Before attacking the Dems for not including an Article of Impeachment on Bribery, consider this:

[StarfishSaver]

(I posted this in a response in another thread)

After listening to the Democratic press conference, especially Chairman Schiff's remarks, it became clear to me why they did not include a separate article alleging Bribery. It's the smart move.

"Bribery" is a very complicated and charged allegation and is very difficult to prove when it comes to a president. Everything Trump did in his interactions with Ukraine, he's allowed to do and has the power to do under his office, at least when looking at it at face value.

Quid pro quos are a common part of diplomacy and occur all the time. A president has the power to withhold money from another country in return for things he wants them to do - they do it all the time.

The issue here is not that he asked for something in return for something. The issue is what he asked for and his motive for asking for it: Trump withheld the money in order to get a political advantage for himself. The political advantage is something of value to him, like money or goods, so the transaction can be defined as bribery.

That's all pretty clear to us. But that takes a lot of explaining to the average person - lots of "this and then this and then this and therefore this." And when you're explaining, you can easily get stuck in rabbit holes.

I think the Democrats escaped that rabbit hole by charging Abuse of Power. What makes Trump's action not just a simple and permissible "quid pro quo" that all presidents do is the fact that he used his power to get something he wanted for himself personally - i.e., he abused his power. No other person in America has the power to get another country to help them smear a political opponent by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars government funding from them. That kind of power is awesome and sacred and should not be used for individual political gain, which is exactly what Trump did. People can understand that.

In short, I think they actually DID charge Trump with bribery - the abuse of power is the bribery and the bribery is the abuse of power. But doing it this way, they haven't given the Republicans any opening to spend endless hours arguing about the definition of bribery, why looking into the Bidens was justified, etc. They laid out what he did, which is undisputed, and can now cut straight to the chase of proving that Trump abused his power by using government money to pressure a foreign government for help in his political campaign. And since the facts of that are undisputed and there is no precedent in recent American history for such an act (I'm sure they've researched this out the wazoo to make sure), they've set up an easier and much stronger case for the American public to understand and accept.

[brewens]

1. I'd like to see someone look into if Giuliani as a prosecutor ever announced an investigation

into someone suspected of corruption right at the start. Usually you want them to find out about the investigation when a warrant is served, they are indicted or arrested. If he ever did do that, he was probably intentionally giving the suspect a heads-up.

[LiberalFighter]

73. I want to know if he ever gave Trump the heads up when he was at SDNY?

[FakeNoose]

2. Makes a lot of sense StarfishSaver

Thank you!

[forgotmylogin]

90. Yes, there's a YUGE difference between diplomacy and self-enrichment.

It wasn't "Hey, we're withholding aid until you stop bombing our allies."
It was "Hey, we're withholding aid until you do this thing beneficial to my political career."

[burrowowl]

94. Exactly!

[Historic NY]

3. KISS maneuver

keep it simple stupid.

[tmaynardr]

7. This is NOT the KISS maneuver. It is the opposite

KISS would have used "bribery" because the whole argument is summed up in a single word. Dems chose to screw it up and now they will need to explain in 500 words or less the impeachment charges.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Dems "chose to screw it up?"

Your 13th post in two years and two of them in this thread telling us the Dems have "screwed up"

Interesting.

[tmaynardr]

9. Yeah, too busy working on the ground in Ohio

You are right, I don't post here much. Too busy organizing canvassers that have knocked over 10,000 homes in Ohio since 2016.

This impeachment kills us in Ohio. Just wait for the polls. Bribery would have made a difference in our direction.

Trump is going to get the Clinton bump now because Dems were too afraid to file appropriate charges.

[StarfishSaver]

15. So you just pop up from your on-the-ground organizing to attack the Democrats

I see.

BTW, I'm very familiar with what's happening on the ground in Ohio. I have seen no evidence that impeachment "kills us in Ohio" but including a "bribery" article of impeachment would somehow help to turn the tide.

[tmaynardr]

21. I'm not attacking Democrats. I'm attacking their poor messaging.

I was at a local democratic event yesterday. The discussion remains that the impeachment proceedings is being presented as another Mueller investigation. Its too vague. Its not clear to casual watchers what was done wrong. Without a knock-out punch, this whole thing is a fools errand. It will go to the Senate and the House Dems will be painted as the bad guys. Media will accept it as a waste of time. Country gets another 4 years of this crap because THERE IS NO MESSAGING!!!!

