Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Are there any arguments for Trump not getting impeached, besides the argument that Ukraine actually did not do anything so the quid pro quo never happened?
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not asking for an argument that can be supported/justified with reasons, I'm just looking for ALL the arguments that have been made.
Assuming you're asking for the Republicans' arguments, there are some more including:
that aid being withheld was not linked to the investigation into the Bidens, e.g. that aid was being withheld for general corruption concerts regarding Ukraine. (The Rep. from Ohio on intelligence committee [Jim Jordan] often takes this line in his questions.)
that Hunter Biden's participation in Burisma at least had the appearance of impropriety, so that asking for an investigation in his involvement was not unseemly. Several witnesses in the hearing were asked (by Republicans) about their opinion on Hunter Biden's qualifications in relation to Burisma for example, as a way to suggest that Hunter Biden was receiving undeserved money. (Can't recall exactly who asked this, but at least Kent and Sondland were asked this same question, days apart.)
that Democrats manufactured the whole concern with a phony whistleblower, who had political motives... and that those career federal employees who back him up are "Never Trumpers". This is probably the line that Trump himself likes best.
Arguments you often read in circles which support Donald Trump are:
Whether or not these arguments are based on truthful premises, are valid or relevant at all is for Congress to decide.
And then there are arguments made by people who oppose Trump, but also oppose the impeachment for strategic reasons:
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the one that seems (by far) the strongest to me.
To wit, that there's simply a lack of real evidence to show that Trump did anything wrong. In Sondland's testimony, for example, he (somewhat reluctantly) admitted that he had no actual evidence to present about why there was a delay in supplying aid to Ukraine. He openly stated that he simply didn't know why the delay happened, and that he guessed it was related to a demand for quid pro quo, but that he couldn't point to any evidence from anybody to actually support that belief.
In short, his conclusion was not based on actual evidence to support his belief, but solely on lack of evidence (of which he was aware) indicating otherwise. He directly characterized it as a "guess".
If, for example, this were a normal court of law, his belief about quid pro quo would almost certainly be classified as speculation. In other words, it wouldn't be considered testimony at all, and if he did manage to say it within hearing of jurors, the judge would give them specific instructions to ignore it (and having done so, reasonable suspicion that a juror had ignored the direction and taken it into account would probably be sufficient grounds for a successful appeal).
One of the strongest arguments is that an election is coming up soon and thus the voters would have a chance to decide Trump's fate:
“Letting voters decide” has emerged as one of the loudest arguments against impeachment as public hearings take center stage on the cusp of an election year. Democrats are investigating whether Trump abused his power in allegedly pressuring the Ukrainian president to pursue investigations of Trump’s political rivals at the expense of national security.
This point of view is countered by the Democrats as following:
Pelosi responded that “impeachment is about the truth and the Constitution,” whereas elections should deal instead with policy issues like gun control and climate change. “That has nothing to do with what is happening in terms of our honoring our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the facts that might support,” Pelosi said.
Pressing Pelosi, the reporter asked: “At what point might you say, let’s just let the voters decide?”
“No, no. The voters are not going to decide whether we honor our oath of office,” Pelosi said. “They already decided that in the last election.”
Right or wrong, Read the transcript has been a common refrain:
Read the transcript on twitter
There has also been a boy who cried wolf argument. The Democrats spent years arguing that Trump was colluding with Russians. That came up empty. Now suddenly there is this whole Ukraine narrative. Why should the Democrats be believed this time?
Devin Nunes makes the boy who cried wolf argument
A related argument has been that the Democrats are pushing impeachment as a way to prevent Trump's re-election. In common with the previous argument, it's suggesting that the impeachment hearings are being held in bad faith. That argument has been made by Trump himself and also by conservative commentator Adriana Cohen.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said to journalists
They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo
In an opinion column on townhall.com entitled What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Came? Kurt Schlichter argues against impeachment, by saying
Normal people don’t care.
It's a rather long column, to read it, I'd suggest going to the website, I'll provide a few quotes here. It's not a very coherent piece, so I'll just quote some excerpts that give an impression:
No one cares.
Well, not no one. People in Washington care. After all, Donald Trump’s real crime is not deferring to the same D.C. geniuses who were so relentlessly awful that they caused us to elect Donald Trump in the first place. The meme is going around that “I hired Donald Trump to fire people like you,” and boy – is it ever on point. That the president – yeah, he’s our president and he’s going to keep being our president for five more long years – refuses to submit to the bureaucrats of the ruling caste on foreign policy is not a bug. It’s a feature – the feature that closed the sale.
[...]
Nobody, by which I mean a few Never Trumpers – they put the “no body” in “nobody” – who used this ridiculous farce to creep out of their sheds and say what they always wanted to say: “Throw him out of office!” What they also say, in a whisper, is, “So that things can go back to normal and I can go on grifting the rubes as a domesticated enabler of the elite cosplaying conservatism without accountability for never actually conserving anything but my own middling status in the swamp.”
And America shrugs. We’re too busy working, too focused on our 401(k)s going through the roof and on him flipping circuit courts like a boss, to care about the latest outrage to end all outrages.
Trump tweeted a mean tweet that scared the diplo-hackette who a few minutes before had compared herself to the Benghazi studs that her heroine Stumbles McMyturn left to die.
IMPEACH!
Oh, shut up.
[...]
But they will fail.
How do I know?
Because nobody cares.
From an article in the Guardian asking patrons in a bar in Kansas City I'll quote from someone who went on the record describing how many people don't care (emphasis mine):
Martin, a computer programmer, said he “thumbed through the transcripts” from the closed-door questioning of witnesses. He described them as damning but doubts the televised public hearings will shift many people’s position.
“I don’t think it’s going to be a game-changer because 90% of the people who could be convinced already have been. Most of the people who support him don’t care about what came out behind closed doors, or what caused the hearings to be held in the first place,” he said. “My parents probably think that he doesn’t deserve to be impeached at all, so why would they pay attention to this?”
