14 bad Republican arguments against impeachment

The accusation is simple and direct: Donald Trump, in his role as president, held up military aid to Ukraine – which had already been approved by Congress – “asking” that the nation first commit to investigating Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden, and Biden’s son. Republicans’ arguments against impeachment, by contrast, have been all over the map. If they can’t seem to settle on one, it may be because they’re all so flimsy. I decided to address each in turn, exposing each for the fallacy it is.

1. There was no quid pro quo

Actually, there was. Trump’s own words (“I want you to do me a favor, though”) linked military aid to a preconditioned investigation of the Bidens, along with a conspiracy theory involving the 2016 election. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, that the money was held up in part because of Trump’s demand for an investigation into 2016. When a reporter pointed out that “what you just described is a quid pro quo,” Mulvaney responded: “We do that all the time in foreign policy.” He later tried to retract that statement, but it was already out there.

2. It’s perfectly normal

“Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” – Mulvaney

On the contrary, most commentators can’t remember a president ever withholding taxpayer funds in exchange for an investigation into a political opponent.

3. It’s all being done in secret

The Democrats are taking depositions behind closed doors, and not allowing Republicans to know what’s happening.

Except that 1) Republicans were present for the depositions, which were subsequently released in their entirety and 2) public hearings are being held. Predictably, this argument was largely abandoned about the time the public hearings were announced.

4. Democrats haven’t taken a formal vote

Then they did. And they abandoned this argument, too.

5. The whistleblower must be identified

Never mind the law that protects whistle4blowers from being identified.

“I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn’t allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid.” – S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham

This, despite the fact that the substance of the whistleblower’s statement has been affirmed by several other sources.

NFL referees are literal whistleblowers. They’re relatively anonymous; fans tend to focus on the players, unless the refs make a mistake. As with politics, those fans are inherently biased in favor of their own teams. But imagine the following scenario:

A referee makes a call against the home team. The coach is unhappy with it, and decides to challenge it. This triggers a video review of the play, based on a number of camera angles. Each of these angles, however, clearly affirms that the referee’s call was correct. But the fans aren’t satisfied. Even after the game is over, they keep calling for the referee to be brought forward in publicly questioned about why he made the call. And the coach, unwilling to admit his own mistake in calling the wrong play, encourages them. Never mind the video evidence. It doesn’t matter. What matters is publicly shaming the referee for making the proper call.

This is what the Republicans want to do with the whistleblower. If the NFL were in charge of the impeachment hearings, such an action would result in nothing – except that the coach would get a hefty fine for questioning the officiating. But Donald Trump has poisoned the water by smearing the officials (career diplomats and other civil servants) as “Deep State Never-Trumpers,” that even the most absurd arguments seem credible to his fans, who are all too willing to blame the ref.

6. The right to face your accuser

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and other Republicans have suggested that the president has this right, based on the Sixth Amendment. There’s just one problem with this rationale: The amendment makes clear that it applies to “all criminal prosecutions.” And impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

7. It will cause a “Civil War like fracture”

Trump himself said this. But it isn’t an argument, it’s a threat thinly disguised as a prediction. It’s also not the only time he’s used this tactic: He also warned that the economy will tank if he isn’t re-elected.

8. The money was eventually released

“You’re going to impeach a president for asking a favor that didn’t happen – and giving money and it wasn’t withheld?” – Nikki Haley

Yes, the same way we indict people for attempted murder that wasn’t successful and attempted bribes that weren’t accepted.

9. Trump’s Ukraine policy is inept

“What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.” – Graham

Graham seems to be suggesting that negligence is just fine. But people go to jail for negligent manslaughter all the time. Graham’s a lawyer; he should know this. How many Ukrainian soldiers died because Trump held up aid to that nation? Even if it were “only” negligent, the cost was counted in human lives.

10. Let the voters decide

The argument has been made that “it’s too close to the election” to impeach a president. But this ignores one important point: The crux of the accusation is that Trump was trying to interfere in that election. If he’s not checked now, who’s to say he won’t do so again?

11. Trump had a right to ask

Trump “honestly believes that there may have been corruption in Ukraine, and before he turns over $400 million of American taxpayer money, he’s entitled to ask.” – La. Sen. John Kennedy

“Asking” about corruption is quite different than insisting that a country investigate alleged corruption as a condition for receiving money. Alleged corruption on the part of a political opponent. Alleged corruption that had already been debunked. For money that had already been appropriated by Congress.  

