I disagree with Peggy Noonan’s assessment in her Wall Street Journal column of Nancy Pelosi’s calculation in moving to an impeachment inquiry albeit so far without the formal vote to authorize the inquiry:
Impeachment is a grave constitutional and governmental act, but it is also a political one that requires public support. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has calculated that the case is strong and the people will come along. She wouldn’t have moved forward if she didn’t think she was going to win. The president is wrong when he says she’s finally bowed to the mad progressives of her party, who are so colorfully belligerent, who last summer pushed to impeach William Barr and last week wanted to impeach Brett Kavanaugh. Mrs. Pelosi is an attentive vote-counter and a practical pol. I think she’s moving now because she thinks she got him and the jig is up.
I agree that Speaker Pelosi is an attentive vote-counter but I think it was a different vote she was counting. I think the votes she was counting were the votes to remove her as speaker if she didn’t start an impeachment inquiry.
But I agree with Ms. Noonan’s assessment of the likely outcome of the whole sorry process:
In the end, in purely practical political terms, the one person who will be hurt by this story will be Joe Biden. Every telling of this story necessitates pointing out that Mr. Biden’s son Hunter had cozy financial relationships with other countries, including Ukraine. It’s real swamp stuff. It looks bad, say the former vice president’s friends. No, it is bad.
It is infuriating that members of America’s leadership class so often show themselves to the world as self-enriching. As a nation we spent the 20th century presenting ourselves to the world as a truly moral leader, a self sacrificing country, one to be looked up to. In the 21st century our political figures and their families too often look like scrounging grifters—Americans with connections who can be hired, who leverage connections to fame for profit. There’s a fairly constant air of soft corruption, of an easy, seamy reality of big-power back scratching.
It makes America look bad. It makes us look weak and craven, like we can be bought.
There’s a reason for that. Our elected officials can be bought. We might start thinking about that far before election day when the candidates who will be on the ballot are selected and the kinds of qualities we look for in our elected officials.
This is not to say Joe or Hunter Biden are corrupt. I think Hunter Biden is obviously troubled — anyone who sees his regular appearance in the gossip pages realizes that. And Hunter Biden is an adult; Joe cannot discipline him like a 3 year old. Joe Biden’s mistake is keep the Ukraine file when he learned his son got appointed to the board.
But sins of omission can be as costly as sins of commission.
I’ll just take this post to express my view that I don’t think impeachment was intended to be “political” in the sense people understand that term today because the Founders were also concerned with the power of impeachment being used by factions.
English common law understood offenses could be public or private or both. Prosecuting public offenses could serve as protections against despotism, but also as its tools. Treason is the only offense detailed in the Constitution because of the history of that charge for political or tyrannical ends. So on the one hand a just means of addressing “injuries done immediately to the society itself” (what Federalist 65 referred to as “POLITICAL”) without destroying government’s ability to function or doing an injustice to public officials.
Because of the nature of the offense, Hamilton predicted that impeachment “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
The way the Constitution limits popular passions appears to have been threefold. The Senate, modeled after the House of Lords, would serve as disinterested judge — a necessary check on “the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives.”
Requiring two-thirds to convict is also intended to secure against persecution by the House. Impeachment is supposed to be a check against government misconduct, but the power of impeachment itself is subject to a familiar set of checks and balances that prefers inaction to action. The power of periodic elections remains, as in some cases, the possibility of criminal prosecution.
The grounds for impeachment are limited to those specified, and while their scope is subject to debate, all allude to some form of legal offense. The initial draft only gave “treason” and “bribery,” as grounds, which was considered too narrow. “Maladministration” was proposed, as it was a ground in many states, but was considered too ambiguous and would render the President’s term subservient to the confidence of the legislature.
The Senate is more democratic than envisioned at that time, but it still remains hard to envision the Founders minding at all if different factions controlled each legislative chamber. They mostly saw the need for an impeachment, but also apparently could easily see the danger that impeachment power might pose “to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community.” (Federalist 65) People like themselves.
There are a number of articles out today noting that it is pretty common, unfortunately, for unqualified Americans to sit on foreign boards. (Heck, we have a former surgeon sitting in the Cabinet position for HUD, so we do it ourselves.) Of course Noonan is FOS when she pretends this is limited to the 20th century. It has been going on forever here in the US and abroad. So many examples. When I and a bunch of other physicians had thousands extorted out of us because we needed a favor, the Senator to whom we needed to make a donation had a son sitting on a prominent board in Philadelphia who helped. Dave always says hand out a business card and dont go for the obvious bribe. I like to always point out that while we usually look at who gives donations to whom, we should be looking at who gets rewarded by having family and friends put in powerful/lucrative positions in return for a favor.
Steve
There is more than one form of corruption. What has been called “hard corruption” is when an explicit quid pro quo is involved. It is illegal. When former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich attempted to trade a senate appointment for a lucrative appointment for himself that was hard corruption.
“Soft corruption” is legal but unethical, it is still corruption, and it certainly seems to be what has happened WRT Ukraine and Hunter Biden. It’s what former Illinois Congressman and Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was talking about when he said “Don’t take a bribe just hand them your business card.” Soft corruption is so prevalent most politicians today probably just think it is normal.
