult standard to prove. All elected officials use their offices to advance themselves. The Senate would need to clearly distinguish the conduct of Trump from the myriad decisions made by his predecessors that benefited their positions or those of their parties.

Moving forward with an allegation of abuse of power is problematic if that is the sole grounds for removal. Abuse of power is stronger in the context of other specific articles of impeachment. If abuse of discretion is the sole or primary charge, it would maximize the chances for the defense in a Senate trial, in which the president can cite a variety of motives, allowing for claims of reasonable doubt by senators. Politics inspires many things, but ethical clarity is not one of them. However, the law is based on both clarity and consistency. That is why no one is “going to the slammer” for bribery. The greater problem is not jurors, but analysts, behaving like politicians.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

130 thoughts on “If Trump is Guilty Of Bribery, The Democrats Are Guilty Of Solicitation”

  1. Communists use two prominent tactics to gain and keep power.

    Fact – Communists weaponized their intelligence agencies in order to use them against their political opponents.

    Fact – Communist shut down free speech of their political opponents. Many times citing that their opponents are spreading hate and must be shut down for the good of the country.

    These two things are the MOST important things communists do in order to maintain control and stay in power. Without these two things, communists would have a hard time maintaining power.

    Now let’s look at the Democratic Party in America currently. The Democrats weaponized our intelligence agencies in order to use them against their political opponents (Donald Trump and Conservatives). The Democrats are constantly trying to shut down free speech of their political opponents as well. (College Campuses and now Social Media)

    Facebook has proclaimed (On MAY DAY) that they will crackdown on hate speech. There is no doubt that “hate speech” on Facebook will mean conservative thought. Don’t believe me? Ask a liberal to name the hate speech in which they engage in. What liberal position is considered hateful? Now ask a liberal what conservative positions are considered hateful. That liberal will run off every belief a conservative has. There is no doubt that Facebook will only considered something as “hate speech” when it comes from a conservative point of view.

    How come Democrats don’t have a problem with communist tactics being used by their party? How come Democrats aren’t defending the right of conservatives to speak their mind on Facebook? How come Democrats don’t defend the rights of conservative speakers on college campuses? How come Democrats don’t condemn the weaponization of the FBI and the DOJ against a Republican presidential candidate? How come Democrats don’t mind FBI investigations without a crime? How come Democrats don’t care about attorney-client privilege, which clearly has been destroyed by Robert Mueller’s investigation?

    Is the average democrat okay with their party acting like communist? I hope not! But the evidence suggests otherwise. Democrats seem to hate President Donald Trump so much, that if they need to embrace communism to get rid of him, they’re willing to do it. In fact, the evidence shows, they’ve already done it.

    If you share this on facebook, how long will it take before someone on the left will say that THIS is hate speech?

    https://wsau.com/blogs/ben-armstrong-blog/20344/has-the-democrat-party-embraced-communist-tactics/

    1. I’m not sure what communist tactics he’s referring to, but if you understand how the Bolsheviks outflanked the Mesheviks, then you can actually understand how Trump swept all his competition aside in the primary.

      as for the tactics like suppressing free speech on campus, I’m ok with it. there is nothing in the serious core of the First Amendment which necessarily should have let this all run down so far. The abuses against culture have developed under a false, insanely overextended doctrine of “academic freedom” which is much of what has allowed the culture destruction indoctrination at universities to come so far.

      So. And civil lilberterians will fully understand me when I say this. Let this shibboleth of “academic freedom” die under the hand of the current Red Guards, I say. If Turley is only one of a handful left out there “believing” in it, that is not enough. We are going to have to shift to a different paradigm to survive. So let the phony slogan that only applies to “Freedom” for the Left die, let it die hard. There are not many acadmics left to purge. But lete them keep on harassing them. Until the notion of academic freedom is totally destroyed. I have come to welcome this.

      Why?

      One day the screw will turn our way, and the harder it goes one way, the harder it will go the other. On that day, the counter-purge will begin, it may have to be a bloody one, it may put Saloth Sar to shame, with a lot of hungry ex professors digging gardens in the desert, but the day may come and then no phony notions of “academic freedom” will stand in the way.

      After that, universities will again become places of study, learning, research and development, and not just storehouses for phonies who couldn’t cut it in a STEM Field and so they had to go into all the rest of the garbage or become bureaucrats.

      I’ll say this bluntly, in case you guys didn’t get it. And I am talking to my Republican and conservative friends here still laboring under the illusions of the Enlightenment. Those who want to keep on wrecking things will not stop. They will not get tired. They will find troops to replace the one’s they’ve lost. The forces above that want social chaos have got a long way to go before they themselves would ever be satisfied either. You can see they’ve bitten off a foolish bite to chew in impeachment but there will be more crazy stunts to come that will shame what came beforehand.

      At some point your trust in the shibboleths of 1776 will fade. You will stop being a “Creedal nation” and you will become what every real nation has always been, a nation of people united by shared familial relationships, culture, and interests. The ideas will be unmasked not as the idols they’ve been made out to be, but just the tropes of an age gone by.

      That will be a time of transition and you had better be ready for it. The adversaries will not to fade away. in the end bullies can only be stopped with violence. And let’s be realistic. All law is itself organized violence, and it only exists if there are those with the will to enforce it. Lose the will and the words become mere paper, shredded refuse ready for the garbage dump. The human WILL is where it all starts and where it all ends. This is in its fullest sense, a contest of Will, and it always was and always will be.

    1. We’re past that question and Trump left them no choice. I’m sure your kids won’t want to live in a country where using government resources to extort foreign countries for help on a reelection campaign is not acceptable behavior for a president.

