Trump's Russian Collusion

[youthathletics]

I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

[old salt]

I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

When Trump was elected, the Resistance formed & sent out their call to arms, The Deep State leaking continued. I predicted (on LP) that if the (D)'s won the House in '18, Trump would be impeached -- even if was just for parking tickets. The Deep State IC insurrection won't abate until Trump's out of office & the Establishment is back in control.

[MDlaxfan76]

Tulsi's issue is that quite a lot of her views, like many of yours Salty, line up with views propounded by Russia, Vlad.
An actual adversary of the USA.

What would those be?

With regard to Russia --
-- that we should not be more supportive of Ukraine than our EU NATO allies are & defer to our EU allies in the Minsk process.
-- that we should not deploy more military forces & combat power to NATO's E border than our EU allies are willing to deploy.
-- that we should cease the "act of war" rhetoric re. 2016 election meddling & not escalate provocative military encounters.
-- that we should enter negotiations on both conventional & nuclear arms limitations & demilitarization on both sides of NATO's E border.
-- that we should co-operate, coordinate & de-conflict counter terrorist operations, as we are (quietly) doing in Syria.
-- that we should moderate our bellicose Cold War legacy rhetoric & not get dragged into another Cold War.

Yup, as I said, in alignment with where Vlad would want us.
Doesn't mean you and Tulsi aren't patriots, it's just an awkward reality that your views are aligned with what he wants from the US...and, of course, sanctions relief ala what Tulsi's op-ed included in the WSJ yesterday.

But this is the Impeachment thread; Tulsi discussion belongs elsewhere. The only impeachment relevance would be that, quite contrary to Ann Coulter's stupid tweet, Tulsi did vote in favor of the impeachment process House rules today. Coulter is such a nimwit.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tulsi ... ment-vote/

I could reply that I smelled the Bear's bad breath when he really was a threat, so I find it hard to take seriously all this new wave of political sore loser sour grapes bellicosity. But if I said that, you'd call me arrogant & gg would sue me for posting in the wrong thread, so I'll go cower in my fallout shelter.

Works for me.

But I'm sure you will come out of that cave and growl a bit in due course.

[MDlaxfan76]

I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

When Trump was elected, the Resistance formed & sent out their call to arms, The Deep State leaking continued. I predicted (on LP) that if the (D)'s won the House in '18, Trump would be impeached -- even if was just for parking tickets. The Deep State IC insurrection won't abate until Trump's out of office & the Establishment is back in control.

blah, blah, blah...sure, youth, the Mueller Report "essentially cleared him"...
This Ukraine mess is just another nothing burger.

[ggait]

The only thing that is really live now is the Uke thing. Which is just a few weeks old.

Again, nothing special or unique about that.

Fiske/Starr investigation starts January 1994. Starr didn't start looking at the Monica angle until January 1998 (approved by AG Reno fyi) -- four years later. Starr report comes out September 1998. Clinton impeached December 1998. Senate acquittal February 1999.

That's 5 years. Goose meet gander.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

Tell your captain to stop doing stupid sh*t. If you have a problem, take it up with the IG. He was following the law.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Also - big part of the request was a public announcement that an investigation was starting.

This, imo, was the most damaging part of Taylor's testimony:

“According to Mr. Morrison… President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself.”

Today, Morrison confirmed this by flyspecking Taylor, saying that his understanding was that the announcement could have come from another Uke official beside Zelensky.

The deliverable was primarily the announcement; the investigation, not so much. The announcement would give Trump a bat to beat Biden with during the campaign. Regardless of whether the investigation ever happened or whether (after concluding years later) the investigation found anything. Just like "But her emails."

The focus on the public announcement rather than an actual investigation really shows what was going on.

Yep. Just announcing it would do enough damage. Like when Commodus stuck Maximus in Gladiator and fought him in the ring later. It didn’t work out for Commodus.

[holmes435]

The only thing that is really live now is the Uke thing. Which is just a few weeks old.

Again, nothing special or unique about that.

