What are the House Democrats trying to accomplish with their “impeachment inquiry”? Are they doing their constitutional duty to remove President Trump from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Are they engaged in a elaborate political stunt to make Trump easier pickings in the 2020 election? Is the exercise to appease their more radical members? Trying to draw attention away from their own misconduct? A fit of pique? As the editors of the Wall Street Journal point out, the process that the House Democrats are pursuing certainly makes it excusable to suspect they are not motivated purely by the first objective:
Democrats are moving fast toward what looks like an inevitable vote to impeach President Trump, so why aren’t they doing more to persuade Americans who don’t already agree with them? They won’t convince anyone else with their current method of irregular order, secret hearings and selective leaks to the pro-impeachment press.
Start with the news that Democrats may attempt to keep secret the identity of the intelligence whistleblower whose complaint started the impeachment drive. The Washington Post reports that Chairman Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee may have the official testify away from Capitol Hill, or allow only staff to attend, or obscure his image and voice as in a mafia trial.
This is astonishing. The key witness in an attempt to depose an elected President would testify without the American public getting a clue about who he is or what his motivations might be. Impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding, so the right of Mr. Trump to face his accuser doesn’t apply. But you’d think that annulling the 2016 vote of 63 million Americans would be significant enough to demand witness transparency and a chance for both parties to test his knowledge and credibility.
At this point if the objective is to push Trump’s approval rating far enough down that the voters abandon him, it’s not working. According to the RCP index of polls, Trump’s approval rating has declined about two points after weeks non-stop criticism. It’s still 6-8 points higher than it was a year ago.
IMO the House Democrats should follow the procedures of the last two impeachment inquiries. They should take a vote. They should comport themselves with dignity. Stunts like Adam Schiff’s imaginary conversation should be eschewed. The spirit of the proceedings should be one of inquiry not inquisition.
The driving force is Democratic members can show an “accomplishment†by the Congressional primaries.
“the process that the House Democrats are pursuing certainly makes it excusable to suspect they are not motivated purely by the first objective”
Of course, they aren’t motivated by first objectives – and neither are the Republicans. But Trump has willingly handed them a weapon and yeah, the Democrats are going to use it.
I’m a process guy, so I completely agree with you that Democrats should use proper procedures. It’s the only way that impeachment (which I think is inevitable now) will be viewed as legitimate by anyone who isn’t currently drinking the red and blue kool-aid.
I think that’s why public opinion hasn’t budged much. Yeah, Trump is wrong but two wrongs still don’t make a right.
And that’s why I perseverate on the issue of a crime. If the best the House Democrats can come up with is a violation of campaign finance laws they’ll need to explain why Obama shouldn’t have been impeached over his violation of campaign finance laws. If they can’t come up with anything but a technical violation for which Trump should have been fined and insist on treating it as an impeachable offense, they may end up convincing the convinceable that Trump is more trustworthy than the House Democrats are which would be a pretty perverse outcome.
Now maybe the sort of exchange that went on between Trump and Zelensky should be prohibited by law. That’s why I said it would be interesting to see how such a law was written. I doubt that can be done without running afoul of separation of powers issues.
I should add to this that I think that reasonable people can read the transcript of the phone call and come to different conclusions. I read it and I thought no quid pro quo was involved and it was just Trump being Trump. It was unseemly and not something we want presidents to do but not a crime and pretty darned hard to prevent. Pat Lang, not a Trump-supporter, read the transcript and thought pretty much the same thing.
I also think it’s dispositive that both Trump and Zelensky have denied there was a quid pro quo. Steve completely discounts that but I think he’s ignoring the law in doing so. Testimony is evidence and if both parties in the conversation deny there was any corrupt intent, that should be the end of it.
I read the transcript, as did you Dave, and found it not containing any untoward content, except for the usual Trump sentence structure foibles.
As for people concerned, regarding a 6-sentence mention of Biden and his son in that conversation, it’s just been divulged that Ukraine started it’s own investigation into the Burisma and Biden affair last February, long before this disputed phone call.
