Quoting a transcript of Rep. Adam Schiff’s interrogation of Acting DNI Joseph Maquire highlights the editors of the Wall Street Journal’s concern about the “impeachment inquiry” proceedings:
Last week’s inquisition of acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff captures the prevailing disdain for the separation of powers when Mr. Trump is the political target. Mr. Maguire, who has an impeccable reputation, had received the whistleblower complaint as part of his duties. He then acted responsibly by seeking legal advice about whether the document was subject to executive privilege.
Mr. Schiff berated him for even waiting to turn the document over to Congress: “At any time over the last month that you held this complaint, did the White House assert executive privilege?â€
Mr. Maguire: “Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored—â€
Mr. Schiff: “I think that’s a yes or no question. Did they ever assert executive privilege?â€
Amid more browbeating, Mr. Maguire explained that the White House went through a “deliberate process†and “it did appear that [the complaint] has executive privilege. . . . It is the White House that determines that. I cannot determine that as the director of national intelligence.â€
Mr. Schiff: “But in this case the White House, the President is the subject of the complaint. He’s the subject of the wrongdoing.†. . .
Mr. Maguire: “I was endeavoring to get the information to you, Mr. Chairman, but I could not forward it as a member of the executive branch without executive privileges being addressed.†. . .
Mr. Schiff: “Well, corruption is not the business, or it shouldn’t be, of the White House or anyone in it.â€
Mr. Maguire: “No, but what the White House decides to do with their privileged communications and information, I believe is the business of the White House.â€
Mr. Schiff: “Do you believe that’s true even if that communication involves crime or fraud?â€
According to the Justice Department’s analysis of the whistleblower’s complaint, there was no “crime or fraud.†But Mr. Schiff treats the whistleblower’s complaint as enough to override any claim of a President’s right to have confidential communications with foreign leaders.
The implication is that any time anyone in the bureaucracy issues a complaint against a President, Congress has the power to demand it be delivered and made public. That is already happening with the stories about Mr. Morrison. This means that no foreign leader can have the expectation that anything he tells Mr. Trump, or the next President, will be confidential.
Let’s put it another way. Is the expectation that every telephone call with a foreign head of state is to have operatives of the opposition party listening in?
I’ve long had concerns about how we go about conducting private diplomacy in an open society but this sounds more like an argument for a return to the spoils system to me.
The opposition party issue seems to have been obviated. The leaks go to the press anyway……….which these days means operatives of the opposition party.
The strident Democrat party will go to any lengths to destroy Trump. To them any means is ok as long as the ends puts them back into power. it’s a terrible way to govern, coupled with the damaging precedents being set by the current House leadership. What a legacy!
“Let’s put it another way. Is the expectation that every telephone call with a foreign head of state is to have operatives of the opposition party listening in?”
Considering the number of leaks of this and similar kind going back decades, I think that ship has sailed. That “operatives” (a coterie of courtiers) inside government leak information (to include officially sanctioned leaks) to further their own agendas has been the norm for my adult life. The main difference with Trump is he has made so many enemies that there are a lot more leakers.
And for partisans, who don’t care one whit about legitimacy or process, the ends justify the means. Devoid of actual principles, the whole charade is a self-licking ice cream cone.
For career bureaucrats the objectives are somewhat different. In every bureaucracy, the main objectives are the survival and growth of the bureaucracy. Our problem today is that the survival of the bureaucracy is increasingly at odds with the national interest. That is what we have learned over the last 20 years.
The whole thing reminds me more and more of the Rodney King beating. Every effort at self defense portrayed as resisting, (obstructing).
The polls are what matters, of course, but I get a sense people aren’t that tuned in. How many have any idea who Adam Pencilneck Schiff is?
The view counter on Trump’s tweets or Schiff’s SNL performance are in the thousands, not the millions.
I think most people glance at the news, and think, WTF?, here we go again.