And its interesting you wont respond to my points. You keep attacking me. Implicitly you are agreeing with my argument that without a bribery count, the impeachment is just too vague to be meaningful. Your original post just explaining the lack of bribery was several paragraphs long. That is not messaging, its just fog. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the difference between the almost right messaging and the right messaging is really a large matter- is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.

In two sentences or less, tell me why Trump is guilty of the charges presented against him?

(Would be really nice if we could say "He bribed the Ukrainian president.&quot

[brutus smith]

39. A whole lot of NW Ohio voters are stupid.

No matter what you present to them, they just don't care. Concentrate on getting Dems out to vote.

[tmaynardr]

44. Voters aren't stupid

The NW Ohio voters have taken it on the chin for decades. On the same day we have the impeachment articles presented, the Dems also vote on the NAFTA replacement. NAFTA killed Ohio and a lot of other midwestern states. Trump promised to overturn NAFTA and Dems just helped him deliver an election promise. Lets hope there are items in the USMCA help the midwest states, especially in the area of manufacturing and skilled labor.

The NW Ohio voters lost their jobs, livelihood, families displaced, resulting in decades of struggle and an environment where a public health crisis (e.g. opioids) can flourish. They turned to a candidate (Trump) that heard their issues and promised to make changes. NW Ohio voters care more about their jobs than a vague impeachment. It will show in the polls next November.

[brutus smith]

78. Like I said, stupid.

Things started turning bad way before NAFTA. 12 years of Reagan and Bush 1 did the most harm. And these people think Reagan was a saint! Like I said, stupid.

[BannonsLiver]

46. What makes you think you know more about messaging than Pelosi?

[tmaynardr]

48. Other than actually talking to real voters for the last 18 months?

Get in the trenches, you can learn a lot.

[BannonsLiver]

55. So you don't. That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

[ChiTownDenny]

62. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

Personally, I think spending weeks and months talking about "quid pro quo" and "bribery" and then impeaching the president without "quid pro quo" or "bribery" is...peculiar.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

84. Just reading this. Apologize for you being treated so badly - just for expressing

your opinion. It's a lobby, here to squelch differing opinions. Hard to ignore. I totally agree with you btw.

[BlueWI]

20. I wanted to personally thank you for your canvassing.

These efforts are critical. Thanks for your service. Sorry to see that the OP writer was dismissive of your important efforts.

Impeachment has risks, as non-impeachment did as well. It's definitely not a one size fits all solution, but hopefully it's compelling to enough people to document and charge the president for crimes against the country. But we still need to find a candidate and messaging that resonates in purple states like yours and mine, Wisconsin. That work has only begun, and impeachment, while I strongly support it, doesn't substitute for the right messaging and hard work on the ground like you're doing.

Good luck out there, and thanks again!

[BannonsLiver]

45. Where did you study constitutional law?

Also what makes your credentials greater than those who put together the articles?

[tmaynardr]

47. Messaging is not Constitutional Law

I am a licensed attorney, but I don't practice Constitutional law. Your response exemplifies my point. Dems are more concerned about minute details than they are about winning the political and messaging battles.

At least Seth Abramson agrees with my points:

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
Professor, respectfully, this feels like spin. Trump met the solicitation clause of the bribery statute at the level for conviction; bribery is *more* serious than a catch-all (noncriminal) abuse of power allegation; a "sweeping" indictment, in court, is seen as weak, not strong.

PS/ To the extent any Republican was ever going to consider impeaching this president on any allegation, it would've been far more difficult for them to vote against a narrowly focused and factually predicated article, as compared to a sweeping, overbroad kitchen-sink indictment.

PS2/ For those politicians who are media-conscious, the *best* evidence that they fumbled at the one-inch line today is that the media is already talking about the IG report again, as well as the USMCA, despite the fact *the fourth president in history is about to be impeached*.

[SterlingPound]

51. +1

thanks for you work on the ground

[StarfishSaver]

54. Messaging isn't ConLaw, but the Dems have given YOU more than enough to use to message on the street

The people you're canvassing aren't getting their information by reading Articles of Impeachment or from Pelosi press conferences. They're more likely to listen to you on the ground when you talk to them face to face. You are knowledgeable and interested, so you're in a perfect position to explain to them just what's going on and help the understand why impeachment is necessary and Trump must go.

