Trump’s defenders say that he committed no actual crime. Professor Frank O. Bowman III it the University of Missouri Law School says that the Founding Fathers debated the issue of impeachment and purposely chose language that does not require an ordinary crime (like shooting someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue, the sort of crime that Trump’s lawyers now say he can’t be prosecuted for).
Bowman analyzes the meaning of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to demonstrate that the Founders has a much broader concept than ordinary criminal actions.
He writes:
There are two strong arguments against the idea that the phrase requires criminal behavior: a historical one and a practical one. The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Constitution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct. The practical reasoning is in some ways more important: A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.
Read his essay to understand the history and meaning of this crucial term.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I don’t think they have any choice.
If they don’t impeach for enlisting another country in a quid pro quo scheme for a political campaign then what offense could possibly merit impeachment?
If we don’t impeach for this then impeachment is dead letter. It has no meaning at all.
Clearly the founders didn’t intend it as purely rhetorical or they wouldn’t have laid out a process, and they didn’t intend it to mimic criminal statutes because we already have those and this is a very different process.
So if not for this, then what? What is it for?
What a masterful, fascinating essay!!!! Thank you, Diane, for sharing this. It’s by far the best piece I’ve read on this subject.
I suggest we come at this from the other direction.
Perhaps the Trump Administration and their supporters could compile a list of offenses they consider “impeachable”. If it’s just the list of federal felonies then why did the drafters think they needed impeachment?
If this list is empty (as I suspect it will be) then we have our answer- nothing is impeachable and impeachment is dead letter. It means nothing and can’t be used.
It’s not empty. Having a sexual relationship with a woman other than your wife that does not include sexual intercourse is impeachable. That is, if you are a Democrat. Just ask Trump sycophant Lindsay Graham who would be insisting Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still not be impeachable.
Their theory, championed by Barr: if the President does it, it’s legal.
Bob,
I think you are wrong. Their theory, championed by Barr: “If a REPUBLICAN President does it, it’s legal.” If the President is a Democrat, there must be endless non-stop hearings in which White House staff are all forced to testify under oath without being able to claim executive privilege and the hearings can go on and on for multiple years even if the first ten or twenty don’t find any wrongdoing.
But as Lindsay Graham himself would say, that is only if the President is a Democrat. If the President is a Republican, not only is every crime he commits “legal”, but anyone who says otherwise should be thrown in jail. The “Lindsay Graham” ideology is that when a Republican is President, anyone in Congress who tries to investigate a President’s wrongdoing should be thrown in jail.
Yes. There were no holds barred in the Lewinsky and Benghazi investigations.
I must say, Diane, your blog is on fire these days! So many fascinating, profound posts!!! And it is very exciting to see all the new voices in the comment threads! Thank you, thank you, thank you for all that you do, every day, to root out the corruption and dissimulation definitive of the Ed Deform industry. Slaying Goliath hits the bookshelves in January. It deserves to sell millions of copies. Here’s hoping that it will be the tinder that finally burns Deform to the ground.
Already our foremost historian of education, Diane Ravitch has remade herself into the greatest muckraker of our time–the Ambrose Bierce, Ida B. Wells, Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, Nelly Bly, and Upton Sinclair of our age.
Without a doubt- Bob. Glad you said it.
Yes Bob—I look forward to the release of Slaying Goliath. I cried when I stumbled across Diane’s blog about 7 years ago. Not for myself but for the children. I had an overwhelming sense of hope —And hope brings change. I’ve been waiting a long time but I’m encouraged that the Ed Reformers are being exposed and rejected.
Slaying Goliath is full of exciting, encouraging stories of triumph after triumph over Deform. It is both a celebration of and a kind of manual for the Resistance. The tide is turning. As the title of an Alice Walker book puts it: we are the ones we have been waiting for. That is the message of Diane’s great new book.
Bob, that’s over the top. But I love it!
Trump loves more than anything else basking in the adulation of curated crowds of morons at his rallies. But he studiously avoids mixed crowds of citizens. Why he has to do this was on display yesterday at the World Series game where, after his picture appeared on the big screen, the crowd erupted in boos and chants of “Lock him up.” Don the Con left the game early.
LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!
YAY for the people of this country and in a VERY PUBLIC setting, too.
Thanks for posting this, Bob.
I was going to do the same and there you are … “THANK YOU,” I gleefully write.
