Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

And of course Parnas gets bashed for being partisan - even though he's doing nothing but provide evidence. Notice how the Republicans don't go after evidence; they only go after messengers and use martyr words like hoax and witch hunt. It's like the evidence and the corresponding TRUTH doesn't even matter. Let's not go after the facts; Go after the messengers. And this mind-numbing strategy actually works on a large part of our population! Listen to them say... "I'd rather we didn't do things that way, but I can deal with that... duhhhhhh, blablabla." Guess what to those people: You're dealing with that is the reason it's happening. Stop being a moron.

[Zonkerbl]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

[Pointgod]

It doesn't surprise me with respect to Bernie. When you actually dive into his proposals - they aren't all that.

They really aren't. They're not awful. He's an astute politician and I get the impression that his heart is in the right place but he's up against other solid candidates that are simply outclassing him. Warren was 2nd on my list and Bernie was 5th or something like that. Bernie gets lumped into the discussions because he and his team are effectively trying to drive a single issue above all else. He still speaks to other stuff well enough, including extremely loudly regarding wealth inequality, but the other stuff he deals with all ties back to his one single issue. He wants a wealth tax... specifically to pay for universal health care and education immediately. He wants greater equality and supports women's rights, minority rights, etc... which he assumes will largely resolves themselves once there is universal health care and free university education. No thought to unintended consequences or much in the way of strategic planning for how he will get what he wants if other political institutions resist him. It's a single issue that tries to push everyone else away from him and causes a rather significant us/them divide.

Even his supporters likely won't line up with his policy positions as much as they think other than changing their minds in hindsight. His appeal is largely surrounding a single issue of a health transfer (to which the education transfer is attached) from rich to poor. There is a lot of value in his macro view, too, but comparatively, he really lags behind.

If you look at the Dem field objectively Warren is the best candidate and it’s not even close. She has all the same policy objectives as Bernie and in addition has put out detailed plans on how to achieve them. It’s not that I believe Bernie’s policies are pie in the sky, but no one has ever addressed how he’s going to convince a house and Senate that’s not a majority far left leaning to implement his ideas. Add to the fact that he’s not someone known for being able to compromise and persuade and I only see him as slightly more successful than Trump in getting his policies passed. I remember seeing his supporters challenged on Reddit about this and their solution to getting Joe Manchin on board with his policies is to hold rallies in West Virginia and try to get Joe voted out....

If it wasn’t for the fact that she’s a woman and Progressive purity tests Warren would be running away with this thing.

[popper]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

[Wizardspride]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

I'm trying to be respectful, but have you been following this closely?

[Pointgod]

MLK Jr was a socialist.

Just sayin'.

Didn't he label himself a "Democratic Socialist" vs. "Socialist"?

Like Bernie, he thought the tendency of Capitalism to rob from the poor and give to the rich was a feature, not a bug, and did not consider himself pro-capitalist. In his own words he described himself as "more socialistic than capitalistic"

Strictly speaking I don't think either he or Bernie are true "government should own the means of production" socialists. As I've argued on this thread redistributing money from winners to losers so everybody benefits from capitalism is well-executed capitalism, not socialism. So in that sense neither MLK Jr nor Bernie are socialists.

[Edit: In Europe people who are in favor of well executed capitalism are called "Social Democrats"]

The label of socialist is essentially meaningless and has been destroyed by right wing demagoguery. Every example of socialism that’s discussed by political parties in North America is democratic socialism. No one is trying to emulate Venezuela which fails because of a wannabe dictator, not socialism. Republican scaremongering is flat out stupid and nobody should let it influence their decisions.

[Pointgod]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

I'm trying to be respectful, but have you been following this closely?

He gets his sources from right wing news which is actually worse than not following it at all.

[dobrojim]

There are a myriad of crimes underlying the Articles. Here are three:

Bribery/extortion - soliciting something of value in return for an official act.

Violation of campaign finance laws by soliciting something of value
from a foreign govt (Cohen is serving time for this right now)

Withholding of legally appropriated funds.

There are probably others but please address why these are not crimes
or not impeachable.

PS you are correct that Congress can define High crimes and misdemeanors
however it chooses so technically a criminal act is not necessary rendering
that whole argument irrelevant.

[Zonkerbl]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

It is NOT TRUE that Trump has claimed executive privilege. HE HAS NOT. He has invented blanket privilege to ignore Congress' constitutional requirement to oversee the executive branch. No such privilege exists in law.

