Through the entire process I could say impeachment was not what people out in the heartland were talking about. It was a silent background issue.
R's and D's both knew he wouldn't be removed from office and just watched the process unfold quietly. Markets didn't panic and foreigners never wondered who was really in charge. The purpose was to mark and stain him for the process of defeating him. The result seems to be the opposite. Trump can now rightly claim he was acquitted. His popularity is up, his base is energized and the opposition is in disarray for a variety of reasons.
Socializing with friends from the Democrat side this weekend I was surprised by how front and center the impeachment aftermath is for them. One takeaway seemed to sum it up: 'The first article, abuse of power was 100% proved.' From their point of view: Trump did abuse his power, it was proved, everyone knows it but only one Republican Senator could stand up to him. Digging deeper, the point was proved that he did hold up needed military aid in exchange for getting what he wanted. Clear quid pro quo. With a small room full of people jumping in it was hard to effectively pick that argument apart. Some of my rebuttals taken individually sounded kind of weak. I can take more time here. ) The arguments have all been made here but if we are right we need to sharpen this up for the long political season. The competing narrative is alive and well.
1. Quid pro quo means nothing in itself; it describes every transaction , every foreign aid transaction. The central question in impeachment: was he demanding something in his personal interest that was (unquestionably) against the public interest?
If newspapers say the whole Biden matter and everything else Trump said or thought about Ukraine was already debunked, is that so or is there still a legitimate point to be made for looking into it? I'm afraid that is an losing point to be made to those who are informed by only those same sources. The only real data point I could add in hindsight is that Gallup and every other poll rate the credibility of these 'mainstream sources' below Trump, meaning near zero.
2. Is it off limits to look into corruption if your potential opponent is part of it? Of course not or how could they justify going after Trump for so long. Okay, the double standard argument doesn't work on them either.
3. The outrage about holding up needed military aid, when it comes from pro-Obama Democrats, is pure silliness. I could not convince my friend that President Obama held up military aid to Ukraine for 8 years. Highly informed but did not know that, nor willing to believe me. Still not a winning point.
4. The biggest point: what is the level of seriousness of what was alleged, committed or discovered. If true, is this an impeachable offense? We have vague testimony, implied conclusions, minor delay, alleged words and actions, doubt that Biden is even the opponent, uncertainty about where the corruption really was, but then the consequence demanded was to not only remove him from office, but to ban him from ever seeking or holding any public office ever again. In other words, Democrats sought to decide who Republicans can or can't vote for this year. 63 million people and likely way more, in impeachment, would be denied having their choice on the ballot, and more than that perhaps would be denied the right to vote against him. To Democrats, this proposed interference in the next election is how we keep Trump from interfering with the next election. That makes no sense, absent real proof of truly working against US interests.
The people, in this case, ought to have the right to over-ride a mistake made by Congress in the next election. Since the impeachment / Conviction / Removal verdict does not allow that, the bar for that must be EXTREMELY high. This didn't come close.
