Posted on 02/05/2020 4:43:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Marco Rubio's widely mocked justification for acquitting Donald Trump, which conspicuously avoided condemning or approving the president's conduct, was not exactly a profile in courage. The Florida Republican nevertheless laid out a defensible position that rejected a dangerously broad claim by Trump's lawyers, and in that respect, he set an example his fellow senators should follow if they want to preserve impeachment as a remedy for grave abuses of presidential power.
"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office," Rubio said. While many of Trump's critics portrayed that line as self-evidently absurd, there is a valid distinction between impeachment and removal, and between the constitutionality and the wisdom of using those powers.
For months, Trump's defenders have been warning us that the promiscuous use of impeachment is a lethal threat to democracy and our constitutional order. Since no Congress has removed a president in the 231 years since George Washington started his first term (although Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment), those concerns seem misplaced as a general matter.
If anything, as the Cato Institute's Gene Healy has argued, the impeachment power has been sorely neglected in the face of many abuses that would have justified its use. Still, it is reasonable to wonder whether a hasty, party-line impeachment, followed by a hasty, party-line acquittal, is the best way to invigorate this check on presidential power.
Impeachment has always been and will always be a largely partisan process. But an impeachment cannot be credible if the public believes it is driven solely by political or personal animus.
As someone who does not feel at home in either of the two major parties, I was persuaded that Trump committed a serious abuse of power by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate a political rival, partly by withholding congressionally approved military aid. But the House's case, which suffered from an arbitrary, self-imposed deadline, was not strong enough to convince a single Republican that impeachment was warranted.
Since Rubio voted -- with almost all of his fellow Republicans -- against hearing witnesses or seeking relevant documents, he could not credibly complain that the evidence was inadequate to prove the allegations against the president. Instead, he argued that even if all of the charges were true, they would not justify Trump's removal nine months before he faces reelection, taking into account both "the severity of the wrongdoing alleged" and "the impact removal would have on the nation" given "the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces."
Notably, Rubio did not agree that Trump's actions vis-a-vis Ukraine were "perfectly appropriate," as the president's lawyers insisted. And he explicitly rejected "the argument that 'Abuse of Power' can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged" -- a position at odds with the historical evidence and the scholarly consensus.
Even if you agree with Rubio (and half of your fellow Americans) that Trump's conduct did not justify his removal, you should hesitate before endorsing the idea that impeachment requires a criminal violation or something closely resembling it. There are many ways in which a president can violate the public trust without violating the law.
There are similarly many ways a political party can violate the spirit of thhe Constitution without breaking a single law. We have been witness to some such actions in this impeachment debacle.
Translation: Nevertrumpers get dragged “kicking and screaming” into acquittal to save their sorry ass.
If one of Donald Trump's sons sat on the board of Burisma and he released the funds without requesting an investigation, demonicRATS would've had a conniption fit and impeached him for that.
Am I right, Humper? Up high!
Humper?
Humper?
Where's Humper?
I’m so sick of these Never Trumpers. He’s fighting for US, dammit.
But it isn’t a choice between acquittal or guilty. I read that they could vote “nul pros(ecution)” or some such that basically sends a message back to the House that they screwed up.
That is DemocRAT spin/talking point, which does not reflect reality at all. Did the author of this piece even look at the primary evidence, the transcript of the phone call?
And so what if Trump *had* made sending the aid contingent upon Ukraine conducting an investigation into corruption by Biden et al.? Don't the American people have a right to know if their elected officials are using their offices for personal gain?
More accurately, he is fighting for the country, which in the end benefits us. Because he is fighting for all Americans. When we use the term us, some will think that us means something other than Americans. So let's make it clear who us is exactly. All Americans, natural born, as well as, naturalized. 8>)
‘Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment’
BUT NONE OF TRUMP’S ACTIONS MEET ANY STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT!! What a douche!
“As someone who does not feel at home in either of the two major parties, I was persuaded that Trump committed a serious abuse of power by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate a political rival, partly by withholding congressionally approved military aid.”
Stop
right
there
the author is a moron. T didn’t pressure to investigate a rival, he asked PER A TREATY requirement that they investgisge corruption AFTER BIDEN BRAGGED ABOUT IT.
I was for his acquittal until I found out he was giving Alaska to Russia. That just ain’t right.
When can we dispense with Republicans who really, really want to be liked? And find Republicans who realize we are in the fight of our country’s life to preserve the Constitution??
When can we dispense with Republicans who really, really want to be liked? And find Republicans who realize we are in the fight of our country’s life to preserve the Constitution??
Sorry for the double post........
This fake impeachment trial should have never got started. Considering Joek’s crash and burn,he was never a serious contender. And everybody knew it. Bye bye Byedone.
This fake impeachment trial should have never got started. Considering Joek’s crash and burn,he was never a serious contender. And everybody knew it. Bye bye Byedone.
***I was persuaded that Trump committed a serious abuse of power by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate a political rival, partly by withholding congressionally approved military aid***
The line that shows how ignorant of facts these people are.
The very accusation on which this witch hunt was founded never came close to being prove. And, if it had been, it would not have been illegal.
So, his opinion is based on an unproven accusation of a legal action.
Face it the scum bag democRATS impeached Trump because they hate him and never accepted his presidency. He must be acquitted because HE DID NOTHING WRONG!
Boy....None of the three Democrap Senators, Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema & Doug Jones..... have played their hand yet as to how they will cast their vote this afternoon to either impeach or acquit POTUS, Doanld J. Trump. No profiles of courage in the Senate seats of the Democrap low life scum & vermin. Too busy watching their House leader Pelosi tear up SOTU speeches!!!
The gig is there are Republicans in trouble...no way...all Republicans will cast their votes to acquit POTUS, Trump. The Democrap Senators better think long and hard...because the American voters are tuned in as to who votes which way!!!
Democraps will lose three to five seats in the general election. The American people want POTUS, Trump Acquitted...period!!! Think hard Democrap Dummies!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.