The House Intelligence Committee is holding hearings on impeaching the President of the United States. It doesn’t get any more serious than that. And, unlike the Nixon impeachment, this is not a cooperative effort among Democrats and Republicans. It’s as ugly as it can get, with Democrats laser focused on eliciting witness testimony, and Republicans consistently questioning the validity of the process.
There are at potentially four articles (or charges) of impeachment being considered.
Article 1 – Bribery
The President attempted to gain help in his personal political campaign by having the government of Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son for corruption. The investigation didn’t need to be legitimate, or substantive. All the President wanted was an announcement that Ukraine was doing it. The Ukrainian government was within days of doing exactly that. They scheduled a CNN interview that was ultimately cancelled when the “whistleblower” report was revealed.
The President used the threat of withholding Congressional funds, mandated for Ukrainian defense, to leverage Ukrainian President Zelenskiy to make the announcement. He also used the “reward” of a White House, Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy. Both of those actions are a “bribe” to Zelenskiy, using official government acts as the “prize”.
Article 2 – Obstruction
The President of the United States obstructed justice. He prohibited information from the Executive Branch, lawfully subpoenaed by the Congress, from being produced. He ordered members of the Executive Branch; including the State Department, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security staff and the White House staff not to testify to Congress. A few have ignored these orders and answered the subpoenas, but most have not.
He then used that obstruction as a “reason” why the charges are unproved. His defenders are claiming that there is little “first hand” information, yet most of those directly involved he has prohibited from testifying.
In addition, the White House acted to hide their actions, covering-up the actual transcripts of identified phone calls by placing them on a high security server not used for that purpose, and releasing misleading and “doctored” versions of the calls. They then claimed that everything done was “proper,” and that Congress, the media, and the American people needed to, “get over it.”
Article 3 – Intimidation
The President of the United States intimidated witnesses. Those named to testify have been publicly criticized and even threatened by the President, particularly through social media. A clear example was his Twitter attack on Maria Yovanovitch WHILE SHE WAS TESTIFYING.
In addition he has declared in public that the “whistleblower,” who lawfully worked within existing statute was in fact a “traitor” and deserves death.
Article 4 – Failure to Fulfill Constitutional Duty
The President of the United States has the Constitutional duty to carry out the laws passed by Congress and signed by him. He failed in that duty, by willfully withholding the defense funds desperately needed by a US ally, Ukraine, for personal gain.
The Whistleblower
Republicans on the Committee, and the President himself, seem desperate to “out” the whistleblower. Some far-right publications have already offered up a candidate, and if he’s the one, then he has significant attachments to previous Democratic Administrations. Republicans would like to parade him in front of the world and America, tying him to Biden, Obama, and the “deep state” of former CIA Director John Brennan.
But as far as impeachment is concerned, it doesn’t matter who the “whistleblower” is. The original report was not a first hand description of much. Instead it was an investigation of what happened in the White House and National Security Council. The report was based on second hand accounts of others, about the phone call, withholding money from Ukraine, covering-up the transcripts.
So what the whistleblower did was provide a map for Congressional investigation. He/she didn’t supply “evidence,” but showed where that evidence was. Because of this, who he or she is doesn’t matter; they have nothing more to add to the investigation. As one Democrat put it, he or she “pulled the fire alarm,” now it is time for others to put out the fire.
But what “outing” the whistleblower will do is continue to send a message that the President and Republicans are already screaming: stand up against this President, and be attacked, threatened, fired and professionally destroyed. It’s what Mr. Trump did to those who investigated the Russia connections: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr,Brennan and the others. And it’s what he’s threatened to do to Ms. Yovanovitch and the “whistleblower.”
Hearsay
A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Republicans and the President have made their argument against the witnesses based on the legal concept of “hearsay.” In fact, Congressman Nunes dismissed the entire testimony of Maria Yovanovitch as, “…more appropriate for the Foreign Relations Committee, Sub-Committee on Personnel,” as if her complaint was merely a job issue.
She has no “first hand” knowledge of the actions of the President. She didn’t talk to him, or get written communication from him. That doesn’t mean she had nothing to add. Yovanovitch, and Ambassador Taylor and Assistant Secretary Kent, were “foundation witnesses,” giving the Committee, and the American people, an understanding of what was going on in Ukraine. They also highlighted the difference between “normal” in Ukrainian relations, and the aberrations committed by the Trump administration.
She also demonstrated President Trump’s disdain for the professionals who work in the government. As she said, “… I served at the pleasure of the President, all he had to do is ask me to leave – I didn’t need to be smeared.” While his actions towards her might not rise to the level of impeachment, they certainly demonstrate his ignorance of what our government does, even in his administration.
Direct Testimony
However, Ambassador Taylor had first hand knowledge that the money was withheld. So did Mr. Kent. They had their own “bosses” explanation of why the money was being withheld, first hand from them (not the President.) And they had first hand knowledge of what the impact of failing to deliver the money would be, how desperate Ukraine was. This lends and understanding to why President Zelenskiy was willing to announce an investigation of the Biden’s, and why he continues to say there was no pressure from Mr. Trump.
The President has every opportunity to have “first hand” testimony. Mr. Bolton, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Pompeo and others could testify, if the President allowed them. But he continues to obstruct the Congress, adding to another Article of Impeachment.
The Lawyers
Dan Goldman is the lead counsel for the Democratic majority on the Intelligence Committee. Along with Chairman Adam Schiff, Goldman has led the first hour of witness questioning. He has the skills of his former employment, a Federal Prosecutor. Goldman carefully lets the witnesses tell their stories, guiding them to the points he wants to make. He is an expert at his craft, and he has a good case with good witnesses.
Stephen Castor is the lead counsel for the Republican minority on the Committee. He has a long history of serving Republicans in Congress, with investigations including Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the IRS. And while he’s been a good lawyer (at least from the Republican point of view) he’s not had the interrogating experience of Goldman. And he doesn’t have as strong a case.
It showed in Friday’s testimony, when Castor kept asking leading and whiny questions of Ms. Yovanovitch. She answered with confidence, and quickly saw the “traps” Castor was laying.
It reminded me of the Kavanaugh hearing, when the Republicans brought in a “guest” prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell from Phoenix, to question Ms. Blasey-Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh. When the questioning was trending against the nominee, the Republicans took a recess. When they returned, the “guest” was done, and Senator Lindsey Graham led the way with a temper tantrum against the Democrats.
Friday, I kept waiting for Lindsey to storm into the hearing room and “save” Castor. He needed it.