“Curated crowds of morons” is my favorite expression of the day conjuring up such vivid imagery!
From Huffpo- Trump’s public lands chief wrote anti-environment screeds for nutcase and billionaire toady, Lyndon LaRouche-one more chip off the old block, like Betsy, mentally deficient and undereducated.
THANK YOU, Diane.
I have been copying short articles from your book, The Wisdom and Wit of Diane Ravitch and putting them in the Little Free Library I put up.
I know people READ do read them, because they are gone. I need to put more in the LFL.
Thank you, Yvonne.
By the way, the NY Times did another hit job on Elizabeth Warren today. Lots of anonymous “critics” who are clearly right wingers who know the NY Times will help them promote the propaganda that Warren’s progressive platform is not to be trusted because she is a lying untrustworthy sell-out Democrat just like Al Gore, John Kerry, and HRC. Those right wing critics know that they can count on the NY Times to print a story implying that it is really progressives who don’t trust Warren and the story will also leave out that it is the far right corporate interests who are most terrified of her winning.
This is especially disgusting coming from a newspaper that just published a long sycophantic piece about William Barr and how “religious” he is without ever mentioning that he had blatantly lied to the American people about the Mueller Report and also committed perjury when he was asked under oath about investigations he was directing to cover up for Trump. The assumption is always that the Republican isn’t corrupt but the Republican is instead a religious honorable man and all evidence of corruption is completely left out of every article containing “facts’ about how religious and upright the Republican is. But the Democrats are smeared anonymously as a lying, dishonorable hack only in it to enrich themselves while screwing all progressives.
Mainstream media continues to undermine Warren and Sanders at every opportunity. They are afraid of them as you mention. Even Bill Maher took some cheap shots at them on his show.
Two of the strongest critiques of Warren out there are from Current Affairs, an openly socialist publication. It doesn’t get any more left-wing than that. Yes, it’s progressives who don’t trust Warren. The reasons why are well-documented. It’s becoming clear that the Democrats are going to push her on us and pretend that she’s as progressive as Bernie as a way to shut down Bernie since the writing is on the wall for the obvious neolibs like Biden.
No, it is the very same progressives who insisted that Trump was absolutely no worse than a “corporate Dem” who are Warren critics now.
Even those who prefer Bernie know that Warren is not a corrupt shill who secretly plans to turn this country over to her Wall Street pals. The only people repeating that lie are those who told us Trump was no worse than HRC.
If you believe that having Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is absolutely no different than having two more Rush Bader Ginsburgs, you aren’t interested in a truthful discussion of the facts. You are shilling for the far right. You are Tulsi Gabbard meeting with her Wall Street buddies and being feted by alt right racist white boys who also adore Trump.
Please stop with the lies. Warren isn’t “as progressive” as Bernie but she is VERY progressive. And your attempt to smear her demonstrates something very suspect.
And having Warren’s critics be the same people defending Trump and saying that he was exonerated by the Mueller Report, as you have done, doesn’t give me a lot of faith.
One thing I do agree with you about. Everyone here who believes that Trump is better than a corporate Democrat and it’s good that HRC was defeated so Trump could be empowered should spend their time smearing Warren to help Trump win again.
You mean the people who said the Russian investigation is a fraud and are glad that William Barr is investigating the origins?
Isn’t that your POV?
I agree that everyone who thinks Trump is the victim and Trump is more honest snd upright than any Democrat should vote against Warren. If you agree that Trump has been “victimized” then vote against the “corrupt and dishonest” Warren because the same people are telling you that both things are true.
The progressive firing squad, arrayed in a circle.
dienne77 is not “progressive”. She clearly believes that neither Bernie nor AOC should be trusted when it comes to either Elizabeth Warren or whether or not the Mueller Report is a “nothing burger”.
How many progressives trust the right wing propaganda more than they trust Bernie or AOC?
Real progressives don’t support progressives like Bernie and AOC but then imply they are huge liars for not agreeing with the right wing propaganda that the Russian investigation exonerated Trump.
Real progressives don’t think Bernie and AOC only tell the truth when they criticize Democrats but then turn around and imply that Bernie and AOC are blatant liars when they criticize Trump and don’t criticize the supposedly corrupt and lying Warren.
