For example, Trump wanted to end the Russia interference investigation and came close to terminating Mueller. I think if he had done so, there would have been a serious consideration of impeachment on obstruction of justice (in part, Mueller enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress). Instead, he stepped back and declared victory over the findings. Even though Mueller pointed out something like 10 grounds of obstruction, the Democrats didn't include the Mueller issues in the impeachment counts. Similarly, after the whistleblower revelation over the Zelensky phone call, Trump quickly released a transcript, which included references to Biden. It was probably to his benefit to get the bad news out early instead of denying references to Biden, a cover-up.
I would argue that the White House and the GOP have failed to defend Trump's inappropriate references to Biden (and I don't think you can rationalize it). They've tried to mitigate the damage by suggesting that Biden isn't the likely nominee, etc. And/or some wild conspiracy theory that Biden went after Shokin to protect Burisma, which had hired Hunter Biden, i.e., the financial interests of his own son. (I wrote a blistering series of tweets on Ernst (R-IA) over the weekend on that. In fact, Shokin's refusal to prosecute Burisma was one of the reasons Biden went after him. A lot of attention has been paid attention to Hunter Biden's recruitment to the Burisma board, especially given his inexperience in the natural resource industry. There are several problems with the partisan criticisms: Biden would likely have needed to report his son's foreign interest, but it isn't illegal; Burisma is not a state-owned entity; it isn't unusual for corporate boards to recruit the politically connected or celebrities without industry experience; what a private company pays its board members isn't relevant--it's the business of company owners paying it. Would I have paid a million dollars to Hunter Biden with a different surname? Probably not. Obviously Burisma thought he was worth it; maybe they felt it would boost their perceived image. But the hypothesis that Biden went after Shokin to protect Burisma, and his son's spot on the board, is pure rubbish. If anything, Shokin looked the other way on Burisma, e.g., when West Europe was investigating relevant money laundering, and the Obama Administration was considering its own money laundering charges against Burisma.
Now you can argue that Hunter Biden was badly advised to accept an appointment to the board given the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, particularly given his father's role in relation to Ukraine. But the events being investigated preceded Hunter's recruitment, and there were allegations of corrupt prosecutors accepting bribes to look the other way. Shokin alleges he spurned offers to close the case against Burisma, but subordinates point out Shokin did nothing to pursue charges or to work with international entities pursuing charges.
Other arguments I've seen is that POTUS routinely seek political advantage in carrying out their duties, i.e., Trump's predecessors have done the same, and it's unfair to single out Trump for doing the same. This is also a frivolous argument with zero evidence. In fact, Trump encouraged the Russians et al. to find/release Hillary Clinton's emails--for the clear intent of damaging her candidacy. He later said that he was "joking". This was arguably illegal on Trump's part and certainly morally dubious for a future POTUS, sensitive over some emails containing classified information. In fact, Mueller found out that indeed Russian hackers tried to go after the Clinton servers within hours of Trump's request.
The second count, obstruction of Congress, is somewhat more dubious; Trump has basically made it all but impossible for Congress to exercise its constitutional oversight authority. True, the House did get damaging testimony from the likes of Hill and Sondland. But the White House has blocked high ranking officials like the NSA's Bolton and Kupperman; the potential witness lawyers (e.g., Charles Cooper) have promised to fight House subpoenas, a likely lengthy process in the courts which would have dragged out investigations indefinitely. The White House/Senate Republicans have claimed that the House didn't do due diligence; that's false. Bolton was asked, and blew off, the request for a voluntary deposition in the House. (I have little doubt that the House would ultimately prevail in the courts.) Bolton did suggest that he couldn't fight a Senate subpoena. That's why we're having the current kerfuffle over witnesses and documents in the Senate trial, but the Senate vote late last week has made it a moot point.
The GOP talking point about the House not doing its job and rushing to judgment is rubbish. First of all, we have Trump's own released Zelensky phone call transcript. Second, we have a GAO report confirming that Trump put a halt on Ukrainian aid and it was illegal. We know from Sondland et al. that Trump wanted an announcement from Ukraine on an investigation of the Bidens before he would release the aid. We know from the testimony of Sondland and Hill about the nature of Trump's quid pro quo, we know Bolton wanted no part of Trump's "drug deal", we know from Trump's call transcript that Trump wanted a "favor", he specifically mentioned the Bidens, and he wanted Zelensky to meet with his personal attorney Giuliani; he's not discussing corruption specifics, he's not discussing US policy matters.
The case against Trump is rock solid; why are the Dems pushing for more witnesses, documents, etc.? To do due diligence, fill in the gaps, etc. (I also think the Dems are playing for time, hoping something might emerge that changes the dynamics of the trial, e.g., that makes it politically suicidal for Senate Republicans to defend Trump. I really don't know what that may be; I think it's like a desperation low-probability Hail Mary pass at the end of the football game. They want Republicans to fear something could emerge after an acquittal vote that could have them having to defend a premature acquittal, for example, like Hillary Clinton trying to defend her vote on Iraq after public opinion shifted on the Iraq war, probably resulting in her 2008 loss to Obama.
The problem for the Dems is that they haven't closed the sale with independents, with most polls I've seen showing just less than half of them supporting removal from office (cf, e.g., 538). I think this is mostly because Trump's extortion attempt failed and there's a Presidential election just 10 months away.
My issue with acquittal has more to do with the Senate setting a bad precedent for tolerating abuses of power for political gain from the White House and allowing the President to cover up misconduct by obstructing Congress. Plus, I don't want Trump declaring victory after winning an acquittal.
I think, though, what I most resent over and beyond the intellectually vapid defenses of the White House lawyers and Senate Republicans is how two favorite libertarian legislators, Rand Paul and Tom Massie, have become partisan in this battle, versus more principled libertarians, Judge Napolitano and Justin Amash, who support impeachment and conviction. I've written multiple relevant tweets over the past 2 months, but let me briefly discuss the quixotic Rand Paul, who I supported for President in 2016 and feel particularly betrayed by.
Rand Paul has been fixated, like his dad Ron Paul, on the (overblown) Deep State sabotage conspiracy by unelected neo-con bureaucrats in the State Department, etc. He has argued that the House has deprived Trump of his Constitutional Rights, of the opportunity to confront his accuser, i.e., the anonymous whistleblower over the Zelensky phone call.
Let's be clear:
- the whistleblower was not a direct witness to the phone call or Trump's quid pro quo of a Ukrainian investigation of Biden for military aid passed into law
- Trump and other principal defense witnesses have not been denied the right to testify in the trial (other than Trump's blanket rejection of witnesses, like Bolton, to testify
- the only revelation of which I am aware is the whistleblower complained about the phone call and Trump himself released a transcript of the call, basically validating the claim
The basic purpose of whistleblower protection is to prevent reprisals by the Administration; we already have a track record of Trump terminating suspected disloyal subordinates, including AG Sessions, Comey, etc. Whistleblowers serve an important function in our republic's check against government wrongdoing in conjunction with the free press. Libertarians in principle respect the right of anonymous speech. There is no legitimate public purpose to outing the whistleblower.
So Rand Paul basically tried to get Chief Justice Roberts to reveal the whistleblower's identity into the record, which to the chief justice's credit, he refused to do (see here and here). What Rand Paul tried to do here was immoral and illegal and a contradiction to libertarian principles; he should be ashamed of himself.
