Is there a legal basis for impeachment? We’ve had a compelling exchange the last few days on @NPR, the network that reports facts. The Constitution permits impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Which of these, if any, did the president commit?
We posed that very question at the start of our interview with @RepAdamSchiff. He raised several possible charges, including bribery: the president sought something of value to release military aid. Schiff says the Founders had a broad view of “bribery.” npr.org/2019/11/12/778…
Now listen to this counter-argument that @JonathanTurley makes to @NoelKing on @NPR. Turley acknowledges that witnesses have given damaging testimony. But does that testimony show bribery? Turley doubts this. npr.org/2019/11/14/779…
His interview builds on an interesting post in which Turley warns that Democrats, to succeed, would need to build a broad foundation of charges of presidential misconduct: “a clear and credible theory... based on well-established definitions.” google.com/amp/s/jonathan…
In their arguments, @JonathanTurley and @RepAdamSchiff differ on some facts. For example, what did the Founders mean by “bribery”?
There’s also a notable difference in time lines. @JonathanTurley asserts that Ukrainians only knew their military aid was suspended for 10-11 days before it was released. Is this serious enough to impeach? @RepAdamSchiff asserts he will prove the Ukrainians knew for some time.
Also, @RepAdamSchiff asserts that the only reason the military aid was released - the only reason the scheme was foiled - was that word of the whistleblower complaint was spreading, the aid blockage became public, and the cover was blown.
But Turley points the way to plausible fact-based defenses of the president, essentially that he did something wrong, which does not rise to the level of impeachment. Former GW Bush spokesman @AriFleischer makes that case in a tweet:
To be clear, no current White House official, and few current GOP office holders, make such a defense of the president. It requires saying he did something wrong. Their leader has told them his conduct was “perfect.”
This leaves his allies seeking defenses in which words do not mean what words mean. Sen. John Kennedy suggests that in targeting Biden, the president did not “intend” to target a political rival, even though the president openly views almost everything through a partisan lens.
In making a similar argument on @NPR- that Trump did not mean to target a rival - a White House spokesman was left insisting that the president literally did not do what the president literally did. npr.org/2019/11/01/775…
