House Democrats rough up an (unexpected) ally as they advance toward impeachment

House Democrats roughed up the Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, on Thursday at a highly anticipated hearing of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. It might be good politics. Or good theater. Or perhaps it was good politics because it was good theater. But, as I watched, I was surprised at the tact Democrats had taken.

So was Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who suggested that Democrats had questioned Maguire’s honor and integrity, while accusing him of breaking the law.

After eliciting Director Maguire’s avowals that he is not political or partisan, that he has followed the law faithfully, that he has done nothing to protect the President, that he is bound by the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, and that the situation that confronted him was unprecedented, Congressman Stewart continued:

I will say to my colleagues sitting here: I think you’re nuts if you think you’re going to convince the American people that your cause is just by attacking this man and by impugning his character, when it’s clear that he felt there’s a discrepancy, a potential deficiency in the law. He was trying to do the right thing. He felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. And yet the entire tone here is that somehow you’re a political stooge who has done nothing but try to protect the President. And I just think that’s nuts. And anyone watching this hearing is surely going to walk away with the clear impression that you are a man of integrity, you did what you felt was right, regardless of the questions and the innuendo cast by some of my colleagues sitting here today.

Chairman Adam Schiff responded, “I would only say, Director, no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. No one has said so. No one has suggested that.”

“You’ve accused him of breaking the law, Mr. Chairman.”

Schiff ignores the comment and continues:

But it is certainly our strong view, and we would hope that it would be shared by the minority, that when the Congress says that something shall be done, it shall be done. And when that involves the wrongdoing of the President, it is not an exception to the requirement of the statute. And the fact that this whistleblower has been left twisting in the wind now for weeks, has been attacked by the President, should concern all of us, Democrats and Republicans, that this was ever allowed to come to be, that allegations this serious and this urgent were withheld as long as they were from this Committee. That should concern all of us. No one is suggesting that there is a dishonor here, but nonetheless, we are going to insist that the law be followed.

Democrats believe Maguire made the wrong call when he delayed sending the complaint to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. That’s a judgment call, after the fact, and not nearly as black and white as Democrats portray it.

I don’t fault the Democrats for offering a simple message. Instead, I suggest that a bit more nimbleness – moving from Talking Point A to Talking Point B – would have been welcome.

I agree with Congressman Stewart that Director Maguire acquitted himself well. During his first week on the job, Maguire was confronted with an unprecedented situation: a whistleblower law crafted with the Intelligence Community in mind – that is, personnel under the purview of the DNI; conflicting statutes and policies, including executive privilege (over which the DNI has no authority); and, of course, charges lodged against the President of the United States.  Wishing not to misstep when presented with a unique situation of considerable gravity, the Director consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel.

Maguire has dedicated his life to service of his country. As Acting DNI, he is a federal official, not the Lone Ranger (or Jim Comey). He wasn’t prepared to wing it when faced with an unprecedented situation that a Congressional statute had not anticipated. He reached out to other professionals. In consulting with legal counsel, Director Maguire was doing his utmost to adhere to the rule of law. Arguably, to do otherwise would have been reckless and arrogant. Maguire is neither.

Yeah, he was appointed by Donald Trump. But Democrats, after taking him to task for a delay of several weeks, could have acknowledged Maguire’s commitment and resolve to do the right thing (in an administration filled with corrupt hacks!). Maguire didn’t simply sit on the report for the past month, pass the issue onto to another desk, or sweep it under the rug. He was, based on what we know, doing his utmost – consistent with his legal authority – to get the report to the Intel committees. And, finally, he had succeeded in doing so. (A number of other events contributed to this result, including leaks to the press. Perhaps Maguire couldn’t have done this on his own, but give him credit: he was determined to alert the Intel committees to what was up.)

Adam Schiff’s emphasis is understandable. Congressional investigators are no more enamored of nuance than was George W. Bush. But, as I watched on TV, I found myself (like the Republican Congressman from Utah), objecting to the Democrats’ tone and their implied aspersions.

In taking that stance, in my view, Democrats missed an opportunity—to embrace Maguire as an unlikely ally: a Trump-appointee willing and eager to serve as a character witness for much that Democrats hold dear in the Trump era.

In his opening statement – and subsequent testimony – Maguire unequivocally staked out territory consistent with Constitutional governance, democratic norms, and the rule of law.

He offered unwavering support for the whistleblower and his good faith in coming forward. He made a commitment to protect him – and everyone else in the Intelligence Community who might come forward in the future. He attested to the credibility of the whistleblower’s complaint. He stood up for the Inspector General who brought the whistleblower’s complaint forward.

