February 4, 2020--Impeachment Post Mortem

As our president once so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit about Ukraine?"

Other countries were on his shit list, but it turned out that Ukraine would wind up in the headlines and at the center of his impeachment, which will be resolved tomorrow when the Senate votes to find him not guilty of having committed high crimes and misdemeanors. 

He will have the boys over for a beer and then jump onboard Air Force One and head south and west on his exoneration tour.

It is likely to be nauseating so I recommend pulling the plug on your TV to block out MSNBC and CNN for at least a month. It will take more than that to recover.

While tuning out I suggest we force ourselves to do an impeachment forensic to ask how we got into this mess, especially how the Dems, sorry, screwed up and helped to bring it about. How we got snookered by Trump into impeaching him so he could take advantage of the foregone conclusion, knowing, as we should have, that the disposition would be that Trump would walk. 

Trump knew that, Mitch McConnell especially knew that, and even we knew that. 

It didn't take a neurosurgeon to add up how many votes the Democrats had (51) and that the Constitution stipulates two-thirds plus one senator (67) need to vote guilty to remove a president.

So what were we up to while seeking to find grounds to impeach and try Trump?

The usual--doing all we could to show how smart we are and how stupid the Republicans are. So by any rational measure we turned out to be clever and lost while the Republicans, not interested in rational measures, proved to be stupid and won. 

Great.

We knew that at most we'd get perhaps two Republicans to break ranks and that Mitch would get all but two from his caucus. (Though I suspect Susan Collins will vote with her colleagues to acquit Trump. Mitch in return will pay her off with a couple of more Zumwalt-class destroyers to be built at the Iron Works in Bath, Maine.)

Here's how Trump did it--

He knew Dems in the House had their eyes wide open, looking for something to grab onto, anything to launch the impeachment process. Trump knew that whatever they came up with for their Articles wouldn't matter. With Mitch fulminating and twisting arms, he'd easily defeat them in the Senate and remain in office. He was gambling that getting impeached, especially for something exotic like hanky-panky in Ukraine, would sound like a witch hunt to his fervent base and assure he would be exonerated and his favorability poll numbers, like Clinton's, would rise.

Nancy Pelosi knew Trump was setting a trap and for months resisted allowing her committee chairmen and women to begin an inquiry.

Her strategy was working until Trump dangled Ukraine in front of them.

Here's how that worked--

Trump learned that there was a whistle-blower report that outlined how Trump and his senior staff were attempting to blackmail the new president of Ukraine, holding up the delivery of already approved military equipment until President Zelensky announced that he was going to begin an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden's allegedly corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

To ensnare the Democrats, who were eager to initiate their own investigation--this one into Trump--he declassified notes of a phone call with Zelensky in which he asked the Ukrainian president to do "us a favor, though" by looking into what the Bidens were up to.

In other words he got the impeachment process going by revealing the smoking gun at the outset. That was brilliant. He turned Watergate on its head by in effect confessing up front. This released him from needing to concentrate on every aspect of the prosecution's case and thus he was free to lash out unfettered.

The Democrats took that bait and Nancy Pelosi had no recourse but to allow the inquiry. 

The Democratic House managers were well prepared and presented an open-and-shut case. The only problem was that more than half the "jurors," all the Republicans in the House, had their minds already made up and his attacks on the process were unrelenting. (For the sake of fairness, virtually all the Democrats also had their minds made up before the inquiry began.)

So it became a reality show. Something about which Trump knows more than a little.

Again, none is this is arcane or difficult to figure out. The difference is that the Dems got lost in the details of the narrative and the evidence that they unearthed and wove into their Articles of Impeachment. The Republicans ignored the evidence and didn't challenge Trump's lawyers' lies. The GOP kept their eyes on the prize--again, winning. Feeling good about our virtue, many progressives assumed our familiar role as losers in these kinds of ugly confrontations.

As disturbing as it is, it is essential to do the forensics because if we are to rescue our country from Trump and his crowd, we need to know how this happened and how we became our own worst enemies. An all too familiar phenomenon.

January 28, 2020--Bolton's Bombshell

For some time, in defense of Trump as he moved toward impeachment, Republican senators who hold his fate in their hands have disparaged the Democrats' case, asserting that all their witnesses were one-off. 

These witnesses did not have direct contact with the president. Thus, what they knew and were testifying about was, in effect, hearsay, which they claimed, is not admissible in trials. Their testimony was based on what they heard second-hand from governmental colleagues and the people to whom they reported.

Putting aside the fact that the impeachment hearing underway in the Senate is not a civil nor criminal trial and has its own rules and procedures, including allowing what otherwise might be considered hearsay, there may be an opportunity that, if allowed by the GOP Senate caucus, would help move proceedings closer to the truth. The truth all senators, in their special impeachment oath, swore to follow.

"Bring us just one witness with direct exposure to Trump," Republican senators promised, "and we will listen to what she or he has to say.

Well, as of Monday night there is indisputably one such potential witness.

