Impeachment #3

The likely events of the next few weeks are now relatively clear. The House Intelligence Committee will write its report; the House Judiciary Committee will draw up articles of impeachment, the House will vote along party lines to impeach, the Senate will take them up and then acquit Trump, again on party line vote. 

Nothing is going to change that; Meuller's report didn't; the House Intelligence Committee hearings didn't; and nor will any new evidence that shores up a direct line of accountability from the attempt to blackmail a foreign leader to the current occupant of the Oval Office. 

Holding things of value to another country hostage may not be unusual; but doing so not in the national interest but in pursuit of personal gain is. Of course Trump's ego is so bloated that he could argue that his reelection is vital to the national interest; we've not heard that one so far but it may yet come.

As vile an individual as Trump is (his lying, cheating, lack of work ethic, celebration of his own ignorance, narcissism, his never seeing fault in himself but always in others, his lack of loyalty, his demeaning of those he dislikes), and the damage he is doing to America's standing in the world, to the rule of law, and to trust in venerable institutions on which we relied for a well ordered society, the question can legitimately be asked "does his breach of the norms of presidential etiquette and behavior warrant impeachment"?

Reluctantly, I have to say that it's not clear to me that it does.

However, were there to be a solid case for obstruction of justice, something that seems plausible given his instructions to his staff to defy congressional subpoenas and his refusal to comply with legitimate Congressional requests for information, then yes, a case for his removal from office becomes firmer.

As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her recent judgement "Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings". The balance of power between the three co-equal branches of government is in danger of being upset by an overly combative and obstreperous self-aggrandizing chief executive.

Such a precedent cannot be allowed to be established without a challenge from Congress. The executive branch cannot be granted blanket immunity from Congressional oversight. That is not what the founders wanted, and is decidedly not good for the country.  A Congressional motion of censure would be symbolic but ineffective.  Impeachment and removal from office therefore does seem the most appropriate remedy.

Google's mantra

(c) Time Magazine; https://time.com/4023367/google-china/

Google's slogan / mantra / motto / values statement, "Do no evil", sounds great. And not withstanding Eric Schmidt's somewhat jaded observation that "Evil is whatever Sergey says is evil", it seems like a good place to start.

But there's another way of thinking about it; specifically in terms of freedom of action. A seemingly converse statement "Do good" is in fact far more constraining. There are lots of courses of action that might be neither good nor evil, which are precluded under the latter dictum but available to Google. "Don't break the law" is very different from "be kind to everyone".

While Facebook seems to neither care about the morality of its decisions, nor about the morality of obfuscating and dissembling to Congress and the public, Google was, for many, a beacon of hope that at least one of the the tech giants might be the bridgehead to a more socially responsible flavor of capitalism. I'd say the jury is decidedly still out on that question.

Impeachment #2

The numbers haven't moved. After two weeks of public testimony, the number of Republicans and Democrats wanting impeachment and removal was almost exactly where it was before they began.  Disappointing as that is for the Dems, it is not entirely surprising. The most obvious go-to explanations are" party affiliation; tribalism; and news source echo chambers.

But that's inconsistent with the fact that the polling numbers did move when the scandal first broke. If these hypotheses were true, the numbers would not have moved at all even then. This suggests another explanation; that like rumors that move stock prices before any official announcement, people had already 'baked in' the information before the public hearings. Those who, on reading the transcript of the Zelensky call, viewed Trump's alleged behavior as wrong were already persuaded and the hearings merely corroborated what they already strongly suspect to be true.

That in turn suggests that Trump's consistently dishonest and inappropriate behavior had already prepared the ground and rendered the Zelensky phone call far less shocking than it would have been had it been made by any of Trump's predecessors. That's a sad reflection on how far he has undermined trust in the presidency. 

No inquiry wanted here

The ongoing impeachment investigation into Trump's attempts to extort political dirt from Ukraine  centers around an exchange of things of value between two political heads of state for the personal benefit of at least one of them (a meeting with Trump might be considered as a Ukrainian domestic "thing of value").

Trump was conditioning a meeting that Zelensky wanted on his making a public announcement that he was reopening an investigation into Hunter Biden. Military aid that Ukraine wanted was also in the mix as part of the deal.

While there can be no doubt whatsoever that this was the bargain, or quid pro quo or whatever you choose to call it--it's still the same, its not clear that Trump actually wanted the investigation; rather he wanted the appearance of one, hence the ask for the announcement. Were there to be an actual investigation it is quite likely that no wrong doing would be found, undercutting Trump's case; better therefore to have an announcement that the GOP could speculate on endlessly with having to deal with an awkward fact-based counter-narrative. Trump thieves in a world of speculation, smears and innuendo. Facts constrain him, which is, in part, why he hates journalists.  

"The most transparent president in history".

According to the New York Times, Trump yesterday claimed to be "the most transparent president in history".  While it could certainly by argued that he lies and dissembles with greater consistency than any president in history, what about transparency? 

Well, a case might be made that he is right. He blurts out his rambling stream-of-consciousness thoughts with absolutely no filter or forethought. He confesses in public to wrong-doing (though never sees it as such). He is transparently self-serving, narcissistic, dishonest and corrupt. 

If that's what he means by being transparent, then kudos for self-awareness!

Impeachment #1

The question isn't "did he try to extort the leader of a foreign country to provide information for use in his election campaign, making a meeting with him, and Congressionally approved military aid, contingent on doing so". That's now abundantly clear: it is "Yes, he did". The facts are not in dispute.

The only question is does doing so rise to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" sufficient to remove him from office. And it appears the answer to that question is also clear. If you are a sitting Democratic Senator it's "Yes" and if you're a sitting Republican senator, it's "No". That's not going to change. Nothing short of shooting someone in 5th Avenue will cause the Republicans in the Senate to think otherwise.

For the record, the whistle-blower's testimony is completely immaterial. Everything he set out in his complaint has been corroborated by witnesses closer to the alleged transgression than he (or she) was, so her testimony is not only moot and a distraction but of lesser value that that of those who have already testified in the Congressional closed door hearings. And outing him would send a message that the executive branch cannot be held to account even when it goes completely rogue.

We are about to enter the public relations phase of the process and the Republicans have shown themselves vastly more adept at managing the messaging. The Dems complexly blew the Meuller report which should have been a clear case of obstruction of justice, the charges that caused Richard Nixon to resign. And they are in danged to blowing the Ukraine scandal too. Jim Jordan, the new GOP's point man on the House intelligence committee is a master at distraction, obfuscation and "whataboutism", and he will run rings around the calm and deliberate, but ultimately boring and non-telegenic Adam Schiff.

When the House moves articles of impeachment against the President relating to the Ukraine scandal, as it looks set to do, and the Senate then acquits the him, what matters is how the hearings and the messaging influence independent voters in swing states.  If the Dems screw this up, which they look likely to do, Trump will be back in the White House for another term.

Whiskey and soda

This evening I was looking for something to drink and neat scotch at 5:30 seemed a little premature. As I was reaching in the fridge for the water, I happened upon a bottle of San Pellegrino. Diluting a single shot of a reasonably good single malt with five times the volume of sparking water seemed mildly sacrilegious, but on dropping in a couple of ice cubes and taking a sip I was transported back to my childhood; that was my mother's drink of choice when we had guests, and I could see her sitting in her favorite chair in the living room and even, albeit faintly, remember the smell of her cigarette smoke. 

Vat 69, soda and ice; that was Steyning in the 1960s.  Later there was a spell where Dimple had pride of place in the corner shelf that held the drinks. In Storrington the shelves gave way to a more modest display on the trolley in the dining room where Grants was the preferred brand. How times change.