Trump demanded that a foreign official manufacture fake dirt about his political opponent, in contradiction to America's national security needs, in order to help his in his personal reelection. Ukraine is a buffer between totalitarian Russia and Democratic Europe. It is in our national security interests that Ukraine not lose its war with Russia over the Crimea. Trump threatened, illegally, to withhold aid that Congress chose, in a bipartisan vote, to supply to Ukraine to protect our national security.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

I don't see how you can perceive this any other way than a terrifying abuse of power, worse than ANY corruption we have seen in our nation's history, that requires immediate removal from office to protect our country and the future of Democracy.

[popper]

There are a myriad of crimes underlying the Articles. Here are three:

Bribery/extortion - soliciting something of value in return for an official act.

Violation of campaign finance laws by soliciting something of value
from a foreign govt (Cohen is serving time for this right now)

Withholding of legally appropriated funds.

There are probably others but please address why these are not crimes
or not impeachable.

PS you are correct that Congress can define High crimes and misdemeanors
however it chooses so technically a criminal act is not necessary rendering
that whole argument irrelevant.

OK. Let's take them one by one.

Bribery - Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden for corruption. I believe the Ukrainian PM said Trump never threatened to withhold the money. By law, Trump couldn't withhold the money past the end of the FY regardless. The money was transferred and no investigation took place. I think it's a weak case but that's just my opinion.

Campaign Finance Violation - If soliciting something of value from a foreign government to aid one's campaign is an impeachable offense then no president in living history would have survived a full term. I do realize though that there are gradations here and that if Trump had solicited a million dollar under the table campaign contribution then the case would be much stronger IMO.

He didn't withhold legally appropriated funds past the FY deadline. No case here IMO.

Look, I agree Trump is a distasteful human being. I just don't see anything here that rises to the level of impeachment.

[Zonkerbl]

There are a myriad of crimes underlying the Articles. Here are three:

Bribery/extortion - soliciting something of value in return for an official act.

Violation of campaign finance laws by soliciting something of value
from a foreign govt (Cohen is serving time for this right now)

Withholding of legally appropriated funds.

There are probably others but please address why these are not crimes
or not impeachable.

PS you are correct that Congress can define High crimes and misdemeanors
however it chooses so technically a criminal act is not necessary rendering
that whole argument irrelevant.

OK. Let's take them one by one.

Bribery - Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden for corruption. I believe the Ukrainian PM said Trump never threatened to withhold the money. By law, Trump couldn't withhold the money past the end of the FY regardless. The money was transferred and no investigation took place. I think it's a weak case but that's just my opinion.

Campaign Finance Violation - If soliciting something of value from a foreign government to aid one's campaign is an impeachable offense then no president in living history would have survived a full term. I do realize though that there are gradations here and that if Trump had solicited a million dollar under the table campaign contribution then the case would be much stronger IMO.

He didn't withhold legally appropriated funds past the FY deadline. No case here IMO.

Look, I agree Trump is a distasteful human being. I just don't see anything here that rises to the level of impeachment.

When Trump threatened to withhold the aid unless Zelensky manufactured fake dirt about Biden, he committed bribery, right then and there. None of the stuff that happened later matters, particularly since the aid didn't get delivered until after he was caught.

I think I can say with certainty that no President has ever asked for a foreign state leader to prosecute a political opponent for personal political gain. That has NEVER happened.

Again, FY deadline doesn't matter. He withheld legally appropriated funds. Full stop. Illegal.

I know you really want to believe Trump is innocent here. But he's not.

[queridiculo]

I haven't read the Articles of Impeachment but according to Trump's lawyers they don't reference any violations of criminal statutes. If that's true, and I'm not sure it is, then how would his conduct rise to the level of impeachable offense? I'm under the impression that treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors is the constitutional threshold. I'm happy to change my views if you can point out where the House references specific violations of criminal statutes and there's sufficient evidence to back them up.

On the second question, if Trump committed no crime then it appears to me that the House is making a mountain out of mole hill. When I first learned of the two month funding delay to Ukraine it didn't strike me as a big deal. The money got transferred in the proper FY and Ukraine did not investigate Biden.

PS - Even if Trump did not commit a crime I would support some sort of official admonishment for his tawdry actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/

This is a pretty comprehensive article that covers the subject by offering some historic perspective.

The gist is essentially that the notion that impeachable offenses are limited to crimes as defined by criminal statutes flies in the face of precedent and common sense.

Americans of the founding generation were familiar with the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” not merely because they were close students of the parliamentary history of the mother country, but also because both the American colonies and the early state governments had conducted impeachments of their own. For example, in 1774, just before the American Revolution, the Massachusetts colonial assembly impeached Chief Justice Peter Oliver for “certain High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” His offense? The decidedly noncriminal act of agreeing to accept a royal salary rather than the stipend appropriated by the Massachusetts legislature. The Oliver impeachment was a cause célèbre in both England and the colonies. John Adams is often credited with the idea of impeaching the judge. Among those voting to impeach Oliver were Sam Adams and John Hancock, as well as Nathaniel Gorham, who in 1787 was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and chaired its early deliberations.

