Tag Archives: Adam Schiff

Donald Trump, Republicans

Republican Senators expressing umbrage “are desperate to find an outrage off-ramp”

I think that Chairman Schiff’s presentation through this very long ordeal has been at the very highest level of legal advocacy. He has marshaled an immense amount of information extremely well and effectively. And I thought that last night’s closing was oratory for the ages. So, I give him nothing but props.

I think that if you are a Republican and you’re looking at a really damning case that you have no counter to, and where you’re sitting on lockers full of evidence and not allowing it into the trial, you are desperate to find an outrage off-ramp.

And they will find something outrageous in parts per billion in order to seize the outrage off-ramp and get away from the damning case that has been made on the substance.

…

I think there have been a lot of uncomfortable moments for them through these days. And I thought that Adam’s presentation last night had a lot of them very thoughtful and pensive about the position that this president has put them in.

Uhm, we really have a battle here between truth and falsehood, and right and wrong. And this president is demanding that they follow the path of falsehood and wrong, or face peril. – Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, January 24, 2020

Senator Whitehouse was responding to the manufactured outrage (and dissembling) of Republican Senators to Adam Schiff’s reading a quotation from the mainstream media. “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’”

There were reports of gasps from the Republican side of the aisle. Senator Susan Collins of Maine was seen shaking her head and could be heard from gallery repeating, “That’s not true,” several times. Later she said, “I know of no Republican Senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the Administration.”

“None of us have been told that. That’s insulting and demeaning to everyone to say that we somehow live in fear and that the president has threatened all of us.” – Senator James Lankford of Oaklahoma

The fear of Washington Republicans – in both the House and the Senate – at the possibility of Trump turning on them when they seek re-nomination in a Republican primary is one of the most unshakable facts of today’s GOP. Not giving Trump a reason to turn on them is a guiding principle.

Mark Sanford, Jeff Flake, and Bob Corker all felt Donald Trump’s ire. None remain in office. Trump owns the Republican Party. And – for every Republican who wishes to continue serving in the U.S. Senate after his or her next Republican primary election – Trump owns them regarding any issue he cares about.

The “head on a pike” quote, while pithy (and even demeaning), expresses a fundamental, inescapable truth – all disingenuous protests notwithstanding.

(Image: screengrab from Lincoln Project ad.)

Democracy, Donald Trump

“If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost.”

If right doesn’t matter, if right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn’t matter how brilliant the framers were. It doesn’t matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. It doesn’t matter how well written the oath of impartiality is.

If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost.

The framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves, if right and truth don’t matter. And you know that what he did was not right. You know, that’s what they do in the old country — that Colonel Vindman’s father came from. Or the old country that my great-grandfather came from. Or the old countries that your ancestors came from, or maybe you came from.

But here right is supposed to matter. It’s what’s made us the greatest nation on earth. No constitution can protect us [if] right doesn’t matter anymore.

And you know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country. You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump. He’ll do it now. He’s done it before. He’ll do it for the next several months. He’ll do it in the election if he’s allowed to.

This is why, if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost. – Adam Schiff, Thursday, January 23, 2020 

Donald Trump, Tribalism

Trump’s legal wizards argue that abuse of power is not impeachable conduct

“The Articles of Impeachment … are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President.” A “brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn … the 2016 election” and a “highly partisan and reckless obsession,” the “Articles … are constitutionally invalid on their face.”

They fail to allege any crime or violation of the law whatsoever, let alone “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying an election and subverting the will of the American people.

So Jay Alan Sekulow and Pat A. Cipollone attest (“Answer of President Donald J. Trump“; all quotations from page 1 of the six-page brief). While I realize that this is political pamphleteering, not strictly the practice of law, it is a breathtaking response to the weighty, well-documented case – virtually uncontested in this defense by Trump’s personal attorney and counsel to the Office of the President –  that the House presents for the President’s removal.

