If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

[KCfromNC]

a. They didn't resolve it. They know the Senate will vote it and move on.

Demonstrating to voters that the GOP is complicit in soliciting foreign interference in US elections is a resolution. It isn't the best possible outcome, but it does make the situation clear when voters head to the polls in the fall.

b. With the press over this current issue he could be doing a hundred other things we would never know about.

"Well, we can charge the guy, but who know what else he's doing. Lets not" said no court ever.

c. The only way to see the evidence is the courts.

Or just look at all the testimony and documentation already provided to the House. I mean, it isn't as if the testimony already there isn't enough to convict.

All of this "why didn't the House do what they didn't do" seems to be yet another in a long line of excuses to ignore the evidence uncovered by what they actually did. I mean, no matter what they did the RNC could come up with fabricated complaints about what they didn't do. None of them change the fact that there's consistent testimony and evidence showing Donald led an effort to coerce a foreign leader to interfere in our election. And given that the GOP doesn't want anyone else to testify, they're admitting that the testimony so far is sufficient and uncontested. Excuses about what the House didn't do are just that - excuses.

 

[KCfromNC]

How would I provide evidence of what they would do if Trump disregarded the court action if the House would not push the court action? It is a counter-factual.

Then you probably shouldn't have made claims about what the GOP would do in such a situation.

 

[tall73]

Because it would be a waste of time.

The testimony already out there is convincing, consistent and fact-based. Some people still ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. Getting even more testimony isn't going to change their minds. And it will just delay the process, perhaps opening the door for Donald to continue to court foreign interference in the upcoming election.

Given all the people who have already said that Donald did it, do you really think that adding a few more will suddenly make the GOP stop supporting him? I don't see why anyone would fall for this tactic. Put the blame on this where it belongs.

Given all the people didn't have direct statements from Trump about motivation, that is still a problem in a corruption charge.

 

[tall73]

Demonstrating to voters that the GOP is complicit in soliciting foreign interference in US elections is a resolution. It isn't the best possible outcome, but it does make the situation clear when voters head to the polls in the fall.



"Well, we can charge the guy, but who know what else he's doing. Lets not" said no court ever.



Or just look at all the testimony and documentation already provided to the House. I mean, it isn't as if the testimony already there isn't enough to convict.

All of this "why didn't the House do what they didn't do" seems to be yet another in a long line of excuses to ignore the evidence uncovered by what they actually did. I mean, no matter what they did the RNC could come up with fabricated complaints about what they didn't do. None of them change the fact that there's consistent testimony and evidence showing Donald led an effort to coerce a foreign leader to interfere in our election. And given that the GOP doesn't want anyone else to testify, they're admitting that the testimony so far is sufficient and uncontested. Excuses about what the House didn't do are just that - excuses.

Corruption still requires motive. They don't have the goods on that yet, which is why they want the other evidence.

What we have makes plain what Trump did. It does not speak to motive. There are multiple motives possible.

So if you could get the evidence, then you should. That is why I keep talking about the house.

And the excuse that it takes too long or we have to prevent other things is not much of an excuse, because none of this keeps him from doing other things.

If he did do it because of bad motives then revealing that would allow for his removal.

 

[tall73]

Then you probably shouldn't have made claims about what the GOP would do in such a situation.

Fair enough. I cannot say for sure. Since it is the view expressed by some that they would not budge no matter what, we will just have to say we cannot know what they would do.

But we can say that every excuse for them has not been removed.

More to the point, we can say that they haven't proven intent, and that is what the whole case hinges on. So the house should have, and still could, go to the courts.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Corruption still requires motive. They don't have the goods on that yet, which is why they want the other evidence.

What we have makes plain what Trump did. It does not speak to motive. There are multiple motives possible.

So if you could get the evidence, then you should. That is why I keep talking about the house.

And the excuse that it takes too long or we have to prevent other things is not much of an excuse, because none of this keeps him from doing other things.

If he did do it because of bad motives then revealing that would allow for his removal.

But motive doesn’t matter. Trump isn’t allowed to use military aid approved by Congress and ok’d by the DOD as a carrot to extort Ukraine into announcing an investigation into Biden. Why Trump did it is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it is wrong.

Likewise, it doesn’t matter why Trump refuses to cooperate with Congressional oversight, . He is not allowed to do it. There is no motive that solves that allows it.

in both cases he has to argue that either a) what the House is alleging didn’t happen or b) it did but it didn’t break the law.

 

[tall73]

But motive doesn’t matter. Trump isn’t allowed to use military aid approved by Congress and ok’d by the DOD as a carrot to extort Ukraine into announcing an investigation into Biden. Why Trump did it is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it is wrong.

Likewise, it doesn’t matter why Trump refuses to cooperate with Congressional oversight, . He is not allowed to do it. There is no motive that solves that allows it.

in both cases he has to argue that either a) what the House is alleging didn’t happen or b) it did but it didn’t break the law.

The president does have the ability to hold up aid if worried about corruption. And while I think most would agree that the theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election is certainly not supported, that was the first thing he directly asked about.

The violation that did occur was that he did not send the notice to congress as should have happened. But the law provides for remedy there as well. The Comptroller general was supposed to send notice, and failing that, to bring civil suit.

If the Comptroller General finds that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States—

(1) is to establish a reserve or proposes to defer budget authority with respect to which the President is required to transmit a special message under section 683 or 684 of this title; or

(2) has ordered, permitted, or approved the establishment of such a reserve or a deferral of budget authority;

and that the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral, the Comptroller General shall make a report on such reserve or deferral and any available information concerning it to both Houses of Congress. The provisions of sections 682 to 688 of this title shall apply with respect to such reserve or deferral in the same manner and with the same effect as if such report of the Comptroller General were a special message transmitted by the President under section 683 or 684 of this title, and, for purposes of sections 682 to 688 of this title, such report shall be considered a special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this title.

And

§687. Suits by Comptroller General
If, under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation.

The law provides its own remedies, but they do not include impeachment.