Fiske/Starr investigation starts January 1994. Starr didn't start looking at the Monica angle until January 1998 (approved by AG Reno fyi) -- four years later. Starr report comes out September 1998. Clinton impeached December 1998. Senate acquittal February 1999.

That's 5 years. Goose meet gander.

This is what's so incredibly crazy. Starr was investigating something Clinton did years before becoming president. Clinton didn't even meet Monica until after the investigation began.

Imagine the uproar by the right if Dem's appointed special counsels to look into all Trump's dealings before he was president. But that would certainly have happened with Hilary had she been elected by the EC.

Rules for thee but not for me is the modus operandi of the R side of the aisle in orders of magnitude more than the D side.

[a fan]

I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

When Trump was elected, the Resistance formed & sent out their call to arms, The Deep State leaking continued. I predicted (on LP) that if the (D)'s won the House in '18, Trump would be impeached -- even if was just for parking tickets. The Deep State IC insurrection won't abate until Trump's out of office & the Establishment is back in control.

This is absolutely THE view of TrumpFans. And it makes perfect sense....


.....until you realize that what's missing from this explanation is that it completely, and intentionally, makes no mention of what our President actually did.


So, sure, if you ignore what Trump actually did...it, shockingly, makes it sound like they're insane to try and impeach him. Or worse, it sounds like a tinfoil hat plot.

But fellas, no amount of tap dancing will convince me that you gents wouldn't be here demanding Obama's head if Obama had been caught doing the same thing. You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

[CU77]

You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

But that's exactly what the Republicans in Congress will do, with the full support of right-leaning posters here (youth, o.s., P.B., c.s., et al), who are representative of the 40% of the US population that fully backs Trump. These folks all say that what Trump did is just fine.

Which means: democracy in the former United States of America is kaput. Stick a fork in it. We had a decent run, nearly a quarter millenium, but now it's over.

All hail Emperor Donald, first of his name!

[seacoaster]

Pretty accurate -- and really disappointing -- summary of where we are:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"Unless you were paying close attention, you might have missed one of the most illuminating moments so far in President Trump’s impeachment saga.

During Army Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman’s testimony Tuesday before House impeachment investigators, he said: “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.”

It is the second sentence that cuts. Vindman not only argued that Trump’s crude and obvious quid pro quo was inappropriate. As a regional expert, Vindman was concerned also that Trump’s actions would weaken support for a front-line country resisting Russian aggression and thus compromise U.S. security interests.

It was in this context that Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) road-tested a Republican response to impeachment. “I thought it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent,” he said. “I also do not think it’s an impeachable offense.”

Portman is usually found in the more thoughtful portion of his tribe. But this answer conspicuously, even deceptively, ignores the issue at hand. A decision about impeachment not only involves the response to a specific act — say, a third-rate burglary. It also necessarily entails a judgment about the fitness for high office of the actor. In Trump’s case, the problem is not a slimy phone call in a lifetime of slimy phone calls. The problem is a president who puts his personal interests ahead of U.S. national security. And who still finds nothing wrong with his “perfect” conversation. The corrupt act reveals a corrupt man, unable to make the most rudimentary judgments about the nation’s good.

In the light of all this — against all my instincts — I am sinking into cynicism. If the best of the Republican Party is willing to make shallow, shoddy excuses for an unfit president, then the path ahead is disturbingly clear. The details of the case for impeachment, it seems, will not finally matter. Fearing the revolt of their base — and the retribution of an emotionally unstable president — Senate Republicans (with one admirable exception, Utah’s Mitt Romney) have already chosen their final position: acquittal. And whatever is revealed in the course of the investigation — no matter how vomitous — will fall just short of an impeachable offense. The goal posts will move and move until they are in the next county. And tolerance for corruption in high places will continue to grow.

In an ideal world, senators would turn to political philosopher John Rawls for guidance. He proposed that judgments about justice should be conducted behind a “veil of ignorance” — as though we did not know the station in society we would inhabit. On this theory, Republican senators should ask: If I did not know whether the president were a Republican or a Democrat, would his or her willingness to compromise national security for selfish political reasons demonstrate unfitness and justify conviction?