The Democrats have handed you the baton - run with it!

[BannonsLiver]

56. Well thankfully we have an expert here to set us all straight

[tmaynardr]

64. Yes, a local expert

In a state that voted for Trump AND Sherrod Brown. I've spoken to people on the fence and even had a gun pulled on us when we were canvassing in support of democratic candidates. This fuels the fire without making the messaging clear. It also is putting local canvassers in danger.

Messaging matters. Despite BannonsLiver's ad hominem attacks, there is truth to my posts. If Pelosi has such a great plan, tell me in under two sentences why Trump needs to be impeached for abuse of power or obstruction of congress/justice?

[BannonsLiver]

66. Uh huh

[Laura PourMeADrink]

86. You just got tag teamed !

[radius777]

97. +1. Amazing how people don't get this.

The court of law and the court of public opinion are two different things.

Politics is about the latter, about shaping perception and driving simple but powerful narratives into the consciousness of the voter.

[Mme. Defarge]

4. Thanks!

Nicely explained.

[tmaynardr]

5. This is why Dems lose messaging

Your views are a clear misunderstanding of how messaging works. You need to repeat the wrong over and over before the country will accept this impeachment as legitimate. Find a message and hold onto it like a dog on a bone. A good messaging strategy would cause the republicans to argue against the one word you want everyone to remember. For example, if THEY ACTUALLY USED THE RIGHT WORD, BRIBERY!

Right now, Dems have to explain what Trump did wrong, instead of just saying "BRIBERY." Abuse of power and obstruction are just whitewash charges that do not deliver any punch. Bribery would have check-mated the republicans because they would vote "no" in the Senate and come across as accomplices. They also would need to explain that its not "bribery"-bribery. Every time they went anywhere to discuss the impeachment, they would need to discuss bribery. Instead, we are stuck with overly analyzed, whishy-washy words that wont change the minds of anyone and will collectively be shrugged off.

Congrats Dems...you found a way to screw this up.

[H2O Man]

10. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair.

[DeminPennswoods]

49. FTR, nothing is stopping you from describing the impeachment

in terms of bribery when you are out canvassing. Just be sure to understand that when you use the term bribery, the vast majority of people are going to think it means Zelensky tried to bribe Trump, not the other way around.

If you want a simpler message, probably better off using the hostage analogy. Trump held Zelensky hostage in order to get something that personally benefitted himself. Use Schiff's quote, "nice country you have there, shame if anything happened to it".

[StarfishSaver]

53. Excellent point!

The people who believe that Trump didn't do anything wrong up until now certainly aren't reading the articles of impeachment or listening to Democratic messaging on MSNBC. They're more likely to listen to the people they meet on the street and it's up to the Democrats on the ground to tell the story.

Your simple message is a great one!

[tmaynardr]

68. Nope, we will be called liars

Here is the exact sequence canvassers will now face:

"What are your feelings on the impeachment of Donald Trump?

Voter: I don't really understand what the fuss is all about?

Canvasser: Well, Trump abused his power when he spoke to the Ukrainian President and asked to investigate Hunter Biden. He tried to withhold military support until the Ukrainian President went on CNN to announce an investigation into the Bidens, his political rival.

Voter: Uhh, okay. Isn't that what all politicians do?

Canvasser: No, this is different.

Voter: Why is that abuse of power?

Canvasser: He used the power of his presidency to get something of value from the Ukrainian President.

Voter: I see. I guess I'm still not sure about what the democrats are trying to accomplish. But I did hear he withdrew from NAFTA and now they are re-negotiating a better deal."

The messaging is not clear. It is not consistent. It takes 5 minutes to explain. It should be listed in a one-word explanation that is not part of the impeachment.

So, yeah, woo-hoo we impeached Trump. We won a battle without understanding the war.

[DeminPennswoods]

74. Do you have any similar local scandals

that the folks you are canvassing can relate to? Every town has a story about a corrupt local official using his or her office to benefit themselves either financially or politically. Same thing Trump did.

[dansolo]

96. It would have been more accurate to call it extortion than bribery

I view the distinction being that bribery is giving something of value for something else, while extortion is the witholding of something of value in exchange for something else. If you really want to get into the issue of messaging, they should have been using the term extortion all along, not bribery.