He embraced the men and women of the Intelligence Community, and the critical work they do; the oversight role of the Intel committees of both houses of Congress; and the vital importance of the partnership of IC and Congress in keeping America safe and free.

A critical element in the strategy of Republicans – on Fox News and Capitol Hill – in defending Trump is to attack the integrity of the Intelligence Community. To go after individuals. To besmirch the FBI and other agencies. To howl about the Deep State.

This has been extremely damaging. Democrats have done their best to push back. Yesterday, they had an advocate for the Intelligence Community in front of the cameras. Lots of people were watching. No one was in a better, stronger position to undermine deep state nonsense than Joseph Maguire. In my view, Democrats should have spent more time drawing him out regarding the IC, in order to pull the rug out from under the clownish Devin Nunes and his ilk. Instead, we kept hearing variations on the same question: Why didn’t you notify us sooner?

I know Democrats have a case to make to the country. When Nancy Pelosi weighed in today on whether Maguire had good reason to delay sending the whistleblower report to Congress, she said, “No, he broke the law.”

Today, acknowledging the consensus view of Maguire’s basic integrity, she said, “He’s a person of great reputation. I felt sorry for him because here he is having to … I don’t know what. I think that what he did broke the law. The law is very clear.”

I raise this issue – of slight significance relative to Thursday’s hearing, which was highly consequential – because Democrats have flailed away for months trying to hold Donald Trump accountable. Now, as they head toward impeachment, they need to hit all the right notes. Impeachment, as Nancy Pelosi well knows, will be savagely divisive. Democrats need to reach out to the folks who haven’t yet chosen sides. And since the U.S. Senate is unlikely to convict Donald Trump, no matter what he does, the preeminent task for the party is persuading mostly disengaged voters – who switched from Obama 2012 to Trump 2016; or who have voted Democratic in the past, but stayed at home in 2016; or who may identify as Republican, but are weary of Donald Trump’s antics – to cast ballots for the Democratic nominee, and down-ballot candidates, in November 2020.

The party would do well to embrace allies, such as Joseph Maguire, whenever and wherever it finds them.

Memo that Justice Department suppressed places Bill Barr at center of Trump’s shakedown

Now I had a chance to review in detail the notes of the call between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine, as well as the legal opinion drafted by the Department of Justice in an effort to prevent the whistleblower complaint from coming to our committee. And I have to say that I’m shocked by both.

The notes of the call reflect a conversation far more damning than I or many others had imagined. It is shocking at another level that the White House would release these notes and felt that somehow this would help the President’s case or cause. Because what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.

They reflect a Ukrainian president who was desperate for U.S. support – for military support to help that country in a hot war with Putin’s Russia. A country that is still occupied by irregular Russian forces and in which people face a very dangerous and continuing and destabilizing action by their aggressive neighbor. And at the same time a President of the United States who, immediately after Ukraine’s president expresses the need for further weapons, tells the Ukraine president that he has a favor to ask.

The President communicates to his Ukrainian counterpart that the United States has done a lot for Ukraine. We’ve done an awful lot for Ukraine. More than the Europeans or anyone else has done for Ukraine. But there’s not much reciprocity here.

This is how a mafia boss talks. ‘What have you done for us? We’ve done so much for you. But there’s not much reciprocity. I have a favor I want to ask you.’

And what is that favor? Of course the favor is to investigate his political rival, to investigate the Bidens.

And it’s clear that the Ukraine president understands exactly what is expected of him. And is making every effort to mollify the President.  

What adds another layer of depravity to this conversation is the fact the President of the United States then invokes the Attorney General of the United States as well as his personal lawyer as emissaries. In the case of the Attorney General , as an official head of a U.S. department, the Department of Justice, that he says will be part and parcel of this.

Now I know that the Attorney General is denying involvement in this. But nonetheless you can see why the Department of Justice would want this transcript never to see the light of day. You can see why they have worked so hard to deprive our committee of the whistleblower complaint. And in fact the opinion by the justice department is startling in its own regard because in that opinion the Department of Justice advances the absurd claim that the Director of National Intelligence has no responsibility over efforts to prevent foreign interference in our elections.

