Their latest advance was Tuesday’s killer testimony from acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor that the release of military aid to Ukraine was contingent on that country’s government making a public declaration that it would investigate former vice president Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and interference in the 2016 election.

Taylor’s testimony had been highly anticipated ever since it was revealed that he sent this text to two other U.S. diplomats: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

AD

AD

Crazy is one word for it. Impeachable is another.

Emerging reports suggest that Democrats are zeroing in on a single “abuse of power” impeachment count, based on President Trump’s attempts to strong-arm Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into delivering dirt on Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

This is a savvy strategy for several reasons.

First, the strategy adheres to the “keep it simple, stupid” maxim that any experienced prosecutor learns. The task of constructing a winning white-collar case typically can involve paring back voluminous evidence and choosing a compelling and easily understood theme to relentlessly hammer home in front of the jury.

AD

Second, it blunts the Republicans’ apparent strategy of confusing matters by arguing legalisms such as “no quid pro quo,” which Trump’s defenders have begun to make into a drumbeat.

AD

Actually, on the facts and under the law, there appears to be plenty of quo for the quid — Taylor’s testimony powerfully bolsters the case that the president aimed to hold up military aid, as well as the valuable prospect of a presidential meeting, to induce Zelensky to do his political bidding. But this is a disadvantageous argument for Democrats — not because they’re wrong, but because it plays into a Republican strategy of sowing legal doubt. If the Democrats fight on that field, and enough Trump loyalists intone “no quid pro quo” on Fox News and on the House floor, the idea that the evidence doesn’t quite meet the necessary legal requirements could take hold with undecided voters.

By contrast, an abuse-of-power theme largely takes arcane legal arguments off the table. Who cares whether Latin scholars or appellate judges would be satisfied by the connection between withholding military aid and political dirt? In real-world terms, it’s easy to understand what Trump was after, and why it was inconsistent with his constitutional responsibilities.

AD

It is likewise apparent that the White House’s strategy has been to obstruct the inquiry at every turn. It would be sensible for that obstruction to be a separate count of impeachment.

AD

Third and most important, the focus on abuse of power best gets at what is repugnant about Trump’s conduct. The apparent Ukrainian shakedown is precisely the sort that the framers used to justify the political remedy of impeachment.

If the allegations prove true, it was rank abuse coming and going: Trump sought to commandeer public funds designed to secure the country’s global security interests and use them instead to induce a foreign country to interfere in our election by providing negative information against his political opponent. That’s several levels of scummy.

AD

And the Democrats are being thoughtful not only in conceiving the theory of the case, but in assembling the evidence to serve it. Taylor is but the latest example of a credible witness who will reinforce the basic theme around which the majority is coalescing. And, presumably, the House Intelligence Committee is assembling this evidence behind closed doors with an eye toward constructing for the whole country an overwhelming account of the president’s abuse of power.

AD

On that day, the Trump loyalist cries of “no quid pro quo” will sound silly.