Background context to my thoughts regarding the impeachment
(can skip past asterisks to get to the meat): At my 50th college
reunion, I attended two discussion sessions initiated to discuss social
issues. Attendees were
disproportionately leftist. I
prefer to discuss issues with people who disagree with me, so I can learn more,
teach more, find common ground and hopefully move us toward solutions. So, naturally, I defended my rightist
friends’ positions, to the degree I deemed appropriate, in this setting. One attendee asked me if I was comfortable
being described as a “raging moderate”, a new label for me. I don’t like labels; the world is complex, and
labels over-simplify people’s positions.
Nonetheless, I am comfortable with that label.
Because of such efforts to respect and demonstrate the
rationale of each group’s thinking, some of my rightist friends seem to discount
my comments as coming from an extreme leftist, while some leftist friends discount
me as an extreme rightist. Were either correct, they should still consider my arguments.
In fact, my voting history belies that:
- I voted for the second
President Bush the first time he ran.
However, I decided I made a mistake when I saw how he handled the
“chad” issue in Florida. When he
ran for re-election, I voted for Kerry.
- I voted for and campaigned
for President Obama when he first ran.
However, he abandoned support for the wonderful Simpson-Bowles
budget plan he had solicited (deserting his campaign budget plank) and fomented
class warfare (an observation I made to my wife before I saw any such
comments elsewhere). So, I ceased
supporting President Obama in general (although I supported some of his
actions, of course) and voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.
- In 2016, I told people that, as I lived in a non-contested state (Trump was certain to win Kansas), I had both the luxury and the responsibility to vote for neither candidate. So, I voted for Evan McMullin. I noted that if I was in a contested state, I would reluctantly vote for Hillary Clinton. (When that came up in a conversation with a Democratic friend recently, she shouted that “a vote for anyone other than Hillary was a vote for Trump”. When I repeated that I was in a non-contested state, she was silent. Maybe she understood, but couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge my position.
I believe we all have a responsibility to give serious
thought to the political issues dividing our country, to express ourselves and
to stimulate and listen to other citizens’ thoughts. If you’d like a copy of the Mueller report,
Horowitz report or articles of impeachment, I would be happy to send you copies
with some high-lighting and a few annotations.
We are all very busy and can’t study everything in detail, but I have
read the full executives summaries of those reports, a bit of other Horowitz
text and a lot of Mueller text (some twice).
I also regularly watch CNN, listen to NPR and read the Kansas City Star
and Wall Street Journal. When I refer to "mainstream media" below, I am judging CNN, NPR and the Kansas City Star. I don't comment herein on Fox Media, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, etc., because I don't listen to them.
*******************************************
I would expect anyone paying attention to the impeachment of
President Trump to be distraught by both political parties. Most of our most vocal politicians seem to
have:
- Placed their personal
political careers above the national interest.
- Placed their parties’
political interests above the national interest.
- Misrepresented the facts, in
efforts to incite/mislead/dupe the public.
- Served interests of our nation’s enemies by intentionally dividing our country. Russia wants us to bicker, doubt ourselves and be distracted. Both parties have contributed greatly (and unnecessarily) to Russian goals. (I am not saying that it was their goal to help the Russians. Helping the Russians was simply a result of their pursuit of personal political tactics at the expense of our country.)
My greatest fear regarding impeachment of President Trump
has been that we will descend into a series of ever-flimsier impeachments when
the House is dominated by a party other than the President’s party. As our politicians are quick to leverage
prior precedent for ever-increasing mischief, I perceive this to be a huge
risk.
Our politicians have foisted on us a choice between rewarding
a partisan impeachment or condoning unacceptable behavior. Either option creates a toxic precedent. As is too frequently our political dilemma,
we must find the less destructive of bad choices. (I will disclose my inclination below.) Such choices will continue to be common unless
voters stop rewarding their politicians’ misbehavior.
I am among many who objected to Mitch McConnell’s statement
that his number one goal, after President Obama’s initial election, was to
assure that President Obama would be a one-term president. However, many people who objected to
McConnell’s statement adopted a much more aggressive stance when Trump was
elected, not simply opposing his potential re-election, but seeking grounds to
impeach him.
For 3 years, I have advised friends supporting “the
Resistance” that the exaggerations and deceptions of the Resistance would make
it hard to convince independents and conservatives that a potential impeachment
would be other than a partisan exercise.
