H. Scott Prosterman writes: 

Do President Donald Trump’s actions and behaviour amount to impeachable offences of treason and bribery? Republicans argued that what Trump did in and to Ukraine may not have been ethical, but it is not impeachable because it did not involve an “indictable” crime. They claim that the House of Representatives did not spell out actual crimes such as “bribery” and “treason” in the Articles of Impeachment. We know that was done for economy sake, to streamline impeachment claims into two digestible charges, to minimise the wiggle-room for Orwellian, polemical double-speak. I had hoped they would have clearly called out collusion with a foreign power to undermine the integrity of American elections. Exhibit A: “Hey Russia, if you’re listening… ” Maybe the impeachment articles were not strong nor specific enough.

But that’s what Nancy the Good Witch of the West brought forward when she dropped THE House on Trump. Maybe she could have done better. At the same time, I respect her reading of the senatorial opposition, led by the Majority Leader who candidly declared, “I am not an impartial juror,” weeks before taking a solemn oath to be an impartial juror. Isn’t there a mechanism for demanding that he recuse himself from all proceedings? Especially after publicly saying to the Court of the American Public, “Your honor, I believe the defendant is innocent, and no amount of reason, logic or proof will change my mind. I’m determined to acquit on all charges no matter what is said that I refuse to hear.” Saying that is a great way to get relieved of common jury duty in any American court. Why not in the Senate? 

How rich was it to hear Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr try to argue the other side of the impeachment debate of 1998? We have a grave chapter in American history unfolding, and these guys acted like a high school debate club, arguing the other side for extra credit in polemics. Kenneth Starr wasted three years and millions of dollars investigating the Whitewater land deal, found nothing other than a blow job, and elevated that to an issue of national security. Later, he presided over the ugliest sex and rape scandal in NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association] history at Baylor University. 

Meanwhile, A.G. William Barr announced, “It’s not impeachable to demand that staffers lie to investigators.” That may not be the most Orwellian comment made by Trump’s supplicants, but it’s definitely a finalist. They also have tried to excise from the Nixon narrative that “Contempt of Congress” was indeed one of the Articles of Impeachment. Trump’s defence brief stated that, “House Democrats’ newly invented ‘abuse of power’ theory collapses at the threshold because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever.” This dialogue balloon was burst before the founding of the republic when it was determined that “high crimes and misdemeanours” need not be indictable offences. That element of British common law was adopted into the American system from the beginning.

So what was Trump’s crime?

1. Subverting the will of Congress by withholding an aid package to an ally, which is really necessary for Ukraine’s defence against Russian Soviet-style aggression. (It’s the Soviet model all over again without the republics as reluctant or unwilling allies.)
2. Soliciting a bribe by demanding the announcement of an investigation to smear a political opponent, in return for aid already approved by Congress. Those are official. Maybe they should have added 
3. Publicly soliciting “Soviet” interference in the 2016 presidential election including, but not limited to, “Hey Russia if you’re listening…” 
4. Subverting the will of the American justice system by pardoning wanton criminals such as Sherriff Joe Arpaio and two American soldiers accused of murderous war crimes. One was pardoned before his trial, which is a clear violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers.

Though the House did not cite a criminal statute in the Articles, the inference of “bribery” is clearly made. Then came the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to declare that withholding of Ukrainian aid was an “illegal impoundment of funds”.

In 1998 Dershowitz argued, “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime, if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” But then the matter was a blow job, and not treason or bribery. He wants to apply different standards for a different time and subject. In summary, Dershowitz argued that President Bill Clinton’s lying about a consensual, extramarital affair (If one considers a blow job to be sex) is a greater criminal act because it occurred in the Oval Office; than is an attempt to solicit foreign interference in the American electoral process from the same Oval Office. Maybe a blow job is the only impeachable offence a Republican would consider. If that’s the case, then some brave gal needs to go up to the Oval Office and take one for the team. That would fulfil the requisite “great danger to our liberty”, for Dershowitz at least. A lot of gals at Baylor University took plenty for the team and have nothing to show for it, other than Ken Starr’s fall from so-called “grace”. Maybe the Democrats should have allowed the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, as long as the Baylor gals were allowed to testify too. They are equally relevant to the impeachment narrative. 

H. Scott Prosterman is a writer and editor in Oakland-Berkeley, USA.