House Republicans, lacking a viable defense of the President, throw a tantrum

Quote of the day:

“But none of the 13 Republicans who spoke defended Trump on the central allegation that he had pushed Ukraine to investigate Democrats while blocking military aid that had been approved for Kyiv.” — “Republicans storm closed-door impeachment hearing as escalating Ukraine scandal threatens Trump,” Washington Post

A group of Republican Congressmen, led by Matt Gaetz (“I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside — more details to come.”), put on a “dramatic protest,” made “process arguments,” “sidestepped the substance” of the case against Trump, and complained about “the private nature” of the hearings.

But “none of the 13 Republicans who spoke defended Trump on the central allegation ….”

After Ambassador William Taylor’s testimony at yesterday’s hearing confirmed Trump’s demand to Ukrainian President Zelensky of a quid pro quo before release of military funds, a diversionary circus was the best ‘defense’ Republicans could offer. Reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers riot (the inspiration for the spectacle perhaps?), today’s performance piece may please the President, but — though it generated a 5 hour delay (and offered an occasion for the restive Congressmen to order out for pizza) — it is unlikely to derail the impeachment inquiry. And what do Republicans, unable to embrace Trump’s treachery, do tomorrow?

(Image: Fox News video.)

“Know that you are an essential part of our great country.” – Justin Trudeau to his opposition

A split between urban and rural Canada — similar to that in the United States — was brought into sharp relief as the Liberals swept all 25 seats in the greater Toronto area.

Also on display was a stark regional division, with Liberals completely shut out in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The east-west rift has defined contemporary Canadian politics the way the Solid South — first a Democratic stronghold and then a Republican one — has defined U.S. politics since Reconstruction.

A chastened but triumphant Trudeau acknowledged those divisions and offered a verbal outstretched hand to Saskatchewan and Alberta, which along with Manitoba recoiled at his support for a carbon tax and other energy and environmental policies.

Know that you are an essential part of this country,” Trudeau said. — A report from this morning’s Los Angeles Times on how yesterday’s Canadian election revealed a closely divided nation. [Editor’s note: Other news organizations, including CNBC, reported the version of the quotation in the headline, not the wording in the LA Times report.]

CNBC offers another excerpt from Trudeau’s remarks: “And to those – to those who did not vote for us – know that we will work every single day for you. We will govern for everyone.” [Quoted excerpt begins at the 1:00 minute mark.]

I can’t vouch for the analogy – that Canada’s East-West rift defines politics in our northern neighbor much as the distinctive preoccupations of the South have shaped American politics since Reconstruction – but both these quotations reveal a huge difference in the national leadership of the two nations.

Trudeau reached out – at least rhetorically – to the folks on the other side of the divide. Donald Trump consistently has catered to the Southern-dominated GOP base, while denigrating cities and regions (as well as religious and ethnic minority communities) where he lacks political support.

GOP Congressman open to impeachment has decided not to seek reelection in a safe Republican district

Congressman Francis Rooney said on Thursday that he would not rule out impeaching President Donald Trump. Following Mick Mulvaney’s acknowledgement that there was a quid pro quo directing the hold on Ukrainian military funds, Rooney told CNN, “Whatever might have been gray and unclear before is certainly clear right nowthat the actions were related to getting someone in the Ukraine to do these things. As you put on there, Senator Murkowski said it perfectly: We’re not to use political power and prestige for political gain.”

The statement was newsworthy because Rooney is a current Republican member of Congress, whose Florida district Trump carried by 22 points in 2016, and a word from the President could imperil the Congressman’s 2020 primary bid. The latter fact, of course, is why Trump has so few critics in the GOP Congressional caucus.

But now the political dissonance has disappeared: Rooney has announced that he will not seek reelection. With this decision, his future is no longer hostage to a vengeful president. Rooney is free to speak out.

While this may not be a tale of political courage, the Congressman’s decision to express his concerns and his decision to leave office are significant. Both are signs, however faint, of principled life within the GOP. And there’s hardly a surfeit of that nowadays.