It’s about optics, voters will see the most frantic as the liars and losers, that’s Schiff. And Trump is good at this game.
“The strident Democrat party will go to any lengths to destroy Trump.”
Even impeach for lying about sex? 8 investigations of the same event? How quickly we forget history. By historical standards set by the GOP, the Democrats have been restrained.
“This means that no foreign leader can have the expectation that anything he tells Mr. Trump, or the next President, will be confidential.”
As Andy noted above, the Trump White House has leaked like a sieve all along. That is the responsibility of the executive running the White House, ie Trump. He needs to lead and manage instead of whine and accuse. So to date, everything going out in public was his responsibility. Only when he tried to use his power illegally did it trigger a whistleblower response. So if Trump doesn’t do anything illegal those conversations will remain confidential, assuming Trump can control the place where he is in charge.
Steve
“Even impeach for lying about sex”
I always thought that was wrong because it was against the National interest. In 1998 Clinton was failing in his attempts to kill O. Bin Laden, linked to the 1993 Trade Center bombing, among others. Why distract the commander in chief, or put another way, why would the public not condemn those who handicap the President with trivial legal issues for partisan gain.
I have said for a while that I do not understand how Trump thinks. HIs management style is certainly different from mine.
“He needs to lead and manage instead of whine and accuse.”
Heh. Sure, but he’s not a manager, you silly geese. He’s a deal guy with policy views. During my lifetime (Kennedy forward) we’ve had five presidents who could reasonably claim to be managers: Carter, Reagan, Clinton and the two Bushes. All governors or career government bureaucrats (GHWB). Only two, Reagan and Clinton, were really impactful, because they put skilled people around themselves. Carter was incompetent. The others also rans.
Trump is his own worst enemy because of ego. But at least he has the balls to attack important issues of the day: immigration, trade, adventuresome foreign policy, regulatory environment. And far underrated, he’s putting in conservative judges. And he is hated for that, because the former strikes at the establishment and the latter at non-legislative lawmaking.
He’s still better than the execrable shrew, or the group of clowns who have a chance of being the current Dem nominee.
PS
Clinton committed and suborned perjury, in the purist legal sense. The issue there was that the remedy was not commensurate with the crime.
Guarneri, the presidency happens to you. Although every occupant of the Oval Office tries to remold the job to fit their own preferences and style, the job has a way of molding the individual. Clinton wanted to be Governor-at-Large; Obama wanted to be Senator-At-Large.
An advantage to having been a party apparatchik (H. W.) or a big state governor (Reagan, W) is that you come in with a pre-built cadre of skilled and experienced government officials who are likely to be loyal to you. Trump didn’t have that and it shows. He wanted to be president. That’s the job.
The deal that Trump extracted from the UPU was a good one, good for the U. S., which has received very little coverage. His updated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico isn’t bad, either. It’s still early days for negotiations with North Korea, China, and Iran but in today’s environment anything that isn’t wrapped up in 24 hours is seen as taking too long. Again, that’s the job.
Dave
I would take your first paragraph and go further. The extant and subsequent unfolding events of the day mold and test the individual. That’s true in all but the most mundane businesses as well.
I think your second paragraph is crucial to understanding Trump’s tenure. He had no “crew.” He therefore retained enemies, consciously or not. His ego tells him he can run a thin organization and bark orders to get results, which is probably how he managed his business. I’ve seen this movie before.
That said, his ability to put his finger on key issues and willingness to tackle them are not inconsistent with those observations. However, his effectiveness would be improved if he could be the policy setting CEO while listening to some wise and experienced hands on execution. He may have been chastened on that point by his experiences after election with smiling cobras.
When the end justifies the means, expect people to get very very mean.
Clinton was impeached for …”The specific charges against the president were lying under oath and obstruction of justice.”
But remember, he lied about sex. That is the standard for impeachment set by the GOP.