Here’s the first of the Current Affairs critiques of Warren, written by socialist Nathan J. Robinson. If you can point me to any evidence of Robinson being anything other than socialist/left, I’m all ears. Otherwise, critique the piece, not Robinson himself.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/the-prospect-of-an-elizabeth-warren-nomination-should-be-very-worrying
dienne77,
Aren’t you on the left?
Haven’t you repeated over and over again that the Mueller Report exonerated Trump and the Russian investigation was all a bunch of nothing burgers?
Weren’t you the one claiming that Trump was no worse than HRC and insisting that the Supreme Court didn’t matter.
You found ONE “critic” who smears Warren as a lying, dishonest fake progressive just like you do.
I can find MANY Bernie supporters who know that this isn’t true and is about as honest as your insistence that the Mueller report exonerated Trump from the “nothing burger” investigation.
But thanks for proving my point so well.
Here is quote from this so-called definitive article:
“She has already showed us the answer, by declining to support national rent control.”
Wow, so everyone who thinks a national rent control may not be a good idea should stop supporting Bernie? Because that will be enacted right away if Bernie is President. Every city will look like NYC under rent control?
Some of us who live in NYC understand that rent control is not the ideal that it seems but if you want it enacted immediately in every city and town, vote for Bernie and not Warren. If you think that maybe more thought is needed before national rent control takes over in every city and town, then don’t vote for Bernie because he plans to enact national rent control immediately.
Another example of the Left forming a circular firing squad so that no progressive will ever be elected.
Shavar Jeffries of DFER (billionaire hedge funders) doesn’t like either Warren or Sanders’ education plans. So if a person in the 99% needs to know how to vote -vote for the two progressives.
Diane,
I do not believe this is “the left”. There are a few people who are very likely the definition of Russian “assets” — maybe unwilling or maybe willing tools of the far right repeating the far right propaganda as if that is what “progressives” believe.
If you want to know how REAL progressives think, just look at Bernie Sanders. Just look at AOC.
Neither Bernie nor AOC repeat the right wing propaganda that dienne77 posts here. dienne77 believes Trump and the far right propaganda more than she believes Bernie himself when it comes to trashing Warren or other Democrats.
Remember, neither Bernie Sanders or AOC agrees with the trashing that dienne77 always posts against Democrats. dienne77 clearly doesn’t trust AOC and Bernie as much as she trusts the people who tell her that Trump did nothing wrong and the Mueller Report was a nothing burger. AOC knows it isn’t a “nothing burger” but dienne77 trusts the Republicans more than AOC or Bernie.
Why?
And here’s Robinson’s justification for why it is necessary to critique Warren now before Trump gets his hands on her: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/10/why-criticize-warren
Do you even read the links when you post articles?
I read the links to the article from September 2019 that included the smear that Warren has supporters on Wall Street.
Then I read that article. It turned out it was one woman who was very concerned about how the Wall Street/Republican agenda was harming the middle class. She was so afraid of going public knowing that the people who make the real money on Wall Street hate Warren.
“Ocampo is part of what is so far a tiny, tiny minority of Warren donors in the financial industry. The senator, who has built a career warning about and legislating against the excesses of financial institutions—including crafting a consumer financial protection bureau to carry on that very mission—has reported receiving donations from only about 30 employees at the world’s top 20 investment banks.
It is a small crew composed of everyone from IT workers to risk managers at small firms and larger outfits. It’s also one that isn’t quite yet comfortable trumpeting its politics. Ocampo, for starters, would only talk on the condition that her place of employment not be listed.” By the way, Ocampo gave a few hundred dollars! That’s her “donation” that proves that Warren is a tool of Wall Street and a liar who plans to turn the country over to corporate interests!
What is concerning is we have a few fake progressives who are using lies to smear Warren. If the NY Times smeared Bernie that way, you would be appalled. But you embrace that kind of lie when it is in service to you. That’s no different than the values of Republicans.
Thankfully, Bernie is not like you or Robinson.
Robinson hates Warren because she doesn’t support National Rent Control. Does Bernie? Who cares? The Republican playbook is always to throw every false charge at your opponent and hope one sticks, because you have no ethical or moral core except winning. It is disheartening to see a few progressives with the same Republican values. Thankfully, Bernie Sanders himself is not like that. It is a shame people who claim to be progressives act like right wing Republicans.
