Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
JustSecurity.org: Republican Senators' Short-Sighted Justifications for Acquitting Trump
https://www.justsecurity.org/68444/republican-senators-short-sighted-justifications-for-acquitting-trump/
by Ryan Goodman and Danielle Schulkin
February 3, 2020
Over the next few days, Republican Senators will make statements explaining their reasons for acquitting President Trump. When they do, many will decide on essentially one of two options. They can acquit the president claiming they believe what he did was wrong but not impeachable. Or they can acquit claiming they believe there’s insufficient evidence to prove the allegations against the president.
In effect, they can publicly justify their vote by framing it as a legally deficient case or as a factually deficient one. Either way, both paths raise problems for the White House. The first comes with the serious cost of running afoul of constitutional principles and setting a dangerous precedent for abuses of power by this and future presidents.
We anticipate significant costs for the White House and Senate Republicans with the second approach: it makes them more vulnerable when future revelations come to light about the president’s scheme with Ukraine to cheat in the 2020 election. It also provides incentives for media outlets to continue to investigate this space, for the House to continue to oversee the matter after the Senate votes, and for political opponents competing for Senate seats to continue to press the issue.
Option One: Claim that allegations against Trump are proven, but his conduct is not impeachable.
The first path–most prominently adopted by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)–concludes that the president is guilty on the facts: President Trump withheld military aid in exchange for an investigation into a political rival. The House Manager’s case, in that important respect, is proven.
</snip>
by Ryan Goodman and Danielle Schulkin
February 3, 2020
Over the next few days, Republican Senators will make statements explaining their reasons for acquitting President Trump. When they do, many will decide on essentially one of two options. They can acquit the president claiming they believe what he did was wrong but not impeachable. Or they can acquit claiming they believe there’s insufficient evidence to prove the allegations against the president.
In effect, they can publicly justify their vote by framing it as a legally deficient case or as a factually deficient one. Either way, both paths raise problems for the White House. The first comes with the serious cost of running afoul of constitutional principles and setting a dangerous precedent for abuses of power by this and future presidents.
We anticipate significant costs for the White House and Senate Republicans with the second approach: it makes them more vulnerable when future revelations come to light about the president’s scheme with Ukraine to cheat in the 2020 election. It also provides incentives for media outlets to continue to investigate this space, for the House to continue to oversee the matter after the Senate votes, and for political opponents competing for Senate seats to continue to press the issue.
Option One: Claim that allegations against Trump are proven, but his conduct is not impeachable.
The first path–most prominently adopted by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)–concludes that the president is guilty on the facts: President Trump withheld military aid in exchange for an investigation into a political rival. The House Manager’s case, in that important respect, is proven.
</snip>
Interesting take.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
