On Friday (the 13th), the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to move forward on two counts of impeachment against President Trump. Now the full House will have a vote, probably some time next week. I think we can assume that the vote will go along party lines, meaning Trump will be impeached in the House and then it will move to the Senate, which I think we can also assume will move along party lines and Trump will not be removed.
The Committee held a number of public hearings leading up to this resolution, mostly with various Ambassadors, in proceedings that I thought were quite sober and tasteful, but didn't illuminate much beyond the original July phone transcription that was released in September. There was the one guy that thinks he may have overheard something in someone else's phone call and another lady that indignantly raged against conspiracy theories and the two guys that had conflicting memories of their various conversations. But none of that told us anything new about the nature of any arrangement between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky (*).
The revelation of a working team centered around Rudy Giuliani (and likely included Sec State Pompeo and VP Pence) wasn't new, although the depth of their participation was eye-opening. That said, it is not uncommon for presidents to have their own Special Envoys or even teams that work directly from the White House on specific topics or actions with other nations. Was Giuliani doing anything criminal? I haven't seen any evidence of that (yet). And while it was clear this ruffled the feathers of the Ambassadors, I don't know that there was anything truly out of the ordinary going on (perhaps there was, perhaps not, no one has bothered to make the case either way). Indeed, the fact that these ambassadors had little to offer shows the very nature of Ambassadorships: they're not particularly involved with foreign policy formation, so why would they know anything?
The most celebrated testimony came from Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. As PBS Newhour reported on November 20: "“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said." The committee wanted to hear the phrase 'quid pro quo' and they got it but this is not in relation to the military aid but to a White House meeting. But in the course of the case being built this is a bait-and-switch. A White House meeting is always a quid pro quo--indeed, the whole point of a meeting with POTUS is so that he can thank the person for doing what POTUS wanted done! There has never been a White House meeting in all of American history that took place merely because the POTUS had time to kill. Meetings with the POTUS are highly scripted affairs where everyone involved knows precisely what is expected of them, they are planned with full knowledge ahead of time that everyone has/will play their part. And these meetings are often purely political with little benefit to the American people or nation as a whole. To wit: where does it say in the Constitution that the POTUS shall invite the winner of the Super Bowl for a photo-op? What is the 'benefit' to the Republic of such a meeting? It happens every year for purely anodyne reasons and no one complains. And is pardoning a turkey at Thanksgiving every year done for the benefit of the Republic or is it just a bland opportunity for the sitting POTUS to enhance his own public relations? And, good God, what is politicized in Washington more than the State of the Union Address (**), where the POTUS gets to pat himself on the back and call attention to his political allies strategically placed throughout the chamber?
If American support of Ukraine is so important, wouldn't Congress want the POTUS to meet with President Zelensky in a very public fashion that acknowledges we stand with Ukraine against Russia? Why would Congress be punishing the President for a meeting when (a) it's the President's right to meet with whomever he chooses for whatever reason and (b) Congress presumably wants this meeting to take place? So while Sondland's quote won the daily soundbite war, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for holding up aid, the various ambassadors had their various opinions on aid to Ukraine but none exhibited any particular knowledge of what was at work or why. Again: why would they know anything?
And as for the aid itself being 'held up' check out this CNN story from November 26 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/ukraine-aid-trump-call-omb/index.html). The first paragraph says: "The White House budget office's first official action to withhold $250 million in Pentagon aid to Ukraine came on the evening of July 25, the same day President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke on the phone, according to a House Budget Committee summary of the office's documents." Then the third paragraph says: "A hold was placed on the Ukraine aid at the beginning of July, and the agencies were notified at a July 18 meeting that it had been frozen at the direction of the President, a week before the Trump-Zelensky call." Wait...what?
So was it held up on July 25? Or July 18? Or the 'beginning of July'? Was it before the phone call or after? Why is this so hard to figure out? And why hasn't this timeline been explicitly laid out if the aid being held up is so central to this proceeding?
And what of Zelensky himself? Did he feel pressure to actually do any of the things Trump wanted from him? On September 25 Time Magazine (***) published (https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/) that Zelensky "Denied Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son" based on a joint press conference Zelensky and Trump held that day where Zelensky said: "Nobody pushed me." But on November 18 Time published (https://time.com/5731647/ukraine-trump-biden-investigation-anxiety/) that "US Officials Knew Ukraine Felt 'Pressure' from Trump Administration to Investigate Biden" based on a May 7 closed-door meeting that included then-current US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovich. But even the weird CNN article above doesn't suggest that the Ukraine aid was held up in May, so...how does this time line work? And if the 'pressured' person says he wasn't pressured, then...how does...any of this...wait, what?
Was the aid actually held up? We've long since accepted that this as a basic fact but the 'prosecution' (re: the House Judiciary Committee) has not explicitly put the details forward and the defense (re: POTUS) has yet to participate in the proceedings, so are we sure this even happened? And if the person who has been pressured has said publicly he was not pressured, then has anything actually happened? How is it possible for a President to hold up aid? And what particular mechanisms did Trump employ and what was his stated rationale at the time and to whom? This should be quite easy to figure out, I don't understand why we don't know this yet.
What it looks like to me is that Trump tried to extort a gratuity for himself based on an already approved deal. The bi-partisan support for Ukraine suggests that this particular aid package was ironclad and Trump saw an opportunity for himself to get a little something extra out of Zelensky. Has the case been proved? The circumstantial evidence doesn't look good but I'd say there's enough legal room to reach an acquittal, which all serves to remind us that this is not a courtroom trial but a purely procedural vote that is more often than not just a party line expression. At the end of the day, Trump did not get the investigation he sought and Ukraine got the aid they were earmarked, so did anything actually happen? Is the attempt to possibly commit a crime really worth this much time and energy?
