So why wasn't asking Russia to help in 2016 impeachable?

[triron]

Link to tweet

[coti]

1. It was, there was just a fuckload of obfuscation, and Barr was quite successful

convincing people that somehow Mueller's report had exonerated Trump. Now it's (even more) obvious that he did, in fact, collude with Russia, though, since he's doing the exact same shit again.

[Claritie Pixie]

2. He wasn't in office in 2016. No oath to the Constitution to break.

[Roland99]

4. Yeah. Surprised Seth didn't mention that. It's pretty obvious. HOWEVER...

I’d LOVE to see one of the also-rans ask Russia, China, Australia et al for dirt on Twitler!

OMG. The MAGAts would literally explode!

[coti]

6. Uhhh...so, unless you've taken an oath to the Constitution at the time, no conduct is impeachable?

No, that's not true at all.

Not to mention that he was elected based on the very conduct itself- isn't throwing someone out of office they betrayed their country to get into exact justice?

[triron]

11. But beyond that how about even once he was in office? He still did it.

[unblock]

7. Surely committing crimes to get elected is impeachable,

even if you're not in office at the time of the crimes.

[Claritie Pixie]

8. Who has the definitive answer then?

[unblock]

10. the house. Really, they could impeach over anything or nothing.

Oh they probably have to dress it up as a high crime and misdemeanor, but really, it hard to see a Supreme Court overturning any impeachment.

[coti]

13. Right. Impeachment is a political act. nt

[Claritie Pixie]

14. Yes they could but Impeachment depends on public support.

To me, impeaching for "Russia if you're listening" while he was campaigning, along with the lack of evidence because the Mueller Report was hidden, would have been ineffective and hurt Dems politically.
It's a much worse offense as president plus there's a confession and hard evidence of misappropriation of our tax dollars to extort a foreign country. Easier for the public to understand and support.

[coti]

17. Yes. That's why I said above that it mattered the Barr obfuscated the truth so well.

Assuming the objective truth of the Trump campaign's conspiracy with Russia, it was an obviously impeachable act. The truth didn't, at the time, break through with the public effectively enough, though, to attain the needed support.

[triron]

19. Not only Barr but many others: Trump, Manafort, Pappadopoulos, Lewandowski, and more, maybe

even Mueller himself. The media didn't help either.

[unblock]

18. To be clear, the *act* was criminal and impeachable

The *case* with Russia wasn't as powerful as with Ukraine because the media didn't jump on it the way Democrats and the media jumped on the Ukraine situation.

This allowed republicans to muddy the waters and stonewall and obstruct. The Ukraine instant scandal cuts through better even though the act itself is largely the same.

I'll agree that doing it while president adds the element of abuse of office and betrayal of national security, which does make it worse. But both acts were criminal and impeachable.

[dchill]

3. It was, and is.

Reputins had control of the House. And Senate.

[Claritie Pixie]

5. I disagree. See my post above.

[triron]

20. Good point.

[Sogo]

9. One word:

Context.

One was in the context of a campaign before he was president; the other was in the context of him being president.

[marble falls]

12. Nothing quite like this has never happened before. How do you remove an idiot?

[Hekate]

15. Because he was not yet in office

[Voltaire2]

16. anything is impeachable.

There is no constitutional definition of what is not 'impeachable'.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

'other high crimes and misdemeanors' has no specific definition. It is whatever congress decides it is. So basically: treason, bribery, and whatever. Clinton fit into 'whatever' as did Nixon and Andrew Johnson. None of them were charged with or investigated for treason or bribery.

However what happened in 2016 is now too remote and not specific enough to Trumps actions as president to be sound political basis for impeachment charges.

Impeachment is a political, not a legal process. Right now, the clear and specific corrupt acts over Ukraine have an excellent chance of splitting off Republicans in the Senate. They ought to be the main focus of the investigation and the charges, the rest should be considered background establishing a history of corruption and malfeasance.