I've been calling what Trump was trying to pull as "soliciting a campaign contribution from a foreign government", but Nancy Pelosi is correct: He was soliciting a bribe. Trump was holding up Congressionally-authorized aid to Ukraine until they agreed to do something that benefited him personally.
The Defenders of All Things Trump like to claim "the aid was ultimately released, so no harm, no foul". Which is, of course, ridiculous. if you want to test this (at your own risk), shoot and miss at a Trumpanzee and see if they complain about it.
Beyond that, another thing that Pelosi said before was also correct: Whenever Trump does or does not do something in the realm of foreign policy, the ultimate beneficiary is Putin.
In Line, Out Of Line, Back In Line Again
9 minutes ago
3 comments:
So if I read this right, it now comes down to televising his criminal acts and working up a public reaction to it? This doesn't sound very hopeful to me.
They have the facts from testimony, but the Senate will never play along so where can we actually go from here? It's not like there are a prosecutor and a judge.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems almost a waste of time.
w3ski
w3ski: Perhaps it feels like a waste of time because the Republicans in the senate won't convict him no matter what the evidence is, but I have three reasons why it needs to be done anyway:
First, part of the reason why we're here is the failure to hold previous Republican presidents accountable for their misdeeds. Nixon was pardoned, Reagan weaseled out of punishment for Iran-Contra, and George W. Bush is a free man who just happened to oversee torture. Reversing that trend is the first step toward remedying the problem of the Republicans in the senate, as some precedent of consequences must be established if they are ever going to change their behavior.
It's like training animals: you have to give them something negative to associate with doing the crimes. Which brings me to:
Second, we need to hang their votes to acquit around their necks and beat them with them in the upcoming election. That is why I was in favor of waiting until the summer to hold the impeachment hearings on live TV after the conventions when they would have the most impact on the election. If McConnell and his crew have reduced impeachment to an electoral tactic, we should not fail to use it to our advantage.
Just whisper "Merrick Garland" to yourself and you'll know what to do and when to do it.
But the Ukraine debacle has forced our hands, and we need to act now to prevent him from stealing another election with foreign assistance.
And third, if we don't take whatever action is available to us to stop him, we are complicit in the theft of said election.
And it really is uncanny how every damn thing he does helps Russia one way or another.
-Doug in Oakland
Don't misunderstand my disgust with the televised aspect, with being against bringing him to justice.
I am all for him being brought to trial. Treason would be most appropriate and the Capital Sentence of Death or even just 40 years, would be a joy to see imposed.
He needs to be brought down and unto Justice, I totally agree.
I just don't want it to be a game show atmosphere. This is a serious offense even with only the charge of bribery and extortion.
I agree also that too many rethugs have escaped their true fate and we do need to get this evil, pudgy one to jail.
I'm not arguing.
3ski
Post a Comment