Disconcerting, dispiriting, and scary quotations and headlines of the day

“The country is entering a new and precarious phase, in which the central question about President Donald Trump is not whether he is coming unstrung, but rather just how unstrung he is going to get.” — Peter Nicholas, “The Unraveling of Donald Trump: As the impeachment inquiry intensifies, some associates of the president predict that his already erratic behavior is going to get worse.”

▪ We’re in an astonishing situation. Mr. Trump seems to have single-handedly and unilaterally precipitated a national security crisis in the middle east.

You know, at the end of the day, he green-lighted the Turkish invasion. The five-day pause is probably a good thing. Maybe it will reduce the number of people murdered by Arab militias that are following the Turkish army. Give the Kurds time to run for their lives. Where they’re supposed to go is beyond me. 

But, you know, the instant take on this is: You allow Assad to reenter the Kurdish areas. You allow Iranian dominance in the region. And you let the Russian military occupy abandoned, hastily abandoned U.S. military outposts. It’s an astonishing outcome. What did Mr. Trump think he was getting out of all this? — General Barry McCaffrey, retired — “Gen. Barry McCaffrey blasts Trump’s ‘inexplicable’ policy in Syria.”

▪ Trump has publicly sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence in dismissing the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and suggested this year it would be “appropriate” for Russia to rejoin the Group of Seven richest countries — reversing the 2014 expulsion after Russia invaded Ukraine.

No Trump foreign policy move, however, has redounded so directly to Russia’s benefit as the Syrian pullout, with the Kurdish forces striking a deal with Russia. — Mike DeBonis and Seung Min Kim, “‘All roads lead to Putin’: Pelosi questions Trump’s loyalty in White House clash.”

▪ At one point during one of his most unpresidential of days, President Trump insisted that he knew how to be presidential.

“It’s much easier being presidential, it’s easy,” he told a stadium full of more than 20,000 boisterous supporters in MAGA hats and T-shirts cheering his every word on Thursday night. “All you have to do is act like a stiff.”

He buttoned his suit coat, pursed his lips, squared his shoulders and dropped his arms rigidly at his sides. “Ladies and gentlemen of Texas,” he then droned in a sleep-inducing staccato monotone the way he imagined most of the other 44 presidents had done. “It is a great honor to be with you this evening.”

The crowd loved it, roaring with laughter. Transforming back into the unpresidential president America has come to know, Mr. Trump added, “And everybody would be out of here so fast! You wouldn’t come in in the first place!” Being presidential, he was saying, is so boring. Who wants that? — Peter Baker, “On Day 1001, Trump Made It Clear: Being ‘Presidential’ is Boring.”

▪ “This is unquestionably the most outstanding nomination that I’ve ever recommended to Presidents to serve on the bench in Kentucky,” Mitch McConnell tweeted in July, when Walker’s name first came up. However, the Senate Majority Leader made his endorsement to the detriment of the nonpartisan American Bar Association, which gave Walker a rare “not qualified rating.” The ABA suggests that “a nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least 12 years’ experience in the practice of law” — not zero cases in court under their belt. In addition, Paul T. Moxley, chair of the ABA committee on the federal judiciary, issued the closest thing to an I Don’t Know Her that a lawyer can physically emit: “Based on review of his biographical information and conversations with Mr. Walker, it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law. — Matt Steib, “As Trump Fumes, GOP Advances Real Party Goal of Making the Federal Judiciary Great Again.”

▪ “I don’t believe I’m leading a wing of the party. Because there’s no wing that’s very large that is aligned with me.” — Senator Mitt Romney, “Mitt Romney Marches Alone: ‘I don’t believe I’m leading a wing of the party.’

And, yes, among the unsettling items in today’s news, is one about the Democrats:

Democrats aren’t comfortable with the brutal language of unvarnished national interest. They aren’t comfortable acknowledging tragic tradeoffs between the welfare of ordinary Americans and the welfare of vulnerable people overseas. Donald Trump is. He genuinely doesn’t care what happens to the Kurds or the Afghans—or any other group of people who can’t offer him votes or money or project his image onto the side of a luxury hotel. Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden do care, which is why they found it so easy to offer ferocious moral denunciations of Trump’s Syria policy at this week’s debate. They just don’t care enough to ask Americans to sacrifice to reduce the chances that Syria’s horrors repeat themselves in Afghanistan. — Peter Beinart, “Democrats are Hypocrites for Condemning Trump Over Syria: Presidential hopefuls blasted Trump for abandoning the Kurds — but want the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan under similar conditions.

