Thread by @AriMelber

Some points on the new House Resolution for "impeaching Donald John Trump"...

House Democrats' new draft articles of impeachment focus on Trump's "scheme" to abuse power to "harm" a "political opponent."

The articles allege the exact abuse of power was:

Trump "conditioning official U.S. government acts" on his demand that Ukraine publicly announce investigations to help Trump's reelection.

The articles allege Trump sought the announcement of those investigations into "political opponent" Biden, and into the Russian theory that Ukraine was responsible for 2016 election meddling.

The articles stress that when Trump was caught, he *gave up the quid but still sought the quo.*

The articles state Trump released the money but "persisted" in urging the investigations.

Article I against Pres. Trump concludes "he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution" in office, and thus should be impeached, tried, removed and disqualified from ever holding office again.

House Democrats second (and final) article of impeachment against Trump is narrow -- treating his "defiance of subpoenas" and blanket opposition to the impeachment probe as "Obstruction of Congress."

House Democrats argue Trump "abused" power by directing the WH to defy subpoenas and ordering aides not to cooperate at all with Congress, stating no President "has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry."

The 2nd article of impeachment argues Trump's "cover up" of his own misconduct, and attempt to "control the power of impeachment" by defying the entire probe, tries to "nullify" the Constitution's entire structure providing impeachment as a Congressional check on the WH.

What's NOT in the new Impeachment Articles:

Obstruction of Justice

Direct references to bribery

Direct references to election crimes

Abusing power for self-enrichment/self-dealing

Bringing disgrace on the office (Johnson precedent)

Violating rights (Nixon precedent)

So this basically the *narrowest* impeachment case one could make against Pres. Trump.

At this stage, is a "narrow" case "better"? That's up for wide debate.

Johnson and Clinton cases started more broadly.

Against Clinton, the House started with 4 articles and used the comt and floor votes to pick 'strongest' articles from a wider menu.

The Nixon articles were broader - two high crimes and then defying Congress as a third article - but that process was obv very different (courts involved, prosecutors fired and replaced, Potus resigned before House vote)

It is remarkable that despite the many grounds for alleged obstruction of justice by Pres. Trump -- witness tampering, "rats," and *5* "substantial" incidents of obstruction in Mueller Report -- Congress is currently on course to impeach Trump without mentioning it.

... if the rationale is "strategic" - 'people need a clear storyline' - that may be true, but it's not substantive

If you're in Congress and you don't think Trump obstructed justice, that's one position

If you think he did, and you're impeaching him, how do you reconcile this?

There are members of Congress who back an article on obstruction of justice b/c it may be stronger & more "ripened" than the argument for obstruction of Congress

The 1st has years of evidence in the Mueller Report

The 2d is from the past few months, w some issues still in court

Finally, there is the question of what case the Senate gets. Are these two particular articles likely to yield more votes there than some other package? Is that part of the calculus of Cong. Dem leadership?