Tag Archives: Impeachment

Donald Trump, Off the Rails, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Can there be any doubt of Donald Trump’s unfitness to protect and defend our Constitution?

A linchpin of U.S. and Western security has been keeping Vladimir Putin’s Russia in check. Time and again Trump has acted to sabotage this goal and undermine our allies. That’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

“Mr. Trump had a choice between executing his administration’s own strategy for containing Russia or pursuing a political obsession at home.

He chose the obsession.

In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s broad plan of disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the east for five years, and a cyber war underway in the capital, Kiev.

It is exactly that policy that Mr. Trump appears to have been discarding when he made clear, in the haunting words attributed to Gordon D. Sondland, who parlayed political donations into the ambassadorship to the European Union, that “President Trump cares more about the investigation of Biden” than about Ukraine’s confrontation with Mr. Putin’s forces.” — David E. Sanger, “Trump’s Choice: National Security or Political Obsession.”

(Image: AP Photo/Evan Vucci via 8Red Current Events.)

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

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 now — that 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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

2020 General Election, Democracy

Is it defensible, as a matter of principle, to discount the risks of Trump’s reelection ?

“While I doubt any impeachment fans feel equanimity toward a Trump reelection, you have to wonder if they are really thinking through what it means to brush off 2020 concerns as “political” and less important than engaging in a quixotic effort to pretend Trump can be removed from office any way other than at the polls.” — Ed Kilgore, New York Magazine

Here’s the debate: a number of Trump’s critics have argued that the House of Representatives must impeach Trump as a matter of principle and that declining to act out of concern for political consequences constitutes a moral failure. Elizabeth Warren, the first prominent 2020 candidate to support impeachment, makes this argument. (“There is no political convenience exception to the constitution of the United States of America. You know, there are some things are bigger than politics. And this one is a point of principle.”)

Brian Beutler (in sync with Warren) excoriates the “Pelosi standard” for impeachment: that the House should not move forward with impeachment unless the case against Trump is “compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan.”

Beutler (“The Democrats Great Impeachment Abdication”) objects that the failure to impeach

will establish a new precedent in our country that presidents can make themselves untouchable, to the law and to Congress, if only they’re willing to be as selfish and malevolent as Trump. And it will do so at a moment when one of the country’s two political parties has fully embraced an ethos of corruption, greed, and will to power.

Beutler grants that moving toward impeachment in 2019 would not play out as it did in 1974 (in large part because Fox News and the conservative media bubble would shield Republicans from any good faith effort to hold the president accountable) and doesn’t regard acquittal in the Senate as reason to refrain from impeachment. He wants to see a trial! He wants to require Republican Senators to vote for acquittal.

“If Democrats build a solid case, and pass compelling articles of impeachment, the Senate’s rules obligate it to conduct a trial, with the chief justice of the United States presiding, in a manner that will be very hard for Republicans to cheapen.”

Does Beutler believe that Republicans would in any significant way be constrained from cheapening a Senate trial? That conceit is hard to accept. This doesn’t, however, blunt Beutler’s argument that a Senate trial would place the case for impeachment front and center for voters in 2020 “to render the final verdict.”

There is that. But, as Kilgore has argued in the past: “A 2021 Trump in charge is a progressive hellscape.” The consequences of a Trump reelection are highly significant. So significant that it makes no sense (politically or morally) to insist that the House must impeach without more than a shrug at the possibility that this would aid and abet Trump’s reelection prospects.

Beutler argues that the House must impeach because otherwise Democrats have given Trump and Republican carte blanche to commit any outrages they wish (so long as Fox and company can keep the base onboard).

“Under the Pelosi standard no abuse of power is too severe to tolerate if a third of the country can be convinced to overlook it. Under the Pelosi standard, Republicans enjoy a handicap where they and their propaganda allies can short circuit the Constitution through relentless disinformation and culture war nonsense, and never face a referendum on their underlying conduct or character. Under the Pelosi standard, Republicans can openly embrace any impeachable conduct that actually delights their supporters, which means Trump and future GOP presidents will have a freer hand than they already do to sic the Justice Department on their political enemies.”

“… and never face a referendum on their underlying conduct or character.” To reiterate: Beutler wants to compel Republican Senators to vote against impeachment and then to face the voters regarding their choice.

Without impeachment, Beutler argues, “Republicans can openly embrace any impeachable conduct that actually delights their supporters,” and the result is “Trump and future GOP presidents will have a freer hand than they already do to sic the Justice Department on their political enemies.”

