Thanks for inviting us to try to thoughtfully let you know what we make of Mr. Van Buren’s take. I especially appreciated how well he summarizes that “the core question” is "Did Trump withhold aid in return for a Ukrainian investigation, and was seeking such an investigation solely a personal political goal?"
Though the headline implies only “smoke” exists, my guess is that public hearings will convince a majority of Americans (and certainly most of those without partisan commitments) that Trump did hold vital military security aid in pursuing such a quid pro quo of providing information on Biden, and indeed had great “personal political” interest in seeking this goal of such an investigation.
Indeed I think most GOP senators already perceive that this is the most reasonable conclusion (and would like to defend it as not worthy of impeachment), and I don’t hear even Mr. Van Buren arguing that it’s not likely. (Steve e.g. further said it’s a wrong thing to do, but not impeachable; and even you concede things inevitably “appear to have some sort of quid pro quo”).
Thus Van Buren’s pivotal word is “solely.” He asks in effect, was a foreign power (Ukraine) pressured this way to find something on Biden “solely” to benefit Trump’s political goals (or was this maneuver driven by concern for “the interests of the” nation). My impression is that Van Buren feels it’s got to be both, and thus is not subject to the Constitution’s emphasis on the emoluments clauses and not pursuing the help of other nations in the president’s own interests of holding power).
Of course, certainty here about what truly motivates the president is debatable. My guess is that many critics will perceive, that Trump shows no interest in pushing to ferret out corruption elsewhere, even in some nations which assassinate Americans. And they see that of all the political threats to him, he has repeatedly tweeted the most about the one who polls show most likely to beat him next year, such that in the face of huge Soviet threats and occupation of Ukraine (not even broached by Trump), that the name Trump shows interest in concerning Ukraine’s challenges is “Biden” is hardly coincidence.
For them, that Trump is the kind of campaigner seeking to win again, such that his focus with Ukraine on his political rival is truly because of his devotion to all of us, rather than his own “political interest,” will seem to them crazy unlikely.
Of course, those more positive toward Trump will likely feel that he may well have been driven by the thought that obtaining such dirt on Biden would enhance the lives and interests of the nation, and thus that such a quid pro quo was not an impeachable crime, or even good.
I’d predict that in our polarized era, these perceptions will divide along partisan lines. Thus it’s likely the Dem House will bring him to the GOP Senate who will acquit him, and the ultimate decision on the fitness of his approach to governing will rest with American voters, which I’d think is best, especially given our great division in perceptions.