Well, that will come as news – at least it should – to the Director of National Intelligence, who is charged, among other things, with detecting foreign interference in our elections and with reporting to Congress about foreign interference in our elections. But it is apparently the view of this justice department that the Director has no jurisdiction in this area. — Congressman Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence

Two responses to the memorandum on President Trump’s call with President Zelensky

“Just so you understand, it’s the greatest witch hunt in American history, probably history, but in American history. It’s a disgraceful thing. The letter was a great letter, meaning the letter revealing the call. That was done at the insistence of myself and other people that read it. It was a friendly letter. There was no pressure. The way you had that built up, that call that was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing call other than a lot of people said, ‘I never knew you could be so nice.’” Donald Trump

“The transcript of the call reads like a classic mob shakedown:
–        We do a lot for Ukraine
–        There’s not much reciprocity
–        I have a favor to ask
–        Investigate my opponent
–        My people will be in touch
Nice country you got there.
It would be a shame if something happened to her.”
Adam Schiff

Judge for yourself.

The Speaker announces that the House is launching an impeachment inquiry

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says Article II says I can do whatever I want. For the past several months, we have been investigating in our committees and litigating in the courts so the House can gather all of the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of Articles of Impeachment. And this week, the president has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The action of the Trump – the actions of the Trump presidency revealed a dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.
Therefore today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
— Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

(Image: screen grab from video.)

“We may very well have crossed the Rubicon here.” — Congressman Adam Schiff

(Click on the hyperlink immediately above for a video of the exchange.)

Congressman Schiff, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been in sync with Speaker of the House Pelosi in resisting the impeachment of President Trump. (As he says in the video clip, “There is no chance of our persuading the Senate — the Senate Republicans — in an impeachment trial. They have shown their willingness to carry the President’s baggage no matter how soiled its contents.”)

“But if the president is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader into doing something illicit — that is, providing dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign — then that may be the only remedy that is coequal to the evil that that conduct represents.”

If Trump (and Giuliani — and others in the Executive Branch) have done what has been alleged (and Trump and his personal attorney have come close to admitting it), then the President has used the powers of his office to undermine the upcoming election. That’s a fundamental assault on our democracy. (“This seems different in kind,” in Schiff’s words.)

I agree with Tom Nichols that “If this isn’t impeachable, nothing is,” though there were ample grounds for impeachment before this came to light. David Leonhardt provides an impressive checklist.

But the fundamental calculus of whether or not to impeach hasn’t changed.

I have resisted arguments for impeachment chiefly because there is no chance of persuading Senate Republicans to put the country and the Constitution above partisanship and the GOP. Impeachment by the House followed by acquittal in the Senate would fail to hold Trump accountable. The man will be booted from the White House, if at all, through defeat in November 2020. (As Adam Schiff has stated previously, “2020 is unquestionably the only way he gets removed from office.”)

November 2020 is critical. Doing whatever we can to defeat Trump is a moral imperative. The primary question is, as it has always been (since Senate Republicans will not do the right thing): Does impeachment make Trump’s defeat more or less likely?

Brian Beutler has written, “The only defensible case against impeaching a president like Trump is a prudential one.” An advocate for impeachment, Beutler is decidedly unconvinced by the prudential case.

But at this stage we have no reason to believe there are enough votes in the House to approve articles of impeachment. A failure in that chamber would spell disaster. If the latest transgressions by Trump, or further off the rails activities going forward, lead to unanimous, or near-unanimous agreement among House Democrats to impeach, that will shift the calculus. And Nancy Pelosi will shift accordingly.

It would still be a risk, since Senate Republicans have shown no signs of shifting, for the House to impeach. But with Democratic unity, it might be a risk worth taking. We’re hardly there yet. The public opposes impeachment. Many House Democrats, hardly unreasonably, are sensitive to the opinions of their constituents.

In the meantime, if Nichols, Leonhardt, Beutler, most of the Democratic candidates for president, and many other Americans are successful in their advocacy, an ample majority of House Democrats will find their way on board.

Whether or not that day comes, November 3, 2020 looms large.