Quid Pro Quo? “Absolutely. No question about that….That’s why we held up the money.” — Mick Mulvaney

Exchange of the day as White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney renders inoperative weeks of denials of a quid pro quo — Congressionally-approved military aid would go to Ukraine only if Ukraine agreed to dig up dirt on Trump’s political opponents — first revealed in a ‘transcript’ released by the White House.

Mulvaney: “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that.

But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.

. . .

Reporter: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well.

Mulvaney: “We do that all the time with foreign policy.”

Video from C-Span. Exchange begins at 21:07.

Two days ago the Washington Post reported on Mulvaney’s central role in this scheme. Each day, in spite of the White House’s blanket refusal to provide witnesses or documents to Congress, the testimony of witness after witness for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been filling in additional details on the hijacking of American foreign policy to undermine free and fair elections in the United States and politically benefit Donald Trump.

But — so says Mulvaney — Trump’s concern in directing this quid pro quo wasn’t to implicate the Bidens! It was to prove (contra the Mueller report) that it was Ukraine, not Putin’s Russia, that interfered with the 2016 election and that a Ukrainian company had absconded with the Democratic National Committee server containing Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. (Check out Vox’s explainers regarding Ukraine conspiracy theories.)

So there, Nancy Pelosi, all roads don’t lead to Putin (or so the Trump White House wished to ‘prove’). And ignore the White House memo on Trump’s call to Zalensky, wherein Trump says: ” The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

Reality TV POTUS revels in his election as “one of the greatest nights in the history of television”

Quote of the day wherein Donald Trump relives the night he bested Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College:

“We won incredible states. We won Wisconsin. We won Michigan. We won Pennsylvania. We won North Carolina. We won South Carolina. We won Florida. What a run. You remember the evening that we won?
That was one of the greatest nights in the history of television.
 … It was one of the highest rated evenings in the history of television. You add up all those networks
.” – Donald Trump at Minneapolis campaign rally

Jonathan Chait observed that Trump, an indefatigable TV-watcher, always bored with his prepared remarks, delights in going off script to talk about himself as mediated through coverage in the media, especially on television. In Minneapolis yesterday, Trump name-checked many Fox News on-air personalities who flatter him and raved about high TV ratings for his 2016 election victory.

Earlier this week, George Conway reviewed episode after episode of Trump’s erratic and abnormal behavior that renders him incapable of fulfilling the duties of the presidency. The Constitution anticipated that the president would act as a fiduciary on behalf of the country. Based on what we’ve seen, this hasn’t occurred to Trump, who can’t avert his gaze from himself.

While Conway places (as an organizing device) Trump’s observable behavior within the diagnostic criteria for narcissism and sociopathy, he sets aside the issue of a medical diagnosis. What we – the public, not mental health professionals – have witnessed in plain sight demonstrates Trump’s unfitness to serve as president.

Trump is obsessed with sustaining a self-image as exceedingly superior others, who in turn – he is convinced – conspicuously admire him. He perceives every occasion, every decision, everything that comes before him as important only insofar as it casts him in a special light.

While I’m not on board with Conway’s insistence the Congress must call on psychologists and psychiatrists to affirm Trump’s incapacity, I credit him with making the case that Trump can’t safeguard the public interest, because he is impaired by an inescapable self-regard:

“From the evidence, it appears that he simply can’t stop himself from putting his own interests above the nation’s.”

(Image: @realDonaldTrump on Twitter.)

As Trump amps up abuses of power, most Republican Senators shelter in place

October 7, 2019 update: Cable news anchors can’t get Repubicans to come on the air to defend Trump.

Michael Calderone of Politico on Twitter.

But when the NBA makes the wrong geopolitical call, watch out.