John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Adviser.

The New York Times reported that copies of Bolton's book about his time in the Trump White House are being circulated among senior staff who have been asked by Bolton's publisher to review it to see if any of it threatens national security. This is routine for any former staff member writing about his or her time serving in the administration.

Bolton claims there is nothing in the draft for the White House to be concerned about. But, more significant, the Times has obtained a leaked copy of the manuscript and it contains in-depth commentary about Trump's dealings with the Ukrainians. Dealings about which Bolton had extensive and direct access to Trump.  Specifically, Bolton writes that he witnessed Trump for months knowingly withhold congressionally-approved military aid the Ukrainians desperately needed to defend themselves against the invading Russians until President Zelensky agreed to open an investigation to gather "dirt" about his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son.

With Bolton's book in hand, Republicans can no longer assert that there is no one who can serve as a direct witness to Trump's impeachable behavior. To gather Bolton's evidence all they need to do is vote to have it available to the House impeachment managers, Trump's legal team, and the full Senate.

January 24, 2020--Adam Schiff

Overnight friends have been leaving messages about the Trump impeachment.

One said--

"Since we do not as yet have. a strong candidate to run against Trump, how about Adam Schiff? He's smart, experienced, passionate, has a clear sense of history, and even a sense of humor."

"Minimally," I wrote back, "if the Democrats manage to win in November, we have our Attorney General."

January 23, 2020--The Worser the Better.

I'm hearing from people who are so frustrated that they are stepping back from paying attention to the 2020 election. They can't take any more either from or about Trump.

They are trying to do other things with their lives. Things such as listening to music, reading again, talking to their spouses, and watching diverting programs on TV. Rona and I, for example, via Netflix, have been working our way through the 153 episodes of Gilmore Girls--seven years worth!--and immersing ourselves in Miles Davis CDs. 

I can't say that I blame my exhausted friends. They need to get their rest. And a grip.

The current predicament is the struggle to disengage from the day-to-day while still obsessed with the impeachment trial underway in the Senate. Not exactly a sitcom, but still it's an historic event and hard to click away from. And how much Shark Tank can one take?

Those who I'm hearing from haven't yet managed to kick the Trump habit and can't stop themselves from watching the trial. It will take awhile for them (and me) to detox. 

Is there a 12-step program we can join?

Knowing that there is no way for Trump to be removed from office by the Senate--Mitch has the votes to prevent that--we are zeroed in, therefore, on whether or not my Maine senator Susan Collins, to save her political skin, can find three others to vote with her to force McConnell to subpoena witnesses. Actually, not witnesses but John Bolton, who claims he has a story to tell. It must be a really good one because he has a $5.0 million book deal.

I've been saying to friends who see having Bolton testify as the meaning of life that they are failing to keep their eyes on the prize. That prize is making sure Trump is defeated in November. If we agree about that, the best way to help that along would be for the Republican-controlled trial to turn into a fiasco, including screaming, yelling, and ignoring the Chief Justice who is presiding and will plead for civility.

McConnell does not agree to witnesses and will ram a vote to acquit down the throats of his people. And once Bolton's book is published (I suspect right after Labor Day) everything he has to say will enter he public record just weeks before the election. That will be the October Surprise.

All the major news outlets will clamor to interview him. He will appear on the five Sunday talk shows and be on Sixty Minutes for the full hour. Reviews will be published above the fold on the front pages of the Times, Washington Post, and WSJ.

What Bolton will have to say will be a disaster for Trump.

The only down side? Trump will try to get us into a distracting hot war.

But one way or the other, Trump may be cooked.

In sum--the worse things get the better they are.

January 20, 2020--Hunter Biden & John Bolton

The current fight among senators is about whether or not to call witnesses during the Trump impeachment trial.

If he could get away with it (and he may), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would exclude any testimony and this afternoon would get the trial over with after an hour's debate and a voice vote to dismiss the whole thing. In other words, not only no witnesses but no trial. Next.

The Democrats of course want what they are calling an "open and fair" trial with witnesses and testimony.

If there are to be witnesses, the Republicans have indicated they want to cross examine Congressmen Adam Schiff, the Democrats' lead investigator, and Joe and Hunter Biden.

The Democrats have said no way. Adding that they want to gather the testimony of acting White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, and especially John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor who called the Trump machinations in Ukraine a "drug deal." 

Both sides are dug in and there seems to be no way out.

I have a suggestion--

Rather than resisting subpoenaing Hunter Biden the Democrats should agree to calling him as part of a Bolton for Biden deal. Better, with, as he claims, nothing to hide, Biden himself should indicate that not only would he agree to appear but wants to testify--"Give me 24 hours notice and I'll be there."

Not a bad tradeoff. Republicans get to interrogate Biden and the Democrats get Bolton, who has signaled he has a "story to tell." The fact that he has a $5.0 million book deal suggests it's quite a story.

January 2, 2020--Jack: Impeachment

"I can't believe you guys stepped in it."