“I’ve tried to refrain from criticizing Warren too much, because I think the difference between having either her or Sanders as the nominee and having someone else as the nominee is substantial, and if Sanders isn’t it then by God it had better be Warren. Yet I think it is necessary for Sanders supporters to fight hard to make sure he is the nominee. Settling for Warren should be a last resort. ” Robinson
Well that’s okay with me. So Robinson who I generally agree with in other articles thinks the difference is; Sanders is talking about power Warren has a plan. The implication being that the plan without power will not succeed.
Okay and power will just be yielded? Neither has much of a chance moving anything. The best I hope for will be setting up for change after a Black Swan event that has yet to be envisioned. Which is why it is a Black Swan. An event of such magnitude that it rocks the Oligarchy to its knees.
And if Robinson is a Russian asset, then we all are: https://rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/
Why doesn’t it bother you that Tulsi Gabbard met with right wing Wall Streeters?
The reason corporate Wall Street billionaires are starting this hate campaign against Warren is because they are terrified of her winning. Stop with the blatant lie that they secretly support her.
The person they support is Tulsi Gabbard! LOL! They want her to do what you are doing and trash whoever the Democratic candidate is.
When I hear Bernie Sanders trashing Elizabeth Warren, I will believe it. Not when I hear murderous dictator-loving favorite of the far right Tulsi saying it.
Wasn’t it interesting that Trump thanked Russia first when describing the killing of Al-Baghdadi, and mentioned the Syrian Kurds last, when it was the latter who did the fighting on the groun?
Isn’t it curious that he told the Russians anout our raid but not Pelosi, who served for years on the Senate Intelligence Committee?
I have always thought Jill Stein was a Russiam asset after seeing her photo at the RT dinner, sitting with Putin at the head table.
I always find it shocking that Matt Taibbi attacks Democrats more than he attacks far right Republicans who have all the power right now!
It is beyond outrageous that Taibbi’s entire defense of Tulsi Gabbard is “she changed her mind and is no longer supporting the reprehensible policies she used to” but then Taibbi turns around and claims that all democrats must be judged on what they supported decades ago! Because what they believe now should not be trusted! After all, they aren’t the beautiful Tulsi Gabbard who can change her mind from a few years ago and it’s all good — she’s trustworthy to those hypocrites.
When I see fake “progressives’ with the integrity of right wing Breitbart propaganda purveyors, I know that they don’t actually want an honest discussion of the issues.
I’m tired of the double standard that Taibbi and dienne77 use to trash anyone who might stand up to Trump. And I’m tired of them telling us that Trump is the victim of a left wing conspiracy to “get” him.
Their hypocrisy is glaring.
“Warren Declares War on the Poor- Catholic League President Comments on Elizabeth Warren’s New Education Policy”.
Hypocrisy and the Catholic League…. hmmmmm. Of note-the League disclaims, “it does not speak authoritatively for the Church as a whole”.
Similar to the functioning of Charle Kirk’s Turning Point USA, the League’s goal is to get “any information regarding incidents of anti-Catholic bias”, so that they can immediately target and confront. Evidently, women facing bias in the church or child victims of priest abuse have to defend themselves.
The Catholic League Advisory Board has 22 members, 19 with male first names, including Thomas Monaghan (Ave Maria), Robert George and Lawrence Kudlow. It’s not unlike the projected 2020 U.S. House
composition- 11 GOP women and 186 GOP men.
The current propaganda from the political right, “citizens reject their taxes funding Catholic schools because the citizens are anti-Catholic”.
Sound familiar? “Citizens reject privatization because the citizens are against black people”. Same old PR.
The circular firing squad. Exactly. I’m a Bernie guy, but should Senator Warren be the candidate, I shall ENTHUSIASTICALLY support her. She is brilliant and thoughtful and decent and on the side of ordinary folks, of the poor, of the disenfranchised, of the exploited. Anyone who doubts this has a screw loose.
In reaction, perhaps, to the polls that show Warren leading in Iowa, IQ45 is dragging out, again, in his neo-Nazi rallies, his racist Pocahontas attack. Here, a poem on that topic:
To the Honorable Elizabeth A. Warren | Bob Shepherd
You are what you pretend to be,
so be careful what you pretend to be.
–Kurt Vonnegut
It was a story
passed down in her family,
how many years ago
some opposed the marriage
of their son to the woman
who was part Indian,
and the story resonated with her,
became part of her identity,
something of which she was
justly proud,
this defiance of injustice
and bloody clannishness.