“The idea of China interfering in the sanctity of the NBA is somehow incredibly offensive to them, whereas the same standard for American elections results in the sound of crickets.” Jake Tapper in an interview with Politico

Original post:

“This president doesn’t appear to know or care much about the Constitution, especially the limits it puts on his power.

. . .

Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution. Instead, he’s attacking it — by inflating and abusing his powers, ignoring laws he swore to protect and demanding unconstitutional reprisals against anyone who opposes him.”Doyle McManus, in Sunday morning’s Los Angeles Times

The headline and sub head in Sunday’s print edition conveys the gist of the column — “A constitutional blind eye: Trump neither knows nor respects how our basic law limits his power” — which contrasts the President’s view of his power under Article II with the view of the founders.

McManus doesn’t mention checks and balances — which are referenced throughout the Federalist Papers (including Madison’s No. 51, “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments“). It turns out that among the most important checks on a president is the Congress, established in Article I of the Constitution.

An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. (Madison, Federalist No. 48.)

As Trump approaches 1,000 days in office (on October 17, 10 days from now), a recurring question has been, When will Congress step up and check the President? An Iowan put the question to Senator Joni Ernst last weekend:

Where is the line? When are you guys going to say, ‘Enough,’ and stand up and say, ‘You know what? I’m not backing any of this.’ ”

That’s a question for every Republican in the U.S. Senate, almost all of whom — while Mitch McConnell campaigns on a promise not to hold Trump accountable — have responded (as Mara Liasson reported) by “sheltering in place.”

Charlie Cook (who also used the expression, shelter in place) had an answer in July:

“Those who can’t understand why elected Republicans and party officials don’t stand up to Trump seem to miss a point. The survival instinct in humans is a powerful one. In anticipating human behavior, it should always be kept in mind. The track record of what happened to those who did is pretty clear. They lost primaries or chose retirement. Instead, for many pre-tea-party Republicans, the strategy has been to shelter in place. The thinking goes that there is nothing that can be done to stop Hurricane Donald. The key is to survive the storm and be in a position to put the pieces back together and rebuild the party after it has passed. They know that the final edition of Profiles in Courage has already gone to the printer.

Cook references pre-tea-party Republicans, those who (mostly in silence) still embrace conservative principles (who hope to put the pieces back together and rebuild the party post-Trump). That’s not everyone in the Senate, of course:

Ron Johnson exasperated Chuck Todd with his conspiracy-propaganda defense that has found support only in the conservative media bubble and Trump’s tweets. (“Senator Johnson–Senator Johnson, please! Can we please answer the question I asked you instead of trying to make Donald Trump feel better here that you are not criticizing him?!”)

And of course Lindsey Graham is determined not to be outdone on any given day by anyone else in the caucus. “If the whistleblower’s allegations are turned into an impeachment article, it’s imperative that the whistleblower be interviewed in public, under oath and cross-examined.”

Most Senate Republicans, however, are in a bunker, because when allies back up Trump, he often pulls the rug out from under them. As Robert Costa and Philip Rucker report, “…few Republican lawmakers have been willing to fully parrot White House talking points because they believe they lack credibility or fret they could be contradicted by new discoveries.

“Everyone is getting a little shaky at this point,” said Brendan Buck, who was counselor to former House speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.). “Members have gotten out on a limb with this president many times only to have it be cut off by the president. They know he’s erratic, and this is a completely unsteady and developing situation.”

The few who might harbor thoughts of opposing Trump are even less likely to speak out. As former Senator Jeff Flake put it, “There is a concern that he’ll get through it and he’ll exact revenge on those who didn’t stand with him.

The founders didn’t expect Profiles in Courage. They anticipated men acting badly, but believed that institutional checks would hold. Personal ambition and rival interests, both good motives and bad, were all part of the equation:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public.

They expected personal ambition, “opposite and rival interests,” and perhaps even institutional pride (or, in less positive terms, institutional jealousy) to be incentive enough to check an errant president.

But when Trump holds sway over Republican primary voters, and is ready to exact revenge for disloyalty, personal ambition requires sheltering in place.

Marco Rubio was ambitious. (“And two weeks from tonight, right here in Florida, we are going to send a message loud and clear.  We are going to send a message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan and the presidency of the United States will never be held by a con artist.” Trump beat Rubio by 18 points in the Florida primary.