The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” entered the American Constitution because George Mason of Virginia was unhappy that, as the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close, the class of impeachable offenses had been limited to “treason or bribery.” Mason wanted a much broader definition. He illustrated his point by arguing that Hastings’s offenses would not be covered by the proposed skimpy language. Mason’s first suggested addition—“maladministration”—was thought too expansive, whereupon he offered, and the convention accepted, that sturdy old English term of art “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The beauty of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” from the perspective of the men of 1787 was that it provided both flexibility and some measure of guidance. Flexibility because it plainly pointed to the parliamentary practice of defining impeachable conduct on a case-by-case basis. Guidance because it incorporated, by reference, 400 years of prior practice on which one could rely in identifying the kinds and degrees of misbehavior that ought to be impeachable.

Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable. Impeachment, some founders said, would also follow from receipt of foreign emoluments or presidential efforts to secure by trickery Senate ratification of a disadvantageous treaty. During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

[Ruzious]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-twisted-vague-iran-worry-020413872.html
Just one more example of the WTFWH

Knowing that he doesn't give a f about the truth and any good information you give him could be twisted beyond recognition by him, how does any professional with any ethics and integrity work for the thing in the WH - regardless of political affiliation?

[pancakes3]

without delving into the nitty gritty legal analysis, the 30,000 ft level response to the argument of "abuse of power isn't a crime, and therefor not impeachable" means that a president is free to abuse his power*.

the original defense, the one that the House advanced, is that "this does not amount to an abuse of power" which is a much more (relatively) defensible position.

* abuses like say, nepotism. rubber stamping FISA warrants. targeting politically affiliated 501c's for heightened scrutiny. declining to prosecute political allies. withholding foreign aid for political favors (GAO has said that this is a violation of federal law). you can extend it to truly absurd situations like, assassinating foreign leaders. gutting the CDC and unnecessarily exposing Americans to diseases both new (Chinese Coronavirus) and old (chicken pox, measles, rubela, mumps). the federal criminal code is extremely narrow. DUIs are fair game. Bribery is limited to U.S. gov't officials, so you can bribe anyone else (foreign leaders).

** i'm not sure what "official admonishment" would look like for the president, or any high level gov't official really, other than removal. we're just talking about firing the guy. he's not going to jail. the idea that being removed from office is a sacred cow matters more to the RNC than it does for day-to-day republicans. Pence will still be President. The party still holds power.

It's the Kavannaugh argument. Nobody is saying you can't have a conservative as President - just not this conservative. I really don't see how this is would be extraordinarily unjust.

[dobrojim]

There are a myriad of crimes underlying the Articles. Here are three:

Bribery/extortion - soliciting something of value in return for an official act.

Violation of campaign finance laws by soliciting something of value
from a foreign govt (Cohen is serving time for this right now)

Withholding of legally appropriated funds.

There are probably others but please address why these are not crimes
or not impeachable.

PS you are correct that Congress can define High crimes and misdemeanors
however it chooses so technically a criminal act is not necessary rendering
that whole argument irrelevant.

OK. Let's take them one by one.

Bribery - Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden for corruption. I believe the Ukrainian PM said Trump never threatened to withhold the money. By law, Trump couldn't withhold the money past the end of the FY regardless. The money was transferred and no investigation took place. I think it's a weak case but that's just my opinion.

Campaign Finance Violation - If soliciting something of value from a foreign government to aid one's campaign is an impeachable offense then no president in living history would have survived a full term. I do realize though that there are gradations here and that if Trump had solicited a million dollar under the table campaign contribution then the case would be much stronger IMO.

He didn't withhold legally appropriated funds past the FY deadline. No case here IMO.

Look, I agree Trump is a distasteful human being. I just don't see anything here that rises to the level of impeachment.

1. Zelensky was in no position to start complaining and further antagonizing Trump.
Of course he publicly said what he said. It simply cannot be accepted as his sincere belief
under those circumstances. There is other documentary evidence that they clearly felt pressure
even if they were in no position to start publicly complaining about it.

2. Please provide at least one example of a Presidential candidate accepting aid from a foreign govt
on behalf of their political campaign before claiming that it is common practice.
Trump in 2016 doesn't count.

3. The GAO said it was a crime. I hope you understand why I would consider that a
more authoritative source than your (so far) undocumented opinion.

[popper]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

I'm trying to be respectful, but have you been following this closely?

No, not closely.

[popper]

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

I'm trying to be respectful, but have you been following this closely?

He gets his sources from right wing news which is actually worse than not following it at all.

Wrong and not worthy of a response.