With outrage after outrage, Republicans continue to tolerate Trump’s lawlessness

Quote of the day (on the prospects for impeachment):

“As long as Republicans choose to stay relatively united, either in denying evidence of Trump’s malfeasance or claiming that there’s nothing wrong with it, then Democrats will be unable to generate enough constituent pressure to change their minds. Whatever evidence is turned up, Republicans probably can brazen it out if that’s what they really want, regardless of the damage it does to U.S. democracy. So that leaves one question for them: Is this really what you want?”Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg

  1. Is this really what Republicans want? That’s what I’m betting on for the foreseeable future.
  2. And, if that changes between now and November 3, 2020, I’ll wager that it won’t be a July 2019 phone call, or a Justice Department cover-up of that call, that prompts Republicans to recalibrate their support for Trump. It will be something else (almost certainly a number of something elses). Congressional Republicans, with relentless air cover from Fox News and the conservative media, haven’t budged from Trump’s corner up till now, willingly shrugging off the consequences for democratic institutions and the rule of law. They can weather this episode as well.
  3. Instead, we’ll see little more than baby steps to placate critics – such as McConnell’s sudden reversal yesterday on election security funding.
  4. On the column that Bernstein didn’t write: while Democrats “can’t do much about this by themselves,” it has been disheartening to watch the hapless efforts of the House Judiciary Committee to tell the story of Trump’s corruption.  (I had such high hopes in early June. Now, not so much.)

(Image: Gage Skidmore, Flickr.)

Is Kamala Harris “the most natural” political talent among the Democratic candidates? Not so fast!

“…I come to praise Harris today, not dismiss her. As the savvy political analyst Sean Trende wrote last week, she is the most natural politician in the field, and people are now underrating her chances.” – David Leonhardt, New York Times

I agree with Leonhardt (and Jonathan Bernstein, who linked to this op-ed): there’s no reason to count out Kamala Harris in her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. It’s hardly out of the question that she could pull off a victory (though she’s experiencing a “summer slump,” in Leonhardt’s words).

It’s Leonhardt’s point – and Sean Trende’s – about Harris as the most naturally talented candidate in the field that I question. Trende phrased it this way: “She’s the most natural political athlete of the bunch …

In the last presidential campaign the Democratic nominee conceded that she wasn’t a natural at seeking office, which serves to put the compliment of Harris in perspective.

Hillary Clinton is not a natural politician, nor is she a natural public speaker. This is not my opinion; this is Clinton’s own. “Look, I have said before and it won’t surprise anybody to hear me say it, this is not easy for me,” Clinton said at a debate in March. “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or President Obama.” She has to work hard, in other words, to achieve something that appears to be an innate gift for many of her peers.

If this was meant to endear the voting public toward her, it’s not clear that it worked. Last week, Jamelle Bouie used Clinton’s own “natural politician” line in perhaps exactly the opposite way that Clinton’s camp hoped it would be used, as an example of the reasons why liberals are worried that “she doesn’t inspire in ways we expect our presidential hopefuls to inspire”; a Salon piece echoed that sentiment, repeating the line that she lacks “the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama.”

So is charm or charisma the mark of natural political talent? Or a savvy gift for relating to people, perhaps?

In an earlier political era, Lyndon Johnson was often referred to as a natural-born politician:

Johnson was … just a natural politician.…

When he was a senator, he was about to embark on a re-election campaign tour back in Texas and convened his speechwriters to review a draft speech that they had done for him. Johnson reviews this speech and he comes upon a passage from Socrates.

And he looks at this passage, and he says, “Socrates? Socrates? Now, let me get this straight. I’m going back home to Texas to talk to just plain folks, and you have me quoting Socrates?” He said, “Keep the quote in, but start it with, ‘My daddy always used to say…”

Johnson had an instinctive understanding of how to connect to people and, often, this was attributed to LBJ’s yearning for connection, to his passion for hand-shaking and back-slapping. (Quite unlike Hillary Clinton, certainly.)

Johnson is a back-slapper, a shoulder hugger, a knee squeezer. “I like to press the flesh,” he says, “and look a man in the eye.”

As Hillary Clinton suggested, the former Secretary of State’s spouse, the exceedingly empathetic Bill Clinton, has long been regarded as a natural pol.

“Bill Clinton is an incredibly gifted politician. Bill Clinton is a room and it doesn’t matter how many people are in the room, you think he’s talking to you.”

Paul Krugman, who made this observation about Clinton, contrasted him to Barack Obama. “But, in fact, Bill Clinton was not a consequential president. And Obama, although clearly not the natural politician, is a consequential president.”

Perhaps Krugman is suggesting that Obama was too cerebral, too reserved, to be considered a natural à la LBJ or Bill Clinton. Another contrast (of two legendary California pols) draws on that distinction: Jerry Brown, elected and reelected to the governorship of California twice (serving two terms beginning in 1975 and then again in 2011), was often compared with his father, Pat Brown (governor in an earlier era), who was thought of as the natural.

This small world, held together by a dense web of friendships and favors, was made-to-order for a man like Pat Brown. Smart, affable, and energetic, Pat had a natural politician’s ready laugh and long memory.