However, the vast majority of such friends “blew me off”, applauding the
misdeeds of the Resistance or at least excusing them. Polls indicate that I was right.
The Left properly castigates Republicans for lining up so uniformly
behind Trump during his Presidency. They
properly point out that Republicans would be singing a different tune if
President Obama were the target of these efforts rather than President Trump.
However, the Democrats are also monolithic and inconsistent. Sadly, the mainstream media focuses on the
Republicans, intentionally ignoring the equally strong point that the Democrats
and the media would be singing a different tune if President Obama were the
target of these efforts. Mainstream
media does not report the dramatically contrary comments Democrats make about
impeachment today compared to their comments when President Clinton was
impeached. The mainstream media
routinely brushed off serious lies and misjudgments from President Obama. (President Obama did not lie anywhere nearly
as often as President Trump, but he was a much more skillful liar, appearing to
be telling the truth when he was lying.
It is more important for the media to do its job uncovering lies when those
lies seem truthful.)
The impeachment accusations are stated in a way that makes it
very hard for a Republican to support the charges. While the Left likes to characterize
Republicans as being fearful that President Trump will undermine their
re-election, it is worth noting that none
of the 21 retiring Republicans in the House voted for either impeachment
article. Why weren’t the Democrats able
to secure any of those votes for either article?
The presentation of the charges causes me to wonder if the
Democrats prefer that the Republicans vote 100% against impeachment because
they (the Democrats) want to use that as a campaign issue in the 2020 election.
Consider the (potential) charges against President Trump:
1)
I think the most effective charge against President
Trump is that he obstructed the Mueller probe.
Mueller produced evidence of the President trying to undermine the probe
in several ways: public criticisms, trying to replace Mueller or re-direct his
mission, withholding information, lying, ordering McGahn to lie, and
intimidating witnesses. (You’ll note
that I have not referenced Trump’s firing of Comey or the Trump Tower meeting
with Veselnitskaya. The Mueller report seems
to confirm that Trump fired Comey because Comey assured him 3 times that Trump
was not under investigation but insubordinately failed to honor Trump’s
requests to state so publicly, without having the courage to tell Trump that he
would not do so and explain his (Comey’s) reason. It is also confirms that the Trump Tower meeting
was grossly misrepresented by
the Resistance.)
I don’t understand why obstruction
of the Mueller probe was not included by the House. If such an article were included and I was a Senator,
I would expect to vote for it (pending evidence and hearing the thoughts of my
fellow Senators and the prosecutors plus defense attorneys).
2)
It also seems clear that President Trump illegally risked
our foreign policy toward Ukraine in order to pursue his personal
interests. However, the Democrats have not
been satisfied to level a reasonable charge.
a.
They claim impeachment is necessary to keep President
Trump from interfering in a Presidential election again. I object:
i.
Mueller did not find conspiracy/collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia, despite taking a broad definition of
conspiracy, including “tacit” as well as “express” agreement. When the Mueller report was published, I
thought there might have been conspiracy that simply had not been found (particularly
because of the sharing of polling data*), but no other evidence has since emerged,
reducing the possibility that conspiracy occurred. (*Mueller highlighted that the Trump campaign
inappropriately shared campaign data with the Russians, which was particularly
damning because it occurred on multiple occasions. However, Mueller explained that Manafort
might have shared the data to demonstrate his potential value as a consultant
to foreign clients during a presumed-to-be Trump presidency. Clearly, this would be entirely unacceptable
behavior, but it would not represent collusion/conspiracy.)
ii.
The actual wording in the impeachment article (“These
actions are consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign
interference in United States elections.”) is weaker than their public
pronouncements because it charges “invitations” rather than collusion. However, I object as I am unaware of a basis
for this charge in the House proceedings and it is inconsistent with the
Mueller report. It seems to relate back
to Trump’s public statement asking the Russians to release more of Hillary
Clinton’s emails if they have them. It
is dangerous to attach speculative interpretations to what might be an
off-the-cuff comment. (That is particularly true relative to President Trump
because so much of his commentary consists of spontaneous reactions, which are
often inaccurate and inconsistent from one moment to another. Clearly, his communication style is
destructively non-Presidential, but the Resistance points to all of his
untruths, then illogically decides that the most incriminating of his
statements is unequivocally true.) Why
did the Democrats include such wording? To
enflame their base? As a poison pill for
Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to support this article?
b.