But almost no Republican senators, as far as I can tell, are operating behind the veil. Their verdict is predetermined by partisanship. And I am cynical enough to believe that very few Democrats — if the situation were exactly reversed and a Democratic president were being judged for similar actions — would heroically resist their political incentives.

Only two eventualities might change Republican calculations on impeachment. First, the Republican base might turn against Trump in significant numbers. This is unlikely to the point of impossibility. No matter what the impeachment investigation reveals, Fox News and conservative talk radio will produce an alternative narrative to which partisans can cling. Even if this involves the defamation of patriots such as Vindman. Even if this involves conspiracy theories and massive revisions to reality.

Second, Americans outside the Republican base might turn against Trump so vigorously and completely that the political incentives for Republican officeholders begin to change. What does it profit senators to keep the base if they lose the rest of the electorate? Such a decisive shift in public sentiment also seems unlikely, but who knows what further ethical horrors a corruption investigation featuring Trump and Rudy Giuliani might reveal?

There is, of course, another factor that might change. Republican senators could actually take the deliberative role of their institution seriously. They could recover a proper outrage at public corruption. They could recall why they entered public service in the first place and choose to pay the cost of conscience.

I still want to believe this is possible. But I’m not holding my breath."

[jhu72]

I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

When Trump was elected, the Resistance formed & sent out their call to arms, The Deep State leaking continued. I predicted (on LP) that if the (D)'s won the House in '18, Trump would be impeached -- even if was just for parking tickets. The Deep State IC insurrection won't abate until Trump's out of office & the Establishment is back in control.

This is absolutely THE view of TrumpFans. And it makes perfect sense....


.....until you realize that what's missing from this explanation is that it completely, and intentionally, makes no mention of what our President actually did.


So, sure, if you ignore what Trump actually did...it, shockingly, makes it sound like they're insane to try and impeach him. Or worse, it sounds like a tinfoil hat plot.

But fellas, no amount of tap dancing will convince me that you gents wouldn't be here demanding Obama's head if Obama had been caught doing the same thing. You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

But the Trumpsuckers will try.

[jhu72]

Latest ABC Poll. Another poll showing the majority of those with opinions believe Orange Duce should be removed from office, 49% vs 47% of those polled. His job approval is down to 38% on the low end of his small variance range during his presidency.

[Peter Brown]

You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

But that's exactly what the Republicans in Congress will do, with the full support of right-leaning posters here (youth, o.s., P.B., c.s., et al), who are representative of the 40% of the US population that fully backs Trump. These folks all say that what Trump did is just fine.

Which means: democracy in the former United States of America is kaput. Stick a fork in it. We had a decent run, nearly a quarter millenium, but now it's over.

All hail Emperor Donald, first of his name!

There seems to me to be three ideas to consider besides what you see as 'obvious' (the obvious to you being that he tried to blackmail Ukraine, or extort, or strong-arm them for dirt on 2020 Biden). And I will skip the part where I actually think Democracy has never been stronger, and will continue to gain strength.

One, the obsession with Trump, if you are being honest, is just that, an obsession. And I think many middle-of-the-road folks understand that. These are not Trumpists. And when someone is obsessed, their opinions get downgraded for seriousness.

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

Three, have you ever had a situation happen where you said something to someone but felt the person misinterpreted what you said? That happens to me constantly. I then try to reconnect with that person to be sure he or she did understand. This common sense observation on life is sure to anger you and other anti-trumpers, because you will reflexively think I am excusing his high crimes here, but what I am really doing is trying to be nuanced about life.

In Trump's case, he seems to be unable to express himself in a consistently coherent fashion; I think much of that has to do with his hubris and gossipy nature. As a result, I am not sure you can actually ever say he means what you think he means, even when to you it is crystal clear. This is no excuse for the guy, rather a thought to not instantly judge others like me who don't see a there there, even with this call. Add to that when serious players like Morrison who should know if there is a there there, and they agree there isn't, we don't rush to our battle stations to demand that Trump be removed. And when we see you do, we roll our eyes and go on with our lives.