[wnylib]

57. You sound quite angry and frustrated. Maybe

that's why you refer to our party in the third person e.g. "they" and " their." An independent who leans left? Or who just opposes Trump?

Whatever the case, thanks for your efforts. I sm a PA native who has lived in Ohio and now lives in NY. I worked on the ground door to door and the phones in both of my prior ststes for Obama twice. I know what hard work it can be.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt since I don't know you other than that you write about us in the 3rd person.

The word bribery does not work well legally in a formal charge of impeachment because the meaning about the use of the word in the constitution is disputed. It would only muddy the waters in a trial.

[tmaynardr]

67. Life-Long Democrat

I'm just tired of candidates that can't message. Rob Cordray should have won in Ohio in 2018. He lost. I canvassed for him extensively. I still don't know his top 3 messaging issues. Every time he spoke, it was long-winded explanations. He didn't have talking points. There was no clear definition of his platform.

"The word bribery does not work well legally in a formal charge of impeachment because the meaning about the use of the word in the constitution is disputed. It would only muddy the waters in a trial."

---THAT IS THE POINT! If everyone is arguing about bribery, the messaging strategy is successful. Dems overanalyzed this whole process and don't know how to fight against bullies. We got scared of our own shadow...again.

[wnylib]

80. I was away for a few hours and just read your

response to me.

I agree about overanalyzing sometimes. I felt like Kerry did that in 2004. Your example of a canvassing conversation did not sound to me like it broke things down clearly. No reason not to use the word extortion and/or bribery when talking to people.

You sound like you are looking for a blueprint conversation laid out for you to follow. As a canvasser, you are a translater.for people. You assess where someone is and translate actions and concepts into their language and world with simple analogies. Simple, not insultingly simplistic. Not with arguments or debates, but with friendly conversations.

When I canvassed.in PA it was in a small city surrounded by dairy farms. When I lived there, I heard people brag about being all white and terrorizing black families from moving in. And I was canvassing for a black man. In a place where hunting is more popular than football and people LOVE their guns.

I talked the concerns of people and translated those concerns into what Obama would do for them. "He will take our guns away." ME" "Nah, he is just talking about big cities where crime is a problem." I knew they.prided themselves on being a small city. And free of 'big city' problems.' (I also knew they had crime problems they ignored, but did not mention thst.)

Turn ideas into emotional language. People vote feelings, not ideas. HOW you talk to them is more important than WHAT you say. Trump knows that. It works for him. But we can do it honestly by.appealing to truth and better emotions.

I do not see controversy over the word bribery as the asset you said it is. People will watch.the trial. They would hear the opposition give its own definition of the constitutional intent. It would backfire on us by undercutting the charges against him.

I lived a year in Toledo and 5 years in Cleveland. Traveled to Columbus and Cincinatti. Different regional personalities. You speak to people where they are at, in terms they understand and care about. Same message, described differently.

[BannonsLiver]

69. When you read the articles of impeachment, what specifically jumped out at you as far as messaging

After reading them did they leave anything specific out? I’m trying to get a feel for what people specifically don’t like as far as the articles.

[tmaynardr]

70. Abuse of Power; Obstruction of Congress

[wnylib]

82. Nothing wrong with either term. You can

simply say how he abused piwer, in simple analogies of bribery and extortion. He did it for himself, not the people. What if we Dems invited Korea to investigste Trump? Takes away our free elections and destroys our votes. Cannot let one president do it or others will, too.

As a canvasser, TRANSLATE for people.

[wnylib]

83. You have to have a good grasp of both the

ideas discussed and the people you talk to in order to relate it to them.

[C_U_L8R]

6. It would be different if Ukraine admitted the extortion.

I understand the horrible situation Ukraine is in but they aren't doing themselves favors by holding back evidence. Same with the other witnesses and co-conspirators who defied subpoenas and refused to testify. I expect justice will ultimately have its way with them as welll.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Articles of Impeachment aren't "evidence"

The Democrats aren't holding back any evidence at all. Just like good prosecutors, they're making decisions on what to actually charge him with, but they're still going to present the same evidence they would have otherwise presented.

Look at it this way. Suppose Joe,, a straight white man hits Lisa, a white gay woman, in the head with his shoe. Joe is arrested and the prosecutors have to figure out what to charge him with. There are several statutes that could govern the case, but the prosecutor wants to make sure she can build the clearest strongest case.

