Yale prof. Timothy Snyder explains what was wrong with Mulvaney’s press conference (the meat starts at 3:30)
From Snyder: “Mulvaney’s comment ‘get over it’ is a very economical way of saying get over the facts, get over the particular laws that make this illegal; get over the rule of law.”
From Snyder: Mulvaney was essentially saying that the President can do whatever he wants, and as long as he admits it, it’s okay.
Mulvaney is asking us to “get over our history of being a country that respects rule of country. . . being a country that has a constitution in which the president is meant to execute the laws, as opposed to being a tyrant who considers himself to be above the law.”
Pelosi and Schiff, in their Oct. 2 press conference, agree with this take on the president’s behavior. They explained that the focus of the impeachment inquiry was presidential abuse of power and Trump using the powers of his office to advance his own personal interests:
Constitutional scholars stress that impeachment is about abuse of power.
George Mason said: “Shall the man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?” (p. 44)
Alexander Hamilton: The subject of impeachment involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Sunstein concludes: “high crimes and misdemeanors are abuses or violations of what the public is entitled to expect.” (p.56)
In other words, just asking for the investigation was impeachable. Sending Giuliani and his henchmen to Ukraine to see if he could get an investigation going was impeachable.
If you have to pick a crime, extortion is probably better: The pressure was withholding aid.
Rep. Ted Lieu also frames Mulvaney’s press conference as admitting that Trump’s personal business decisions affect political decisions:
I’m beginning to think people on TV enjoy saying “quid pro quo.” (Maybe they feel cool saying such a cool legal term)
Trump himself framed the national discussion.
Here is the first mention of quid pro quo in relation to the Ukrainian scandal from an electronic message exchange dated September 9, 2019:
In his statement to Congress, Sondland explained that after Taylor asked the question, he called Trump to find out how to respond. Here is what Sondland said in his statement to Congress:
I read this and thought, “Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.”
And now, the question of the hour is “Was there quid pro quo.”
I’ve called this the No Collusion Trap.
Trump spent 2 years shouting NO COLLUSION! When there wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove all the elements of criminal conspiracy, he shouted COMPLETE EXONERATION.
Now Trump is pulling the same trick again. And everyone is falling for it.
