1. The Justice Department has said in court documents that the President of the United States committed two felonies to help him win the 2016 election
There are some political reasons not to impeach Trump but there are really no substantive reasons anymore
There are some political reasons not to impeach Trump but there are really no substantive reasons anymore
2. I say this because I don't think anyone would seriously argue that committing a felony is not a "high crime or misdemeanor"
I understand that the DOJ hasn't proven their allegations but the conventional wisdom is that the POTUS can't be indicted
I understand that the DOJ hasn't proven their allegations but the conventional wisdom is that the POTUS can't be indicted
3. The thinking behind that "rule" is that impeachment, not a criminal trial, the the proper avenue to address criminal conduct by a POTUS.
If you accept that, you can't also say there is no evidence of criminal conduct because the president hasn't been convicted
If you accept that, you can't also say there is no evidence of criminal conduct because the president hasn't been convicted
4. So if we are going with no indicting a sitting president, a formal determination by the DOJ is the best that you are going to do.
Again, I understand the Senate would be unlikely to convict and it might be politically better for the Dems to talk about health care
Again, I understand the Senate would be unlikely to convict and it might be politically better for the Dems to talk about health care
5. But as far as the kind of evidence you'd expect to justify impeachment, we are already well past the line. My guess is Dems want to wait to see what else Mueller has. But he really doesn't need anything else.