The options are: assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, a hate crime. Conviction on any one of these crimes would result in a felony on Joe's record and the same amount of jail time.

The prosecutor will consider all of the evidence she has and also consider how complicated and or simple it is to get a jury to convict under the various statutes.

The prosecutor may choose to just charge Joe with assault since the other crimes would require additional elements of proof, including proof of what Joe was thinking at the time, that would complicate the case and confuse the jury. An assault charge would be easier to get a conviction on, so a prosecutor might go with that and not charge the other crimes. But she'd still use the same evidence - even his motive -so they wouldn't hod anything back. She'd just be able to shape all of the evidence in a manner much more likely to get a conviction.

That's what's happening here. Every bit of evidence needed to prove bribery would be brought in to prove abuse of power. The difference is the weight the Democrats are asking be applied to different types of evidence. They will focus attention on the stronger evidence that's more likely to prove their case rather than get stuck trying to conclusively prove facts that the Republicans will more easily be able to muddy up.

[C_U_L8R]

12. Ukraine. Not Democrats.

Edited my post for clarity

[tmaynardr]

22. This is not a Criminal Matter

This is, again, the wrong analysis. This is not a criminal matter. It is one of politics and mass psychology. The Dems don't need to build the strongest case, they needed to not swing and miss...again.

The analysis of a prosecutor seeking a criminal conviction is not applicable to the present situation. We already know we don't have 67 votes in the Senate. So, put in the bribery charge against Trump so when the Senate refused to convict, they appear partisan and accepting Trump's bribery as acceptable behavior.

Analysing this impeachment as a prosecutor is the wrong frame of reference. This is not a jury of peers, it is a political body that has to then answer to the voters.

If you insist on using the prosecutor reference, why don't you use a more applicable hypothetical, such as a prosecutor that must press charges against a police officer for excessive force while on duty? The evidence might not support the charge, but the prosecutor files the charges because it is the correct political decision.

Trump is the police officer that got charged with obstruction of justice for shooting an unarmed black man.

[StarfishSaver]

28. I know that. I was presenting an illustration

But under your police officer scenario, if the prosecutor knows that she can get a clean conviction and substantial jail time on an excessive use of force charge and also knows that adding a hate crime charge would be politically popular but could confuse and undermine her chances of getting an assault conviction, she'd be smart to go with the simple assault charge.

And no, Trump isn't the police officer that got charged with obstruction of justice for shooting an unarmed black man.

But it's obvious that you feel strongly that the House Dems are doing this all wrong and you have a right to your opinion. I just think they know considerably more than you or I do and the second-guessing is counter-productive.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. Dems aren't holding back evidence, but are giving up evidence that will soon become available

Over the next 60 days, court decisions are due on a number of issues, including Trump's taxes, congressional subpeonas for documents and high level administration officials, all of which would have made the articles even stronger, and potentially increased the chances of conviction in the Senate.

[StarfishSaver]

34. They're not giving up anything

Did you hear Schiff? He rightly pointed out that, even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, he still has other defenses he can use to drag this out. It's not as if suddenly upon a Supreme Court ruling, McGahn, Bolton, Mulvaney, et al will jump into witness chairs and start spilling their guts and the tax records will magically appear on Pelosi's desk.

And, as I've said before, watching people who last summer demanded "FORGET going to court! Impeach the MF NOW!!!" now say, "wait, wait, wait - the courts will give them everything they need if they just wait a few more months" is pretty rich.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. Last summer there wasn't even an open inquiry...

And some of the court cases weren't even pending.

Now, with an inquiry keeping Trump's crimes front and center daily, the pending court cases are expected to be resolved by February.

If SCOTUS rules against Trump, what recourse does he have other than obstruction? If McGahn, Bolton, Mazars, etc. defy subpeonas ruled lawful by SCOTUS, they will end up in jail on contempt, enforced by the courts, not congress. What defense would they have against subpeonas declared lawful by SCOTUS? There would be no avenue of appeal. Mazars has possession of Trump's records, and has said they would comply with a lawful subpeona.

IMO, that would be a game changer, and could shift both public sentiment and the votes of at least some senators.

What we have now is the equivalent of "we tried, but we know the senate will acquit".