      1. my kids can speak for themselves and they’re not interested in speaking here so don’t worry about them.

        I can say that like me, they are not interested in war with russia i tell you that much. your ukrainian pals are at war with russia. i’m against the US getting sucked too far into it.

        I’ll be frank about this. I don’t even favor military aid to Ukraine in the first place. let them partition their country along the Dnieper for all i care. seriously. or wherever the border lies. they should just conduct a treaty with Russia if they can’t hold their own.

        I think it was foolhardly to expland NATO even as far as it has come, and Ukraine is a bridge waaaay too far.

        that may not matter for your impeachment charade, which odds on will fail. it will matter for the election because a lot of regular people like me think it’s crazy to antagonize Russia all the time. you guys are totally crazy on that point. totally.

    2. Impeachment allows Trump to get into everything Joe Biden, Hunter Biden. John Kerry, John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz (yep, the ketchup people) and HIllary have ever done including the aborted coup. That info could blow the top off of the Dim Empire and render them impotent for a generation. They are seeking an Armageddon-like battle here and not even considering they could lose – big time. They think they’re the iceberg. They look more like the Titanic to me.

            1. I applaud YNOT for his incivility. keep up the good work! this is the dynamic of group formation, and the hecklers and haters of the Left are fantastic allies, of the Trump base, though they don’t understand how.

              we need more foul talk from the Democrat partisans to enflame John Q Public. More riots, more urban decay and disorder, more offensive kneeling at football games, more slavish pandering to foreigners, more sucking up to the billionaire Democrat donors of Silicon Valley, more preposterous plans to confiscate the savings of the middle class, more socialized medicine schemes, more gender bending, white-baiting and overall nuttiness from the mass media, university fanatics, and a little bit of ANTIFA mischief to finish things off, and we might have a whole new situation.

      1. I’m not so sure the fallout from their gambit will be that bad. i would hope so. but in some quarters, not much perhaps. in other sectors, there may be ramifications.

        generally, the hotter and nastier things seem, to the average person, the better it will be for the side which needs higher rates of mobilization. this dynamic will favor Trump supporters.

        right now it looks to me like there is a lot of ferment, and who knows what may break one way or another.

  2. Jonathan: It appears you can’t get over Professor Painter getting all the headlines with his “felony bribery” allegation against the Trumpster. But Painter is not the only one making this claim. Rick Hansen, law professor at UC Irvine and expert in campaign finance law, offers his take: “Offering a thing of value (campaign money) in exchange for an official act (a Senator voting for or against impeachment) could be bribery”. If Republican Senators want to give the appearance of impartiality in a Senate impeachment trial why would they have lunch with Trump, have him campaign for them and accept his campaign money? You would think they would politely decline Trump’s blandishments. But next year is an election year and many Republican Senators are running scared.. And Trump wants an insurance policy against impeachment. So one hand washes the other. I’ll give you campaign money and you vote “nay” in any impeachment trial. Quid pro quo and bribery.

      1. Conflating issues as always though this one is just pulled out of your ass but Pelosi is not under investigation.

    1. But Painter is not the only one making this claim.

      You mean there are multiple frauds on America’s law faculties? Say it ain’t so…

    2. The country needs to be run despite the Democrats obsession with wrecking the nation and rule of law just because they lost an election.

  3. “Representative Rashida Tlaib has sold profane shirts with her impeachment slogan for $29. If Trump is guilty of bribery, then Democrats are guilty of solicitation.”

    Few people have quite the kind of stereotypical, bubble gum-popping demeanor and diction for solictation that Rashida Tlaib has,

  4. Now JT has jumped the shark with his look over here posts and doing his personal best of picking flea shit out of pepper for his trump supporter base. The trump cult has convinced themselves that trump is above the law and JT has enabled their wishes and dreams. But ya gotta give him a hand, at least he knows suckers when he sees them.

  5. Time and again, we see Democrats guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing.

    Democrats shout that Trump is abusing power by exercising a President’s normal duty of campaigning for his party to hold Senate seats. Meanwhile, Democrats have run on the very premise that they will abuse their power of impeachment to impeach Trump, regardless of what the evidence says. After all, impeachment means whatever Congress says it does.

    They are not campaigning on justice; they are campaigning on overturning the results of a lawful election, regardless of what the evidence says. That’s what that means, if a potential judge claims that they will vote guilty, before the trial begins.

    The Democratic Party is willing to impeach Trump for daring to investigate Democrat Joe Biden’s open bragging that he withheld aid unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s employer…the son who was getting at least $50,000 a month for work he was not qualified for, while his father had control fo Ukraine’s funding. That “investment” in Hunter paid off.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

    “Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.

    And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

    For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.

    In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

    The memos raise troubling questions:

    1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”

    2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

    Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

    Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.”

    1. Karen continues to post BS from her right wing sources.

      Here’s a GOP congressman who served as an FBI agent in the Ukraine in 2015 (advising the new government on controlling corruption) stating that the prosecutor who Biden helped get fired was corrupt and not investigating anyone.

      https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1185555598395527169

      If you post that long ago debunked BS again, you are lying.

            1. Karen:

              The profane always, always think they’re witty. (They think they’re lawyers, too.) Instead they need a walk-along t-shirt for their significant other with a sideways pointing arrow and words that read “I’m With Dunning-Kruger.”

            2. I understand you are not talking about the congressman’s interview which was 2 weeks ago. As a participant in those events one assumes he has knowledge of substantive developments in it, which your source – a well know purveyor of false right wing narratives – see Uranium One – is not.

              John Solomon shares lawyers with the Ukrainian oligarch held in Austria – Firtash – who the US is trying to extradite and who Shokin’s affadavit was written as part of the fight against that extradition.

              “Conservative lawyers Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who this year took on as a client an oligarch at the center of the Ukraine scandal, also represent the conservative columnist who has advanced Trump-friendly claims of corruption in Kyiv.

              “John Solomon has been a client of our firm for a very long time,” Joe diGenova told POLITICO on Thursday. “He’s a journalist and he has legal needs, like many journalists.””

              ….Toensing and diGenova also represent Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian gas magnate who lives in Vienna and is fighting extradition to the U.S. on bribery charges. Firtash paid the lawyers $1 million to uncover dirt on Joe Biden and to win help in his legal case from Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, according to Bloomberg News.

              Solomon was the first to report on an affidavit obtained from Firtash by his lawyers, Toensing and diGenova, who are also Solomon’s lawyers….”

              https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/24/ukraine-oligarch-lawyers-joe-digenova-victoria-toensing-056643

              1. “I understand you are not talking about the congressman’s interview which was 2 weeks ago.” Really? Are you sure? Because you said, “The congressman was there you twit and the interview was 2 weeks ago.” Backpedal more urgently. It’s fun to watch.

                “As a participant in those events one assumes he has knowledge of substantive developments in it, which your source – a well know purveyor of false right wing narratives – see Uranium One – is not.” Why would you assume he had knowledge of anything? He would be interviewed about what he himself knew.

                You have already proven to be completely wrong about The Hill. Now you’re just lying. Again. Meanwhile, politico is biased quite heavily Left.

                When you say “false right wing narratives” you sound just like Hillary Clinton, who gave the bald faced lie, “it’s a vast, right wing conspiracy.”

                1. Anon1’s position is that the US should not investigate Biden for bragging that he withheld American aid until and unless the investigator looking into Burisma was fired because:
                  1. Any evidence of wrongdoing would hurt the Democrats in the 2020 election. So hide it at all cost.
                  2. If Trump investigates Biden, and finds wrongdoing, then that would help his re-election in 2020.
                  3. Even though there was no quid pro quo on the transcript, assume that there was because that would benefit your political cause
                  4. If at first, or the twelfth time you don’t succeed impeaching Trump, keep trying. After all, the Democrats have thrown up socialists to run in 2020, so obviously they are going to need sabotage to keep Trump from getting re-elected. At this point, a trained ferret would cause less damage to the economy in the White House than Warren or Sanders. That’s obvious to all, so Dems have to fight dirty.
                  5. The accusation was based, in part, upon Biden bragging about his actions on camera. If Dems can prevent cooperation with Ukraine, they can interfere with gathering evidence to support the claim.

      1. The Hill is not considered an extreme right publication. It has more left-leaning columnists, but runs slightly more right-leaning stories, for a very slight right average. It also has a high rate of accuracy.

        You are lying about the source, in order to attack the messenger, rather than the message itself. This occurs when an opponent feels over faced. When he cannot give a considered and reasonable analysis of the facts presented, he resorts to vulgar ad hominem against either me, or the sources themselves.

        It is ironic. Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of their own crimes. Anon1 constantly accuses me of lying, when it turns out the lies are his own. Poor thing cannot have a decent conversation, so hurls accusations instead. It’s like someone screaming and tossing over tables at a cocktail party.

        “Factual Reporting: HIGH
        Country: USA
        World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

        Analysis / Bias

        In review, The Hill covers both sides on the political spectrum and generally sources information properly, however they sometimes rush stories and have to change them after the fact. The Hill rarely uses loaded words in their headlines and articles such as this: Trump says he won’t sign GOP’s compromise immigration bill. All news stories are sourced to either journalists in the field or credible media sources.

        The Hill also features editorial commentaries that provide a reasonably balanced group of columnist that consists of the following:

        Brent Budowsky (Leans Left)
        Lanny Davis (Leans Left)
        John Feehery (Leans Right)
        Mark Mellman (Slightly Left)
        Katie Pavlich (Leans Right)
        Bill Press (Leans Left)
        David Webb (Leans Right)
        The Hill also features other outside opinion contributors such as Newt Gingrich among other prominent figures. The general overall tone of all op-ed’s leans very slightly right and although there are more left leaning columnists, there are more stories that favor the right and utilize more emotional language such as this: Katie Pavlich: The frauds of the climate change movement.

        In general news reporting is balanced and factual with slight right leaning editorial bias.

        A factual search reveals The Hill has not failed any fact checks. However, it should be noted that they have rushed to publish breaking news that needed to be corrected or removed in past. The Hill always corrects factual errors in a timely manner and therefore maintains a high factual record.”

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

    2. I wonder if the Democrats have already abandoned their twelfth attempt at impeachment, the Ukrainian phone call, and moved on to false accusations of election fraud campaigning for Republican Senators up for re-election. I believe that would be the thirteenth attempt. I fondly recall the mainstream media pundits expressing grave concern that Trump voters might not accept the outcome of the 2016 election Trump would inevitably lose. There was even discussion about the possibility that Hillary Clinton might win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. Would Trump voters accept the legal outcome of such an election? Would there be riots? This was just one of the early instances where Democrats were guilty of what they accused Republicans of doing.

      They have investigated every transaction and word uttered in the decades of Trump’s lifetime to find something, anything, they can use to impeach him. Tyrannical effort to create a Single Party State in the usual style of Leftist dictatorships. Since this is a year before the next election, and they clearly don’t have the votes in the senate, this is an attempt to get opposition research at taxpayer expense, weaken his likelihood of getting re-elected in 2020, and to plant a poison pill in case he does get re-elected. This is the behavior of an oligarchy opposing the will of voting districts all across America, and the rule of law. Select laws just do not apply to Democrats when it suits them politically – immigration laws, for example.

      Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.

      1. Hey! We should get t-shirts that feature all the false accusations.

        Impeach Trump! He’s a racist, nope, anti-semite neo-Nazi, nope, will nuke North Korea, nope, will cause North Korea to nuke us, nope, will cause Iran to nuke us, nope, is mentally unstable and should be 25th, nope, is a Russian asset, nope, called Neo Nazis fine people, nope, violated the emoluments clause because his hotels rent rooms at the going rate to foreigners, nope, violated campaign contributions because he used his own money to pay off a mistress before the election, nope, raped a woman in the dressing room of one of the most popular high end department stores during a busy day in NY and no one noticed, nope, will abandon the Constitution and create a dictatorship, nope, did a quid pro quo with Ukraine when he unfairly asked to investigate Biden (is this nope now or are we still waiting for the nope?), is guilty of felony bribery because as usual he’s campaigning for Republican senators up for re-election (this will be a nope, too.)

        I don’t know. Maybe a t-shirt won’t be big enough for all the crossed out lines of the Democrats false accusations to seize power and enact a coup against a lawfully elected President.

        I don’t know how Democrats manage to look anyone in the eye for the shame of it all. They have lost all self respect in their quest to form a Leftist dictatorship.

        We conservatives fight back, because we are trying to prevent the far Left from installing yet another murderous regime. The Democratic Party has gone after one Constitutional right after another, and has no tolerance for dissent. They openly espouse the murderous and unjust system of Socialism, and applaud killer dictators like Chavez and Maduro. Over and over again, when in power in Congress or the states, they raise the cost of living, squeezing more people out of the middle class and then blaming capitalism. If we don’t take the trouble to stop this, we will have another Leftist tragedy on our hands.

        1. Maybe you could address the evidence and tell us why Trump should not be impeached for attempting to extort a foreign government with US funds for help in his reelection? That would be interesting, for a change.

          1. Because enlisting Ukraine’s aid in investigating alleged corruption and abuse of power by Biden and other US officials is the right thing to do.

            Obviously.

            Do you have no moral compass at all? Do you think that running as a Democrat should protect you from investigation into criminal wrongdoing, because if proven, it would help Republicans? Absurd.

            1. If there is a credible charge against the ex-VP – what is it? – the proper and legal approach is to ask the DOJ and FBI to begin an investigation.

              I note the irony of getting lectured on morality by a Trump supporter and proven liar.

              1. PS Note that Karen does not address the evidence which includes extorting the government of the Ukraine for a political favor. Unless Karen has some information indicating Trump’s interest in corruption not allegedly connected to a democratic presidential candidate, the obvious conclusion is that it was a political request, not a corruption request.

                1. Anon – you seem curiously opposed to investigating allegations of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. We have evidence of Biden bragging about withholding aid until the prosecutor is fired. If he did nothing wrong, then he can weather a single investigation. Trump has been investigated every day of his Presidency.

                  The transcript of the phone call showed nothing untoward. You keep misrepresenting that phone call.

                  The impeachment has been political warfare from November 2016. They have tried on and discarded 11 different attempts at my last count. The Ukrainian phone call is, I believe, the dozenth attempt, and claiming the President is not allowed to campaign for Republicans is the thirteenth.

                  This is an attempt by Democrats to go against a lawful election, and install a single party state. The abuse of power we have witnessed over the past few years has been breathtaking, all while their sycophants cheer on these assaults on liberty. They are the useful idiots who have installed one Leftist dictator after another in history.

                  Perhaps they will install a Socialist President and Congress one day, and absolutely destroy our high standard of living. If you don’t count the drug addled homeless pooping on the street, the American poor live a middle class lifestyle compared with the rest of the world. However, with concerted effort, and the help of people like Anon, far Left Democrats could destroy all that. Why, with application, we could all be fighting over garbage and toilet paper within just a few short years.

                  1. Anon – you seem curiously opposed to investigating allegations of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. We have evidence of Biden bragging about withholding aid until the prosecutor is fired.

                    No, that’s not what David Brock pays him to do.

              2. It is illegal for an elected official to use their influence with foreign countries to financially benefit themselves or their family.

                Biden is on camera bragging about withholding $1 billion in American aid from Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor. that prosecutor was investigating Burisma, who had recently hired Hunter Biden. Hunter had been dishonorably discharged from the military for cocaine abuse. His only job qualifications for Burisma is the this father was in charge of policy in Ukraine. Hunter was paid >=$50,000 a month. What was he providing?

                This isn’t like Trump’s phone call, where there was no quid pro quo, and people have to resort to inferring what he might have meant between the lines, contradicting the parties who were involved.

                No. Here we have Biden saying I will withhold $1 billion and leave within 6 hours unless this guy is fired.

                Democrats are willing to impeach a president to prevent this act being investigated. Meanwhile, they accuse the President of a similar act without proof.

                Clearly, this is not about law and order. It’s just the latest attempt at a soft coup.

  6. Turley is circling around the issue while Democrats try to make America circle around the drain. There is one clear answer and nothing else need be said.

    REP. AL GREEN: “If we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

  7. Even the Nknee Yjerk Thyme knows Trump is a shoe in for 2020

    “ Nonetheless, Trump’s likelihood of winning a 2020 matchup with leading Democrats still aren’t all that bad, according to a new poll from The New York Times and Siena College. The poll found Trump “highly competitive” in the the six closest battleground states won by Trump in 2016.

    “The Times/Siena results and other data suggest that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016, raising the possibility that the Republicans could—for the third time in the past six elections—win the presidency while losing the popular vote,” writes the Times’ Nate Cohn (while cautioning that “there is a full year before Election Day, and a lot can change”).

    Unlike various national polls, this one shows “Trump holding up with white, working class voters” and coming close to 2016 margins in those states, Cohn tweeted. “The Trump voters who supported Democrats in the midterms say they’ll back Trump by 2-1 margins,” he adds, and “Trump leads all in Obama-Trump counties, precincts.”

    https://reason.com/2019/11/04/trump-asks-house-republicans-to-release-their-own-versions-of-impeachment-transcripts/

    1. Pena, why not show us the original New York Times story? We dont need to see the story hacked from some generic paper.

      1. I’m not a liberterian anymore, left that behind a long time ago, but REASON is anything BUT a generic newspaper. for starters. it’s a magazine.

        You may not be aware of that.

        https://reason.com/

        wiki:

        Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.

  8. OT but really important: By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org

    Lawyers for 9/11 family members and survivors have identified 11 Saudi government officials who they say assisted the al Qaeda hijackers who attacked the United States 18 years ago, killing nearly 3,000 people.

    “Saudi Arabian government officials were the accomplices without whom there never could have been a 9/11 attack,” New York attorney James Kreindler said last week during a talk at Dartmouth College.

    Among the 11 is the so-called “third man” who is discussed in a highly censored October 2012 FBI Summary Report as having “tasked” a pair of Saudis living in San Diego with aiding two future hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar – when they arrived in the U.S. in January 2000.The four-page report was obtained by Florida Bulldog from the FBI three years ago during ongoing Freedom of Information litigation.

    According to Kreindler, the third man was “a high-ranking official in the Saudi embassy” in Washington who “sent an instruction to a consular official in Los Angeles, [Fahad al-] Thumairy, ordering him to provide the help that Hazmi and Mihdhar needed.’’

    9/11 accomplices
    Kreindler would not disclose the third man’s name, or the names of the other 10 alleged Saudi 9/11 accomplices, saying he was forbidden to do so by a “disgusting protective order imposed upon us by the Justice Department with the blessing of the court.”

    President Trump ordered the declassification of the third man’s name at a September meeting with 9/11 survivors at the White House on the 18th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

    The Justice Department promptly issued a statement saying the name was being declassified “in the public interest,” but would be given only to lawyers who represent the thousands of 9/11 victims now suing Saudi Arabia in federal court in New York. The kingdom, which is vigorously defending itself, has long maintained it had no involvement in 9/11.

    Miami U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga recently denied a request by Florida Bulldog to release the name publicly.

    The day after the Trump meeting, U.S. Attorney General William Barr personally invoked the “state secrets privilege” in court to prevent the release of other censored information contained in the FBI report. “The remaining information that has been redacted from the 2012 Summary Report remains classified and/or privileged and protected from disclosure,” government lawyers said in a court filing.”

    1. OT, but good post. I had not heard of that “third man.” The Florida Bulldog has been a great source of 9/11 news.

      I recommend reading “Disconnecting the Dots”: Al-Hazmi and Al-Midhar, two high level known al-Qaeda terrorists were knowingly let into the US by intelligence agents working in the Alec Group CIA station and they deliberately hid this from the FBI, WH, and the rest of the CIA for over a year and half until after 9/11 happened. All Americans should know the name Tom Wilshire- he and his conspirators protected the 9/11 terrorists and deliberately allowed it to happen.

      1. from wiki entry, note 19, 20, 22 source is James Bamford

        “Before the attacks
        “[W]e’ve got to tell the Bureau about this. These guys clearly are bad. One of them, at least, has a multiple-entry visa to the U.S. We’ve got to tell the FBI.” And then [the CIA officer] said to me, ‘No, it’s not the FBI’s case, not the FBI’s jurisdiction.'”
        Mark Rossini, “The Spy Factory”[17]

        Before the attacks, FBI agent Robert Wright, Jr. had written vigorous criticisms of FBI’s alleged incompetence in investigating terrorists residing within the United States. Wright was part of the Bureau’s Chicago counter-terrorism task force and involved in project Vulgar Betrayal, which was linked to Yasin al-Qadi.[18]

        According to James Bamford, the NSA had picked up communications of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi back in 1999, but had been hampered by internal bureaucratic conflicts between itself and the CIA and did not do a full analysis of the information it passed on to the agency. For example, it only passed on the first names, Nawaf and Khalid.[19]

        Bamford also claims that the CIA’s Alec Station (a unit assigned to bin Laden) knew that al-Mihdhar was planning to come to New York as far back as January 2000. Doug Miller, one of three FBI agents working inside the CIA station, tried to send a message (a CIR) to the FBI to alert them about this, so they could put al-Mihdhar on a watch list. His CIA boss, Tom Wilshire, deputy station chief, allegedly denied permission to Miller. Miller asked his associate Mark Rossini for advice; Rossini pressed Wilshire’s deputy but was rebuffed also.[20][21]

        Bamford also claims that al-Mihdhar and Hazmi wound up living with Abdussattar Shaikh for a time to save money. Shaikh was, coincidentally, an FBI informant, but since they never acted suspiciously around him, he never reported them. The CIA Bangkok station told Alec Station that Hazmi had gone to Los Angeles. None of this information made it back to the FBI headquarters.[22]”

        1. the despicable bureaucratic flunkies at CIA and FBI want Americans to believe what they say, but see, they have these big clouds of LIES AND INCOMPETENCE hanging over them.

          I knew and old guy who used to call them “Famous But Incompetent”

          Robert Wright Jr was probably one of the competent ones. I bet they demoted him.

          Here’s a story from the FBI about how they accused one of their own best undercovers of stealing a million bucks worth of dope, hounded him like hell and treated him like garbage, when guess what?It was another creepy agent from FBI who actually stole the dope! Louis Freeh himself had to apologize to this poor guy.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6FNHush2Lw

          “In the FBI’s-109 year history, Special Agent McGowan is the only FBI Agent with the following unique experiences: Successfully infiltrating three separate Mafia families – the Merlino/Luisi Philadelphia/Boston Family (1998-99); the Rhode Island faction of the Patriarca Family (2000-2005); and the Boston faction of the New England LCN (2008), resulting in the indictment and incarceration of one Boss, one UnderBoss, two capos, a national Union President, union officials, and dozens of LCN associates and soldiers. No other FBI Agent has infiltrated more than one LCN Family. Successfully infiltrating the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel and indicting the notorious head of the world’s most powerful Drug cartel organization and the most wanted fugitive in the world, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, and his Executive Management board – the only successful US law enforcement undercover penetration of the Sinaloa Cartel. Seized more than $15 million dollars of Cartel drugs without the expenditure of any FBI drug buy funds (2009-2012).

          Successfully infiltrating two Pakistani heroin trafficking organizations on separate occasions resulting in the indictment and incarceration of a top five international drug baron and the seizure of over 100 kilograms of almost pure heroin, valued at $400 million dollars, again without the expenditure of any FBI drug buy funds. The combined seizures are ranked as two of the top, if not top, heroin seizures ever within the United States (1992-1994) and (1995-1996).

          Falsely accused and investigated by the FBI of stealing $180 million dollars of drugs from a secured FBI evidence vault. Was interrogated with Miranda Warnings more than 20 times, had major case fingerprints taken in front of co-workers, and had his reputation and integrity temporarily destroyed by the false allegation. Later assisted in identifying the correct suspect. (1994).” (diff website blurb)

        2. wait let’s have another story of an FBI agent, a total drug addict, stealing and loafing on the job, the only caught him apparently because he nodded off at work totally high as a kite

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fired-fbi-agent-charged-with-stealing-heroin-set-to-appear-in-court/2015/03/30/bae95f7c-d6f4-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

          “The theft of heroin from three drug cases­ over the course a year forced federal prosecutors to dismiss cases against 28 defendants, many of whom had already been convicted and sentenced to prison. Cases against 150 more defendants were investigated but not dropped.

          Lowry, in a statement issued by his attorney after charges were filed March 20, stated his regret about ruining investigations and said he had helped investigators by walking them through how he stole drugs undetected for about a year.”

  9. “ legion”, huh? Name them and name their political party (as defined)”

    Sources, ya know, the go to pygmies that WaPo, CNN and the alt left media use

  10. Our founders did not intend impeachment to be used as it has been. ‘

    What is occurring at the moment clearly runs afoul of the plain language of the constitution and the federalist papers.

    At the same time our founders placed no check beyond the vote of the public on impeachment.

    Neither Andrew Johnson, nor Trump, nor Clinton, nor Nixon could appeal to the supreme court that the house articles of impeachment violated the constitution.

    an Impeachable offense is whatever the house decides that it is.
    Just as the Senate gets to decide – whether they will dismiss, try, remove or aquit based on what the house provides.
    Just as the voters get to decide whether they will re-elect members or the house, senate or the president in response.

    The question I would ask of democrats is why they expect that none of the arguments or changes in process or standards they are making are not going to be used against them ?

    How is the most egregious interpretation of Trump’s actions in the Ukraine more impeachable than the Biden’s offense that Trump sought investigated ?

    Wasn’t there a clear political benefit to Biden for tanking the Shokin investigation in Ukraine – not to mention a personal one ?

    We have heard screams about emoluments and that somehow Trump’s family – all of whom had demonstrated business success BEFORE Trump’s political career and do not seem to be doing vastly better since – how is that less offensive that what Pelosi, Kerry Biden (and pretty much all career politicians) were up to ?

    If foreign policy disagreements are the basis for impeachment today – what about the next time there is a democrat as president and a republican House ?

    If this is how the house conducts investigations under democrats – why do democrats expect differently when Republicans are next in power ?

    Or Why should democrats in the Senate expect to be treated better than democrats treat republicans in the house ?

    Eliminating the fillibuster has worked out badly for democrats – why do they think further deviations from historic norms are going to work out better ?

  11. Might abusing the power of the IRS, to prevent otherwise lawfully constituted organizations from obtaintng 501(c)(3), thereby abridging their constitutionally-protected right to free speech, constitute an impeachable offense. If the president were Obama, one could only respond, as did Jake Barnes in the last sentence of “The Sun Also Rises,”: “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

          1. they’re just not professional whiners like your friends.

            Go back to sleep, us whiners will fight the battles you’re too cowardly to take on. You’re welcome.

