Dr. Fiona Hill
The truth about Russia’s role in this administration is finally being said, after so many years of dancing around it.
It is well worth watching, and I will update this later.
For the first time, we are seeing on-the-record testimony about what is actually happening here. Specifically, the implications of Ms. Pelosi’s accurate observation that all roads lead to Vladimir Putin and what that means for Donald Trump, his cabinet, and his Collaborators on the Intelligence committee and in the Senate.
The GOP has been trumpeting the Russian line for months. It is about time that the American people be explicitly informed about the harm this causes America — whether or not the public is ready to hear the truth.
Please share widely!
I still don’t understand how the Mueller report and his subsequent testimony did not lead to the impeachment stampede that Ukraine has. Just the executive summaries indicated obvious impeachable offenses, but lately it seems like the report has been forgotten.
I agree.
A big difference is that Mueller was narrowly looking after the domestic charges of obstruction of justice and violating campaign finance law. It was never a hunt for treason, and I think some Democrats in Congress and some in ‘resistance’ overrated both its scope and the potential consequences of its findings. It was however a clear road map for Congress to dig deeper if it choose to do so.
These witnesses and hearings have made for more compelling television and they make a clearer and easier to understand case. Instead of 18 different subcommittee investigations happening all at once, it is a single impeachable act in simple language (bribery) with fairly clear testimony from administration officials that it goes all the way to the top. Clear proof as well.
Nevertheless, the Mueller report presented clear and compelling evidence that Donald Trump behaves like a Russian asset and a Democratic majority of Congress did not pursue that in any visible way.
I suppose there is an argument that Donald Trump and his Collaborators successfully obstructed that investigation.
It feels to me as though Nancy Pelosi played politics with this until forced to face the truth by more principled colleagues.
If not strictly treason it always sounded to me at least like suborning hostile action by a foreign power. Who can forget, “Russia, if you’re listening…”? BTW, it turns out Russia WAS listening since the very day Trump said that they started trying to hack Hillary’s server. In a lot of ways I still think the Russia collaboration case is both stronger and more consequential. When Ukraine first broke my cynical reaction was yeah, this scandal can take a number.
Regarding obstruction, what do you call firing James Comey? An impeachment article should have at least been drafted the day Trump admitted his motive to Lester Holt on national television.
I am growing increasingly convinced that the Democrats know full well that Russia has successfully taken over the US administration. It appears to me that they have seen — at least since the Mueller report — that Donald Trump is not the only Russian asset in the administration.
Gordon Sondland testified yesterday that Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulveney, and Mike Pence were co-conspirators in the Ukraine plot. The ties from Russian organized crime to Donald Trump are not limited to just Mr. Trump.
I think the political challenge for the Democrats is larger than just removing Donald Trump. I think they know that the same evidence that forces the removal of Mr. Trump also convicts at least Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo.
I think that if the Senate GOP follows the facts and the evidence, it leads to Nancy Pelosi taking over the Oval Office. I think the Democrats know that.
I think Ms. Pelosi could help the situation by making a public commitment to NOT run for election in 2020 if she, for some reason, is forced to take over the Presidency after the removal of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.
I wonder if that might somehow be formally written into the Constitution — whomever succeeds the President after death or removal from office is ineligible to run in the first subsequent election.
I wouldn’t support what you suggest in your final paragraph. Nothing wrong with voters deciding whether that person should continue.
I’m not stuck on it.
In this case, it would moot the predictable accusation that Democrats are driving the removal of this administration out of the political ambition of Nancy Pelosi.
There may be something to be said for Pelosi specifically to commit not to run, especially since we already have plenty of good candidates. What I was objecting to was amendment the Constitution to prohibit that, especially since most of the time it will be the handpicked VP.
I think the constitutional question regards the Speaker of the House more than the VP. Since both the VP and President run on the same ticket, I’m more comfortable with the VP running as an incumbent if the President fails to complete his or her term.
I think it’s already a stretch for the Speaker of the House to assume the Presidency after a vacancy of both the president and VP offices.
Would you be more comfortable if my proposed prohibition applied only to the Speaker?
I wonder if there are other ways to deal with this scenario. An alternative might be for the Speaker to serve as acting president until a special election could be held or until a new President could be nominated by the House and elected by the Senate.
I’ve come around to the view that the Presidental Succession Act should not include the Speaker and the President pro tempore because there is a good case to be made that they are not “officers” of the United States within the meaning of the constitutional clause granting Congress the authority to determine succession beyond the VP. If the Speaker does assume the presidency I still think it’s OK for voters to decide whether s/he should continue. I do not favor interim special elections.
I think that any member of Congress should follow the facts and see exactly who violated their oath of office and pursue impeachment charges against them. Pelosi would have to give up her seat to take over the Presidency, and she always has the right to say no. It would then go to Sen. Grassley, who would likely be a placeholder amenable to both parties.
Another reason to keep legislators out of the line of succession – they must resign their current position.
Christopher is making a constitutional argument. I think the case for not having the Congressional officers in line of succession is plainer than that.
Namely, voters (OK, electors, but that is our system) did not vote for a Democrat to fill this term; also, there should be no partisan “prize” for removing a corrupt official from office.
Perform the veil-of-ignorance test and imagine that a Republican house removes corrupt Democrats. What is the argument for putting a Republican in versus a “clean” Dem?
Succession should be confined to the executive branch, ie State, Treasury, etc.. Only confirmed secretaries, of course.
Q: How far down the list of succession would we have to go to find a confirmed Cabinet officer?
Maybe we need a Vice Vice President.
In the early days of research into natural language processing, the following sentence was often used as a (difficult) test case:
Maybe it’s time to stockpile a tire sealant for that spare tire.
The VP barely has a job (unless we go back to having him actually chair the Senate). What in the world would a VVP do? The likelihood of actually having to go beyond the VP in succession is pretty slim, especially with the 25th amendment. It has yet to happen in our history (though Ben Wade missed the opportunity by a single vote).
@VP barely has a job:
Heh. So VVP would be the ultimate political career launch-pad.
Pompeo is the first cabinet officer and he is confirmed. Mnuchin is still at Treasury, right? Barr is AG, both confirmed. I don’t recall about Defense at the moment. Of course a case for impeachment could be made against Barr and Pompeo IMO.
@Case against:
Airtight.
This was essentially the partisan paralysis that kept Northam in power in Va. The next two in line also had severe credibility issues. The fourth in line was a Republican. Now that he has a fully democratic legislature, Northam is being given a second chance. It helps that he’s term limited too.
If Pence is impeachable under the same interpretation which I think is true it guarantees that Trump will not be removed. The Dems went too far in bringing this out.
@The Dems went too far in bring this out:
It sounds as though you agree that the evidence is compelling that the entire administration of Donald Trump, together with his GOP Collaborators, is pervasively corrupt.
It is fascinating that your response seems to be to surrender to demonstrated corruption by a hostile adversary rather than fight back.
I don’t recall that any Dems have seriously made the case for a Pence impeachment. I think it’s possible there is a case, but have not reached a firm conclusion.