Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom Rinaldo

(22,919 posts)
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 09:54 AM Sep 2019

Impeachment must not be too "narrow" in scope

There is political wisdom in not attempting to throw the kitchen sink at Trump. Impeachment should focus on Trump's misdeeds while in office. Hush money payments made prior to his election should not be a focus. "Collusion" with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign should not be a focus. Long term financial ties with Russia that may lie hidden in Trump's tax returns should not be a focus. There may be ways those can be referenced to provide context during hearings, but they should not constitute separate counts

In that sense the impeachment investigation should be narrowly focused, on actions that have happened since Trump took his oath of office. But it is unwise to narrow the impeachment inquiry down to a single "High crime or Misdemeanor." Trump needs to be removed for far more than just his role in the "Ukraine Conspiracy", grave as that may be. But, more to the point, he needs to be accused by the House of more than that alone.

By all means let the Ukraine charge take the lead. It is distinct and straight forward to prosecute. Unlike the wide scale undermining of the United States Constitution, it involves violating America's national security in an easy to grasp and tangible way. Trump's conduct toward the Ukraine may well be the easiest article of impeachment to convict him of, but it should not be the only one prosecuted. It needs to be pressed within a broader context that additional charges would provide.

Ultimately only a single article of an impeachment indictment against the President needs to pass the House in order for impeachment to move forward, but that does not argue in favor of presenting a single charge only. Some Democrats worry about muddying the waters with too wide a scope of inquiry. I worry about the opposite. A pattern of wide scale Presidential misconduct in office must be presented, otherwise Trump and his allies can focus their disinformation campaign on the particulars of one confined set of facts.

As has been shown before, truth is no deterrent to a Trumpian line of defense, which never revolves around the winning of any argument. Instead their goal has always been to confuse the public with alternate versions of reality that literally turn facts on their head. That is how and why the waters get muddied, to Trump's advantage, and Democrats must not fall into it. The "guilt or innocence" of Donald Trump can not rest on the facts of any single act alone, no matter how consequential it may be. When presented with a discreet accusation, Trump is a master at expanding the "shadow of a doubt" into a dust storm induced blackout, blinding the public of the ability to discern fake from real news with any degree of certainty.

Trump's actual impeachment likely will ultimately rest on Congressional findings regarding the Ukraine, but that by itself could mean winning the battle while losing the war if, in the process, Democrats do not forcefully inject into the record substantial evidence establishing that Presidential misdeeds relative to the Ukraine are consistent with the entire tenor of Trump's Administration and his time in office. That is why additional counts in the final articles of impeachment presented against Donald Trump become critical. It is not just Trump's actions in any instance that must be prosecuted, it is the fundamental integrity of the man who occupies the Oval Office that must be frontally assaulted relative to all of his actions and every misinformation campaign subsequently he launches in his defense.

One count of impeachment does not sufficiently present a pervasive pattern of Trump's core unfitness to hold office. It should and must be buttressed by other charges, based on his actions while in office centered on the Obstruction of Justice and his self serving Corruption at the expense of the American people.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Impeachment must not be too "narrow" in scope (Original Post) Tom Rinaldo Sep 2019 OP
they need to paint a picture of the mobster that he is. mopinko Sep 2019 #1
Critical evidence is due in November Fiendish Thingy Sep 2019 #2
I hear you Tom Rinaldo Sep 2019 #7
There's only SCOTUS after the current court of appeals Fiendish Thingy Sep 2019 #8
If for no more than historical perspective, all the charges should be applied in any impeachment ... kentuck Sep 2019 #3
I may be trying to straddle two arguments Tom Rinaldo Sep 2019 #4
K&R for the sense Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2019 #5
Thank you. n/t Tom Rinaldo Sep 2019 #6
Nancy has been (smartly) slow playing this all along. SlogginThroughIt Sep 2019 #9
Lumping in complicates things. pwb Sep 2019 #10
It's not "lumping in" if it is all of a whole cloth Tom Rinaldo Sep 2019 #11

mopinko

(70,291 posts)
1. they need to paint a picture of the mobster that he is.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:24 AM
Sep 2019

i think they need to throw in emoluments. that is a lot more clear cut w the business of his misuse of the military to prop up his investments. and we have some receipts for that. the law here is clear, despite the weird word.