The brief insists that a president cannot be impeached for abuse of power if he has violated no federal statute. While Alan Dershowitz, another of the President’s lawyers, did not sign the brief, he has made this case in a book on impeachment:

Assume Putin decides to “retake” Alaska, the way he “retook” Crimea. Assume further than a president allows him to do it, because he believed that Russia has a legitimate claim to “its” original territory. That would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? Not under the text of the Constitution.

Adam Schiff replies:

The logic of that absurdist position that’s being now adopted by the president is he could give away the state of Alaska, he could withhold execution of sanctions on Russia for interfering in the last election, to induce or coerce Russia to interfere in the next one.

That would have appalled — the mere idea of this would have appalled the founders, who were worried about exactly that kind of solicitation of foreign interference in an election for a personal benefit, the danger it poses to national security. That goes to the very heart of what the framers intended to be impeachable.

The narrowest reading of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which Trump’s lawyers rely on, has been refuted again and again. It is hard to see how we can reconcile the view of Sekulow, Cipollone, Dershowitz, et al. with the concerns of Hamilton (and the men who drafted our constitution) with “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” as distinct from prosaic violations of the law.

Trump has famously boasted of his supporters’ extraordinary loyalty to him: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

What if Putin decided to retake Alaska with Trump’s acquiescence? Would Republicans accept that? Perhaps Lisa Murkowski, if not Susan Collins, would find grounds to object. Mitch McConnell would certainly strive to deflect the issue if he believed control of the Senate were at stake.

There’s a serious point embedded in that counter-factual. Trump has welcomed the intervention of foreign powers in our elections (past and future). Is that in any sense less significant, if we are concerned with democracy and constitutional governance, than ceding one of 50 states to a foreign adversary? The facts, when push comes to shove, don’t matter to Trump’s Republican defenders. The bottom line is: what will the base accept (looking no further into the future than the 2020 election)?

There is scant evidence of a deeper principle at stake for Trump’s Republican defenders in the House or the Senate.

(Photos: ACLJ and Politico.)

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump

Five Takeaways following the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings

I. Putin’s authorship of the “Russia hoax.” II. Distinguishing a national security foreign policy channel and a channel dedicated to a domestic political errand. III. Closing statements from Ranking Member Nunes and Chairman Schiff. IV. What pushed Schiff to impeachment. V. Will Hurd can’t justify impeachment, as Justin Amash tries to nudge him in that direction.

I. In her opening statement before the committee, Fiona Hill, former Deputy Assistant to the President Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs, noted with dismay that Republicans on the committee, in denying Russian interference in the 2016 election, were fulfilling Vladimir Putin’s stratagem to weaken our country:

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.

The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.

U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized.

The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country—to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.

I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.

As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States, and it plays an important role in our national security. And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016.

These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a Super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.

I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my ability. If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm.”

II. In response to a question from minority counsel Steve Castor, Dr. Hill responded with a succinct delineation of the two policy channels the Trump administration was pursuing. After acknowledging her anger at Ambassador Sondland, she continued:

“And what I was angry about was that he wasn’t coordinating with us. I now actually realize, having listened to his deposition, that he was absolutely right. That he wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing.

So I was upset with him that he wasn’t fully telling us about all of the meetings that he was having. And he said to me: “But I’m briefing the president. I’m briefing Chief of staff Mulvaney. I’m briefing Secretary Pompeo. And I’ve talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who else do I have to deal with?”

And the point is, we have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine. It includes Mr. Holmes. It includes Ambassador Taylor as the chargé in Ukraine. It includes a whole load of other people. But it struck me when—yesterday—when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails and he said, “These the people need to know,” that he was absolutely right. Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged. 

So he was correct.

And I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn’t fully coordinating. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland—Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.

And after I left to my next meeting, our director for the European Union talked to him much further for a full half-hour or more later, trying to ask him about how we could coordinate better or how others could coordinate better after I had left the office. And his feeling was that the National Security Council was always trying to block him.

What we were trying to do was block us from straying into domestic or personal politics. And that was precisely what I was trying to do.

But Ambassador Sondland is not wrong that he had been given a different remit than we had been.