I wouldn’t typically consider a foreign government
investigation of something that was done in that foreign country to be
interference in a US election, particularly if the investigation is completed
before our election.
c.
Arguing for the second article of impeachment, Democrats
claim President Trump is “writing impeachment out of the constitution”. They claim the House cannot impeach the
President because the President is withholding necessary evidence. If that is true, then how can Democrats justify
article 1? Either they were able to get
sufficient evidence, despite the President’s action, or his actions preclude
finding the evidence. A likely response
is that his actions precluded additional articles, but clearly that undermines
a statement that he is “writing impeachment out of the constitution”. Like many Resistance statements, this
exaggeration is intended to miseducate and enflame. (Sadly, Trump plays into their hands.)
d.
Such exaggeration is similar to the media continually
replaying one sentence in roughly 9 hours of testimony, in which the witness
ill-advisedly said “If this [President Trump’s Ukraine activity] isn’t
impeachable, nothing is.” Is anyone who
reads my comments so crazed by our politics as to agree with that statement? Why would a supposedly balanced media
continually select this idiotic statement to replay?
3)
It is not clear to me that the second charge (that
Trump obstructed the impeachment) is proper grounds for impeachment. If I was in the Senate, I’d have to study
this issue a great deal and listen to what other people say. I would have preferred President Trump to encourage
testimony, but that does not mean that failure to comply with the House demands
justifies impeachment.
As noted in c above, Democrats
undermine their case by overstating publicly.
The actual wording in the article
is weaker, stating “President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to
determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry”, still an
unnecessary overstatement. Why not be
satisfied to claim obstruction? Again,
the Democrats seem to have inserted wording for the political purpose of
enflaming their base and possibly with the intent of making it difficult for a
Republican to support.
As you likely inferred from my comments above, I would
expect to vote for at least one article of impeachment if I was in the Senate, pending
my more thorough review of existing evidence, listening to new evidence and, in
particular, listening to discussion. I favor
more testimony, but would entertain arguments that it is unnecessary because,
even if true, the submitted articles do not justify impeachment. (Let me restate that I do not take that
position, but I would respectfully listen to such arguments with an open mind.)
I would probably not object to calling Senator Biden and his
son to testify. I believe Senator Biden
did not misbehave relative to Ukraine, but Hunter used bad judgment at a
minimum. The Democrats say President
Trump should defend himself, that if he is innocent, he should have no qualms
about the evidence coming out. His
defense might include trying to justify his concerns that Biden had been
involved in corruption.
If I was Senator Biden, I would want to testify to clear my
name. The arguments the Democrats make
as to why President Trump should defend himself apply even more so to Senator
Biden because there are no potentially negative executive privilege or security
issues involved in his testimony.
Although I expect that I would vote for impeachment, I would
do so with sadness and anger toward the Resistance which has gone out of its
way to sow discord instead of rationality.
In a related observation, I note that throughout this
effort, the Democrats (with the strong support of mainstream media) have
distracted our citizens from (i.e., covered up) misdeeds which did not fit
their slanted anti-Trump narrative. For
example, contrast the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya (about which the
Kansas City Star wrote “If that’s not collusion, we don’t know what collusion
is”*) to the Steele Dossier.
- In Trump Tower, Don Jr. accepted
a meeting proposed by an Englishman to hear dirt a
Russian said she could provide.
- The Democrats paid an Englishman to collect dirt about Trump from Russians.
- The Trump Tower meeting resulted
in no dirt; clearly the most damning characterization would be
that Don Jr. expressed interest in possibly colluding.
- The unsubstantiated and misleading “Steele Dossier” was planted in the media and was shamefully misrepresented to the FISA court. Although the Horowitz report concluded the FBI was justified in beginning an investigation into possible collusion (I agree), it detailed and excoriated the repeated egregious FISA application misrepresentations, and the FISA judge concurred.
(*not be an exact quote from the
KC Star, but it accurately conveys their statement)
I think we spend too much time investigating each other seeking
to find dirt, but the use of the Steele dossier in such fashion unquestionably required
investigation. Important reforms to the FISA
process have resulted, which reforms would have been thwarted if the Democrats
and mainstream media had succeeded in their efforts to bury the misbehavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment