That’s a bit of a stretch of a comparison, isn’t it? The Khan’s ethnicity is not exactly the same as the Trump diehards, nor of course that of Vindman. And in that uniform, he is the literal face of the military, alive, and more known to the public by now, more tangible.
Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the Senate trial.
A large point of contention will be the question of what is and is not criminal activity. Whether relevant for Presidential impeachment or not, it’s going to be a hard line that the defense will have a hard time moving the public over.
But, at the same time, you can find a lawyer who will interpret the law any which way you want. The Defense will bring Cippolone up and he’ll explain why everything is legal and above board. The Prosecution will bring up a guy who says otherwise. The public will side with the guy that says what they want to hear or, at minimum, get the impression that it’s not clear what the legal answer is.
So: Can the prosecution ask Roberts to be the one to give an overview of what is and is not legal, if he does not start off the trial himself giving a speech that describes it?
So you actually believe Trump loyalists may react badly to attempts to discredit Vindman because he’s white and military? Someone tell Fox News!
Is it too big of an assumption to make that most people who are on the fence now, but are likely to vote, know full well the partisan nature of politics in this country? So that after seeing an impeachment/trial, where the Ukraine debacle and various obstruction charges as discussed by Mueller are litigated, and compelling evidence for Trump to be ousted is given, that many of those voters will recognize the feckless and craven nature of the Republicans who will undoubtedly vote to acquit, be repulsed, and either refuse to vote for Trump again, or “defect” to the other side? Who knows, but I’ve said it many times and will say it again, this scenario is easily as probable as it going the other way to benefit Trump, and IMO opinion even more like to harm him.
I didn’t say that. Anyway, I literally have no idea how Trump loyalists may react. I’m just saying the comparison isn’t apt. Yeah, the military was involved in both cases, and in both cases the “witnesses” were saying things harmful to Trump. But the difference are too vast to make a snap judgement that I think you were implying in your response to iiandyiii.
Sorry if I misunderstood – I thought you were saying that, because Vindman is white and the Khans are brown, efforts to discredit Vindman might be less well-received by Trump loyalists than the efforts to discredit the Khans.
But the cases are more similar that not. People who claim to be patriots should bristle when veterans (or their families) are smeared for political purposes, but the “patriots” who make up Trump’s base are happy to pile on the hate if the people in question dare speak out against their leader.
Criminality has nothing to do with it. Impeachment is a question of whether the person being impeached is fit for the office he/she holds.
We’ve impeached a lot more judges than presidents, so here is a link to judges that have been impeached, some of whom on the basis of behavior not criminal but merely unbecoming to their office.
As it happens, Trump’s behavior does rise to the level of criminality (bribery, extortion). But it’s not necessary for it to, and Dems need to hammer this point again and again and again.
I am very glad that Dems have distilled their message down to A, B and C:
A = Abuse of Power by Trump;
B = Betrayal of Trump’s oath of office; and
C = Corruption by Trump and his “administration.”
These are all impeachable offenses, irrespective of their criminality.
Missed the edit window. The link reflects more than judges who’ve been impeached. It also includes senators and presidents.
To be frank, I’d say you added to what I said, not misunderstood it, but it’s all good. Agreed about “bristling”. Don’t know about the rest. I’m like Pauline Kael. I don’t know a single person who voted for Trump. 
I understand this thinking. There are certainly people out there who will not look at facts and base their conclusions on them. But this, and I don’t know any other way to say it, contempt for the intelligence of the majority of the public irks me. And I admit to saying type of thing before. But I try not to. Why is that we here at the Dope are so smart, and the rest of the people are so dumb?
ETA: This goes to what I’ve said today, and in other threads. I believe the public is able to discern right from wrong if given the chance. I don’t mean to single you out.
The problem is, if it’s an even bet to help or harm, it’s probably a bad bet. Everyone was polling well against Trump and now we’re pressing our luck. Feels a bit like hitting a 17 vs a dealer 6. Having said that, the knowledge that we’re doing the right thing coupled with the outlier of seeing Trump removed from office (decoupled by the probability of serious civil unrest should that happen), leaves me feeling neutral on overall advisability.
That was what I said in the second sentence of my post. You did not address the actual topic raised.
We are a self-selected sample.
The annoying thing is that people hang out someplace like this and around their friends (who are also self-selected) and then feel like democracy is a reasonable solution to the problem and exacerbate the exact sort of issue that we’re trying to deal with, but are completely outvoted on.
You’re right, and I apologize for not reading your post closely enough.
My response was knee-jerk, but it’s because I am so tired of seeing those opposed to Trump cede the illegitimate points of misdirection that Republicans make so commonly, such as: 1) Trying to say Nancy Pelosi is too old/tired/weak to be the Democrats’ Speaker of the House; 2) Trying to say a quid pro quo is required when we know it is not, yet pages of this thread are devoted to arguing just that; 3) Trying to say criminality is an element of impeachment, when we know it is not. These are just a few examples.
I don’t understand why opponents of Trump spend so much time accepting the framework handed to them by Trump Republicans and arguing on their turf instead of defining their own.
But if you feel criminality by Trump is required, instances abound.
I don’t know that it is an even bet, and have argued elsewhere that it is not, that undecideds are smart enough that the probability of more of them going left after a trial than right is quite likely. I can’t know this, but it makes sense to me. The issue with me in the past was this surety that impeachment/trial could only help Trump. Not you as I remember, but others.
As for pressing our luck, time will tell. But I’ve also made the point that impeaching because it’s the right thing to do should override the concern about it helping Trump. And I even think that America will survive just fine if he is re-elected. I won’t, because I’ll be committing suicide, but that’s just me. 
Yes, no doubt we are. But, so what? People here for the most part seem reasonably intelligent, and I see no reason to think that most of the public is also.
Well, the argument that the document wasn’t modified in any material way has flown the coop:
To quote Agent Kay, in Men in Black:
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
I think Pence would be good at preventing civil unrest. So long as he hadn’t endorsed impeachment – and he will not – he’d be in a position to pledge continuity while making the vaguest possible statements about bringing people together. I think it would – from the standpoint of something I am not, a GOP loyalist – work fine.
Then there’s the danger of civil unrest if DJT isn’t removed. Suppose that he loses the election next November – and then proclaims his loss to be fake news, organizing phoney alternatives state elector slates, and commanding the secret service to take his side.
If removed him from office by public vote of United States Senators, it would much harder to organize resistance. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but there’potential either way. Just as there’s potential if Trump wins in 2020, and a Trumpist GOP candidate loses in 2024