This might help the anti-Trump (Democrat) forces here understand why good people can respectfully disagree on a hot issue like this, and it is not necessarily about partisanship. In fact, your obsession might be the root cause.

[runrussellrun]

The only thing that is really live now is the Uke thing. Which is just a few weeks old.

Again, nothing special or unique about that.

Fiske/Starr investigation starts January 1994. Starr didn't start looking at the Monica angle until January 1998 (approved by AG Reno fyi) -- four years later. Starr report comes out September 1998. Clinton impeached December 1998. Senate acquittal February 1999.

That's 5 years. Goose meet gander.

This is what's so incredibly crazy. Starr was investigating something Clinton did years before becoming president. Clinton didn't even meet Monica until after the investigation began.

Imagine the uproar by the right if Dem's appointed special counsels to look into all Trump's dealings before he was president. But that would certainly have happened with Hilary had she been elected by the EC.

Rules for thee but not for me is the modus operandi of the R side of the aisle in orders of magnitude more than the D side.

FLAG DOWN !

Red, #44, WHATABOUTISM ! One Minute.....Locked (make pope hat gesture with arms and hands )

[runrussellrun]

Latest ABC Poll. Another poll showing the majority of those with opinions believe Orange Duce should be removed from office, 49% vs 47% of those polled. His job approval is down to 38% on the low end of his small variance range during his presidency.

You ever answer a Poll questionare like this ?

[foreverlax]

You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

But that's exactly what the Republicans in Congress will do, with the full support of right-leaning posters here (youth, o.s., P.B., c.s., et al), who are representative of the 40% of the US population that fully backs Trump. These folks all say that what Trump did is just fine.

Which means: democracy in the former United States of America is kaput. Stick a fork in it. We had a decent run, nearly a quarter millenium, but now it's over.

All hail Emperor Donald, first of his name!

There seems to me to be three ideas to consider besides what you see as 'obvious' (the obvious to you being that he tried to blackmail Ukraine, or extort, or strong-arm them for dirt on 2020 Biden). And I will skip the part where I actually think Democracy has never been stronger, and will continue to gain strength.

One, the obsession with Trump, if you are being honest, is just that, an obsession. And I think many middle-of-the-road folks understand that. These are not Trumpists. And when someone is obsessed, their opinions get downgraded for seriousness.

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

Three, have you ever had a situation happen where you said something to someone but felt the person misinterpreted what you said? That happens to me constantly. I then try to reconnect with that person to be sure he or she did understand. This common sense observation on life is sure to anger you and other anti-trumpers, because you will reflexively think I am excusing his high crimes here, but what I am really doing is trying to be nuanced about life.

In Trump's case, he seems to be unable to express himself in a consistently coherent fashion; I think much of that has to do with his hubris and gossipy nature. As a result, I am not sure you can actually ever say he means what you think he means, even when to you it is crystal clear. This is no excuse for the guy, rather a thought to not instantly judge others like me who don't see a there there, even with this call. Add to that when serious players like Morrison who should know if there is a there there, and they agree there isn't, we don't rush to our battle stations to demand that Trump be removed. And when we see you do, we roll our eyes and go on with our lives.

This might help the anti-Trump (Democrat) forces here understand why good people can respectfully disagree on a hot issue like this, and it is not necessarily about partisanship. In fact, your obsession might be the root cause.

Regarding

1. Trumps personality issues aside, his lying is a huge issue for most.

2. In Morrison's opinion, what Trump said on the call wasn't illegal. Fair enough, his opinion. What we need to see is what was said and done before and after the call before to fairly determine if there are any high crimes or misdemeanors.

3. Humans are human and can make verbal mistakes....certainly within the bounds of reason. When Trump asked China to investigate Biden, that was no mistake and the fact that he admitted he would take "dirt" from a foreign country regarding his political opponent, is just more proof of his broken moral compass.