This too, is a heritage,
more real,
than any imagined
bloodline.
We are not just flesh.
We are also
the stories we tell ourselves
about ourselves,
what we chose to remember,
some of it, even, true,
for memory, EVERY time,
is a reconstruction,
a confabulation,
a just-so story,
and so fallible
as to be definitive
of being human.
“Find yourself,”
the hippies used to say,
as though you were a lost sock
waiting to be found.
“You are not a lost sock,”
I say to people:
The self is self-created.
Authenticity is truth
to what you would be:
The gods themselves
are dreams of what we could be
if we were true enough
to our vision
of what we might be.
Shame upon any
who would reject
on so shallow a basis
as imagined “race”
one who would call him
brother.
Exactly. And so would Bernie himself. And so would AOC, who made the important point at the rally where she endorsed Bernie that she was happy there were so many good candidates running!
I don’t trust this circular firing squad. I believe that if Bernie Sanders was the candidate, the same people at the Intercept would find all kinds of reasons to trash him as untrustworthy and still insist that some third party candidate – likely Tulsi Gabbard – be supported instead of Bernie.
These people are not honest at all. Their support for Bernie would end suddenly if he won the nomination and they’d be repeating the same right wing talking points about how Bernie isn’t trustworthy.
This is a very good article except for one glaring mistake that unfortunately represents how the corrupt propaganda has taken over and affected even good writers:
“Even some of Trump’s critics entertain the same erroneous notion. The New York Times columnist Bret Stephens has repeatedly intimated that, to him, “high crimes and misdemeanors” requires ordinary criminality. He recently wrote, “I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the [Ukraine] call.”
Bret Stephens is not a “Trump critic”. He is a rabid right wing Republican who has already said that he would happily vote for Trump over Warren because Stephens claims Warren is a huge danger to our country. In fact, Stephens says anyone but Biden is a danger and if Biden wins the nomination, Stephens will be saying he reconsidered and Trump is much better than Biden who is also dangerous. Stephens is a right wing hack.
Stephens is not a Trump critic. Stevens comes from the ideology of right wing Republicans who insist that if a (Republican) President does it — even if it is shooting someone on Fifth Avenue — then that is okay.
Stephens is like Susan Collins. Identifying people who say “tut tut what Trump did, but my job is to help make sure Trump is empowered to do anything he wants” as “Trump critics” is simply helping promote right wing propaganda.
Writers who are not right wing purveyors of propaganda need to stop being influenced by it. What they do not realize it by repeating the false propaganda that the people like Bret Stephens and Susan Collins are “Trump critics” when Bret Stephens and Susan Collins should always be identified as a Trump enablers and apologists is very dangerous. Why give those Trump shills a credibility that they don’t have? The fact is, that Stephens will never admit Trump is impeachable even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.
And the writer didn’t even identify Bret Stephens as a right wing conservative columnist!
Here is how that sentence should have been written to be truthful:
“Some of the right wing Republicans who have been mildly critical of Trump but overall defend and enable Trump entertain the same erroneous notion. The New York Times columnist Bret Stephens has repeatedly intimated that, to him, “high crimes and misdemeanors” requires ordinary criminality. He recently wrote, “I struggle to see exactly what criminal statute Trump violated with the [Ukraine] call.”
Such a sentence would make readers understand that the people saying Trump didn’t violate a criminal statute are rabid Republicans.
I find it interesting that the writer could not find a non-rabid Republican shill to quote. Of course, finding someone other than a ring shill like Bret Stephens is very difficult when it comes to defending Trump from impeachment. And that’s exactly what the article should have demonstrated. Not treated Bret Stephens as a “Trump critic” when he is most certainly not. And neither is Susan Collins. Mild “tut tuts” while you insist Trump should be able to do whatever he wants does not make you a “Trump critic”.
What’s ironic about the question of whether Trump committed crimes is that his defenders are even now hiding behind the idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted for an enormous list of potential indictments for an enormous range of crimes. There are so many of these that Trump’s one chance of staying out of prison is holding onto the presidency for four more years. If I were leading the impeachment proceedings in the House, I would add all of these to the articles of impeachment–numerous sex crimes, violations of the emoluments clause, personal use of charitable funds, obstruction of justice–it’s a long, long list.