"Make it quick Jack, I only have a few minutes for you." 

This was not true, I had time on my hands as I usually do during the holiday season, but I was in no mood to get involved with him. I'd rather be staring at the ceiling. 

"I'm talking about impeachment. Especially what your Dems are up to."

"Going after Trump, that's what we're up to. And I say, it's about time."

"So he's got you snookered too. I love that." I could hear him chuckling. 

"I repeat--I only have a few minutes for you."

"I'll bet you never heard of this one." I stifled myself, not responding, and so Jack continued, "She fell right into his trap. Trump's" He paused, trying to engage me. I continued to hold my tongue, "How did this whole impeachment thing get started?"

"Enlighten me." I didn't know where he was going with this.

"By Trump ordering the release of the written transcript of his conversation with the newly-elected president of Ukraine. The so-called extortion or bribery conversation where he told Zelensky he would release the authorized military assistance money to Ukraine if they agreed to dig up dirt about the Bidens."

"Of course I know about that. It was pretty stupid for your boy to try to get away with that."

"At the time a lot of media people and liberals were also gleeful, thinking he gave them the smoking gun up front. With Nixon the smoking gun was at the end of the impeachment process with Trump it was up front. Your people thought he shot himself in the foot and off they raced to get impeachment going. You remember, I'm sure, that Nancy didn't want to go there. She was worried that like with Clinton if Trump got impeached by only the Democrats his favorables would go up. It would help him get reelected. But when he released the transcript Pelosi couldn't continue to duck going for impeachment. She had no choice but to unleash Schiff."

"So far, we agree."

"Good. Now let's look at this from where the situation is going rather than where it is--stalled in the House because Nancy doesn't want to send the articles of impeachment to Mitch in the Senate until she has rules in place to call witnesses and examine subpoenaed documents. Mitch is happy about her slowing the process down because as soon as he gets back from New Years he'll start to claim the Dems are engaged in a coverup. They know Trump is not going to be voted out of office. That the Democrats are engaged in a witch hunt. Blah, blah. You've heard all this before. But best of all Nancy is playing right into his hands. She's been smart up to this point but very soon her political strategy is going to come crashing down."

I said, "About this we disagree. Mitch is going to have to allow a few witnesses since if he doesn't it will look like what it is--that he and his senators are engaged in a coordinated coverup. Can you imagine what Bolton and Rudy have to say as witnesses? They may turn out to be the real smoking guns."

"Some of this could happen," Jack said, "but it won't matter. Whatever the Dems come up with--witnesses, emails, stuff like that--Trump is not getting kicked out of office. He's going to be found not guilty and ten minutes after that vote he'll embark on a 10-city Exoneration Tour, boasting there was no collusion, no bribery, no obstruction. Then he'll get the Clinton bump."

"What a nightmare," I said under me breath.

"If you see things unfolding that way--and I'm sure you do," he chuckled again, "it's obvious Trump is behind the whole thing. He's the only one smart enough to come up with this scenario and sucker the Democrats into moving against him. He wanted to be impeached. He engineered the whole thing. And now he'll expose Nancy's failed strategy and take Biden down at the same time. Sort of like a trick shot in pool. Two for one. And that will leave the Democrats with Bernie as their candidate. A trifecta for our president."

My head was throbbing. Was I ever sorry I answered the phone. I swore that next time . . .

December 18, 2019--Profiles In Courage?

Reading the lead story in yesterday's New York Times, "Key Moderate Democrats Commit to Impeachment," I was struck by the following--

In comments to constituents, interviews and opinion pieces, and statements issued by their offices, the moderate Democrats said they were embracing impeachment fully aware that their decision could cost them their congressional careers.

Call me cynical, but these congress women and men who swept into office as a result of the 2018 midterms and thus have been serving in Congress for less than two years are already thinking about congressional careers?

Call me cynical but Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe" Tuesday was so moved by these legislators putting their reelection chances on the line that he referred to their decisions as "profiles in courage." 

I'm not sure that John F. Kennedy would have agreed. Weren't they just doing their jobs to defend the Constitution?

And I wonder what our Founders would think.

When they structured our representative government and wrote and ratified our Constitution did they think that the men who served in Congress (there were no women until Montana's Jeannette Rankin in 1917) would think about that as a career? 

In fact, Madison and his colleagues worried about this very thing.

Members of Congress were viewed by them as having a citizen's responsibility to participate in governing. If anything, fearful that our government might turn to tyranny the framers envisioned these men serving for a year or two before returning to their lives as yeoman farmers and merchants. Not forming a permanent government of the sort we have had for at least 100 years. 

(I should note, though, that Madison himself served as Secretary of State for eight years before serving for eight more as our fourth president.)

One of the moderate Democrats who announced they would vote to impeach Trump is former C.I.A. analyst, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.

Setting my cynicism aside, what she said was impressive--

I didn’t dream of being a politician my whole life. This was not part of my normal plan. And if this district sees fit to elect someone else, then I will accept that and walk away with my head held high that I’ve made decisions based on principle, and not political calculus.

