|
In response to
"I think you're missing the broader point. It's not just that he withheld aid, it's that he used the threat of withholding aid to essentially extort a"
by
pmb
|
My point is that fence-sitters may not be convinced by the broader point, and that to convince them we should find the strongest specific argument.
Posted by
Max
Nov 5 '19, 12:08
|
Where is it written that the president can't withhold the aid for personal/political reasons right up until the last minute? Certainly congress has done that with voting before without consequence.
What if you have a scenario where congress is corrupt and demands aid to a foreign entity everyone else considers an enemy, and the president orders the aid withheld because it would endanger the country. Is he in violation of a law or not?
Think like a computer - what is the ruleset that was violated here? If you can make the case that he violated the law, the case for impeachment and removal is that much stronger, even if it's not necessary for reasonable minded voters.
I would think you'd want to approach it that way to avoid backlash even if you lose the effort to convict; if you haven't convinced the public that the effort was right, you may be emboldening Trump's supporters by a weak effort.
|
Responses:
|