Seth AbramsonVerified account

1/ If accurate, this news underscores that (a) the Democrats have consistently acted conservatively with respect to holding Trump accountable, and (b) they have done so in the hope of garnering bipartisan support for the rule of law. Now let's see if Lucy pulls the football away.

2/ If accurate, this means Democrats have turned away from a slam-dunk bribery case and *ten* slam-dunk obstruction charges in order to possibly garner three votes from GOP sources in the Senate: Romney; Murkowski; Collins. Why Democrats trust these people anymore, I don't know.

3/ Having said that, this leaves us with two Articles of Impeachment *absolutely no American who believes in the rule of law could possibly oppose on the facts or under the Constitution*. There's no debate to be had about whether these articles are supported. They are slam dunks.

4/ To be clear, and Democrats should've better internalized this, impeachment is a wholly political process, which means in 2019 there's no reason not to simply proceed as though it is a *legal* process and make no effort to please political opponents who aren't listening anyway.

5/ History is not going to care whether the vote for conviction was 47-53 or 49-51. History is going to wonder why two Articles of Impeachment were brought against a man clearly subject to ten or more Articles of Impeachment. Can't understand why Democrats didn't understand this.

6/ Contrary to what media sometimes implies, after Mueller testified before Congress in July 2019, Democrats did not come out and promise anyone they weren't working on Articles of Impeachment on the basis of his Report. It's just that the Ukraine scandal began almost right away.

7/ So Democrats would've been well within their rights legally, procedurally, ethically, and politically to say the conclusion of the Ukraine investigation was their first opportunity to retrospectively consider the *many* grounds for impeachment that Donald Trump has given them.

8/ Instead, a situation was created in which not only had media falsely framed the Mueller Report as "old news," but even the Ukraine scandal had to be framed as narrowly as possible so media could understand/talk about it. The situation therefore wasn't really about rule of law.

9/ I certainly understand Democrats have to keep their caucus together. I also understand that if Democrats weren't able to explain to their caucus what bribery is and what obstruction of justice is, that's a failure of logic, argument, and conviction rather than merely politics.

10/ So I'm hoping (but *not* holding my breath) that the Washington Post reporting is incorrect, and tomorrow we'll have in front of us *four* Articles of Impeachment: bribery, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of Congress. But I trust the Post's reporting.

PS/ We should expect the abuse of power article to be written broadly enough to cover bribery, obstruction of justice, and (less likely) passing reference to Emoluments Clause violations. The problem is that the article will be quickly called a "kitchen sink" article by the GOP.

PS2/ Here's what's odd about all this: even from a strategic standpoint, if you bring four Articles of Impeachment you give moderate Republicans an opportunity to vote down two while voting *for* two and thus say they were discerning and *didn't* adopt Democrats' views wholesale.

PS3/ With just two articles, moderate Republicans have no opportunity to seem like they carefully and soberly weighed the facts and rejected articles they didn't consider warranted. Far worse, the obstruction of Congress article is actually the one Trump has the best defense for.

PS4/ While I still consider the obstruction of Congress article a slam dunk, were I representing Trump I'd say the article seeks to deny the executive branch the right to go to the courts for redress during a federal proceeding, and the article thus wasn't yet ripe to be brought.

PS5/ MSNBC is now reporting that the breaking news about there being only two Articles of Impeachment is still *subject to change*. So I hope everyone will be very loud here and on the phone(s) telling Congress that there should be *four* Articles of Impeachment, rather than two.