Read on Twitter
At the core, the Trump impeachment is a question: *Is it illegal for government power to be tasked to a president's reelection?*
I want to talk about how if the answer the Senate comes back with is "no, it's okay", it will make the *entire world* worse. https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1194657202558160897
I want to talk about how if the answer the Senate comes back with is "no, it's okay", it will make the *entire world* worse. https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1194657202558160897
The actions Trump is being impeached for were performed with the goal of getting Ukraine to publicly set up an investigation of Biden or Biden's son, one assumes so Trump's campaign could leverage this the way they previously leveraged investigations around Clinton's "emails".
The theory under which Biden or Biden's son were alleged to have done something wrong doesn't really make sense ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/ ), but it didn't have to; most of the "emails" stuff didn't either. The goal was to have *some* cloud of uncertainty for a campaign to exploit
However what's interesting is that team Trump didn't come up with the Biden theory themselves.
The origin was Yuriy Lutsenko, a Ukrainian prosecutor, who started blowing Comey-like smoke about Biden at the same time Lutsenko was looking at losing his job. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/joe-biden-hunter-ukraine-trump-lutsenko-burisma-holdings-interference-897187/
The origin was Yuriy Lutsenko, a Ukrainian prosecutor, who started blowing Comey-like smoke about Biden at the same time Lutsenko was looking at losing his job. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/joe-biden-hunter-ukraine-trump-lutsenko-burisma-holdings-interference-897187/
Lutsenko didn't have *anything* on the Bidens. But he gave a public interview implying he had evidence he never produced.
As far as anyone can tell, he did this to dangle something nice for Trump so Trump would pressure the incoming President into letting Lutsenko keep his job.
As far as anyone can tell, he did this to dangle something nice for Trump so Trump would pressure the incoming President into letting Lutsenko keep his job.
So Trump leveraging the mighty US government and withholding aid in order to get a talking point manufactured for his campaign is obviously bad. Nobody wants the US to behave like that.
But let's think for a moment about the effect on *other countries*. Lutsenko is a preview.
But let's think for a moment about the effect on *other countries*. Lutsenko is a preview.
Nobody is really denying the *facts* of the Trump aid-for-investigations-of-political-rivals ransom scheme. Nobody seems to know how to *attempt* disputing the facts. There were too many witnesses. That means Republicans must argue what Trump did was legal https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1194646449792966659
Compare the Clinton impeachment. Ultimately everyone agreed on the facts of what Clinton did: He was asked if he had sex, he said no, details came out, he was called back to testify again and asked if he had sex including oral, he said yes, he was charged (impeached) with perjury
The House impeached and the Senate acquitted. Both those votes were for fundamentally political reasons. But formally speaking what happened there was he was charged with perjury and found not guilty. The Senate found the act he performed was not perjury.
We're looking at a similar dynamic with Trump. It seems certain the House impeaches. But for reasons as political as those with Clinton, the Senate might acquit. You can't convict in the Senate without 19 Republicans voting against Trump. We… might get there? Seems probable not.
So similar to the Senate finding Clinton didn't commit perjury, what does it mean if the Senate finds Trump not guilty of crimes when the facts are basically undisputed he withheld aid he had no right to withhold to extract personal political favors to aid his reelection?
That means Trump is the new normal. But it also means *Lutsenko* is the new normal. It means *every* country is now bound to make overtures to the sitting POTUS to target their political rivals and launder lawbreaking for them, because it's legal & ok to withhold aid until you do
You won't even escape this by electing Democrats! Even if Democrats refuse to participate in corrupt schemes, the game theory for the Lutsenkos of the future will say to *try*. The potential benefits will be worth *trying* to manufacture corruption and dangle it to US officials.
What Lutsenko did had nothing to do with the state interests of either the U.S. or Ukraine. It was one official wanting to keep his job dangling favors across national lines to another individual to help him keep *his* job. This is normal behavior in the logic of kleptocracies.
But there are parts of the world which outlaw officials following kleptocrat logic. A Trump acquittal blows that up; U.S. aid is too universal, no country avoids having to work with it. We'd export our new rules worldwide.
Think about how awful it would be to live in that world.
Think about how awful it would be to live in that world.
There is a good thread below: https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1198619625027563521
