|
In response to
"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."
by
Max
|
I can't speak to whether there is a specific statute that has been violated (though there likely is (at the very least a campaign violation). But
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Nov 5 '19, 12:37
|
that is really of only limited importance to the impeachment inquiry. It doesn't require a violation of the law. It's about the violation of the public trust and abuse of power. This is the continuing trap of constantly raising the bar to a level where impeachment is essentially impossible and therefore the president has essentially unlimited power. The bar previously has been raised to the level of a "smoking gun" and now we're saying that a smoking gun is not enough if he has an argument that if he hadn't done it for a corrupt purpose it would be ok. The law is not generally a computer program. It requires the use of judgment and making determinations about intent which inherently requires more than just applying a rule to a known set of facts. It is up to the prosecutors to make their case and the defense will do their best to give a plausible explanation. In this case the jury is the Senate and the majority is likely to grab onto any rationale, no matter how implausible, to excuse the behavior. The country will have to judge the proceedings as they see them and then vote how they feel about it. That's just how it works.
|