Sunday School 12/8/19

Let's spend some time on impeachment today, talking with folks from both sides of the circus. I'll have a Sunday School Extra Credit with Cory Booker coming up a little later, since I promised to cover the 2020 Democratic candidates and their classroom appearances. 

We'll get things started with a conversation between George Stephanopoulos and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) on ABC's This Week. Lofgren, George told us, has played a role in every modern impeachment, which means she's been in office for more than 35 years. 

Lofgren was asked to "make the concise version" of the case that allegations against Trump are more serious than those against either Nixon or Clinton. She explained that Nixon abused his power by trying to influence the election and by covering it up. Trump, she said,

not only has he abused his power to improperly put his thumb on the -- on the scale for the election, he used a foreign power to do it. And that is -- really hits all of the buttons that the founding fathers were concerned about.

George hit her with one of the many Republican defenses, that Trump didn't get what he wanted, and that the aid was released. Lofgren said that "as a matter of fact" people died while the aid was suspended, and that Trump is continuing to use "agents to get improper things done," referring to Rudy Giuliani, and that this is "an ongoing threat" to national security. She added

 And it's an abuse of power that is -- needs to be dealt with, really. It's -- it's depressing, honestly. I wish the president's behavior had been better.

Lofgren thinks they should focus the impeachment "only on those items where we have direct evidence" and noted they don't have direct witness testimony for what's in the Mueller report.

Stephanopoulos referenced a WaPo editorial suggesting that witnesses and documents being blocked by Trump could "provide a fuller, and to many Americans, more persuasive picture of his guilt."  He wondered if the House should wait for that information, as the editorial suggested. Trump has "improperly withheld" witnesses, she said, adding

I'm mindful that the last time we fully litigated that claim, it took 18 months. So to allow the president to engage in frivolous appeals so that the appeals extend beyond his term of office really is not what the constitution provides...

And she said she thinks they'll be able to make the case without having to wait for that information.  And in response to a question that impeachment will replace the "certainty of presidential terms," something she said a long time ago, that Congress could use partisan impeachment to change the outcome of an election, she disagreed.

... I think I did say throughout the Clinton impeachment was, first you need a high crime and misdemeanor. Lying about sex is not an abuse of presidential power, maybe husband power. And certainly Trump has done the same thing when it comes to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. We're not proceeding on his lies about his affairs. That has nothing to do with the abuse of presidential power any more than it did in the Clinton administration.

She finished by again, equating Trump's actions with those of Nixon, and that

...the founders were very concerned that the president that they had created in the constitution had enormous powers. And if unchecked, if the use of that power was made to subvert the constitutional order, there had to be a remedy and that remedy was impeachment.

Let's move on to a couple of excerpts from Chuck Todd's conversation with Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, on NBC's Meet the Press. Cruz said something about Trump being tough on Russia, and Todd asked if what the president did with Ukraine was "somehow tough on Russia" or if instead Trump "by just introducing all of this delayed aid, play into the hands of Russia." Here's Cruz not answering.

You know, Chuck, substance matters. By any measure, the president's policy and this administration's policy have been tougher on Russia and, actually, better for Ukraine than Obama's was. Let me give you an example. You just mentioned Ukrainian aid. The Donald Trump administration gave lethal defensive aid to Ukraine, Javelin missiles, to take out Russian tanks. Do you know what? Throughout the Obama administration, I repeatedly pressed President Obama to give lethal aid to Ukraine. I traveled to Ukraine. I went to the Maiden Square, in Kiev. And they needed lethal aid. But the Obama administration, they sent, teddy bears and MREs. They wouldn't actually give weapons. And at the end of the day, Chairman Nadler doesn't want to talk about any of that. He doesn't want to talk about the substance.

Speaking about House Democrats, Cruz suggested it was "garbage. What nonsense" for them to suggest that "you don't have to prove a crime, you don't have to prove a law was violated, to impeach a president."

Chuck Todd let out four 'whoas' at that line, arguing that high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution, and that the Constitution was written before they even wrote the laws. Here's Cruz

So actually what the Constitution -- Chuck, actually, what the Constitution says is you can impeach a president for treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. It specifies it. High crimes and misdemeanors was a -- hold on, Chuck. Don't interrupt me-

So high crimes and misdemeanors was a term of art that the framers used -- and you know, it's striking. In poker, there's something called a tell. When a player has a really bad hand, and they reveal it, it's a tell. What we saw last night was a tell from the House Democrats. You know, just a few weeks ago, their talking point was bribery, bribery, bribery. They're now admitting they can't prove a crime. They can't prove a law was violated. And here's why. Any president, any administration, is justified in investing corruption. And there was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. You know how much Hunter Biden was paid every month? $83,000. That's $1 million a year.

I don't even know where to start with that answer, if it's an answer. 

• Pretending the Constitution requires a criminal act? That's a lie. 
• Hunter Biden getting a job isn't in and of itself an indication of corruption; if anything, you could argue that it was an attempt at currying favor with the Obama administration, but that has not been proven - and is not a crime. 
• That Biden was paid $83,000 per month? Well, it was $50,000 a month, so the inflation since he got the job is pretty impressive - and not a crime. 

And then he blamed the media, Cruz did, fro not caring about any of this. Except that, as Todd rightly said, the reason anyone - including Cruz - knows anything about this is because the media reported it. Todd asked if there was corruption, why didn't we have American officials do the investigation, why ask a foreign government to do it?  Here's this non-answer.

So I believe any president, any Justice Department, has the authority to investigate corruption. In this case, there was serious evidence, on the face, of corruption. The reason Hunter Biden got that position is because his daddy was Vice President of the United States.

Next question: does Cruz believe that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election?

I do. And I think there's considerable evidence of that.

Next question - after reciting several examples of crap Trump launched against Cruz in 2016,  "is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative about somebody, in order to help him, politically?"

Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said on the phone call...

And then, provided the evidence that Ukraine interfered in our election. Make sure you've got your seat belt on.

Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump --  during the election season. --  That is unusual...  and they wanted Hillary Clinton to get elected.

Because an op-ed is... election interference.

Got it.

See you around campus.