Soft corruption, too, is what is being debated about Trump’s phonecon with Ukrainian president Zelenskiy. I find it hard to credit that Democrats are actually debating impeaching Trump but not accepting that it also tars Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
I think Blago’s conviction on the Obama seat was reversed because extortion requires some sort of property right gained or demanded through “color of law.”
Blagojevich offering to appoint someone to the Senate seat in exchange for an appointment to an official position was an exchange of non-property interests. The 7th Circuit found it to be logrolling and overturned that conviction, editorializing that it was similar to how Earl Warren got appointed to be Chief Justice by swapping political favors.
OTOH, when a children’s hospital asked Blogojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, he demanded a campaign contribution of a specific amount. He demanded the hospital’s property in a quid-pro-quo for an official act.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1708436.html
If the 7th Circuit was correct there, the outline is this:
official act for official act = politics
official act for property = criminal extortion
PD- So an official act in exchange for help in an election would be? It doesn’t really same like an official act, but doesn’t seem like property either, unless you want to consider the office of POTUS a possession. Really seems like consideration ought to given about the beneficiary in such an exchange.
Let me ask it another way. It seems like if it is something that one would not want the general public to know about, it probably isn’t legal? If Trump had publicly announced that he was going to tell the Ukraine president that he wanted him to investigate Biden’s kid and in return we would sell them stuff or release their aid money, would it be accepted by the public?
Steve
How about these 2 famous examples.
Henry Clay being appointed the Secretary of State in return for Clay throwing the House of Representative election for President to John Quincy Adams in 1828.
What do one make of those, hard bargaining, immoral, or illegal?
Where does one draw the line between using the legal powers of your office to benefit your chances at reelection vs abusing the powers of your office to benefit your chances at reelection?
And is there a difference between an act of inaction vs an act of action when it comes to corruption?
The 2nd example. The end of reconstruction for Hayes being elected President after the disputed election of 1876.
Traditionally, extortion was a crime that only a public official could commit, and involved _taking_ something of value through “color of official right” to which he was not entitled. It could be as simple as charging an inspection fee during an audit that wasn’t authorized. A citizen might pay whatever fee a government official asks without any threat or intimidation because they assume the official is asking what is owed.
In the Blagojevich case, the Court was repeating a long line of legal decisions that denied any office-holder a property rights in public office; it’s why Blagojevich had no right to due process in his impeachment, he didn’t have a property right to hold office. Officials are there to serve the people.
And I think extortion is mainly about the relationship between the government and the citizen, and these are heads of sovereign powers. Blagojevich : Obama :: Trump : Zelensky. Maybe there is some other crime that can be pointed to, but if the governor of Illinois wasn’t extorting the POTUS, then I think it’s even less likely that the POTUS was extorting Ukraine because there would be fewer protections assumed to a foreign power.
I think from a more pertinent domestic angle people might be more annoyed that during a heads-of-state conversation, the POTUS seemed to be encouraging dirt on the son of a former Senator and prospective party nominee. But it doesn’t sound like he got any dirt, and the President is exempt from the Hatch Act.
Query- Would it be legal for a head of state to call another head of state and ask them to initiate an investigation on a rival to help them win an election even without asking for something in return? It certainly seems corrupt and unethical, and it seems to me that it ought to be illegal, but is it? It seems as though that would be “taking_ something of value through “color of official right†to which he was not entitled.” If one did not hold the office of POTUS it seems very unlikely that a foreign head of state would be likely to comply with such a request.
Steve
And what if Trump’s opponent is corrupt / or looks corrupt – is it a President’s duty to ignore corruption just because it happens to be your political opponent?
On the surface; these are facts; Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to join the company board. Joe Biden got a prosecutor fired; the prosecutor had investigated that company;
I already stated the charitable belief that Joe Biden’s sin is an act of omission. But appearances certainly are troubling enough that it is reasonable to look into.
“On the surface; these are facts; Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to join the company board. Joe Biden got a prosecutor fired; the prosecutor had investigated that company;”
You realize that even this is in dispute, and leaves out tons of other facts. Some sources claim that Shokin had not been investigating Biden and Burisma when he was fired. Contemporaneous sources say that much of the EU and the IMF were pushing to have Shaken fired because he wasn’t investigating anyone, that this wasn’t just something Joe Biden cooked up.
Then after Shokin was fired the new prosecutor actually did investigate Hunter and Burisma. This took place after Trump was elected. They found that Hunter Biden was paid a lot of money but there was no real wrongdoing.
As to Hunter being qualified, this looks like what we accept everywhere in our own country, and is common in Europe also. People get named to positions for political favors when they arent qualified and they get named since they hope the family name will provide influence. Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon. One of my oldest friends worked with him at Hopkins for years. Good surgeon. Qualified to run HUD? No way. I keep looking for someone to make a list of family members of current politicians who sit on boards or have cushy jobs due to that connection and cannot find a list. However, someone has done it for former politicians, though I suspect it is not complete.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-congressional-board-pay/
Steve
We can agree to disagree. You are disagreeing on the interpretation of facts.