It is crystal clear that Trump, either implicitly or explicitly, through his own words/actions or those of his surrogates, Trump wanted foreign governments to assist in smearing his main opponent.

Is that "illegal"? More qualified folks than me can make that determination. It sure does seem that type of behavior is exactly what the Framers feared.

Is is "immoral"? Yup and UN-American.

[HooDat]

But fellas, no amount of tap dancing will convince me that you gents wouldn't be here demanding Obama's head if Obama had been caught doing the same thing. You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

of course people would, and they did when he shipped a plane full of money to Iran in the middle of the night.

But that's exactly what the Republicans in Congress will do, with the full support of right-leaning posters here (youth, o.s., P.B., c.s., et al), who are representative of the 40% of the US population that fully backs Trump. These folks all say that what Trump did is just fine.

this is a political reality that the pols have to deal with and it is one of their own making (see below)

In Trump’s case, the problem is not a slimy phone call in a lifetime of slimy phone calls. The problem is a president who puts his personal interests ahead of U.S. national security. And who still finds nothing wrong with his “perfect” conversation. The corrupt act reveals a corrupt man, unable to make the most rudimentary judgments about the nation’s good.

two things here: 1) everything you describe was known to his supporters well in advance of their voting for him. There are lots of cynics out there who who have become numb to this kind of crap (sorry its not "whataboutism" - I am talking about why it has become to prevalent) - of course you spend 8 years as POTUS making $300k and come out worth $100's of millions, of course Epstein killed himself in prison, of course Chelsea's husband makes 8 figures at a PE shop...

I am sinking into cynicism.

come on in, the water is FINE....

There is, of course, another factor that might change. Republican senators could actually take the deliberative role of their institution seriously. They could recover a proper outrage at public corruption. They could recall why they entered public service in the first place and choose to pay the cost of conscience.

I still want to believe this is possible. But I’m not holding my breath."

I would not hold my breath at all. There are folks on both sides of the aisle waiting to see how this plays out. There are just as many dems as R's who would love nothing more than to see Trump get away with this - so that they can continue to do that same thing when their time comes. Just like every American is a millionaire in waiting, every Pol is a POTUS in waiting....

[foreverlax]

The only thing that is really live now is the Uke thing. Which is just a few weeks old.

Again, nothing special or unique about that.

Fiske/Starr investigation starts January 1994. Starr didn't start looking at the Monica angle until January 1998 (approved by AG Reno fyi) -- four years later. Starr report comes out September 1998. Clinton impeached December 1998. Senate acquittal February 1999.

That's 5 years. Goose meet gander.

This is what's so incredibly crazy. Starr was investigating something Clinton did years before becoming president. Clinton didn't even meet Monica until after the investigation began.

Imagine the uproar by the right if Dem's appointed special counsels to look into all Trump's dealings before he was president. But that would certainly have happened with Hilary had she been elected by the EC.

Rules for thee but not for me is the modus operandi of the R side of the aisle in orders of magnitude more than the D side.

That is a really stunning fact...guess Clinton deserves the "greatest witch hunt in history" label. Another 2nd place finish for the liar-in-chief

[foreverlax]

By Peggy Noonan
Oct. 31, 2019 6:37 pm ET

John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Mike Pence and Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Fla., April 18, 2018. PHOTO: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS
It is all so very grave, yet it feels only like a continuation of the past three years of fraught and crazy political conflict. But impeachment of the American president came much closer this week.

I believe retired Gen. John Kelly, President Trump’s former chief of staff, when he told the Washington Examiner that he had told Mr. Trump that if he did not change his ways he would get himself in terrible trouble. “I said, ‘Whatever you do don’t hire a yes-man, someone who won’t tell you the truth—don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.’ ”

He knew his man. Mr. Kelly was in the White House for 17 months, from July 31, 2017, to Jan. 2, 2019. I ask Trump supporters, or anyone with even a small knowledge of what a White House is, to consider how extraordinary it is for a chief of staff to say such a thing to the president. Can you imagine James Baker saying to Ronald Reagan, “Keep it up, buddy, and you’ll break the law and be thrown out”? You can’t because it does not compute, because it isn’t possible.