Aie yie yie.
Cx: What’s ironic about the question of whether Trump committed crimes is that his defenders are even now hiding behind the idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which he could be, were he a private citizen, for an enormous range of crimes.
His attorneys argue that it doesn’t matter if he committed a crime because the president is above the law.
Our emperor
Yes, but the Trump defenders are all right wing shills.
This article identified right wing Republican shill ONLY as a “Trump critic”. Anyone who didn’t know who Bret Stephens was would think that there are actually Trump critics who think he has committed no impeachable act. On the contrary, the only people who say that are right wing shills like Stephens who was wrongly identified as a Trump critic. Apparently saying “tut tut” while insisting that everything Trump does is absolutely fine makes one a “Trump critic” in journalism these days.
That is very poor journalism by this otherwise good writer. And is a frightening demonstration of how right wing propaganda turns into “fact”.
By the way, the NY Times has done the same thing by identifying right wing Barr appointees investigating Democrats as if they were upright and honest instead of political hacks who somehow overlooked all the crimes of Republicans that they investigated and totally exonerated them all.
BrettStephens was previously a member of the very conservative WSJ editorial board.
“BrettStephens was previously a member of the very conservative WSJ editorial board.”
Exactly. Which is why the writer of the article should have identified Stephens as a rabid right wing Republican instead of as a supposedly non-partisan “Trump critic” who doesn’t believe in impeachment.
Only people who believe that Susan Collins is a “Trump critic” would identify Bret Stephens as a Trump critic. They are not. They should be called “right wing Republican Trump enablers”. By not defining Bret Stephens as the right wing hack he is, the Atlantic article misled readers into believing that “independent” people who don’t support Trump also don’t support impeachment. It isn’t true. The people who don’t support impeachment are like Bret Stephens and are right wing hacks.
“When I use a word like impeachment,’ Trumpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Trumpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
“Why, sometimes I’ve tweeted as many as six impossible things before snorting my breakfast,” said the Orange King.
If Trump is impeached by the House, what follows from that? Nothing I think except for another round of witch hunt and vindictiveness from Trump and perhaps a pardon for himself if he can get away with that.
If he is impeached by the House and Senate, what follows from that? I do not know, nor do I know of many good analyses of the possible endings to this process. In the meantime Trump and his legal people are doing a ropeadope to stall and run out a clock. In the meantime Democratic candidates do seem to be in a circular fireing squad and hardly anyone seems to be paying attention to the down-tickets–state and local elections– or the continuing threat of massive voter fraud enabled by bots and so on.
If Trump is impeached by the House, it demonstrates that a President cannot break the law. It demonstrates that Democrats do not believe a President can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. It demonstrates that our country is not Russia, where Putin can order any killings he wants.
If Trump is impeached, it shows that Democrats are willing to lose an election to do the right thing. And if Trump is re-elected, it shows that the American public would rather have a fascist leader than democracy.
The New York Times reported that the top Ukrainian expert for the National Security Council–Lt. Col. Vindman– will testify tomorrow. He was a listener on Trump’s call to the president of Ukraine. He will testify that Trump’s request for dirt on the Bidens was alarming. He will support what the whistleblower said. He twice warned his superiors about the inappropriateness of Trump’s pressure on Ukraine.
From theWashington Post:
“An Army officer assigned to the White House plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he was disturbed by President Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate one of his political rivals and feared it would undermine U.S. national security.
“Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, was part of a small group of White House officials assigned to listen in on Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” according to a draft of his opening statement.”
This is a fascinating article about the history of the words in the constitution. It is instructive that people on the right are no longer interested in the meaning of the constitution. For years their cry has been that the “liberals” are ignoring the words of the constitution. Their insistence that there has to be a crime to begin the process of impeachment mirrors either complete ignorance of the document or willful bypassing of the law as written when it is convienent.
Roy,
You remember, as I do, when conservatives called themselves “originalists,” because they believed that the Constitution should be read for its exact meaning, not modern reinterpretation.
I did not believe they really were originalists then, nor do I now. Some individuals may have earned that title, but most were and are opportunista rather than originalista.
A true originalist would know that key wording in the Constitution was quite purposefully made vague, so that the document would be a living document, not tied to the time in which it was written.
By “vague” I mean general, nonspecific subject to interpretation.