I think the optics boil down pretty simply.
If it is plausible that there is enough to investigate Biden, then it is a reasonable exercise of Presidential power to look into possible corruption.
If the position is that what Joe/Hunter did was so above board that it is improper and illegal to even suggest investigating it — well that’s what the Democrats will be selling to the country?
@steve, I don’t think an investigation is going to be recognized as a property interest. If Trump asked Ukraine not to investigate Biden’s son, I don’t think that’s taking some Ukrainian property interest either. I simply don’t see how framing Ukraine as a victim is going to have any basis in the American legal system. The point would have to be more that Biden’s son is the victim, or his father by extension, and probably a lot of people will think that depends on whether Bidens did anything wrong.
PD-Is it legal for a POTUS to ask the leader of a foreign country to investigate a political rival? Seems like it should be. If a POTUS asks another leader to crack down on corruption in their country, that would seem fine, but limiting to only a political rival seem like something we shouldn’t want happening.
Steve
1. It is absurd on its face that an impeachable offense occurred, either on the facts or the weight of the issue. The facts are pretty much out, courtesy of the quality of JS investigative work.
2. So it is now cringeworthy to watch grown adults debating this as if it was legitimate (complete with faux learned and solemn tones). Cartoonish, really.
3. Pols are easy to figure out. Craven pursuit of power outside of the electoral process. Journalists prostituting themselves and pundits and political junkies as cheerleaders at the football game are more difficult to understand. Do you really want to find yourself debating whether “do me a favor†applied to Joe Biden as well as Ukraine’s involvement in dirt gathering in the 2016 election? The latter is a legitimate investigation. The former is a form of grotesque and convenient contortionist mind reading.
4. It is humorous to consider that those who have opined that Trump is temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency are engaged in full fury in this moronic soap opera. No matter the circus we have, even super never Trumper Kasich noted “the people of Ohio aren’t talking about a phone call with Ukraine.†Heh.
Some Democrat/Republican ironical twists that perplex me:
Some Democrats accuse the Trump Administration of “hiding†sensitive calls on more secure servers. Gasp! However, Susan Rice said Obama did the same thing. Media —-> “crickets.†Remember, SOS Clinton put sensitive info on bathroom servers to avoid scrutiny by FOIA requests. Media ——> “that’s old news.†So, let’s get back to the Trump “irregularities.â€
Whistleblower rules were changed and softened to accept less reliable observations, than those obtained with 1st hand knowledge, days before this anonymous leaker’s charges emerged. Media —-> no curiosity over such a “coincidence.†Pelosi is also altering impeachment rules – not calling for an introductory impeachment vote. Why? This gives The Speaker more flexibility in running these hearings without any Republican input or interference. Furthermore, for the last 150 years or so, the DOJ has been handed oversight over such impeachment inquiries. However, for congressional efforts to impeach Trump, Pelosi has put it in the hands of intelligence agencies, who are currently under investigation for their questionable antics in the last election. Media ——> “silence,†except for tuning up their screeching voices supporting impeachment.
Finally, there is Biden, who has asserted he was cleared of any wrongdoing with his son in Ukraine. However, on some news outlets, earlier publicly uttered statements show the muscle he exerted to force the Ukraine prosecutor out of a job. Now, affidavits have been produced, by that same ousted prosecutor, vouching for Biden’s interference in that murky Ukrainian incident. How much media airtime are these revelations getting ——> very little.
No wonder the honesty of the Media is questioned so much, as their public approval ratings continue to slide south!
I wouldn’t be surprised if the “whisteblower” were impelled to make his charges by the change in the rules. Those changing the rules did not need to know about the likelihood of the “whistleblower” stepping forward in advance in advance and the “whistleblower” didn’t need to know about the rules change in advance for events to have unfolded as they did. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
” The facts are pretty much out, courtesy of the quality of JS investigative work.”
1) This was the guy who supported the debunked Uranium One story. The one who appears on the Sean Hannity show where all of the conspiracy hoax people go. Note that Wallace, Smith and Henry have all suggested there was enough merit in the claims that an investigation was merited or disagreed with the conspiracy folks and ended up getting attacked by Trump. (Which also gave us Tucker Carlson claiming that he is not partisan. Too funny, and pathetic.)
2) While JS may not credibility with he news branch of Fox News, or the rest of the world, I still think we could look for corroborating evidence. Were there a lot fo other countries calling for Biden to be investigated like there were asking for Shokn to be fired? Is there any evidence of corruption beyond Hunter getting paid a lot?
3) Of course, if someone credible finds something worrisome about Biden we keep investigating. That doesn’t let Trump off.
4) In Trump’s case we should also look for supportive evidence. Does he have a history of asking leaders of foreign countries to cut out corruption, and has he named specific individuals in the past? If this was the only time he asked to have someone investigated, and it just happened to be the guy he performs worst against in the polls, then this was not a mistake and he was clearly asking for election help.
https://www.inquisitr.com/5657614/fox-news-carlson-smith-trade-insults-ukraine/
Steve
Trump has complained about foreign corruption.
Who wants to wager he’s asked other countries to look into the Clinton Foundation?