When Mr. Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, “But he’s got the generals around him.” His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, unled army.

In fact the president wasn’t so interested in the generals’ experience and expertise. In fact he found them boring but with nice outfits. One by one they left or were fired. This should disturb the president’s supporters more than it does. And they should have a better response than, “But they’re jerks.”

To impeachment itself. It received a powerful push forward when the House voted Thursday for a new, public phase in the inquiry. This means among other things that the Democrats think they have the goods. They wouldn’t go live unless they did.

They feel the great question is clear. That question is: Can we prove, through elicited testimony, that the president made clear to the leader of another nation, an ally in uncertain circumstances, that the U.S. would release congressionally authorized foreign aid only if the foreign leader publicly committed to launch an internal investigation that would benefit the president in his 2020 re-election effort?

The odd thing is I think most everyone paying attention knows the answer. It’s been pretty much established, from leaks, reports, statements and depositions. Can I say we all know it happened? I think the definitive question for the hearings will turn out not to be “Did he do it?” but “Do the American people believe this an impeachable offense?”

The president’s defenders have argued that in the transcripts of the phone call the White House released, he never clearly lays out a quid pro quo. I suppose it depends how you read it, but in a book I wrote long ago I noted that in government and journalism people don’t say “Do it my way or I’ll blow you up.” Their language and approach are more rounded. They imitate 1930s gangster movies in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom he’s demanding protection money, “Nice place you have here, shame if anything happened to it.”

In the past I’ve said the leaders of the inquiry will have to satisfy the American people that they’re trying to be fair, and not just partisan fools. So far that score is mixed. Republicans charge with some justice that it’s been secretive, the process loaded and marked by partisan creepiness. If I were Adam Schiff now I wouldn’t be fair, I’d be generous—providing all materials, information, dully inviting the Republicans in. That would be a deadly move—to show respect and rob Republicans of a talking point.

It should be communicated to the president’s supporters that they must at some point ask themselves this question: Is it acceptable that an American president muscle an ally in this way for personal political gain? If that is OK then it’s OK in the future when there’s a Democratic president, right? Would your esteem for Franklin D. Roosevelt be lessened if it came to light through old telephone transcripts found in a box in a basement in Georgetown that he told Winston Churchill in 1940, “We’ll lend you the ships and the aid if you announce your government is investigating that ruffian Wendell Willkie”? You’d still respect him and tell the heroic old stories, right?

Some of the evidence in the hearings will be colorful and stick in the mind. There will be phrases from testimony or questioning that encapsulate the scandal, such as “What did the president know and when did he know it?” and “There’s a cancer growing on the presidency.” That will have impact. If White House workers attempted to deep-six evidence of the president’s conversation, doesn’t that suggest consciousness of guilt?

There is John Bolton’s testimony, if he testifies. He’s not known as a shy man. He is a conservative who has made his career as a professional (worked for four presidents, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, head of the National Security Council), a foreign-affairs tough guy, a Fox News contributor. Some, perhaps many conservatives were heartened when he came aboard with the president in the spring of 2018.

He would know a great deal about the issues at hand. Did the president act in a way he disapproved of on Ukraine? Was there a side-game foreign policy? All that would be powerful. But what if he was asked to think aloud about what he saw of the way Mr. Trump operates, of what he learned about the president after he came to work for him, of what illusions, if any, might have been dispelled? To reflect (as the generals who used to work for the president reflect, off the record)? What if he is questioned imaginatively, even sympathetically, with a long view as to what history needs to be told?

If he did this under oath and answered as he thought right, honest and helpful, if he was asked the question, “After all you’ve seen, is it good for America that Donald Trump is president?” “Tell us about what you’ve observed about the nature and mind and character of Donald Trump.” “Share your thoughts as a respected professional who has worked with presidents and who knows what the presidency is.”

Public candor would take plenty of guts and could have reputational repercussions.

But it would not just be powerful, it could be explosive. History, at least, would appreciate it.