12. Zelensky didn’t feel pressured

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t feel pressure to comply with Trump’s request. He said so himself!

But if Zelensky didn’t feel pressured, why was he preparing to comply? Out of the goodness of his heart?

Ask a shop owner who’s paying money to a mobster in a protection racket whether he feels pressured. He’ll tell you that, of course, he does not. Because if he admits it, his “benefactor” will withdraw his protection. In withholding military aid, that’s exactly what Trump was doing. It should be pointed out that a traditional protection racket is different, in that the “protection” is from the mob’s own “enforcers.” But the result is the same.

And it’s not as though Trump hasn’t made veiled threats to those supposedly under his protection, such as Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who was removed from her post by Trump. In a conversation with Zelensky, Trump called her “bad news” and saying, in vague but ominous terns that “she’s going to go through some things.”

13. Inappropriate, not impeachable

“I believe it was inappropriate, I do not believe it was impeachable.” – Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry

Wrong. One of two explicit grounds for impeachment named in the Constitution is bribery (the other being treason). Offering something of value in exchange for dirt on a political opponent is bribery. Threatening to withhold it is extortion.

Even Trump doesn’t like this argument, calling it a “fool’s trap,” but for a different reason: He maintains the phone call was “perfect.”

14. It was a perfect call

This is Trump’s favorite argument, because he sees himself as perfect.

But even most Republicans won’t go this far. Perhaps because it comes from an egotist who has made more than 14,000 false and misleading statements since taking office. Still, Trump appears to actually believe this one. That’s even more troubling when one considers this quote from Chinonye J. Chidolue: “Perfection is a lie, and lying to others is explicable, but lying to oneself is the highest form of deceit.”

Trump seems to be doing both.

Trump's undoing in Ukraine scandal: the word "though"

As I watched the coverage of the unfolding impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, I kept waiting for someone on cable news to mention one word.

They repeatedly referred to Trump’s use of the word “favor” in a summary of his conversation with the Ukrainian president, and that word is, indeed, very important. But they never mentioned a word that’s just as crucial in determining Trump’s intent.

The word right after “favor.”

“Though.”

In the exchange between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, as laid out in a summary released by the White House, the Ukrainian president says his country is grateful for U.S. financial aid because it wants to use the money to buy more defensive weapons.

That’s when Trump responds, “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

The word “though” explicitly links what Trump’s about to say with what Zelensky said that preceded it. That’s its purpose - its raison d’etre. Otherwise, there would be no need for its presence in the sentence. Trump could have easily said, “I would like you to do us a favor.” Full stop. Indicating the beginning of a new and entirely separate thought.

But that’s not what he said.

He said, “though,” inextricably linking the “favor” (working with Rudy Giuliani to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden) to the military aid just referenced.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “though,” in this context is an adverb that means “despite the fact that.” In other words: Despite the fact that you’re preparing to buy weapons from us, we want you to do us a favor. The clear implication is that the purchase of weapons is not enough to close the deal – to make the two sides “even.”

When used as a conjunction, “though” means “even if (introducing a possibility)” or “however; but (introducing something opposed to or qualifying what has just been said. ‘her first name was Rose, though no one called her that.’” (again, quoting Oxford).

In the case of the Zelensky-Trump conversation summary, “though” serves as a de facto conjunction that indicates Trump’s request for the “favor” qualifies or is even opposed to what has just been said. It introduces the possibility that the request will not be granted – or would not have been granted – without the condition being met.

But whether it’s used as an adverb or a conjunction is, in fact, immaterial. In either case, it links the two thoughts, creating a dependency of Zelensky’s action upon Trump’s condition (the favor). Such dependency is the essence of a quid pro quo, which Oxford defines as “a favour or advantage granted in return for something.” Yes, it even uses the word favour (albeit with the British spelling)!

I’m surprised the pundits I watched missed this. Perhaps others picked up on it, or have figured it out since then. But the word “though” is the key to this entire puzzle.

Remember when Bill Clinton, when asked about the status of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, famously responded: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”? The distinction was deemed laughable.

But there’s no distinction at all in the Trump-Zelensky exchange. Whatever the tense, there’s a quid pro quo here. “Though” means “though.” Period. Full stop.