Obstruction of justice was among the articles of impeachment drafted against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The parallel between Nixon and Trump is almost exact. White House tapes revealed Nixon giving instructions to pressure the acting FBI director into halting the Watergate investigation.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the House without any evidence at all. The Senate actually looked closely at the charge and concluded he had done nothing wrong. So when it comes to impeachment it is largely political. I don't see the House impeaching Trump as long he pursues dismantling of the federal government agencies and giving tremendous tax reductions for the rich. If the Democrats win back the House it would seem fairly certain that Trump will be impeached given all the reasons for impeachment that are piling up almost daily.
Just as the key to pushing Nixon out was getting VP Agnew and other inner circle players out of office prior to pushing Nixon out, the highest priority needs to be shining the light on VP Pence's crimes.
Although the push to impeach Trump needs to move steadily forward, getting rid of Trump without shaking up his inner circle will accomplish nothing for the 99%. The smirk we always see on Pence's face says nobody wants to see Trump impeached more than Pence does.
If your worst thing about Trump is Russia or "obstruction of justice"; you're too stupid to count for much of anything.
The last time the Dems controlled the House, our President, without the approval of Congress, destroyed the country of Libya. Thousands died and the country is in ruins. No impeachment push then?
I guess the destruction of a sovereign nation, which was no threat to our own country, does not rise to the level of outrage by the Dems as Trump's alleged obstruction of justice does.
here is a simple equation -
If there are not enough people in power who think that Trump has done wrong, he will go free.
When the powerless are being gunned down by their protectors and the "justice' system looks the other way for a two bit cop, who really thinks that this clown, who is empowering the worst of humanity to conive their wet dreams into reality, will be brought to justice?
There is a reason that regressive right wants to own the courts.
Mr. Reich is being naive here. Times have changed.
Lot of practical wisdom in the five responses above. I'm with them.
Impeachment is not a mathematical formula. Mueller's investigation promises to reveal a ton of falling chips. Nevertheless, from thence count on McConnell, snake leader in the Senate, to ho-hum and call for another mint julep.
Rock the vote '18.
I think it is an exaggeration to the say the US destroyed Libya. The decision to attack Gaddafi's military forces was driven by the UK and France. Those forces were about to invade Libya's second largest city with the Arab Spring taking place, demanding reforms, and there would have been mass casualties. The US agreed to go along and supplied information so the British and French planes could hit their targets. No troops were used. What happened then was Libyan militias fought Gaddafi's forces and eventually won. The inability of the Libyans to find a political solution was what destroyed the country. The result was militias fighting militias. The US did not really have a clear self-interest in attacking Libya so I would say it was a mistake to go along with the British and French although if there had been no attack Gaddafi might have carried out such destruction that people might have concluded that it was better to have attacked.
What Trump is doing is undermining democracy. That is about as serious as it can get. I can't think of anything any Democrat has done that is such a threat to our system of government. Only Nixon did something similar and the stakes were much less. Trump is trying to impede an investigation about Russia interfering with the election for president and the possibility that Trump was actually in collusion with Russia. If the latter is true then it would be against the interests of the US and perhaps treason.
The worst Obama did with regard to Libya is make a por decision. He would not have been the first president to make a poor decision. But at least he was loyal to his country and doing the best he could under the circumstances. You can question the wisdom of his decision but there is no basis for questioning his loyalty to his country.
Impeachment? Shows no leadership!
The US went along to protect the dollar:
No crime has been committed so there should be no obstruction of justice relating to it!
Obama's (and Hillary's) poor decision-making with regard to Libya included the typical US regime-change formula that included everything but a plan for the aftermath. So Obama, with the recent events in Iraq fresh in his mind, went for the 'let god sort it out' game plan.
Impeachable? No. Stupid? Totally. Loyalty to his country? The oligarchic segment, absolutely.
Thank you for you, as always, lucid explanation of the backstory.
The problem with the case, as I see it, is that, technically, the testimony of Comey is hearsay. unless, of course, there were recordings of that conversation.
Impeachment? A waste of time, given the makeup of the Senate.
I want an annulment , but find no political precedent in US Law . Well, the European Royalty had ways back in the good ol' days." You aren't king, you never really were, and by the way, off with your head".
We pride ourselves as Americans for being beyond that sort of thing!
I look forward to your pursuing this issue further.
very interesting observations