Making It Up As They Go Along

In her Wall Street Journal column Kimberley Strassel makes what is essentially the opposite argument:

Welcome to impeachment, Schiff-style. Democrats keep their witnesses locked behind secure doors, then flood the press with carefully sculpted leaks and accusations, driving the Trump-corruption narrative. And so the party goes, galloping toward an impeachment vote that would overturn the will of the American voters—on a case built in secret.

Conservative commentators keep noting that Mrs. Pelosi’s refusal to hold a vote on the House floor to authorize an official impeachment inquiry helps her caucus’s vulnerable members evade accountability. But there’s a more practical and uglier reason for Democrats to skip the formalities. Normally an authorization vote would be followed by official rules on how the inquiry would proceed. Under today’s process, Mr. Schiff gets to make up the rules as he goes along. Behold the Lord High Impeacher.

Democrats view control over the narrative as essential, having learned from their Russia-collusion escapade the perils of transparency. They banked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation proving impeachment fodder, but got truth-bombed. Their subsequent open hearings on the subject—featuring Michael Cohen, Mr. Mueller and Corey Lewandowski —were, for the Democrats, embarrassing spectacles, at which Republicans punched gaping holes in their story line.

Mr. Schiff is making sure that doesn’t happen again; he’ll present the story, on his terms. His rules mean he can issue that controlling decree about “only one” transcript and Democratic staff supervision of Republican members. It means he can bar the public, the press and even fellow representatives from hearings, even though they’re unclassified.

It means he is able to shield from scrutiny the whistleblower who prompted this impeachment proceeding. It means he can continue barring Republicans from calling opposing witnesses. It means he can continue refusing to allow White House counsel in the room to hear the accusations against the president.

Mr. Schiff apparently even believes his impeachment authority allows him to ignore longstanding rules. A recent letter from Republican members of the Intelligence Committee objected to Mr. Schiff’s new practice of withholding official documents. They listed nearly two dozen letters from the committee (to recipients ranging from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to White House counsel Pat Cipollone) that had not been uploaded to the committee repository—which, they note, violates House rules. Republicans aren’t even allowed to know what questions Mr. Schiff is asking.

As I’ve said an open, factual, and impartial process will garner support while agonistic and partisan declarations will lose it. There’s a difference between a politically motivated investigation and a purely politically motivated investigation.

Also as I’ve said before President Trump is not handling the situation as I would have done and, frankly, I really don’t understand his thinking. The Democrats should hope he continues so fecklessly.

2 comments… add one
  • Guarneri Link

    “As I’ve said an open, factual, and impartial process will garner support while agonistic and partisan declarations will lose it.”

    I’d like to believe that, but I don’t. I’d like for you to be correct, and me wrong, but I don’t think its so. It presumes there is no power in propaganda.

    Last Sunday I did something I haven’t done in years – watch some of the Sunday shows. I saw this Chuck Todd character and even Chris Wallace, who I historically have had a lot of respect for, behaving like children. Simply giving their guests the devil, shouting them down when they tried to answer, and in a pique all but calling them fools for not seeing it the way the inquisitors do. There was no exchange of ideas. No context. No journalism.

    I don’t know what Todd is even doing on that show. A Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity are simply opinionists, so they give strident opinions. So be it. But I remember when Meet the Press or Face the Nation etc weren’t just food fights.

    It became impossible to watch, and I turned my attention elsewhere wishing I hadn’t wasted my time.

  • Guarneri Link

    Just a reminder –

    Reactions to Durham upgrading his investigation have been fascinating; some ysterical. I decided to channel flip to CNN, MSNBC, NBC and read a bit of NYT and WaPo stuff. Anchors, pundits and politicians. The word has obviously gotten around because they all were all reading from the same playbook. The theme is:) the Barr and Durham investigation is about discrediting Russian interference; and since Russian interference is a well known fact Barr and Durham are engaged in a Trump driven crazed political vendetta.

    Just a reminder about Russian interference:

    1. It was attempted. No material effect has been established.

    2. Type A interference: vote count rigging. Senate Committee result: “no vote tallies were deleted or modified”

    3. Type B interference: hacking: No such discovery, and Podestas emails were a self inflicted wound.

    4. Type C interference: social media influencing. Investigated thoroughly by Mueller, there was reach through the Russian connected IRA, but only miniscule contact on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram……. Not to speak of influence.

    More importantly, this is being used by the left leaning commentators to, no doubt intentionally, conflate the Obama/Clinton/DNC/FBI/CIA 2016 election interference investigation with the Russian probe of interference. That will work in the popular press until the first indictment comes down.

    There has been much speculation the past two days. The Horowitz report spawned the Durham upgrade. They got Misfud’s damning cell phones. James Baker flipped. Modified 302’s in the Flynn case. (Lisa Page, no relation to Jimmy) Time will tell.

    In any event, Barr and Durham appear rock solid in background and investigative expertise and resolve. By comparison the Nadler’s, Schiffs and Toobins of the world look like flyweights.

Leave a Comment