And?
But that’s not what Trump’s doing. He didn’t tell the DoJ and FBI to look into wrongdoing, he asked foreign governments (today he did so explicitly) to investigate a political opponent, heavily implying a quid pro quo. A majority of Americans appear to agree that this is an abuse of power.
Right. That’s why Dems need to get those Republicans to grow some spines and tell the truth. And IMO Obama would be the ideal person* to explain the situation in terms most voters could understand.
*Not for true MAGAts, of course. But their minds are already made up.
Assume that Biden & Son are guilty of some crime, and that the DoJ has opened an investigation, and that said investigation requires evidence from Ukraine. Is it an abuse of power for the President to ask Ukraine to cooperate with the DoJ on that investigation? Why, and how then does the DoJ proceed with its lawful inquiry?
And that is a debate all to itself. While I don’t take a strong position due to ignorance I do not simply assume that Hoover had no reason to spy on MLK.
~Max
There are more Republicans than Democrats in the Senate, and Republican Senators appear to be against conviction. So, assuming that the Democrats want to convict the president it is incumbent upon them to convince the Republicans to change their minds.
~Max
That seems like an unusual case. Presumably diplomats at the state department would request that investigators in Ukraine work with investigators in the US. If Ukraine refused, it might move up the chain – ultimately the SoS would be asked to intervene to encourage Ukraine’s cooperation, and perhaps if he failed he would apprise the President to get involved.
However, the President should be wary of the appearance of impropriety, and should exhaust all other options before getting personally involved in the investigation of a political rival. See: Obama’s behavior towards the Trump/Russia investigation, a target he wasn’t even personally running against.
NM
A majority of Americans is not good enough for the Senate even in principle, which has malapportionment built-in. You need a majority of the “states” as represented by the Senate, and right now that is 53% Republican plus one tie-breaker if necessary. Even a majority of Republicans across the country isn’t enough in principle - you need the majority of Americans in at least four states with Republican Senators, and some of those Senators won’t change their minds unless a majority of Republicans in their state want change, and some (like one of mine) won’t change their minds at all unless they are up for reelection.
Appearances aside, if a domestic investigation requires foreign law enforcement cooperation it would be appropriate to ask that foreign government to cooperate.
~Max
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to convince more Republicans that the US has standard channels through which investigations of US citizens happen, and are communicated to foreign powers? And that these channels exist to avoid the appearance of impropriety? And that presidents who bypass these channels in order to pressure foreign powers to investigate political rivals are EXACTLY THE REASON THESE CHANNELS EXIST?
What domestic investigation? The only investigation going on – on any level – was the one in Trump and Guiliani’s heads.
My comment was in response to John_Stamos’_Left_Ear’s Post #1610, indicating a scenario where both Trump and Pence had been removed/resigned and no longer available to campaign or anything else.
The discussion was about which Republican might be selected as a replacement VP – who must be approved by both the House and Senate – in lieu of Speaker Pelosi assuming the presidency as is the Constitutional order of things. Under those circumstances, I believe Romney would be fairly high up on the list as someone acceptable to both sides.
Who do you think it would be?
I did see your post and speculation, didn’t realize it was in this thread. 
I had wanted to respond then but Life Interfered and by the time I got back, the thread had moved on. I concur entirely with your speculation that Moscow Mitch may have set a trap. He’s crafty that way.
You’re right we can’t know, but Moscow Mitch has a pretty good network into the White House and its goings on. I find it far easier to believe that he knew exactly what was in the call summary than that he didn’t. Moreover, he has more than once given Trump’s leash a yank when Trump got too far afield, even publicly commenting that Trump’s own behavior might cause his “presidency” to end in impeachment. It was a not-so-veiled warning, and it happened ages ago.
I don’t think McConnell wants to bring it down, but I believe he will do that if he believes it is in the best interests of his Senate majority. If Trump has become too reckless and… well, let’s just face it, too nuts for Senate Republicans to control his behavior, then I believe McConnell would reluctantly make the hard choice sooner rather than later. It gives him time to manage the fallout of what he can see is inevitably coming.
Teh Base™ is loyal, but they aren’t enough to win an election – or even to keep previously “safe” Republican Senate seats in Republican hands. At some point, they will choose to go down with the Trump Titanic or they will choose to cut the anchor. Given that choice, I think McConnell will cut him loose.
A fools game I’d say. Everyone here knows it. Your framing lacks a sense of reality. While they would be struggling to “convince” the rebupkis will be trolling and making stuff up.
Impeachment is a process that will force pols who are feigning a “principled contrarian” position to actually show up for the country or be on the wrong side of history.
Agreed, however I simply don’t know whether Mr. Trump exhausted other options first. Even if he didn’t, I hesitate to consider it an abuse of power if we legitimately needed Ukrainian cooperation for a law enforcement operation.
The withholding of aid adds another element of disbelief, but if that was tied to alleged Ukrainian election interference I would hold a similar opinion. It so happens that I believe both supposed investigations are baseless, therefore Mr. Trump probably abused his power, but I am not in a position to conclusively make that judgement.
~Max
Obviously there’s very little chance of actual removal from office. Republicans in office have shown very little sign that they value the country and our institutions more than their immediate short-term political future. If this is all you’re saying, then you’ll get no argument from me. Most of the Republicans in the House and Senate are abandoning their oaths of office, and I see little sign that this will change.
There’s no reason to believe that there is any legitimate reason for an investigation into this issue.
There’s no reason for you to carry this kind of water for the administration. Its corruption on this is plain to see – Trump essentially admitted to the allegations being investigated by the House (that he’s using his power of office to try and damage a political rival) in public today.
OK then…
But but but… What if aliens landed, and were taking over the planet? Wouldn’t it be OK then for Trump to call a foreign leader and ask them for favors? Hmmmmm? What about then?
I think that’s reasonable, but it doesn’t advance conviction as a goal. Assuming conviction is the goal, taking that path means you would have to convince Republicans that the appearance of impropriety is itself impeachable. I don’t think that’s a winning strategy, because I myself disagree.
~Max
What?
Barr didn’t know about the phone call. You can’t spin this into a legitimate investigation.
Besides, what’s Rudy’s legitimate involvement in a legitimate investigation by a legitimate government he isn’t employed by?
Assuming conviction is the goal, are you implying that Senate Republicans right now will vote to convict because they don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history?
~Max
Apparently Trump’s counter-strategy is to do out loud on the White House lawn what he got caught red-handed doing on a super-secret phone call. If he’s willing to do it in public it can’t be illegal, right?
Bold move.