As has been reported in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and elsewhere there is compelling evidence that Trump decided to assassinate Soleimani to curry favor with certain GOP Senators to help with the impeachment trial. This is how New York Magazine reports it:
Deep inside a long, detailed Wall Street Journal report about President Trump’s foreign policy advisers is an explosive nugget: “Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.” This is a slightly stronger iteration of a fact the New York Times reported three days ago, to wit, “pointed out to one person who spoke to him on the phone last week that he had been pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle.”
This would not mean Trump ordered the strike entirely, or even primarily, in order to placate Senate Republicans. But it does constitute an admission that domestic political considerations influenced his decision. That would, of course, constitute a grave dereliction of duty. Trump is so cynical he wouldn’t even recognize that making foreign policy decisions influenced by impeachment is the kind of thing he shouldn’t say out loud. Of course, using his foreign policy authority for domestic political gain is the offense Trump is being impeached for. It would be characteristically Trumpian to compound the offense as part of his efforts to avoid accountability for it.
The article ends (my emphasis):
But the straightforward read of this piece of reporting is that Trump has confessed to a grave and even impeachable abuse of his power as commander-in-chief.
If the Republicans controlled the House and Barack Obama or any other Democrat was president does anybody doubt that this would lead to endless hearings and very possibly an impeachment inquiry followed by outright impeachment? Remember Benghazi and the Hillary’s email server?
It is an opium pipe dream to entertain the notion Nancy Pelosi would actually open new hearings to see if what Trump did rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor which justified impeachment. Regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial, Trump could become the only president to be impeached twice.
But now I am seeing a report that Pelosi held one impeachment article back so Trump would have to worry about having to undergo two rather than one Senate impeachment trial. (In fact as I typed this it was reported on MSNBC!) It was either in the Post or Times and I haven’t been able to find the article. I will post it if and when I do. (Let me know if you can find it.)
Update from This Week interview transcript:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: You said he's violating the Constitution again and again. Do you think it’s possible that the House might have to file new articles of impeachment?
PELOSI: Well, let's just see what the Senate does. The ball will be in their court soon.
And as I say, we -- I think that the American people have been very fair about saying, yes, we do want to see witnesses. That wasn't part of the discussion three weeks ago. It is now.
So perhaps my opium hallucination isn’t as far fetched as I thought.
Sunday, Jan 12, 2020 · 4:07:29 PM +00:00 · HalBrown
Related. On Friday Attorneys George Conway and Neal Katyal advise Pelosi on how she can trip up McConnell’s impeachment plans (link) suggested splitting the two impeachment articles as the best strategy. This makes sense for the reasons they suggest but apparent she will not do this. My notion is that there is a new impeachment justification. Excerpt:
Specifically, they argued, Pelosi should “split up” the articles of impeachment — submitting the article of obstruction of Congress, but holding onto the article of abuse of power for further investigation.
“Separating the two articles — our preferred approach — would make perfect sense,” they wrote. “When it comes to the second article, all the evidence about Trump’s obstruction is a matter of public record. There’s nothing more to add, so the second article is ripe for trial. But as to the first, although there is plenty of evidence demonstrating Trump’s guilt, his obstruction has prevented all of the evidence from coming to light.”