Madison would have been proud.

December 11, 2019--Presidential Obituaries

It is claimed that if a president is impeached it will be mentioned in the first paragraph of his obituary.

Here's what Wiki has to say about Andrew Johnson, the first to be impeached--

"He came into conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote."

And about Richard Nixon--

"A vigorous campaigner for Republican candidates while serving as the nation's 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961, and as a representative and senator from California, he became the only president to resign from the office due to his involvement in the Watergate scandal."

Then, Bill Clinton--

"In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. The impeachment was based on accusations that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice for the purpose of concealing his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a 22-year-old White House intern. He was acquitted by the Senate and completed his term in office."

This will be true for Donald Trump as his impeachment is all but inevitable.

Even for ahistorical Trump this must be on his mind. How he will be remembered by posterity. And also for senior members of his administration as they too will be remembered this way. Bill Barr, for example, who is his (and I underscore his) Attorney General and all-round lackey.

I have been wondering this week about Barr who is so much in the news. Is this how the erstwhile establish Republican seeks his place in history? Isn't it enough that he is the only American to be named Attorney General by two different presidents--George H.W. Bush and Trump?

Clearly not.

Could it be that he doesn't care because he knows how very few Americans know anything, anything about their country's history?

Clearly he doesn't. It is certain that Trump knows even less.

But still, he, they know something and what will be said about them after they are gone must rankle them.

At least that is my hope.

December 2, 2019--Moderation

I suspect in response to a piece I posted early last week urging Democrats for political purposes to move on from supporting impeachment and focus instead on censuring Trump, I have been chided by some progressive friends who are fed up with moderation in general and me specifically. They feel passionately that we need less moderation of the sort they feel I am promoting and more revolutionary thinking and behavior.

I have revolutionary thoughts of my own, for example, that we need deep structural change in much of our public policy--from education to healthcare to economic inequality--but feel that by pressing many of these issues at this time we would only contribute to Trump's reelection because Trump and his followers would weaponize them by labeling those of us who oppose him socialists and communists. For Trump and his people, we would further fuel this demagogic, potent reelection strategy already underway. 

Our focus, I have been arguing, should be exclusively on denying Trump a second term by all means possible. This is so urgent that it is smart to put the revolution on hold until he is no longer in the White House.

The part of my piece that I suspect was responsible for some of the negative reaction was--

Democrats should condemn Trump's behavior and move on. Take impeachment off the table. Censuring a sitting president is a big deal and would demonstrate to moderate voters that the Democrats are capable of behaving decisively and moderately.

To both disagree and take a poke at me, among other things that came my way, was this from the New York Times. It was posted on Facebook by a young friend. It is an excerpt from Jamie Aroosi's "Are You a Moderate? Think Again"--

As Dr. Martin Luther King understood, the problem he was facing--and that we now face again--is the problem of moral imagination. Moderates might have the “good will” that leads them to acknowledge injustice, but their very moderation is indicative of a “shallow understanding” that is emptied of the pain of those who currently suffer. For these moderates, injustice is a foreign affair, an abstract problem to be solved. Their response then lacks the urgency that a true understanding would bring. Learning how to expand their moral universe--learning how to turn opponents into allies--is just as pressing a problem as ever.

There is much to be said in response to this. Among other things it is absolutist and thus lacks the nuance we need to figure out where we stand and what we need to do to prevail. The Aroosi piece also drives deeper the wedges already separating those of us who should be strategic allies. 

And it doesn't help to compare moderates to the Ku Klux Klan, as Aroosi does in the full piece, when he quoted Reverend King--

"These white moderates were a potentially greater threat than the members of the Ku Klux Klan." 

This kind of talk is enough to dash all hope for rational and temperate dialogue. 

But sadly, this is where too many Democrats are--fighting each other, calling even those who are potential allies names. It is no wonder that this encourages many to seek the comfort of their favorite echo chambers. 

November 25, 2019--Move The Goalposts

It's time for Democrats to move on from impeachment. 

Considering Trump's many crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment is the constitutional right thing to do--impeach Trump in the House of Representatives and initiate a trial in the Senate.

But there's the rub. With Republicans in charge of the Senate there is no chance, I repeat, no chance, zero likelihood, that Trump will be voted out of office.

Rather than witnessing an impartial trial, we will experience an attempt to portray Trump as an innocent victim of the Democrats, persecuted by a Dark State "witch hunt," aided and abetted by the "enemy of the people"-- the press.

Senate Majority Leader, Moscow-Mitch McConnell will be in charge. He will make and promulgate the rules (to be fair, as did Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi in the House) and people such as Lindsey Graham--chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--will be in flagrant political ecstasy.

We won't be hearing more from Fiona Hill or anyone like her. Rather it will be left to Devin Nunes to whine to the Senate how Trump was railroaded in the House. Adam Schiff will be assigned by Mitch a small desk by the men's room.

