What I said was that there are 3 broad categories of relevant motive:
1) pure national interest ( help the military)
2) pure corrupt motive ( get a kickback) And 3) mixed motive (help the national interest in a way that helps your reelection efforts )
(MTC)
1) pure national interest ( help the military)
2) pure corrupt motive ( get a kickback) And 3) mixed motive (help the national interest in a way that helps your reelection efforts )
(MTC)
I said that the 3rd was often the reality of politics and that helping one's own re-election efforts cannot — by itself— necessarily be deemed corrupt.
I gave as an example mixed motive President Lindon’s decision to send troops home from the battlefield to Indiana so that they would vote for his party. He genuinely believed that his party’s victory in Indiana was essential to the war effort, but it also helped him politically.
I gave another hypothetical. President Obama promised to bomb Syrian military targets if Assad used chemical weapons. He broke his promise. (MTC)
What it if turned out that a reason he broke his promise was that his political advisors warned him that bombing Syria would lose him votes among the hard left? (MTC)
My point is that these are complex issues and that the Framers did not intend impeachment for mixed motive decisions that contain an element of personal partisan benefit. (MTC)
Anyone watching my answer would know that it was in response to the manager’s claim that any electoral benefit would constitute an impeachable quid pro quo. (MTC)
I pointed out how open ended that argument is because politicians honestly believe that their reelection helps the national interest. (MTC)
I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.