Lil’ Marco” is now pretending that Trump’s soliciting foreign help in an American election is just a joke, “just needling the press.”

Ted Cruz, (initially) declined to endorse Donald Trump in 2016 remarking, “History isn’t kind to the man who holds Mussolini’s jacket,” but has come back into the fold of Trump’s Republican Party.

Given this environment, could Republicans break from Trump?

Nobody wants to be the zebra that strays from the pack and gets gobbled up by the lion,” a former senior administration official said in assessing the current consensus among Senate Republicans. “They have to hold hands and jump simultaneously … Then Trump is immediately no longer president and the power he can exert over them and the punishment he can inflict is, in the snap of a finger, almost completely erased.”

Expecting Republican Senators to “hold hands and jump simultaneously,” between now and November 3, 2020, even as we learn more about Trump’s extortion of Ukraine, is far fetched.

If the story metastasizes far beyond where we are now, might 3 or 4 Republican Senators vote for impeachment? I would regard that as a victory.

Meanwhile, Republican Senators can be expected to fall into 3 camps. From the first camp, we’ll see an avalanche of lies, diversions, attacks on Democrats and the media, and a bottomless narrative of grievance.

From the second camp, we’ll hear tut-tutting and murmurs of disapproval, but the conduct will not rise to the level of impeachment.

And, a third possibility, 1 or 2 or 3 (or ?) Republican Senators will acknowledge that Trump’s misconduct is undeniable and renders him unfit to serve. At least we can hope that this category is not a null set by the time the Senate votes on impeachment.

(Image: the Capitol via wikipedia.)

GOP response to facts damning to Trump: denial, diversion, accusations & embrace of victimhood

When the facts are damning, do anything you can to detract attention from those facts. Three experienced Republican leaders — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Freedom Caucus-founder Jim Jordan, and Senator Lindsey Graham, always ready to flatter the President with contortions and contrivances — demonstrate how to avoid offering a simple, straightforward answer to an inconvenient question.

Watching the videos (linked to the tweets) is a lesson in subterfuge as practiced by a Republican Party too fearful of the President to acknowledge wrongdoing. Observe Congress’s most vocal defenders of Trump in action on mainstream television:

1. Leader McCarthy listens to Scott Pelley read one of the most talked about exchanges from the memo on Trump’s phone call to President Zelensky.

McCarthy responds: “Well, you just added another word.” Pelley assures him that the word “is in the White House transcript.”

McCarthy pivots and begins a reply, “When I read the transcript …,” by repeating talking points that Republicans distributed last week to Members of Congress. While McCarthy denies having seen those talking points, it’s obvious from his comment about the “added” word that he hasn’t read the transcript — or hasn’t retained what he read. (Not ready for prime time.)

2. Jake Tapper interviews Congressman Jim Jordan, one of the most aggressive practitioners of deflection and whataboutism in the House.

Tapper: I understand you want to change the subject, but the President was pushing the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. I cannot believe that that is okay with you. I can’t believe it’s okay with you.

Jordan: It’s not okay because — but he didn’t do that.

Tapper: … It’s in the transcript. We all read it.

Jordan: I read the transcript.

But of course, if he has, he doesn’t want to talk about it. Instead, he throws out accusations against the Bidens, whines about Trump’s victimhood at the hands of the FBI, but — talking fast and loud — won’t acknowledge the simple facts related straightforwardly in the White House transcript. (Finally Tapper has had enough and concludes the interview.)

3. And, last but not least, the Senator from South Carolina: Among the highlights of the interview with Margaret Brennan, is Graham’s complaint about hearsay (“a second hand account,” as the GOP talking point puts it).

Bennan points out that the whistleblower’s account has been confirmed by the White House transcript of the call. The facts don’t matter to Graham. He invokes hearsay multiple times, makes the false claim that “they changed the rules” about hearsay and whistleblowers, and — like Jordan — offers a long diatribe about Trump being persecuted. (And nary a glance at the facts that have been confirmed already.)

(Image: Steely Dan’s Pretzel Logic album cover.)

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