As good as it felt the past two weeks to see young bureaucrats put their careers and perhaps lives at risk to tell the truth about how Trump led the effort to undermine the stirring of democracy in Ukraine to advance his own political agenda, that's how bad it will feel when Chief Justice Rogers gavels the trial to commence. We will hear nothing but conspiracy theories 24/7 even on MSNBC. It will be as if it had morphed into Fox News.

And at the end of the day, Trump will still be in office, his favorabilities will have risen, and the Democrats will be viewed by an increasing number of voters as politically-motivated obstructionists. Defeating Trump next Election Day will be considerably less likely. Reelecting a majority of the new class of Democratic House members will also be more difficult. 

This is why since 2018 when the Democrats gained control of the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resisted the move to impeach Trump.

But there is a relatively easy way for the Democrats to get out of this pickle and actually gain political standing--move the goal posts from impeachment to censure. 

Get the House to condemn Trump's behavior and move on. Take impeachment off the table. Censuring a sitting president is a big deal and would demonstrate to moderate voters that the Democrats are capable of behaving decisively and moderately.

They can do this as it is possible for one house of Congress on its own to censure colleagues and members of the administration, including the president.

It would also free up the Democratic senators who are seeking the presidential nomination--Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar. As impeachment "jurors" they would be like hostages in the Senate for at least a month during the height of the primary season. Mitch McConnell will relish muzzling them. And Lindsey will launch investigations into everything from the Bidens to Hillary Clinton's server.

Spare us.

November 22, 2019--Adam Schiff

Watching the Democratic debate the other night, continuing to be decidedly unimpressed with the 10 candidates still standing (plus the two hovering in the wings--Michael Bloomberg and Duval Patrick) I wondered if these are the best contenders we can come up with. With at least 330 million Americans, can't we do better? Much better?

I continue to have the fantasy that Michelle Obama will enter the race, convinced she could win in a walk. And wouldn't it be sweet revenge to have an Obama defeat Trump.

About this I've taken a lot of grief from readers and friends who think I'm crazy. Maybe I am. 

But I have another thought--Adam Schiff for president!

He's in his 18th year in Congress and we know from how he has been handling the impeachment process that he is brilliant and blessed with eloquence and practical intelligence. In his almost-too-many years in Congress he has played significant roles in issues ranging from press freedom to the Saudi intervention in Yemen. On the other hand he supported the invasion of Iraq.

And he's a marathoner and triathlete.

Think about it. We could do worse. In fact, it looks as if we are.

November 19, 2019--Jack: It's the Senate, Stupid

"How are things in Sodom on the Hudson?" 

I heard Jack's snickering laugh. We were back in New York City and, unlike in Maine, I was enjoying not running into him.

I put the phone on speaker, set it on the end table, and went to make myself a cup of decaf. I thought I'll just listen to what he has to say and not engage him directly. It's crazy enough in the city and I didn't want to make it worse.

"I'll bet you've got MSNBC on day and night and are enjoying the impeachment reality-TVshow. I can only imagine what Rachel is saying. She must be having a  field day.''Trump did this and then he did that. Impeachment is not good enough for him. Blah, blah, blah.'" 

He ranted on, "The Dems must be drooling over the prospect of impeaching him. I bet half of you are having dreams where he's perp-walked out of the White House and, in leg irons, shipped north to New York where he'll be prosecuted and hauled before a firing squad."

Then he said, "Tell the truth, you and your New York friends are getting your jollies from the so-called hearings. By now you must be in love with Shifty Schiff running things with an iron hand, cutting the mics whenever a Republican raises a point of order or wants to have witnesses of their own. Admit it. It's a done deal, right? Wired? Nancy Pelosi's counting the days before calling for a vote. She wants to get it done before Christmas so her people can run home to their districts and tell their constituents what good boys and girls they've been.

"They must be all puffed up, convinced that the things they're uncovering is the truth about Trump's corruption though most of the testimony is second and third hand. All of it hearsay, which is not admissible. Yes, I know, this is not a conventional trial and trial rules do not apply. But one could say that what they're working on--trying to turn a president out of office--is a bigger deal than almost any trial. So shouldn't Schiff use only the most legitimate tools and processes?

"But your pals are forgetting one thing as they race ahead." I almost broke my vow of silence to ask him what that might be. But it wasn't necessary as Jack said--"It's not about the House which the Dems control, the House can only bring charges. The Senate is the ballgame. They hold the real trial if Trump is in fact impeached. And if this happens the process moves across the capitol, to the Senate, which the Republicans control and where they make all the rules. I should say, Mitch McConnell runs the show. And what do you think he'll do? Nothing that will make you feel good. It will be a full bore, all out assault on the Democrats. They'll be the ones begging for points of order. As good as you're feeling now, that's how bad you'll feel when Mitch is running the show.

"For example, don't be surprised if they subpoena the Bidens. I don't see anything constitutional getting in the way of that. Or, for that matter, Hillary. Expect to hear about her emails."

