Was listening to a podcast recently where the discussion was about what level of proof is required to act. The example was for black lung. An insurance auditor did a comprehensive study to try to understand why miners kept dying of respiratory ailments at a much higher rate than others.
Of course, “black lung” was contested for years and years by the coal mining industry, and that stood in the way of any kind of conclusive “proof” for much longer than it needed to.
The question was, when was it okay to act on information? Was it enough to know that harm was being caused, even though the mechanics of that harm weren’t agreed upon by all?
I realize that the GOP has literally zero ethical standards, and so there’s no line that can be crossed that will lead to an actual impeachment. I’d be *shocked* if folks like Nunes and Gowdy and Rorabacher weren’t just as much in Putin’s pocket as Trump.
But there is a point, and that point is at the *latest* now, where the damage is clear and obvious. The harm to NATO, the harm to America’s standing in the world, the clear and obvious fealty/obsequiousness to Putin – at this point it doesn’t matter *why* it’s happening. It needs to stop. It doesn’t matter if it’s willing collusion/conspiracy, or whether it was inadvertent. The *fact* is that Trump won’t stop Russia’s willful manipulation of our democracy – an attack that the entire intelligence apparatus agrees is happening, and he’s supporting the dictator responsible for it.
If it’s not treason, it’s close enough for government work.