i would like to see them throw in their fake emergency shit, because there is a connection between those cuts and pootie.

i also want to see them keep an eye on the witness list. they should make sure that any really great witnesses get included in the parade.

but a lot of it should be handled in indictments after the fire has been put out.

a short list, w punch. but a list, fersher.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,690 posts)
2. Critical evidence is due in November
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:33 AM
Sep 2019

A court decision is due in November that will force Deutches bank and Trump's accountants to release their records to congress. These records are sure to contain evidence of Trump's financial crimes, including fraud and money laundering for the Russians, and should not be excluded from the impeachment process.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,919 posts)
7. I hear you
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 09:07 AM
Sep 2019

I'm not sure if even a favorable ruling will lead to the speedy release of those returns though. I imagine it will be appealed upward, but it would reinsert the totality of Trump's financial dealings into the daily news cycle at the very least.

Then there is Saudi Arabia, where it appears all but certain that Trump's financial dealings are dictating our foreign policy. That is the only way to explain Trump's disgraceful response to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. This too took place while Trump occupied the office of the Presidency.

Charges that highlight Trump's financial corruption and self dealing dovetail completely with the Ukraine charges. They establish a modus operandi and a pattern of consistent wrong doing that permeates his entire presidency.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,690 posts)
8. There's only SCOTUS after the current court of appeals
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 09:16 AM
Sep 2019

And since we are now in an Impeachment inquiry, an appeal to SCOTUS would be expedited, just like in Watergate when they ordered the tapes released. With the Ukraine WB concerns, it would be hard for Trump's lawyers to argue that the intelligence committee didn't have a legitimate cause to see the documents to ascertain if the president had been compromised and was a security risk.

I think there will be a definitive order for Deutches bank and Mazars (Trump's accountants) to turn over their records, and Trump will be helpless to stop them- they have already said they will comply with a court order.

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
3. If for no more than historical perspective, all the charges should be applied in any impeachment ...
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 10:37 AM
Sep 2019

imho.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,919 posts)
4. I may be trying to straddle two arguments
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 11:14 AM
Sep 2019

I know that my heart and my sense of justice scream out that Trump should be held fully accountable for each and every instance of his high crimes and misdemeanors. I believed both then and now that impeachment should have commenced upon the release of Mueller's Report. It didn't, and in my opinion that squandered the impact of its findings. Now I hear it is argued, based on media reports, by leading Democrats that impeachment charges should be confined to this current matter regarding the Ukraine only. I hear the argument framed, by some Democrats, that the public does not want to re litigate matters which happened prior to Trump being elected President.

I note that Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Justice (both of Mueller's probe and of Congressional oversight), and self serving corruption (emoluments clause issues etc.) have all occurred after Trump took the Oath of Office. I believe, at the very least, that articles of impeachment against Donald Trump must cover the full scope of his misconduct while in office. Confining it in that way may not get at the heart of the motivation behind all of his misdeeds; i.e. his financial dealings with Russia, with Saudi Arabia etc. It may not hold him directly accountable for his crimes under our election code that illegally aided his election by paying off people who had knowledge of his personal transgressions prior to Americans heading to the polls in November 2016. That pains me.

 

SlogginThroughIt

(1,977 posts)
9. Nancy has been (smartly) slow playing this all along.
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 09:18 AM
Sep 2019

Her statement today about her thinking russia had a hand in this is the clue that tells you this WILL get bigger because it will lead there. All along she has been telegraphing that this isn’t a want by democrats but a need due to law and constitution. When this shows that there is more to it then they will open those doors.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,919 posts)
11. It's not "lumping in" if it is all of a whole cloth
Fri Sep 27, 2019, 10:41 AM
Sep 2019

Serious misconduct while in office pertaining to his official duties, all of it pursued to protect and promote Trump's own personal self interest

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Impeachment must not be t...