So, I thought, now Jack is seeing himself as an authority on the Constitution.

"How do you think that'll go down? I know you're thinking--though you're clearly not talking--that it was wrong for Hunter Biden to get so tangled up in the Ukraine, making tons of money, while his father was Vice President. How else would he have been qualified for a job over there that paid him $50,000 a month?

"What I'm trying to say it that it's not always good to get what you hope for. Like the impeachment of Trump. Even Nancy worried out loud about how doing that might help him get reelected. The public would feel that the Dems are wasting everyone's time and spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a goose chase."

"You know, Jack, I agree . . ."

Before I could complete my thought, Jack had already hung up.

November 18, 2019--Big Stuff

"He only cares about the big stuff. He doesn't give a shit about Ukraine."

Last week so said Gordon Sondland, Trump's million-dollar, pay-for-play ambassador to the EU who was having a gay old time galavanting around Europe on the taxpayers' dime until he realized that his casual testimony before the House impeachment committee was likely perjury and if it was proven to be so might land him in the slammer for a decade or more. 

Not exactly his retirement plan. He had been thinking that if he flattered Trump enough and served as his all-purpose butt boy he, rather than Rudy, would wind up Trump's second-term secretary of state.

Forget that. Now for him, with what happened to Roger Stone vividly in mind, it's all about saving his own skin. So expect him to spill the beans as he amends his testimony for a third time later this week. I expect him to throw Trump under the bus before Trump does this unto him. 

So, forget the million he contributed to the Trump inauguration. He'll never miss it. It will be worth it in the stories he'll have available to share with his West Palm Beach drinking buddies.

Also, expect soon to hear from John Bolton and of course private attorney Rudy. Bolton has already begun to open up and it is reliably reported that America's Mayor is under criminal investigation and likely will want to cut a deal. That will require him to turn on Trump.

Speaking of Rudy, I've been thinking about his serving Trump pro bono. For someone totally obsessed with power and money--especially the latter--what's it about that he's not charging for his work for Trump?

The answer leads to Ukraine. It also explains why Trump has been so devoted to destroying the reputation of our former Ukraine ambassador, Marie Vovanovitch, and why he has been so obsessed with undermining the reformist administration of President Volodymyr Zelensky before it can even get launched.

Ambassador Sondland is wrong--Trump does give a shit about Ukraine because it is a place where Trump feels he can off load the evidence that he and the Russians colluded to fix the 2016 election and pin the blame on Ukraine. This would please Putin and allow Trump to remove the sanctions imposed on him while simultaneously assuring that corruption is encouraged in Ukraine because from Paul Manafort's and Rudy's examples he is aware that a corrupt Ukraine is an ideal place to make, steal, and launder big money. 

This suggests that big money is the "big stuff" ambassador Sondland had in mind.

November 14, 2019--Who Gives A Damn About Ukraine

My liberal friends should have been feeling good yesterday evening after the first day of public hearings in the House impeachment investigation. 

But when I called around, though they felt the Dem's did well, exposing Trump in calm but vivid testimony, there was an underlying sense of depression. Finally, one friend blurted out how I sense many were feeling. 

"I don't like myself for saying this, but in the larger context who gives a damn about Ukraine? I know there's a hot war going on there and thousands of Ukrainians have been killed and wounded, but do we impeach much less expel a president who was attempting to shake down a foreign country?" 

He continued, "I don't want to sound uncaring about Ukraine, I feel for them and hate that the Russians are occupying more and more of their territory. If Ukraine winds up losing the war and slips into the Russian orbit, which is quite possible, it means the return of the Soviet Union. That's what's at geopolitical stake. But still, when it comes to impeachment, Ukraine? More than anything else we need to rid ourselves of Trump and I'm not sure yesterday contributed to that."

"What would you have done?" I asked.

"I would have tried to find a way to charge and impeach Trump where the focus is about America. About how what Trump is doing is threatening us directly. Where the issues are easy to understand and how as a result he is making us more unsafe."

"Any specific suggestions?"

"Many but here are two--How Trump was directly involved with Russia as they interfered in our last presidential election so that he is now beholden to them and subject to blackmail. And how, as an abuse of power, Trump moved to withdraw all American troops from Syria which is leading to the resurgence of ISIS, which in turn threatens the lives of Americans at home and overseas. Both of these cases would be easy to make and would hit close to home."

I said, "I think I agree." Whether or not I'll be able to sleep tonight is another matter as there is still Ukraine which is our ally and deserves a lot of help."

November 11, 2019--John Bolting

Many following the impeachment inquiry have advised, "Follow the money and it will lead you to the truth about what happened."

Trump may be the best example. It could turn out that the bottom bottom line for him has been the pursuit of Russian money that he needed to bail out some of his failed real estate deals. Like his bankrupt gambling casinos in Atlantic City. 