And it was at that moment that I started to realize how those things have diverged. And I realized, in fact, that I wasn’t really being fair to Ambassador Sondland because he was carrying out what he thought he had been instructed to carry out. And we were doing something that we thought was just as or perhaps even more important, but it wasn’t in the same channel.”

III. Mr. Nunes, in his closing statement, offered a timeline that made no reference to any testimony from the public hearings over the past two weeks. Replete with references to the Steele dossier, a coup, “the Russia hoax,” “the so-called whistleblower,” “secret depositions and mid-hearing press conferences,” and “a show trial,” the gentleman from California condemned Democrats, the media, executive branch officials, James Comey, and the FBI, and complained that tyranny of the majority had led to “a process that was grossly unfair.”

Throughout the hearings, as Adam Schiff noted, Republicans attempted to smear and demean witnesses, while failing to raise substantive questions about their testimony. Witness after witness offered accounts without any refutation. In the words of the chairman, “So much of this is really undisputed.”

Mr. Schiff then reviewed and knocked down the various ‘defenses’ Republicans have offered for Trump, and finally lands on the I’m-not-a-crook defense (which comes to the fore because Donald Trump spoke the words, “No quid pro quo”):

“You said it and, I guess, that’s the end of it.

Well, the only thing we can say is that it’s not so much that this situation is different in terms of Nixon’s conduct and Trump’s conduct. What we have seen here is far more serious than a third-rate burglary of the Democratic headquarters. What we’re talking about here is the withholding of recognition in that White House meeting. The withholding of military aid to an ally at war. That is beyond anything that Nixon did.

The difference between then and now is not the difference between Nixon and Trump. It’s the difference between that Congress and this one.

And so, we are asking, where is Howard Baker? Where is Howard Baker? Where are the people who willing to go beyond their party? To look to their duty? I was struck by Colonel Vindman’s testimony because he said that he acted out of duty. What is our duty here? That’s what we need to be asking.”

IV. Mr. Schiff concluded his statement with words about why he could “resist no more” the calls for an impeachment inquiry:

“It came down to the fact that the day after Bob Mueller testified. The day after Bob Mueller testified that Donald Trump invited Russian interference: Hey, Russia, if you’re listening, come get Hillary’s emails. And later that day, they tried to hack her server.

The day after he testified that not only did Trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help in the campaign. They made full use of it. They lied about it. They obstructed the investigation into it. And all this is in his testimony and his report.

The day after that Donald Trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another U.S. election.

That says to me, this President believes he is above the law. Beyond accountability. And in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. And I would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, ‘We are better than that.’ “

By the time he reaches the last four sentences of his remarks (finally concluding by quoting the late Elijah Cummings), and gavels the hearing to a close, Mr. Schiff is visibly angry.

V. Will Hurd, who is leaving the House without seeking reelection and is the lone Republican on the panel who was regarded as a possible vote to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, rejected that course of action on Friday:

“An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear, and unambiguous. And it’s not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I’ve not heard evidence proving the President committed bribery or extortion.”

His colleague Justin Amash, who has left the Republican Party, offered a reply that is highly unlikely to resonate with any current Republican Members of Congress:

“With respect, my friend @HurdOnTheHill applies the wrong standard. House impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The question in the House is whether there is probable cause to charge President Trump with an impeachable offense. The answer to that question is clearly yes. “

Democracy, Democrats, Donald Trump

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.

Donald Trump, Off the Rails

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

Democracy, Donald Trump, Off the Rails

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.

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump, Off the Rails

“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.

Donald Trump, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

“2020 is unquestionably the only way he gets removed from office”—Adam Schiff

Congressman Adam Schiff, interviewed on CNN the day after Robert Mueller testified before the House Intelligence Committee, characterizes the president’s conduct as: “Unethical, unpatriotic, wrong, and criminal.” Doesn’t that meet the definition of what is impeachable?