    1. “….FBI investigation
      In January 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the affair. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. The officials indicated, however, that the investigation is continuing.[164][165][166][167]

      DOJ investigation
      In October 2015, the Justice Department notified Congress that there would be no charges against the former IRS official Lois Lerner or against anyone else in the IRS. The investigation found no evidence of illegal activity or the partisan targeting of political groups and found that no IRS official attempted to obstruct justice. The DOJ investigation did find evidence of mismanagement and Lerner’s poor judgement in using her IRS account for personal messages but said “…poor management is not a crime.”[168][169][170] In September 2017, the DOJ declined a request from the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means to reopen the investigation into Lerner’s IRS activities.[171][172]….”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#FBI_investigation

      1. Yeah, Wikipedia is NOT an unbiased source of information, Doofus. Everyone in DC knows Obama’s IRS targeted conservative groups and effectively silenced them in the lead up to Obama’s re-election.

  12. What is most disturbing is that this kind of complete BS even gets reported.

    We have way to many laws, and they are far to broadly written – that is a huge problem that we need to fix.

    But when we read the law broadly we exponentially increase the problem.

    We have faced a series of completely insane purportedly legal and constitutional arguments – all too often from reputable sources.

    I have read Prof. Tribe’s book on constitutional law and it is excellent.

    But everything that comes out of Prof. Tribe’s mouth for the past 3 years has been complete garbage. He is shitting all over his own reputation – as are some of the best legal scholars on the left.

    None seem to grasp that these nonsensical legal arguments will inevitably come back to bite them on the ass.

  13. I used to be a happy warrior for conservative causes; I relished debate and discussion.

    Lately I have become both exhausted and angry with the Dem’s slow moving coup.

    We are no longer debating issues; we are engaged in a blood feud.

    We are now less than one year from the election; a time when Americans will render their own judgement on Pres. Trump.

    And our (all voting American’s) judgement is the only one that matters. The Dems are little people with shrill voices touting their version of the truth.

    Time for the politicians to campaign and present their best cases to the American electorate. Time for Rep. Schiff, Sen. Harris, Mr. Painter and the other pygmies to shut up.

          1. Olly, YNOT is a mental case. Just look at what he writes over and over again almost never saying anything. Moderate Democrats try to distance themselves from people like YNOT and Anon. They don’t like to be close to 4 letter words. It is that type of person that pushes people out of the Democratic Party so I am happy to hear from them demonstrating how low the Democratic Party has fallen.

    1. So true. I used to be a political junkie watching the talking heads exchange ideas. Now it’s just more and more blather, shouting, and wild accusations. I find I watch less and less TV and read even fewer newspaper reports.

      There lack of ideas, truth, and objectivity, has exhausted and sickened me.

    2. The Dems control much of the information available to voters:

      1. Our public education system has become politicized far Left. Students hear pro-Democrat messaging at taxpayer expense from preK through grad school. We are all paying for the brainwashing of students to vote Democrat.
      2. Democrats control the mainstream media, much of which has been reduced to Democrat propaganda. Prospective voters who watch MSM are unaware of anything positive that Trump has accomplished. This meddles in elections.
      3. Democrats control Hollywood, to the point that conservatives often stay closeted in order to work. Thus, Democrats have access to propaganda that reaches millions of prospective voters. Then, actors and actresses drive home that messaging in their awards speeches.
      4. Democrat activists have infested the government alphabet soup and abuse their authority to target conservatives – FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, etc.

      The informed are up against a political machine that keeps many voters misinformed.

      1. Speaking of our educational systems, I don’t recall you responding to my questions about your level of education. Please do so.

        1. I don’t recall you responding to my questions about your level of education.

          LOL! Knowing that will not improve your arguments. Even if she had no formal education, she has what you likely will never have; objectivity, reason, logic and a belief in the first principles that this nation was founded on.

        2. We gonna hear more about your nursing and law degrees (which leave no trace in these discussions)?

  14. I have a question. There are several potential jurors (ie Senators) running for President, who would directly benefit from his removal. Shouldn’t they recuse themselves, particularly since many if not all have already suggested his guilt of something before evidence has been presented? I am not a lawyer, but if Sessions had to recuse himself for talking to a Russian (as I recall) it seems that telling to world your competitor is guilty of impeachable offense before the evidence has been presented… is a problem. Am I missing something here?

    1. You’re missing the Constitution which declares that the Senators are the jurors, full stop. No requirement other than you are a Senator. Nice and simple.

      1. Anonymous has a point, through. If Richard Painter can accuse the President of “felony bribery” for doing what every other President has for members of his party in Congress, then each and every member of the House is guilty of abuse of power to play to their more extreme constituents and those gain re-election. They cannot be considered objective judges of fact or law.

        I realize that’s how the Constitution set things up, but let’s stop pretending that the Democratic party has brought us to the point of being a banana republic. No one else.

        1. Ok, once more with caffeine:
          Let’s stop pretending that the Democratic parry has not brought us to the point of being a banana republic. They are nakedly abusing the impeachment process by alluding to charges which are without substance and doing so solely to influence the next Federal election.

          At this point, it’s time to respond in kind – Congressional Democrats who have things to hide or have broken the law ought to be investigated and tried in courts of law if the evidence so warrants. Those whose sexual misconduct in office has resulted in payoffs to victims ought to be exposed for who they are and what they did.

  15. Of course, the obverse is true, as well. The Republican Senators who have declared Trump innocent of an impeachable offense are as guilty as the Democrats of questionable ethics. The truth seems to be that despite our vaunted exceptionalism as a country, our entire system of governance is riddled with corruption, mostly around the matter of campaign financing. The difference between us and the so-called “banana republics” is that in our system cash does not usually change hands directly, but through intermediaries like fund-raising committees, PACs, etc..

  16. I think they can impeach on abuse of power, because at this point the vote is purely political. However, convicting on abuse of power is whole different ball game.