[DeminPennswoods]

50. During a Senate trial, if Ds or Rs call witnesses to appear and

they refuse, CJ Roberts will be right there presiding to make a decision one way or the other right then.

[wnylib]

87. Good points and explanation. I agree with

everything you said as well as with the charges as presented. We have some sharp people who know what they are doing.

BTW, I noticed in a newspaper in my area.today that a letter to the editor writer used a similar argument that is going on here in this thread to claim that Dems have shot ourselves in the foot with our approach to impeachment. The tone was ambiguous, as if the writer was presenting himself as a Dem supporter, but, alas, simply.did not support us. I have a reasonably good sense of tone and message harmony in how language is used. Scored 99th percentile in a nationwide literature exam that tests the ability to perceive language nuances. I usually pick up dissonance between tone and message if it exists. I smelled the scent of stealth politics in that letter.

There is a similar scent in this thread about discounting the Dem approach to impeachment. Of course we will not always agree and genuine disagreement discussions are good.

But the tone does not sound the same as genuine disagreement.

[wnylib]

88. Another point of dissonance is with my own

experience of political canvassing and knowing what to ecpect and how to handle it.

[uponit7771]

13. Republicans will now argue endless hours on what abuse of power is including false equivalencies. I

I wish democrats would hire credible message people.

********The 400 million dollars for Ukraine wasn't meant to be used for Trumps campaign !!!***********

That in itself would've been a slice, then say it 124213423423 times.

[CrispyQ]

52. Do we even have any messaging people?

[uponit7771]

71. IKR !?!?!

[The Wizard]

14. What's to stop the House from

having another impeachment inquiry based on obstruction as outlined in the Mueller Report and the bribery and extortion he tried with Ukraine. Remember he fired Comey to stop the investigation into Russian interference in 2016 and the Trump campaign's complicity in that effort.

[uponit7771]

16. +1, After McGhan they should impeach Red Don again

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. What's to stop the House? Nancy Pelosi

I don't think she has the slightest intention of allowing a second inquiry or set of articles.

[StarfishSaver]

29. LOL

Just like she didn't have the slightest intention of ever impeaching, right?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. You are 100% correct. It was like pulling teeth as it was.

[Cha]

91. ".. like pulling teeth.. ". That's your view.. Nancy did

it at the exact right time when trump impeached himself.. like she said he would.

[Raster]

17. Frankly, I think the way this has been laid out has been freaking brilliant!

The charges are simple. The evidence to date is conclusive. The timetable is efficient.

There is no reason the Articles of Impeachment cannot be amended in the future if deemed appropriate.

This puts #MoscowMitch and the Senate GOP* in a very tight situation. Unlike the House GOP*, the Senators just can't sit back, lie and act like general assholes. They are the Senate.

And I do not believe acquittal by the Senate is a foregone conclusion.

[StarfishSaver]

18. +1

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. Once articles have been voted on and sent to the Senste for trial, they cannot be amended

Pelosi would have to allow a second inquiry and set of articles to come to a floor vote, and I don't think she has any intention of doing that.

[StarfishSaver]

35. But didn't you think that Pelosi would never allow an impeachment in the first place?

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. The record shows that she was firmly against impeachment until the Ukraine events in Aug nt.

[StarfishSaver]

43. The record doesn't show that

The record shows she was opposed to moving forward prematurely, but carefully laid the groundwork so that when the time was right, she'd have a solid case.

The record also shows that you and others insisted that she would NEVER allow impeachment. So your predictions about what Pelosi will and won't do don't carry much weight.

[calimary]

19. Totally! But I could think of a hundred charges on which to file impeachment charges.

That said? I will happily take ‘em and not look a gift horse in the mouth (at least not too much).

Grateful we’ve climbed this mountain. Now, onward to the mountaintop!

[MineralMan]

23. Yes. They're rolling that into the Abuse of Power Article.

That makes some sense, I guess, and simplifies the charges.

