Sunday School 12/15/19

Let's talk about impeachment, shall we? 

Making the rounds today: Chairmen Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Cmte) and Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Cmte) on ABC's This Week; Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) on NBC's Meet the Press; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on CBS' Face the Nation; Senators Rand Paul (R-KY/Canada) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) on CNN's State of the Union. Let's see how much substance I can fit in today.

From This Week:

• Schiff: It was one thing with the president inviting foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn't use the power of his office to make it so. It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from. But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.That told me, this president believes he is above the law and accountable to no one, and that this road was necessary. And I think it very much is.

• Nadler: This is a crime in progress against the constitution and against the American democracy. We cannot take the risk  that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president, which he is clearly trying to do. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It was the heart of what the constitution meant by high crimes and misdemeanors for the president to engage in self-dealing for his own benefit to put himself above the country and to threaten the integrity of our elections, upon which everything else depends. It is a total threat. And we must meet that threat.

• Schiff: I don't think any of us have any question that had Barack Obama engaged in the activity, the conduct which is the subject these articles of impeachment, every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him. And you know something, I have to hope to hell, George, if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him. 

From Meet the Press: 

• Toomey: I think it's appropriate to make sure that the president gets a fair trial here, and I think that's the idea. I think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over. I think we ought to hear what the House impeachment managers have to say, give the president's attorneys an opportunity to make the defense, and then make a decision about whether and to what extent it would go forward from there.

• Coons: The only reason that Speaker Pelosi changed her position and supported moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry was because what Donald Trump is alleged to have done, and all evidence points to him having done it, which is to invite foreign interference in our next election, undermines the very core of our democracy, which is free and fair elections where foreign parties aren't influencing the outcome. If he is ultimately exonerated in the Senate, if the Senate Republican majority refuses to discipline him through impeachment, he will be unbounded. And I am gravely concerned about what else he might do between now and the 2020 election when there are no restrictions on his behavior.

From Face the Nation:

• Graham: Yeah, well, I'd tell the president, if somebody is ready to acquit you, I'd sort of get out of the way. If you start calling the witnesses the president wants and they're are going to start calling Mike Pence, you know, the secretary of State Pompeo, I don't think that's good for the country. I don't think it's good for the Senate. You need 51 votes to get a witness approved. I want to make my decision based on the trial record established in the House as a basis for impeachment. That's just me, one senator. But I think there's a general desire by a lot of senators to not turn this thing into a circus. I understand the president's frustration by being shut out of the house but I need to do what I think is best for the country.

• Durbin: I could just tell you, we-we present the evidence and let the American people follow this trial in the Senate. You know, it isn't a question of political popularity as far as I'm concerned. For the longest time, many of us said which Republican is going to defy the wishes of their political base and come forward and do the right thing for the country? Same thing applies to Democrats. Will we ignore our political base and look at our Constitution? That's what should guide us.

From State of the Union:

• Paul: You know, we have seen the evidence. We're going to hear the evidence repeated, but we're not going to see any new evidence. So I think all of America has seen this. What we have found is, this is a very partisan exercise. There's not going to be any Republicans in the House. In fact, there will be a handful of Democrats who will vote against impeachment in the House. In the Senate, I think all Republicans will vote against the House. And I think two Democrats have a very good chance of voting against impeachment also. So I think what we have seen is, it is just a partisan thing.This is a disagreement. People on the Democrat side don't like President Trump. They don't like his demeanor. And so they have decided to sort of criminalize politics. But I don't think it is a good thing. And I don't think it's a good day for the country. I think it is a sad day, because I hope it doesn't devolve into that every president, like in different parts of Latin America, we either impeach or throw presidents into jail just because we don't like their politics. I think that will really dumb down and destroy the county.

• Brown: I mean, I have very strong feelings about this president. I supported impeachment. He did things that Richard Nixon never did. He solicited a bribe from a foreign leader. But I don't know if it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, to the level of conviction and removal, until I see the evidence, I hear the prosecution, which is the House managers, until I hear the president's defense. Then you make the decision, based on the evidence. And for the leader of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, to say he's coordinating with the White House to make sure he's not convicted and removed is -- I just -- it really is part of this see no evil, hear no evil. It's why I'm so disappointed in my colleagues, this see no evil, hear no evil attitude, that they don't want to look at anything to -- that might disagree with their world view of Republicanism and this president.

• Hurd: The only thing bipartisan about this process is the opposition of impeachment. We're going to have at least two Democrats voting against this.  And my fear is that you weaponize impeachments for political gains in the future, just like now we have budget debates that become weaponized, voting for Supreme Court justices have become weaponized. And, for me, my standard for impeachment has always been a violation of the law. You have 435 folks in the House, 100 senators. That means there's 535 different definitions of impeachment. And I have sat through those hundreds hours of depositions and hearings, and didn't see any evidence presented of bribery and -- or extortion.

I'm going to leave it there, as they say. Coming up in this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, we'll talk about the FBI, and maybe slide a couple of other things in there, too.

See you around campus.