“I think that’s unquestionably the case, but that’s what I think. Can we make the case to the country? And does the country benefit from going through an impeachment if it is going to be unsuccessful? And we know in the Senate, at least, it would be unsuccessful.
So, I’m not there yet, but I’m keeping an open mind and I may get there.
…
2020 is unquestionably the only way he gets removed from office, so we can never lose sight of that.
I have tried to put the political question out of my head—that is, Does an impeachment help us in 2020 or does it hurt us politically?—because I don’t think it’s the right question to ask.
But we do need to be realistic and that is: the only way he’s leaving office, at least at this point, is by being voted out. And I think our efforts need to be made in every respect to make sure that we turn out our people.
But on the policy question, what’s the best thing, what’s the right thing for the county? Should we put the country through an impeachment? I haven’t been convinced yet that we should. And going through that kind of momentous and disruptive experience for the country is not something we go into lightly.”

Video from from TPM Livewire.

Off the Rails, Republicans

Adam Schiff: Bill Barr is the second most dangerous man in the country

“But I do want to, before we move on from the subject of Barr and contempt, talk about, I think, the most grave concern about Bill Barr. And that is, during his Senate testimony, he opined that the president could have made the Mueller investigation go away any time he wanted because he thought it was unfair. That’s his view of the unitary executive.

Under that view a president is truly above the law. Because what president would not think an investigation against him or her was unfair? It also means that the president can make go away any of the investigations that were farmed out to any of the other elements of the Department of Justice. And, because they are stonewalling us on just about everything, it also means that we might not know – unless whistleblowers step forward – whether Bill Barr is abusing his authority even beyond the fundamental abuse by trying to exonerate the president on obstruction of justice.

And so we find ourselves, I think, for the first time with an attorney general who really is the president’s defense lawyer and spokesperson. And who’s quite good at it. And has the veneer of respectability to camouflage what he’s doing. He is not the sophist that Giuliani is. He’s much more dangerous. And I think he’s the second most dangerous man in the country for that reason.

When you listen to his interviews and you listen to the way he dissembles—when he was asked, even on Fox News, about, well, Didn’t Don McGahn call for Mueller to be fired? His answer was, No, he called for him to be removed, as if that’s a distinction that really makes a difference here. When he was asked, Well, you said that the president fully cooperated, but the president wouldn’t even sit down for an interview. No, no, I said the White House fully cooperated.

When you have an attorney general willing to dissemble that way. When you have an attorney general—and I hesitate to use the word, but there’s no other word that seems to apply here—that lies to Congress as he did when Charlie Christ asked him about whether he was aware of these revelations that had been reported about the Mueller team, and he said that he was not. That’s a very dangerous situation.

And as someone who came out of that department—I spent six years with the Justice department. I venerate the department. To think that it is being led by someone this way—you know, it breaks my heart for the department, but it’s profoundly concerning for the country.” – Congressman Adam Schiff on Attorney General Bill Barr, Council on Foreign Relations, June 4, 2019

Ryan Goodman, at Just Security, provides a side by side comparison of Barr’s and Mueller’s statements about the Special Counsel Report. Goodman comments:

“Whether or not Mueller was intentionally trying to correct the record, the differences between what he and Barr said are, in many cases, stark. Some of the differences involve near complete contradictions—in other words Mueller’s statement and Barr’s statements cannot both be true. Other differences are more a matter of emphasis or tone (e.g., references to the threat posed by the Russian operations, descriptions of the qualities of the special counsel staff).

The special counsel’s Report also contradicts some of Barr’s statements (such as his claim that the Report found no evidence of “collusion,” his suggestion that difficult issues of law and fact stopped the special counsel from concluding the president engaged in criminal obstruction, his claim that the President cooperate fully with the investigation). The following analysis, however, does not include the Report. Instead, it focuses only on Mueller’s public statement and how it compares to statements made by Barr between March 22 (the date that the special counsel handed his final report to the attorney general) and May 29 (the date of Mueller’s statement). This includes statements made by Barr in his 4-page summary submitted to Congress, a formal press briefing, and three congressional hearings, but it does not include Barr’s interviews with Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.”