I posted this on Twitter and though I would have as coherent paragraph. A quick response to Rep. Sensenbrenner (R,WI) oped.
Sensenbrenner purports to explain why he voted against the articles of impeachment. I wanted to carefully review his argument. He starts by saying that Kenneth Starr, independent counsel in Clinton case, conducted a very lengthy and nonpartisan investigation. Sensebrenner does not mention the Mueller report, nor applaud Mueller’s circumspection in leaving to Congress to determine whether there were impeachable offenses. He says “grand jury perjury was an impeachable offense” in Clinton case, but does not say whether he thinks secretly soliciting aid from a foreign government in investigating a rival is also, in his view, an impeachable offense. He then goes into several irrelevant paragraphs. (1) Many Democrats said they wanted to impeach Trump. OK… maybe they said that because President Trump pre-election repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of President Obama saying he was not born in the U.S.? So that is just rhetoric. Irrelevant para (2) – he says Trump “robbed of due process”…. pretty clear to any citizen that Pres. Trump remains perfectly free to go to court if his “rights” were violated. This is a “broad and flimsy” charge (see next…) Irrelevant para (3) – in his view articles are broad and flimsy, esp. article II because Democrats failed to let a court decide executive privilege… just like Sensebrenner rushed to declare “due process” violations before a court decided? Irrelevant para (4) “none of the articles allege that the president committed a crime.” Sensenbrenner could but does not tell us whether he thinks the primary charge of secretly soliciting aid from a foreign government in investigating a rival and using his office to further that aim is an impeachable offense against the oath of office Irrelevant para (5) Back at the ‘Democrats are bad.” And everyone should just wait until next Nov election.
So basically, he says nothing about the actual charges. Sorry, Republicans, you will have to do better than that. Please address the evidence directly.