Trump trial

My off-the-cuff impressions of the legal case against Trump. My attention to this issue has been cursory. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak with authority on the legal issues. Even if I was a lawyer, that wouldn't automatically qualify me to opine, since the law is specialized, with many different branches.

As a practical matter it takes a supermajority vote (2/3) to convict a president in a Senate trial. I don't think that's in the cards. This is just an attempt to damage Trump politically. 

1. One allegation against Trump is that he should be removed from office because his phone call involved a quid pro quo. By itself, I don't take that seriously. Horse-trading is routine in international relations. You use threats or bargaining chips for leverage. I'll do you a favor if you do me a favor. That's the incentive. That's how it works. So unless I'm missing something, I don't think that general allegation has any merit.

2. A more specific allegation is that Trump broke the law by withholding, or threatening, to withhold foreign aid. One problem with that allegation is that we've evolved a system in which a standard way to test the Constitutionality of a law is for the president to break the law, excuse that on the grounds that the law abridges his Constitutional prerogatives, then leave it to the courts to adjudicate the issue. The courts may conclude that he broke the law, but it was an unconstitutional law, so they strike down the law.

I don't know if that's the system our framers intended, but that's how it developed. It creates a legal paradox in which presidential or Executive lawbreaking isn't an extralegal action but part of the standard appellate system to challenge the Constitutionality of certain laws. I don't think that's a good process, but it's a bipartisan tradition. So that by itself doesn't strike me as a serious allegation. And that's assuming Trump broke the law, which is a disputed. 

3. The nub of the issue seems to be official abuse of power. Trump misusing his presidential power to handicap a political rival. Trump attacking a presidential rival through his son. That does have the classic appearance or reality of abuse of power. And I do find that somewhat disturbing.

However, even if that's the case, and that's what it looks like, there are mitigating factors. It's not as if Trump tried to frame Joe Biden or Hunter Biden for a crime they didn't commit. In fact, the Biden clan seems to have a history of nepotism where they exploit Joe's political connections:

https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/

And Joe allows them to do that. It's become a family business.

So this seems to  be an illegitimately-motived legitimate investigation. It may well be an abuse of power with respect to what induces Trump to pursue it, where he's taking advantage of his position to hamstring a political rival, but on the other hand, Biden created that vulnerability by using his political connections as a cash cow for relatives. 

Hence, while I find Trump's actions mildly alarming in that regard, I don't find them over-troubling given the extenuating circumstances. He seems to be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The Biden clan has made itself a legitimate target, even if that dovetails with Trump's political self-interest. It's very convenient for Trump, but Biden made it convenient through a pattern of influence-pedaling that gave Trump an opening–and Trump took it. The Biden clan is getting overdue scrutiny. They had it coming. Trump is a ruthless opponent. The Democrats deserve him. 

In fairness, there are allegations of nepotism in the Trump clan, as well as allegations that his business interests are intertwined with his foreign policy. I don't have a problem with applying a uniform standard. 

4. Finally, this is trivialized by the threat which the Democrat party poses to civil liberties, parental rights, innocent children, and so forth. Right now there's a larger war we need to right and win.