Jerry was unlike his father in many ways: less amiable, more introspective, and less disciplined, he was not a natural politician.

Does being a natural politician hinge on amiability, camaraderie, a longing for contact with people – or on a different skill set? Some observers might insist that (contrary to Krugman’s assessment) the intelligent, savvy Obama – a more restrained, more cool (in Marshall McLuhan’s sense) persona than LBJ, Bill Clinton, or Pat Brown – was nonetheless a natural politician. His personal gifts, including his oratory, were certainly a foundation of his political success.

I’d add that Jerry Brown’s successes over a long career arguably surpass those of his father. And Brown completely dominated Sacramento in his final two terms as governor.

Perhaps this mastery, after decades of experience, was learned and not natural? Surely that is not a distinction that the assessment of Harris’s political talent hinges on. First elected in 2004, she has been immersed in the political world even longer. She’s had ample time to learn.

Just to cover all the bases, let’s turn to the other side of the aisle. The most successful Republican political figure in the past half century, Ronald Reagan, was renowned for his stage presence, especially in front of the camera, and for communicating evocative themes in clear, simple terms with convincing sincerity.

Above all, Ronald Reagan was also a natural politician. Virtually every new account demonstrates that the stage and not the Statehouse or Capitol Hill may be the most effective launching pad for power in a picture culture.

He clearly had a knack for politics. Reagan was elected president of the Screen Actors Guild in 1947, long before he spent years honing conservative talking points as a spokesman for General Electric. But, natural or not, Reagan (as with the other successful politicians) had decades to develop into the iconic figure we remember – ‘the great communicator’ who could speak for a nation.

I’ll readily grant that Kamala Harris has an impressive array of political skills. But what is it, exactly, that she has that none of the other Democratic candidates possess in such ample measure? Why is she “the most natural political athlete of the bunch”?

She’s a good debater – sometimes; that is, when she is well-prepped in advance and doesn’t have to think on her feet (though thus far she has turned in an impressive performance in one debate out of three). A handful of sharp questions in the Senate Judiciary Committee also speak of ample preparation, not agility.

Harris – like Pat Brown, as referenced above – has a ready laugh (even when she laughs longer and harder than anyone else in the room at her own quips).

Is she charismatic? That’s a loaded word. One that is often associated with youth, vigor, and – yes – good looks. Think of JFK. Think also of Barack Obama’s enthusiastic commentary on Harris as “the best-looking attorney general in the country.” Trende’s use of the word ‘athlete’ is also suggestive. Does charisma turn on physicality, if not physical attractiveness?

In Leonhardt’s own reckoning, the Harris campaign (at this stage) has exposed a couple of significant weaknesses. “There is a pattern here. Harris can be too quick to speak or react without thinking.” The second weakness is her failure to “develop a clearer theory of her campaign’s case.” In other words, to articulate why she is running for president. She must, Leonhardt advises, “help voters understand her values and priorities.”

Leonhardt continues, “Over the last several months, I’ve had several Democratic voters tell me a version of the same story. They had just listened to Harris appear on television or a podcast, and they really wanted to like her. Yet she didn’t quite meet their expectations. They weren’t sure exactly who she was.”

Leonhardt and I – with those Democratic voters he’s spoken with – are in agreement again. But I think that singling out Harris as the “most natural” talent among the dozen or so experienced Democratic candidates pursuing the nomination reveals a hunger for an inspirational opponent to take on Donald Trump; a hope that Harris will live up to her resume and her identity and those fleeting moments in front of the cameras when she prosecuted the case (against Barr and Biden, for instance); a fervent desire to read into her something Democrats long for – rather than a reasonable assessment of Senator Harris’s political touch circa 2019.

Ed Kilgore writes today of Senator Harris:

From the get-go, she was a smart-money favorite. She was telegenic, well-spoken, and multiracial (half-Asian-American, half-African-American, and married to a white Jewish guy to boot), with a solid résumé of federal, state, and local offices — and nary an electoral defeat.

Democrats have been pulling for her – longing for her to succeed. But, as we watch the primary play out, do Harris’s political skills really set her apart?

The best politicians, those with a real mastery, seem to enjoy the give and take of the political arena. And we enjoy watching political figures – at least those on our side – who thrive in that environment, those who make it look easy and effortless. We may call them naturals.

I have no doubt that Sean Trende can make a case for the natural talent of the junior Senator from California. But placing her above everyone else in this diverse group of candidates? I don’t believe that what we’ve actually witnessed can justify that judgment.