Also, Durham, has recently expanded his investigation, adding staff and going back further into a timeline – as far as 2012 – looking into government irregularities and possible criminal acts. Accompanying growing evidence of wrongdoing, a FISA judge ruling was just declassified, dealing with FBI, CIA misconduct during 2017 – 2018, where “tens of thousands†communications were illegally breached. The more the past administration’s coordinated attempts to oust or derail Trump’s presidency, the more troublesome it appears, especially if it continues to be viewed in the current partisan spectrum.
Dave,
“And that’s why I perseverate on the issue of a crime.”
Violation of a specific crime is not necessary for impeachment. Previous impeachment charges have included things that weren’t crimes.
“Now maybe the sort of exchange that went on between Trump and Zelensky should be prohibited by law.”
It’s not the exchange per se that’s the issue – at least for me. It’s canvassing foreign governments for the specific purpose of damaging a domestic political opponent. It’s asking foreign governments to intervene in our political system on behalf of the President. That there may be a quid pro quo would only make it worse.
And this is geopolitics – asking another nation to do something carries the inherent threat of retaliation if the weaker country refuses, even for something as venal as digging dirt on a political opponent. Countries don’t do something for nothing.
Let’s also get real about Ukraine for a minute. They are, IIRC, the most corrupt country in Europe and one of the most corrupt on the planet. The notion that they could/would fairly and competently investigate Biden is a fantasy.
“I also think it’s dispositive that both Trump and Zelensky have denied there was a quid pro quo.”
So if my mistress and I both deny having an affair then that’s dispositive we’re not having an affair? Trump and Zelensky claiming that there wasn’t a quid pro quo is not definitive proof of anything.
Unless you have some other way of proving it, it is. Guilt cannot be assumed. That’s fundamental.
In this case in the absence of a crime, corrupt intent must be proven. It cannot merely be assumed. Corrupt intent can be acknowledged or you can have other corroborating evidence but you cannot just assume corrupt intent.
If the point you’re raising is what should the standard for impeachment be? I think it should be higher than for divorce which no longer, for example, requires proof of infidelity. It doesn’t need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Somewhere in between. It’s got to be higher than “we think it stinks”.
It is more realistic to say the standard is whatever Congress decides.
Andrew Jackson’s impeachment had 2 articles summarized as making speeches Congress disapproved of and bringing disgrace and ridicule to the Presidency by his words and actions.
And nobody has contested Congress’s right to do so.
A better argument would be impeachment and removal of office is an extraordinary power of Congress — since it invalidates an election by the people. The only oversight on this power is by the electorate itself and this requires the people to have all the facts on its use — and that requires certain approach to fact findings.
Amateur lawyers and philosophers continue to debate minutia while ignoring the big picture, prosecution of a nonsense issue requiring mind reading to substantiate it. A prosecution that can only be described as grotesque and a national embarrassment.
“It’s got to be higher than “we think it stinksâ€.”
As I’ve stated already several times, using the authority of the Presidency to solicit a foreign government to interfere in domestic politics meets that bar for me. And Trump himself and Guiliani have already admitted that much.
Andrew Johnson, not Andrew Jackson.
Except that the Ukraine restarted the Buresma probe in February, not as the result of the infamous phone call. Open source investigation by Solomon has proven that. So Pelosi et al are trying to impeach the President on a progress report. Cute. When do we subpoena Pelosi for building a wall around her compound to keep undocumented migrants from living on her front porch?
So, Andy, the fact that Biden has entered a presidential race, means he is vaccinated from being questioned or held accountable for prior questionable dealings with Ukraine, himself and his son?. And, you mean to infer that the fact Biden’s name was brought up, in a conversation about corruption being addressed in both countries, is an indication of corrupt intent by Trump, with the unholy intent of benefiting his own election? BTW, there is now documentation that Biden received, what appear to be laundered funds ($900,000), as a lobbyist for Burisma.
However, let’s get back and focus on conversational nuances and hidden agendas possibly swirling around a milquetoast exchange between two leaders.
“So, Andy, the fact that Biden has entered a presidential race, means he is vaccinated from being questioned or held accountable for prior questionable dealings with Ukraine, himself and his son?”