[Texin]

24. I understand their logic, but the GOP are (and did already) accuse Obama-Biden of the same thing!

And make no mistake, they'll turn around and accuse them of doing the same thing in Ukraine. The Obama foreign policy with Ukraine withheld appropriated funds until the then-president sacked their AG. he was corrupt and working with the Russians. During yesterday's hearing, Castor was outlining that entire matter (and I missed certain finer details, dates, etc.). This wasn't ever a personal thing for them though. In Obama's case, he had nothing to gain from it, certainly not politically. Biden wasn't getting a cut of anything (that anyone knows about), because if I recall, his son had already left Burisma. HB's Burisma stint has - in my opinion - left a gaping hole for the rethugs to drive a tank through. They've characteristically and hypocritically used the same argument against tRump's perceived main opponent that the Dems have been lobbing (correctly and deservedly) at the tRump spawn and the son-in-law, i.e., incompetent and unqualified for their *offices* (in the Kushner's case), in addition to reaping ill gotten gain from emoluments. This'll be hammered from now on out and would (will would be more accurate) used against Biden from now on out, and if he somehow winds up in the presidency, you can bet your collective asses that they'll go after Biden with the same fucking accusations. He will be impeached* by these bastards on inauguration day and they'll probably go after Obama too!

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Why not BOTH bribery and abuse of power?

Your second and third paragraphs foreshadow the Republicans' defense- Trump had the power, just used it in a way the Democrats didn't like.

Your fourth paragraph makes a clear case for bribery, eliminates the political ambiguity that makes abuse of power the easier charge to defend.

In addition, I have not heard anybody mention the Impoundment Act, which Trump violated by withholding the appropriated funds even after Depts of State and Defense had certified compliance/progress with corruption targets. This would have been an actual, statutory crime that would have made a clear case for impeachment, even if the July 25 call was "perfect".

This narrow indictment of the most corrupt president ever seems to be a shrugging surrender by congress, assuming an inevitable acquittal following a solid inquiry. What is even more disappointing is knowing that, if congress would only wait 60 days, a mountain of evidence should become available that would make Trump's acquittal not so inevitable...

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. If they had included bribery and obstruction of justice, those 4 articles would be appropriate

If they'd waited until February, then there could be more evidence for more articles, but as it stands now, four articles would have been the most complete indictment based on existing evidence.

[StarfishSaver]

36. If they had included them, you would have found something else to complain about

You're going to complain and criticize no matter what they do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. With your psychic powers, you should open a mind reading salon nt

[pangaia]

31. " the abuse of power is the bribery and the bribery is the abuse of power"

I especially like that one

And this as well--

"Quid pro quos are a common part of diplomacy and occur all the time. A president has the power to withhold money from another country in return for things he wants them to do - they do it all the time."

I always enjoy what you say, well thought out, direct ..... I think there have even been a few times when I did not agree,( can;t remember exactly when). BUT,that is a good thing. shows not just blindly following and agreeing with what you say..

keep it up..

[StarfishSaver]

37. Thanks, Pangaia!

[Fiendish Thingy]

58. Swalwell is being quoted saying additional articles will be drafted

Including an article related to Russia.

Quoted by Lisa DesJardins in a tweet.

[DeminPennswoods]

75. Swalwell's questioning of Dan Goldman was the highlight

of the hearing. Dems need to make an ad out of it.

[NurseJackie]

95. It was a thing of beauty. Perfectly executed. He nailed the landing.

A perfect TEN!

[ecstatic]

81. I hope so. nt

[bubbazero]

59. dearest starfishsaver

Thanks for the post. I agree with your analysis. However, would like your thoughts on the following: Abuse of Power---A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR. If I was trying to make this case to our US Senate at this time, knowing full well I'll probably lose the vote, would it be wise to use a BROAD charge such as ABUSE OF POWER so as to bring in the POTUS's pattern of behavior during his entire time in office. For nothing more than future use, a list of questionable acts using his power, which would be numerous, as well as defined in various reports, could be useful in making the case and in future elections. In other words make the Republicans vote to approve ALL of what POTUS has done. The firing of james comey, along with POTUS admission on national tv as to why; could not be included in a bribery charge, but could be listed in an "abuse of power charge," while using the Ukraine Bribery Scandal as another example of a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR clearly demonstrating the ABUSE OF POWER as practiced by this president

[Gothmog]

60. I agree with the approach of Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats

I have no issue with there being only two articles

[mcar]

61. Kick

[CaptainTruth]

63. Thank you.

[Azathoth]

65. "Bribery is a very complicated and charged allegation"

Lol, and "abuse of power" isn't?

Witholding Congressionally allocated foreign aid funds, even to effect a legitimate foreign policy, is in and of itself an issue. Can you imagine the national meltdown if a president announced he unilaterally was going to withold foreign aid to Israel until they agreed to concessions with the Palestinians?