No legitimate bank or investor would want to get involved in lending hundreds of millions to someone whose portfolio was so undercapitalized. So Trump, even before he announced his candidacy, assuming he wouldn't be elected, likely turned to Vladimir Putin, who routinely skimmed off a goodly percentage of any proposed deal with Russia. Like a humongous Trump Tower in Moscow.

Putin got his slice and Trump go his Russian money laundered through the likes of Deutsche Bank. And the rest is history. We as a result have a president bought and paid for by our Russian adversaries.

It may be, though, that the admonition to follow the money doesn't pertain to everyone.

John Bolton, for example.

Yes, he just signed a book deal with Simon & Schuster and will purportedly receive a $2.0 million advance which would make one think that this would mean he is contractually forbidden, until the book is published, to talk about his days in the White House where he served as Trump's national security advisor--save the juicy- gossipy stuff for the book; don't give it away for free when, for example, testifying before Congress.

What then to make of the very curious letter his lawyer on Friday sent to the House committee leading the impeachment inquiry. Seemingly out of the blue it ended with this tease--

His lawyer wrote, "Mr. Bolton was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.” [My italics]

This could be an example of one set of Bolton lawyers failing to keep other attorneys in the loop, or something much more interesting.

Until proven otherwise, I'm going with the more interesting scenario.

Yes, Bolton too may be all about the money but as a nuanced operative it is possible he is negotiating with the House investigators for at least one of three reasons--

First, as a genuine, pre-Trump conservative he may want to initiate a constitutional discussion in the federal courts about the extent of presidential power when it comes to invoking executive privilege. This has never been fully vetted and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

Then, Bolton the political animal may want to appear to be "ordered" to testify by the courts so as not to seem too eager to cooperate with the Democrats who are making haste to vote on impeachment. 

Also, and this is my favorite, Bolton, who we know must despise Trump for numerous obvious reasons, may want to see Trump twist slowly in the wind. We can imagine Trump sleeplessly tossing and turning as he tries to come up with what "meetings and conversations" Bolton is wanting to share with Congress and the American people.

I know, with that hanging over me, I wouldn't be sleeping.

This conundrum could be an example of all of the above. But then it may simply be about selling books. Perhaps Bolton wants to testify on TV as a preview of coming attractions.

October 24, 2019--I'm Worried

We make it a habit to watch Nicolle Wallace's show, Deadline, every afternoon on MSNBC. It's usually smart talk with interesting guests who manage to make all sorts of bad and troubling news lively and even enjoyable.

Wednesday in Washington was the day in which Bill Taylor, former ambassador to Ukraine gave his riveting testimony to the House impeachment committee. It amounted to a scathing indictment of the president. It was also the day when Trump claimed that the impeachment investigation was a "lynching."

At the end of the hour, Rona asked me what I thought.

"Not bad," I said.

"Just that?" Rona said, hearing my flat comment.

"I thought it was a little boring."

"Boring! Considering everything that happened today, how important it was to the future of our country, and your takeaway was that it wasn't entertaining enough? This is not an entertainment." 

"What can I tell you. That's what I felt."

"We don't have the luxury of seeing what's going on as entertainment. We're talking life and death. In Syria literally. And then metaphorically here. In America what we're witnessing is about the possible end of American society as we've come to know it."   

"I know you're right, but . . ."

"I'm sorry to be jumping on you this way, on our anniversary yet, but . . ."

"No," I said, "I deserve the chastisement. Now more than ever we have to weigh in, press on the process, and do everything we can to resist. It's serious business. As serious as anything we've been forced to face as a people. I'll do better."

"I hope so," Rona said, "Because I'd be worried if people are getting bored and running out of gas. There's a long way to go."

October 4, 2019--Benghazi Redux

At taxpayer expense, I am sure, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife are galavanting around Italy, visiting diplomatic hot spots such as the Vatican Museum and the Sistine Chapel. And yes having a private audience with the Pontiff. 

He also may or may not meet up with Bill Barr, our Attorney General, who is also in Italy, also with his wife. I think more to chow down than carry out Trump's agenda for him--to get dirt on how the hated Mueller investigation got gong. 

The impeachment inquiry spotlight is moving on to the two cabinet secretaries, and I am certain they are happy to be hidden away for the moment in the Hassler. As far from Trump as possible, who in the meantime is again in Florida playing golf.

Did I miss the memo that it's already Spring Break?

When Pompeo finally gets home I have an idea about how to reward him for his loyalty and service to the country. Something that he can include on his resumé as he prepares in four years to run for the presidency. Of the United States--

Now that he has been caught in a baldfaced lie--after denying that he was in fact listening in on Trump's infamous July 25th phone call with the president of Ukraine he was compelled to admit he was and as a result will certainly be called to testify before Adam Schiff's impeachment committee. 

When he does so, I have just the person who should interrogate him, who deserves to do so--Hillary. Yes, that Hillary.

In 2015 Pompeo was a member of Congress and on the House committee that interrogated Hillary Clinton who had been secretary of state when our diplomats were killed in Benghazi. She was questioned for more than eleven hours, most aggressively, most mean-spiritedly by Congressman Pompeo.