Never said that. If there’s actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing, then by all means, the relevant government authorities should investigate. The President singling out a political opponent, during an election year, utizling his personal lawyer is not “being questioned” or holding anyone accountable. It’s digging dirt.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: that process matters. If Trump wants to direct the US government to go after corruption generally and Biden becomes a target because of the facts of his case, that is one thing and completely legitimate. It’s a very different thing for the President to personally target the Bidens and no one else for what are clearly political reasons.
If you want to argue that any President has the inherent right and authority to use his/her office to compel and solicit assistance with a domestic political campaign from foreign governments by specifically asking them to target political appointments, then let’s hear the justification. Because when the Democrats get the Presidency and you’ve normalized that behavior you can’t legitimately do a 180 when they start doing the same thing.
“Except that the Ukraine restarted the Buresma probe in February, not as the result of the infamous phone call.”
If that proves to be factual, and it had nothing to do with requests from the WH and Trump’s multiple asks of various countries to investigate Biden and no one else prove to be false, I’ll change my conclusion.
Nothing is set in stone and everything is subject to change. But it seems difficult to me to walk back what the President and his proxies have already publically admitted, which is yes, they’ve specifically asked foreign governments to investigate the Bidens.
CuriousOnlooker:
Is there anyone who does not believe that the Congress overreached in impeaching Andrew Johnson?
To Andy’s point, process does matter but I think we’re past the point of our institutions functioning in a manner that process is impartial.
Some Trump critics have pointed out that it is laughable to think that Trump’s request for investigations into Biden represent his desire to root out corruption. A very fair and likely accurate point!
Yet they fail to acknowledge the possibility too that the activities of Biden and the entire Obama administration in Ukraine might well have been the mirror image of this, even though their activities were dressed up with niceties like funding NABU, firing Shokin, and having the imprimatur of the E.U. and IMF (which organizations had worked with the US State Dept to instigate a coup in Ukraine and install a government more friendly toward western governments and investors.)
These institutions IMO have no more moral authority than Trump does in “rooting out corruption†in Ukraine- they are simply trying to get rid of the corrupt oligarchs on the other side and allow the ones aligned with their own interests to prevail.
“even though their activities were dressed up with niceties like funding NABU, firing Shokin, and having the imprimatur of the E.U. and IMF”
But here is where we drift into conspiracy theory again. Is it really likely that the EU, IMF, etc agreed that SHokin needed to go because this would help Biden? First, if Biden really does have that kind of clout with the EU and IMF then we should declare him president right now and boot Trump. If Europe will do whatever we want if Biden asks it would certainly help solve once and for all a lot of issues, like Germany.
More seriously, this just doesn’t happen. Too many people would know to keep something like this secret. It leaks.
Steve
Steve you misunderstand. From what I can see, Biden is one player but there were a whole lot of financial interests involved, all of whom saw benefit in aligning Ukraine with the West and away from Russia.
If all you are saying is that the West was trying to draw Ukraine away from Russia then I would agree. Of course, even if all they were trying to do was make it possible to have reliable trade with Ukraine, they would want to ask them to address their level of corruption. As noted elsewhere, the place ranks poorly on the corruption scale.
Steve
Well that’s the prevailing narrative, Steve, but when you look at things like the leaked Nuland call (IIRC there were also leaks from EU officials) having a hand in the revolution, and the Hunter Biden deal which is hard to see as anything but graft, and you begin to wonder how much moral high ground we in the West really hold.
And I say this as someone who has been a pretty strong Russophobe for my entire life, and still hope we’re not quite as bad yet. But I can definitely imagine people at high levels of our government using the false front of an anti-corruption program to hide their own corrupt deals.
” But I can definitely imagine people at high levels of our government using the false front of an anti-corruption program to hide their own corrupt deals.”
And how do they get the entire EU to go along with it? How do they manage to keep the conspiracy quiet? Bear in mind that I dont think anyone on the left or the right disputes the fact that Ukraine is incredibly corrupt. Not that hard to measure the number of cases or investigations brought by Shokin vs his successors.
Steve