Assuming Trump is guilty of this attempted extortion, is this worthy of an impeachment in the House? Again, it doesn't matter whether it is 'worthy', all that matters is the vote itself. Thus, impeachment is, or can be, a relatively meaningless piece of agitprop. Is this worthy of removal of the POTUS? No. Now if the House showed that Trump had done this before or that this kind of grease was a pattern of behavior, then you'd have something. If Trump was systematically abusing power with, say, Lebanon, Taiwan, Poland, etc., then that would be worthy of shipping him out. But I don't see that case being made.
Indeed, the most galling thing about this procedure is the suggestion that this is the worst thing Trump has done in office. Seriously? Trump has completely warped USA's trade relations, most specifically with China, based on some minuscule, vague wording about national defense and the House thinks needling the President of Ukraine for something that means very little to Ukraine (or I would suggest to the American electorate) is worthy of impeachment? This is an abrogation of responsibility dressed up as an attempt do the right thing. *smh*
Trump's approval ratings are a stunning anomaly: no amount of Trump success makes them go up and no amount of Trump failures make them go down. Truly amazing and probably indicative of what future Presidents must have. Has the impeachment damaged Trump? I'd say not at all. People who don't like Trump are eager to rush for any excuse to get him out of office but this impeachment proceeding only makes him stronger, I think.
So here's the new conspiracy theory: the House likes Trump's bizarre trading rationale vis-a-vis China and they know no one else is dumb enough to maintain such a potentially suicidal policy. President Hillary would've talked tough but wouldn't really have done much (especially since she, too, was backing away from TPP during the 2016 campaign), likewise with President Warren, President Biden would soft pedal China, President Bernie absolutely wouldn't treat China this way. Congress likes Trump's belligerent, haphazard treatment of China and they want him to keep doing it--they likely even see it as the most important thing on our current agenda. So they're rousting up Trump's base heading into the 2020 election. Honestly, I can't see any other rationale. Pelosi gets to say, 'Trump was evil and we tried to get him out'? Uhh, not really, as this does very little to make that happen. Or does this presage another impeachment in the future? Is a POTUS that has been impeached but not removed multiple times look like a big win for the Democrats? It doesn't to me but I'm not a Democrat.
I just don't get this. The case is not a slam dunk, the victim has claimed no victimhood, the Republic is not advanced by this impeachment any more than it was advanced by an investigation into Hunter Biden, the House has spent all of its political capital on a whimper rather than actually ginning up some interesting or useful legislation and the Democrats are really just beating the same dead horse they were going to be beating even this impeachment never happened. I think the whole point of this was to create enough ongoing controversy around Trump that Republicans in the House and the Senate up for reelection would have to deal with in a thorny uncomfortable way, potentially influencing those elections or at least interrupting the ability for the Republicans in general to raise funds. But I don't see that taking place. The only silver lining for Democrats: with Trump in office, donations to Dems are probably gonna be way up. What else gets achieved here? I...don't...see anything.
If this is the worst thing Trump has done in the last three years then he is officially the cleanest POTUS we've ever had. All this sturm und drang to convince us that Trump is a self-aggrandizing sleazy guy...dude, I already knew that. This has done nothing at all for anyone except Trump's chances for re-election. (****)
(*) Honestly the part I find most vexing is that Trump didn't seem to care about an investigation, he merely wanted an announcement of an investigation. I don't really know what to make of that. If the investigation will yield damning evidence about Hunter Biden, don't the American people to deserve to know? Likewise, if an investigation completely exonerates Hunter Biden, don't the American people deserve to know that? Seems like an investigation of Hunter Biden would only be damaging to the candidacy of Joe Biden if--and only if--it reveals disturbing revelations about Hunter Biden (and even then: do people really give a shit about what Hunter Biden does in Ukraine?). It seems to me there really can't be any effect on the 2020 USA election until AFTER the investigation is completed and revealed. And even then, it would only potentially effect how people vote, which is not an effect on the election itself. So what good/bad/otherwise is accrued from an announcement of an investigation if no subsequent investigation is performed? WTF, dude? I don't understand how any of this effects anything in any way and the fact that Trump only wanted the appearance of an investigation makes even less sense.
(**) The Constitution says an annual State of the Union shall be given to the Congress by the President. But it doesn't say it has to be televised in prime time for the sake of the POTUS tooting his own horn or making a display of his political cronies. This is an annual disgrace the Republic would be better off getting rid of.
(***) I've generally been trying to link to Left-wing media sites but, honestly I had no idea Time Magazine still existed, so not sure whether they'd be right or left at this point. When I was kid Time and Newsweek were the only political magazines around, they always seemed rather bland in that softly Left way that for-real 'journalism' used to pride itself on. Now I dunno what Time is like or who reads it. Although, if the November 18 article went back to a May 7 meeting, why didn't Time know about that on September 25?
(****) As a voting American I assure you I couldn't care less what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine. If the Ukrainians were so offended by his conduct that they had to indict him or deport him or whatever, that is entirely their business. But even then, Hunter Biden's activities would have no effect whatsoever on my vote. Also, for what it's worth, now seems like the most perfectly awkward moment to admit that Joe Biden is one of the very very very few politicians of my life time that I actually like. And watching Democrats shy away from not merely their best candidate in general but the only one that I think can actually beat Trump...and, well, the Pelosi-wants-Trump-to-win conspiracy theory begins to look plainly obvious.