“Trump is his own worst enemy because of ego.” And when he is incompetent because of that, you then blame everyone else except Trump. All those leaks at the White House are someone else’s responsibility, or due to those horrible Democrats or the media. It’s part of his job. He needs to clean it up and not just do the stuff he likes.
“immigration, trade, adventuresome foreign policy, regulatory environment”
He is accomplishing nothing on immigration since he is fixated on only one solution (2 if you count moats). We are still in Syria and Afghanistan, there dont seem to be any results from his regulatory changes (some of which are awful). On trade he has minimal accomplishments. If TPP had passed we would be at about the same place.
The one place where that might be hope is China, but he is so chaotic I doubt he achieves much. Only a Republican could do what he has done with China. Any Democrat who did anything to affect the status quo would have been called a Marxist. Can you imagine the GOP response if a Democrat imposed tariffs?
Conservative judges? That credit goes to McConnell who refused to confirm Obama nominees.
Steve
I’m sorry he flusters you, steve. OTB would be a good place for you to exorcise your demons.
Clinton was charged with lying under oath & witness tampering obstruction. Initially Starr thought Clinton had committed 11 impeachable offenses. Four charges were brought against him. Two eventually were passed.
I really don’t see a fair comparison between Trump & Clinton in the seriousness of charges. However, the big difference involves how the current impeachment is being launched, the absence of due process and any sense of bipartisanship being sought by the dems. Essentially, this is a one-party political “adventure.â€
You Trumpkins are so faithful to Dear Leader. Simply pointing out that someone else did once what the cult leader does all the time cannot be tolerated. That would be treason. (I would bet that some of you guys actually believe that Trump need lies.)
Steve
Looks like Biden might have done nothing illegal, as any quid pro quo was diverted through Hunter Biden’s and Christopher Heinz’s Rosemont Seneca partners and Bohai Harvest joint-investment fund. Whether the CCP would have invested a reported $1.5 billion even without the Obama administration’s green light of their expansion in the South China Sea is unknown.
Vote for him if you like.
@steve
You believe every conspiracy theory about President Trump, and when they have been thoroughly debunked, you still cling to them. Then, you accuse everybody else of refusing to accept the reality your side has created.
It is pathetic but amusing.
“You believe every conspiracy theory about President Trump”
Nope. I have specifically said Trump did not commit treason, that he did not collude with Russia. I said that he ordered obstruction of justice (well documented) but his staff mostly didnt carry it out. I said that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden to help his election, as is well documented. (Now he is asking to China to investigate Biden, which I am sure you guys are OK with.)
You guys, OTOH, believe that Trump is pure as the driven snow. You protect him at all costs so that he won’t get investigated, but you were all gung ho for 8 Benghazi investigations. Anyone who has lived in the Northeast and paid attention knew he was a crook and a con man. He is still the same.
Steve
Those are easy. How about some tougher ones? Did Hillary Clinton commit sedition when she said the Trump was an illegitimate president? How about Adam Schiff’s fantasy Ukraine phone call?
My opinion is that Trump is very much into conspiracy theories but there’s so much of it going around it amounts to a mania.
@Steve:
I for one, am seriously concerned about Trump. Not about election fraud or Ukraine,(unmanageable place), He’s right on China, maybe not tough enough. I’m concerned that he has so isolated himself from the intelligence community that something important might slip by the radar. He’s a long way from perfect, but look at the alternatives offered up. Biden is so corrupt he doesn’t even recognize it when he looks in the mirror. Clinton? Please. Warren? Gridlock. Bernie? Angry gridlock.
There’s something else. Schiff thinks he’s nailed Trump this time, he’s blinded by pure hate. Trump’s already getting his message out, It’s not about the election, it’s about corruption. When Americans see the dollar signs connecting Hunter Biden to both countries, they understand graft, even if technically legal. This is not Trump adulation, right now, he’s all we have aside from the swamp status quo.
GS. very well reasoned comments.