But using government money to extort a foreign leader for personal benefit is outright bribery and misuse of government funds. Saying that bribery is "complicated" and only differs from legitimate foreign policy by what was asked for is like saying the only difference between buying a hamburger and paying a hitman to shoot your wife is what product was purchased.

Pelosi fought impeachment every step of the way, and now she's rushing it through as fast as possible.

[uponit7771]

72. +1, ICA was written because of Nixon !! The 400 million for Ukraine wasn't for Trump campaign!!

... then repeat that 2413 trillion times and make the MAGA Nuts defend it.

You're right, Abuse Of Power isn't illegal and that's what MAGA Suckers will go on when it comes to voting to remove Trump.

I don't know what Pelosi's end game is right now, impeaching an unpopular president hurts the unpopular president ... AND ... his party.

Waiting to run against Trump who is going to vote add in the reddest districts in the US isn't a win for democrats.

[Gothmog]

76. From Prof. Tribe

Link to tweet

[Bluesaph]

77. Abuse of Power is a great message!

I agree with StarfishSaver because those three words say it all. He didn’t just use his power to “bribe”. He used it to cover up the bribe. He used it to subvert congress’ power of oversight. He used it for his own gain. And it is a PATTERN.

Also, a short message we on the ground can use is:

“Trump used OUR $400M to get something for himself! Just like his charity.”

“Trump covered up his abuse by preventing the main actors from testifying and not giving up the records.”

“Trump abused his power as a business man by not paying his workers, hiring undocumented, not paying taxes, defrauding vulnerable people. It is Trump’s character to abuse any power he is given.”

[lame54]

79. Bribery is a subset of abuse of power

[markpkessinger]

93. It can be seen that way, but that's not the way the framers would have seen it...

Technically, any misconduct by a President could be seen as an abuse of power. But the fact that the framers specifically mentioned both bribery and treason, and then added "high crimes and misdemeanors," is significant.

The framers were NOT referring to any federal statutory definition of bribery (which statute would not even be promulgated until 1962). Rather, they were using it in the sense it had long been understood under English common law: "the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty." (as defined in Black's Law). So bribery, in the understanding of the Constitution's framers, was not all that complicated at all.

Abuse of the powers of one's office would have fallen separately under the term "high crimes and misdemeanors," which was a legal term of art with a 400-year history dating back to the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388. "High" was a reference to crimes by persons in positions of public trust for motives other than the public interest.

[AllyCat]

89. Well that lays it out clear

[markpkessinger]

92. Bribery was the strongest legal argument they had . . .

We're talking about bribery as the framers of the Constitution understood it, and NOT the federal statutory definition, which didn't exist in 1787, and in fact wouldn't exist until 1962! The operative understanding when the Constitutional language about impeachment was debated, written and adopted was the English common law understanding of the term, under which Trump's conduct clearly qualifies. Sure, Republicans would have tried to muddy the waters by bringing up the federal statute, but that line of argument could have easily been shut down -- and in a way that the average voter could readily understand -- by pointing out that there was no federal statute in 1787, and thus the language cannot be deemed to be limited by a statute that wouldn't exist for another 175 years!

Instead, by relying on the assertion that Trump "acted against the national interest," they invite the counter argument that the president is entitled to have a different view of what is in the "national interest" than his predecessors, or even than career government officials.

Also, by NOT including bribery, they unwittingly undermine one of their examples: the White House meeting. Republicans will doubtless cite the unanimous Supreme Court decision in McDonnell v. United States, which held that meetings do not constitute "official acts" under the federal bribery statute. Had they included bribery among the charges, it would have enabled them to expand the entire discussion of bribery beyond the federal statutory definition. But they won't be able to do that now.

This was a colossal mistake!

[JoeDuck]

98. I suspect some of us are average people.

You wrote, "That's all pretty clear to us. But that takes a lot of explaining to the average person..." Wow. I imagine a lot of people who read and post here are just average folks. It's not really that hard to understand, and to demean voters in that way is a peculiar stance. I don't pretend to know much of anything about what other people can or can't understand. I don't think the issue is the ability to understand as much as it is the refusal to consider anything that doesn't support our own knowledge, beliefs, and biases.

[Ingersollman]

99. Very

well put.