    1. Paul:

      “I think they can impeach on abuse of power, because at this point the vote is purely political. However, convicting on abuse of power is whole different ball game.”
      *****************

      AOP is too vague a standard to use as it means nothing or maybe everything. Did Washington “abuse power” in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion? Rebellion? Did Lincoln “abuse power” by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation? Did Truman “abuse power” nationalizing industry? In whose eyes is it an abuse of power? The opposition? His fellow Repubs? The Senate as a whole? The electorate? Maybe all and that’s the problem — “Maybe.”

      Abusing power is actually abusing discretion conferred by the Constitution. If we employ the Court’s definition of abuse of discretion, you’ll see the actor has to plainly violate the law to be reversed for abuse of discretion. That means a specific law and specific facts justifying a violation thereof. All three Constitutional criteria for impeachment allude to laws broken – bribery, treason and high crimes and misdemeanors.

      Trump has violated no law as far as I can see nor have the Dims have proven any. This is not-so-high political theatre and low life politics.

      1. Mespo wrote: “Trump has violated no law as far as I can see …..”

        1. 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.

        “Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

        2. 18 U.S. Code § 610 Coercion of political activity.

        “It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in … any political activity.”

        3. 18 U.S. Code § 595, when a government official, “in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President.”

        4. U.S. Code § 600.Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

        Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

          1. Fishy:

            “Nice try, telling them about the law does no good when they believe trump IS above the law.”
            ********************
            Naw, I just don’t take legal advice from building contractors or legal posers. Don’t even read it. Do you often take advice on digging footings from airline pilots?

            1. Mespo thinks going after the police tipster is good strategy when the evidence is already gathered. Maybe that’s not part of ambulance chasing.

              Given that, we seem to have about equal legal knowledge – I’m being generous to Mespo – maybe he can respond to that actual evidence in light of the laws cited above.

              Nahh, probably can’t.

              1. “tipster” yeah snitches. actually it is a good defense strategy. because they sing whatever song their handlers tell them to.

                also 600. 610. and 872 are totally off base. if you have any action it’s on 595 and that depends on the quid pro quo

                Zelensky– the counterparty on the call in question, and the person with the first and foremost witness on the question of “interpretation,” of the relevant remarks,
                already said he didn’t hear the comments as a quid pro quo.

                In any court of law trying a criminal case, that would be tons of “Reasonable” doubt and an acquittal if not a directed verdict.

                .

                oh but they say, criminal procedure doesn’t apply to impeachment! YES EXACTLY.

                CONGRESS CAN BRING A BOGUS ACCUSATION IN AN IMPEACHMENT, LET’S WATCH AS IT HAPPENS AND SEE HOW IT GOES

                1. A witness under obvious duress is not much evidence to overturn the obvious. The QPQ is obvious, if not admitted to.

                  Yes, an impeachment does not require a criminal conviction and the standards are both lower and to what might best be called the common sense most Americans – no, not you Trumpers, never have been and never will be a majority – understand.

                  1. Trumpers, never have been and never will be a majority – understand.

                    Yeah, go with that. Conservatives, centrist liberals and Independent voters will reject the insanity coming out of the Democrat party and ride that train with whoever is on the ballot opposing them.

        1. If Trump is guilty of those crimes listed above without stated proof of guilt then you are just as guilty of:

          U.S. Code § 920. Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

          (a) Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—
          (1) using unlawful force against that other person;
          (2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;

          I know Trump is not guilty of any of the statutes above while President but I don’t know that you aren’t guilty of rape.

      2. mespo – abuse of power is so vague that anything would fit under that label. And the House can impeach if they do not like the way he eats his boogers. Trump does not have to violate any law, however the Democrats are going to have to make it look like a high crime or misdemeanor to get away with it. Elsewise, there will be blowback. Heavy blowback.

        1. There might be mild blowback, but it may be enough to move the needle into a different zone. North of 40% of the public would be pleased if Congress impeached Trump for no reason at all. That’s what’s happened to the Democratic Party. The real contest is for the swing voters, who are generally people who pay little attention to public affairs and are annoyed by it. The Democrats have learned over the better part of a generation that the media will work overtime to stick the Republicans with the bill for every controversy. That makes the Republicans vulnerable to the protean viewpoint of the low-information-voters in the ‘swing voter’ category.

          1. TIA:
            True enough, PT Barnum had a point. That said, pocketbooks usually rule the day and even a donkey knows not to kick the guy bringing it the straw every morning.

  17. The Prof doth protest too much. A legion of former federal prosecutors disagrees with him. Lately he has sounded like the spokesman for Giuiliani, Dershowitz and Turley. Sad, but apparently a consequence of breathing the DC air when you are a putative national figure.

    1. “A legion”, huh? Name them and name their political party (as defined by the party affiliation of candidates to whom they’ve contributed.) Anything a Dem “former federal prosecutor” says is Dem billshut.

      1. Seems like everyone is a “former federal prosecutor” these days. There must be thousands of them out there. Dueling news programs, both of the left and right, have dueling FFP talking heads spewing forth on every imaginable subject. Is having been a FP a stamp of wisdom and credibility on all issues? What about a former federal public defender? We never hear from them, although there was a time when criminal defense attorneys – Perry Mason; Judd for the Defense, etc. were popular with the public as protectors of the rights of the wrongfully accused. Maybe because crime has become more outrageous and criminals more despised, we as a society revere the punitive prosecutor and despise the defense attorney? Interesting cultural shift….

Leave a Reply to Mr Kurtz Cancel reply