Still in the Wilderness of Process

There’s clear evidence Russia attacked 2016 election to help @realDonaldTrump & Trump aided/abetted the attack.

GOPers focused on how the Russia probe started.

There’s clear evidence Trump extorted Ukraine for his political gain.

GOPers focus on how the Ukraine probe started.

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) November 10, 2019

The GOP's got nuthin'.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) on Sunday argued that President Donald Trump may not be guilty of a quid pro quo with Ukraine if he did not have a “culpable state of mind” when he allegedly tried to extort the country’s president.

Kennedy made the remarks while speaking to CBS News host Margaret Brennan.

“The quid pro quo, in my judgment, is a red herring,” Kennedy opined before agreeing that it would be “over the line” for Trump to ask Ukraine to conduct an investigation into Joe Biden.

But the Louisiana senator suggested that the president may be in the clear if he did not have a guilty “state of mind” while extorting Ukraine.

“I think this case is going to come down to the president’s intent, his motive, did he have a culpable state of mind?” Kennedy said.

“So, ‘over the line,’ does that mean impeachable?” Brennan wondered.

“Yeah, probably,” Kennedy agreed.

But not unless Trump's conduct meets a standard of criminality which doesn't apply in cases of impeachment.  Remember when we said the 6th Amendment doesn't apply to Art. II impeachment because the latter is not a criminal proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction? The only governmental entities with jurisdiction over Presidential impeachment are the House and Senate, and the Constitution clearly gives them the power to decide how to conduct impeachment hearings and impeachment trials, and no other entity, including the houses of Congress or the courts, can interfere with that process for each house of Congress.

Besides, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.  Due process would require a right to appeal, and there is no appeal from eviction from office (it has happened, just never to a POTUS).  It also isn't decided on criminal grounds, but on grounds of breach of trust.  If the officeholder behaves in ways that bring disrepute on the office (this is basically what "abuse of power" means), those ways would encompass bribery, treason (the only crime defined in the Constitution), or other "high crimes and misdemeanors."  Like a felony conviction, it is a stamp of moral turpitude, of unfitness for the public trust (which Trump already reached in the charity settlement he had to agree to over the Trump Foundation.).  Trump isn't fit to serve on, or set up, another charity without strict oversight.  He's no more or less fit for public office, either.

Whether he has a "guilty mind," or not.