Rubin: It's not the Democrats who'll have a problem addressing impeachment

[dalton99a]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/23/its-not-democrats-who-will-have-problem-addressing-impeachment/

It’s not the Democrats who’ll have a problem addressing impeachment
By Jennifer Rubin
March 23 at 6:00 PM

...

However, let’s say for the sake of argument that the report shows: 1.) Trump hired multiple campaign officials who had, collectively, more than 100 contacts with Russians and solicited a hostile foreign power’s help in winning the presidency; 2.) Trump lied repeatedly about his pursuit of a business deal with a hostile foreign power while running for president; and 3.) Trump took a slew of actions (from misleading the public to seeking leniency for Michael Flynn to intimidating witnesses in plain sight) that, if committed by anyone other than the president, would be grounds for indictment. Do the Republicans plan on running in 2020 under the banner: Leave the Russian patsy in power — or What’s a little obstruction between friends?

If so, they will have to defend not simply Trump’s criminal innocence but also his fitness to serve after committing all of the above. They’ll have to explain why none of that rises to the level of “high Crimes and Misdemeanor,” and why the country should allow him to continue as the chief executive charged with enforcement of the nation’s laws and the Constitution. Even in the best-case scenario for Trump, the facts we know about already are damning; in a world without a political party reduced to know-nothing cultists, they would be disqualifying for office.

That’s not all. Maybe before the 2020 election we’ll learn the results of the Southern District of New York investigation(s) on allegations of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws, defraud banks and cheat on taxes, and other possible crimes. Are Republicans going to back a president who’s found responsible for any or all or those, or, if the investigation is not complete, back a president who, in his second term, could be found to have committed multiple financial crimes? What’s the defense? Hey, everyone pays off mistresses and files false campaign finance statements!

What gets lost in the discussion of impeachment vs. indictment and the presence or absence of a felony is the reaffirmation that Trump’s conduct — be it lying about his Russian business interests or trying to decapitate investigations — is in no sense acceptable for someone sworn to “take care” that the laws are enforced. He’s a menace to the presidency and to the rule of law and patently unfit to hold presidential powers. The Fox News hosts and their zombie audience will deny this, but what about “respectable" Republicans who like the tax cuts and judges but find most everything else objectionable? I suppose they could descend further into intellectual hackery and support reelection, but you’d think they’d at least consider looking for a nominee without an ocean liner full of baggage.

[Thunderbeast]

1. It's all a lie

Democrats made the whole thing up.

The Secretary of State thinks Jeebus sent me.

Mexicans are coming to rape your white daughters.

Case closed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. She makes the case for starting impeachment hearings regardless of the Senate

Make those GOP bastards who hope to be reelected squirm, make them take a stand.

[Duppers]

3. They have helped cover up crimes.

By withholding incriminatory evidence.

Yes, "make them take a stand."

[CentralMass]

7. +1

[OnDoutside]

4. Because they will lie, and call it persecution. When you don't have the numbers, it's

foolhardy to try to impeach. I think the simple solution is to let the American people vote the fucker out in less than 20 months. Impeachment is only going to give the GOP a way to reset.

[DFW]

5. The one major flaw in Rubin's argument:

"Do the Republicans plan on running in 2020 under the banner: Leave the Russian patsy in power — or What’s a little obstruction between friends?"

YES, THEY DO. And they think it's not a problem.

"That’s not all. Maybe before the 2020 election we’ll learn the results of the Southern District of New York investigation(s) on allegations of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws, defraud banks and cheat on taxes, and other possible crimes. Are Republicans going to back a president who’s found responsible for any or all or those, or, if the investigation is not complete, back a president who, in his second term, could be found to have committed multiple financial crimes?"


Yes, THEY ARE. They'll say, "so what?"


"What’s the defense? Hey, everyone pays off mistresses and files false campaign finance statements!"

YES, AMONG OTHERS. This is where the "whattabout" clause comes in. Whattabout emails, Benghazi, Whitewater? Hell, whattabout JFK and Marilyn Monroe, while they're at it?

What Rubin is ignoring is that THIS time, the Republican answer to that old question, "at long last, have you no decency?" is: "No, who needs it?"

[CentralMass]

6. K&R

[oasis]

8. Republicans find shelter in the belief that Trump is NOT a traitor but,

only an unwitting dupe of the Russians.