Schiff is apparently planning to have most of the questioning of witnesses done by staff and outside council. Like what the Rodino committee did during the Watergate hearings.

Why look any further than Hillary? She qualifies--she's a lawyer and God knows would have the motivation.

I'd pay to be there.

September 27,2019--Trump's "Though"

The president of Ukraine, Volodymrt Zelensky, had just poured his heart out to our president--Ukraine was in a hot war with Russia and needed the nearly $400 billion in military assistance the U.S. Congress had appropriated to help them defend themselves. 

Trump without a public explanation and without informing the Ukrainians had unilaterally suspended the transfer of those urgently needed weapon systems. 

Zelensky, in their July 25th phone call, told Trump about his country's desperate needs. 

Almost as a non sequitur, as if he hadn't been listening, Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

Something about this gnawed at me. I couldn't for quite some time put a finger on it. It was not just about Ukraine's needs. It wasn't only about one president humbling himself before the more powerful one. Though that rankled. 

It was something about that tacked-on "though."

"Though" used that way is a version of "however."

"Though" from the dictionary--it indicates that "a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously."

In fact, that "though" reveals Trump was not listening. That to him the Ukrainian president was an afterthought.

That "though" revealed that Trump doesn't care about Ukraine. He doesn't care about the frantic Zelensky. That "though" shows Trump doesn't care about Russian threats. That "though" exposed as much as anything we have seen the past three years that Trump cares only about Trump. 

In spite of that, though, his end is approaching.

September 25, 2019--Impeachment

In light of Speaker Pelosi yesterday announcing that the House will begin an impeachment inquiry, this, first posted in June, may be worth a second look--

Speaker Pelosi understandably, from a political perspective, has been reluctant to unleash her Democratic colleagues who are pressing to begin the process required to impeach Donald Trump.

She knows her history and saw Bill Clinton's favorability numbers skyrocket when Republicans in the House of Representatives, which they controlled at the time as the Dems do now, moved to impeach him on two counts--lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Pelosi is worried that she and her fellow Democrats will experience deja vu all over again--in the House Trump will be impeached minimally for abuse of power but will not even come close to receiving the two-thirds vote that is required to remove him from office. As a result, she fears, like Clinton he will emerge more popular, more emboldened than ever, and sprint in 2020 to reelection.

Thus she has held AOC, Jerry Nadler, and others in check, citing these political concerns.

Putting aside for the moment whether political considerations should determine what to do, there may be an historical flaw in Pelosi's reasoning.

She is right about the Clinton example and it should worry anyone who feels that ridding ourselves of Trump in 17 months is even more important than holding him to his constitutional responsibilities.

But that is just one example. 

In our history there is only one other instance when Congress impeached a president--Andrew Johnson who had been Lincoln's vice president and assumed the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated. He subsequently abandoned Lincoln's Reconstruction agenda and as a result alienated virtually all Republicans who promptly passed the 14th and 15th Amendments and resisted Johnson's efforts to fire his inherited secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. He was impeached in 1868 by a wide margin but was not tossed out of office, though Republicans had the required votes in the Senate, because enough of them did not want to put Congress's powers to a constitutional test. He was retained in office by just one vote.

Being impeached did not in any way enhance his political or electoral viability. He is still considered one of our worst presidents.

Many think that Nixon was impeached. He was not. He certainly would have been if he had not resigned, but in fact he was only charged by the House judiciary committee. Their recommendation to impeach was never voted on by the full House. And we know Nixon as a result did not receive an impeachment bump in the polls. His numbers plummeted and for that reason alone he chose to leave office.

And now there might be Trump. 

Let us stipulate that he is not as unpopular as either Johnson or half-impeached Nixon. But, for the sake of seeking historical parallels it is important to point out that he is not as popular as Clinton was even after he was exposed as having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. 

In other words to compare Trump to Clinton (the one example we have of a president whose approval ratings rose while he was being impeached) we have to factor in their relative political power. It is my view that Clinton, by comparison, in spite of all his misdeeds began the impeachment process in much better political shape than Trump. More jobs were created than at any other comparable time in our history, the budget was throwing off surpluses not as now mountains of new debt, and we were not at war. Also, and important, Clinton was an eminently likable rogue.

In addition, the facts about Clinton's malfeasance were well known before impeachment hearings began. After all, his story was full of sex and violence (remember Vince Foster?). Subjects the public turned to for their daily fix. 

With Trump, as the Mueller Report reveals, we have been dealing with relatively complex legal hairsplitting so it is no wonder that the majority of American's to this point couldn't care less. 

In other words, Speaker Pelosi, there may not be that many political consequences to fear if there were impeachment hearings. They would be on television and one might be able to make the case that when the public finally tunes in they may be furious to learn the sordid details of what Trump and his party of grifters have wrought. 

In addition, to move to impeach may be the right thing. Sometimes it's important to do that too.