In numerous discussions on the web (such as at Daily Kos), a handful of advocates for impeachment will concede that Trump’s reelection is a price they are willing to pay to see Trump get his comeuppance in the House. Most, however, stick to their guns without critically engaging in consideration of whether or not a House impeachment would make a second Trump term more likely. They reject this out of hand or simply decline to think that far ahead. The principle they embrace — Democrats in the House must take a stand – is too important to sully with discussion of real world political consequences.

Beutler, to his credit, has looked ahead. He insists that not impeaching would make future bad behavior by Republicans more likely and would make future presidents “untouchable.”

But this projection isn’t credible. As Kilgore argues, Senate acquittal with reelection offers an even worse prospect than failure to impeach and Trump’s defeat in November 2020:

“Talk about untouchability! A reelected Trump would be rampant, vengeful, and (of course) unrepentant. The Supreme Court and the entire federal judiciary would likely become a confirmed enemy to progressivism for a generation. With one or two more Trump appointees to SCOTUS, reproductive rights would almost certainly be vaporized. Climate change might well become truly irreversible. Trumpism (or something worse) would complete its conquest of one major political party, and the other would be truly in the wilderness and perhaps fatally embittered and divided.”

Although Beutler nods toward a future in which impeachment has a beneficial effect on the conduct of presidents and senators, that’s not (on my reading) the basis for Beutler’s conviction. As he weighs the question of impeachment, and whether to refrain or move forward, Beutler writes:

“The pro-impeachment proposition is that Democrats should build the case, hold the trial, and let Republicans in Congress decide whether they want to shred our shared standards of accountability—to let their votes be counted—instead of doing it for them as they quietly sidestep the question.
In either case, the voters will render the final verdict, but in an impeachment scenario, the question would be laid before them clearly, and will place the entire Republican Party on the hook directly for the crimes they’ve been passively abetting for over two years now. It would also preserve important norms about what kinds of behavior should be impeachable.”

As I read Beutler, he wants a public accounting. And — though he doesn’t say it outright — he implies: consequences in November 2020 be damned. It’s all about principle. Even the last comment about preserving democratic norms is consistent with my interpretation.

Impeachment and acquittal don’t preserve norms. Rather, impeachment (with or without acquittal) represents for Beutler a stance on what norms “should be” in place.

That, in my view, is pretty weak tea. ‘Should be‘ doesn’t move the needle. The way to preserve democratic norms is to be rid of the man and the party that undermine them. Absent Senate conviction, the opportunity to make that happen will be found at the polls in November 2020.

If I’m wrong about this, if Nancy Pelosi is wrong about this, show me how. I’m open to persuasion. If impeachment now makes it more likely that we boot Trump out of office in 2020, show me how.

But don’t — with so much at stake — simply brush aside that possibility. It won’t do — with so much at stake — to embrace acting out of principle, as though this absolves you of responsibility for the real world consequences of your stance. You must, as a moral agent, as a political actor, as a defender of the Constitution, reckon with the consequences.

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.

Republicans, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Congressman Justin Amash – the exception that proves the rule

Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) has read and recognized the significance of the Mueller Report. Then he has spoken truthfully about it. Because of the ‘R’ next to his name, this is remarkable: an impressive exception, though it seems unlikely to change much of anything.*

Here are my principal conclusions:

  1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.

  2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.

  3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.

  4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

*Update: Mitt Romney, the Republican Senator (from a Red state that is not all-in with Trump) who has been most critical of Trump, has weighed in on Amash’s comments:

“My own view is that Justin Amash has reached a different conclusion than I have. I respect him. I think it’s a courageous statement, but …” . . .

“As I read the report, I was troubled by it, was very disappointed for a number of reasons. But it did not suggest to me that it was time to call for impeachment. . . .

… I think a number of things that were done were really, really troubling and unfortunate and distressing. Clearly the number of times that there were items of dishonesty, misleading the American public and the media – those are things that really you would not want to see from the highest office in the land. . . .

I don’t think impeachment is the right way to go.”

(Image from the Congressman’s Twitter page.)

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Impeach Trump? Speaker of the House: No, he’s just not worth it.

Quote (or exchange) of the day:

Q: There have been increasing calls, including from some of your members, for impeachment of the president.

Speaker Pelosi: I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.


Q: A lot of Americans are really anxious about where the country is right now, and some of them feel the nation’s institutions are in a perilous state. Do you share that concern?


Speaker Pelosi: No. Here’s why I don’t: Our country is great. It’s a great country. Our founders gave us the strongest foundation. … All the challenges we have faced, we can withstand anything. But maybe not two [Trump] terms. So we have to make sure that doesn’t happen.

( Image: U.S. Constitution via wikipedia.)