[Pointgod]

I'm trying to be respectful, but have you been following this closely?

He gets his sources from right wing news which is actually worse than not following it at all.

Wrong and not worthy of a response.

If Trump did nothing wrong, then why was the recording placed on a classified server? Also why is he blocking witness testimony that could exonerate him?

[popper]

Popper it's interesting that you only know what Trump defenders say. What about what Schiff said? Why does that have no weight with you? I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well.

fwiw when Clinton was impeached the GOP made very clear that a crime isn't necessary for impeachment. So I don't understand why Trump's defenders are making the opposite argument now. I guess they have no good defense so they're just making stuff up.

Also, obstruction of justice *IS* a crime.

My sense is there are a lot of crimes they could have included in the articles of impeachment but would have had a half dozen or so Dems vote against it, so they chose to just go with 'abuse of power' which can only be committed by one person, POTUS, who can only be convicted by Congress, not DOJ, so isn't in the criminal code. Political decision on Pelosi's part to look unified.

I know generally what Schiff and Nadler have claimed. Clinton, as you know committed several crimes and it's certainly true that the House can impeach a president without evidence of a crime. If I were a juror (senator) I would refer to the constitution for guidance and probably conclude that removal from office would be extraordinarily unjust.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, my understanding is that the House did not want to litigate that issue and instead wanted to get the impeachment completed by Christmas break. Trump has every right to claim executive privilege and await a court decision on the merits of his claim.

It is NOT TRUE that Trump has claimed executive privilege. HE HAS NOT. He has invented blanket privilege to ignore Congress' constitutional requirement to oversee the executive branch. No such privilege exists in law.

Trump demanded that a foreign official manufacture fake dirt about his political opponent, in contradiction to America's national security needs, in order to help his in his personal reelection. Ukraine is a buffer between totalitarian Russia and Democratic Europe. It is in our national security interests that Ukraine not lose its war with Russia over the Crimea. Trump threatened, illegally, to withhold aid that Congress chose, in a bipartisan vote, to supply to Ukraine to protect our national security.

Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

I don't see how you can perceive this any other way than a terrifying abuse of power, worse than ANY corruption we have seen in our nation's history, that requires immediate removal from office to protect our country and the future of Democracy.

Executive privilege has been exercised by all presidents in my lifetime. Obama used it for the Fast and Furious issue as well as other events. Presidents have a right to exercise privilege and the courts arbitrate that conflict as it relates to congress' oversight of the executive branch. Trump didn't need to assert the privilege because the House chose not to litigate the matter as it related to withholding of documents and witnesses. They were in a big hurry for some reason unknown to me. I wish they would have litigated because I think they would have succeeded.

Trump politely asked the Ukrainian Pm to investigate Biden (not manufacture dirt as you assert). The transcript is available for all to see.

Why, if you are so concerned about Ukrainians defense needs, did you not comment here when Obama refused to supply requisite defensive weaponry. i think he only provided blankets and other supplies not related to defense. It was only after Trump was elected that lethal weaponry was approved by congress and the president.

Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about a bj. He was impeached for lying under oath to a federal judge.

Edit - I meant he was punished by the court for lying under oath.

[popper]

without delving into the nitty gritty legal analysis, the 30,000 ft level response to the argument of "abuse of power isn't a crime, and therefor not impeachable" means that a president is free to abuse his power*.

the original defense, the one that the House advanced, is that "this does not amount to an abuse of power" which is a much more (relatively) defensible position.

* abuses like say, nepotism. rubber stamping FISA warrants. targeting politically affiliated 501c's for heightened scrutiny. declining to prosecute political allies. withholding foreign aid for political favors (GAO has said that this is a violation of federal law). you can extend it to truly absurd situations like, assassinating foreign leaders. gutting the CDC and unnecessarily exposing Americans to diseases both new (Chinese Coronavirus) and old (chicken pox, measles, rubela, mumps). the federal criminal code is extremely narrow. DUIs are fair game. Bribery is limited to U.S. gov't officials, so you can bribe anyone else (foreign leaders).

** i'm not sure what "official admonishment" would look like for the president, or any high level gov't official really, other than removal. we're just talking about firing the guy. he's not going to jail. the idea that being removed from office is a sacred cow matters more to the RNC than it does for day-to-day republicans. Pence will still be President. The party still holds power.

It's the Kavannaugh argument. Nobody is saying you can't have a conservative as President - just not this conservative. I really don't see how this is would be extraordinarily unjust.

As I stipulated earlier, the House is free to impeach for any reason whatsoever. When I was invited to render my opinion I simply stated that I would refer to the constitutions description of impeachable offenses for guidance. If abuse of power is not a crime, it is certainly grounds for an in depth look at the severity of the abuse and if appropriate, impeachment and removal.