I wasn't impressed. The distinction between what is a quid pro quo but not explicit, versus Trump: THIS IS A QUID PRO QUO!, isn't meaningful. It's a form over substance argument. If the words from POTUS imply a qpq, and the actions of his people on the ground make that qpq explicit, and Ukraine tells us they understood the qpq, that's what it is. No need for Trump to do the equivalent of talk into a mic and specifically admit to a crime.
Beyond that the article goes off the rails right at the jump.
then:
But neither Hamilton or the historical context of that term requires a "crime" as we understand and use the term. It isn't even good sleight of hand, to quote a founder, then directly contradict him. If Hamilton meant, "a CRIMINAL abuse or violation of some public trust" we can assume someone as articulate as Hamilton would have said so, directly, and he pointedly did not.
And then based on this false premise, he determines the qpq isn't "criminal" THEREFORE no impeachment... Q.E.D.
I did get a laugh out of it though:
:2rofll:
