Thread by @radleybalko

Let's put the bribery and extortion stuff aside for a moment, and focus on two things that are undisputed.

First, Trump dispatched his private attorney to conduct a shadow foreign policy. This included working with a corrupt ex-prosecutor, ...

(1/xx)

texastribune.org/2019/11/21/wil…

... threatening a U.S. ambassador, and trying to squeeze a newly-elected president -- who ran on an anti-corruption platform -- into doing something that even Hurd agrees is unseemly.

Second, in a private phone call, Trump asked said newly-elected president --

-- over whom he has considerable leverage -- to help Trump bring down a domestic political rival. Trump's true motivation here is revealed by witness accounts stating he was far more interested in the *announcement* of an investigation than an actual investigation, as well as...

... the fact that he mentioned Biden by name, and that he has publicly asked foreign governments to help dig up dirt on rivals on at least two other occasions.

So here are four questions for @HurdOnTheHill:

1. Because DOJ policy forbids indicting a sitting president, there ...

... are really only two remedies for abuse of power: impeachment and elections. The latter isn't much of an option if the entire goal of the abuse of power is to affect the outcome of the next election.

So if not impeachment, what prevents Trump from doing this again?

...

2. It's pretty much a given that he will. The call to Zelensky came the day after Mueller testified before Congress. The Mueler report was damning, yet Trump claimed exoneration. He was uncowed. Add in the very real possibility that Trump could be indicted if he loses...

... and it's a safe bet he'll shatter every norm and break any law standing between him and reelection. It's even more certain once he knows that Democrats have exhausted the "impeachment card."

So what if Trump does this again with Zelensky? Another head of state? What then?

3. Let's look beyond Trump. If there's no penalty for this sort of behavior, what's to prevent future candidates and presidents from asking foreign governments to engage in dirty tricks on their behalf, while dangling aid, diplomatic recognition, or another favor in return? ...

In fact, if you have even the slightest inkling your opponent may soliciting foreign help, and you know there's no penalty for doing so, wouldn't you be pretty foolish *not* to?

Much as we'd like to think that ethics or decency or propriety might provide some restraint here ...

... Trump is pretty compelling evidence to the contrary.

In fact, with no penalty for this behavior, going forward, any candidate who *has* that sort of ethical restraint will be at a distinct disadvantage. We'd be stacking the deck against them. Incentives matter!

I'm of the opinion that for the moment, Trump is an anomaly. But *only* if our system holds him accountable for his abuses. If not, we not only allow for the next Trump, we basically incentivize Trumpism, making the next and future Trumps damn-near inevitable.

4. There's ample evidence that the Founders included impeachment in the Constitution for precisely this sort of abuse -- misconduct and concealment of that misconduct that helps a candidate secure his or her office.

(See discussion around FN 258: cato.org/publications/w…)

...

That's because this variety of corruption threatens democracy itself. Put another way, the types of abuses that elections are *least* capable of holding in check are the abuses that corrupt or try to corrupt elections. Hence, impeachment.

All of which is to say: If pressuring a vulnerable ally to help take down a political rival isn't an impeachable offense -- regardless of whether anything was dangled as a reward -- what *is*?

/end