monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The conversation

Is Nancy Pelosi Caught in a Trap or Setting One?

Even if the outcome of a Senate trial is predictable, the political consequences of impeachment are not.

Bret Stephens: Merry Christmas, Gail. So Donald Trump has been impeached in the House. I know we agree that it was the right thing to do, from a moral and constitutional standpoint. Yet I have a sinking feeling that, politically, it’s going to cost the Democrats dearly. Where do things go from here?

Gail Collins: And happy new year, Bret. We won’t be conversing again until 2020. Election year! And yeah — shiver — nobody knows what that’s going to bring.

I’m worried about the political effects of impeachment too, but no regrets. There are just some things you have to do, even if you’re not sure about the outcome. The House had to take a stand. American presidents don’t use government money to force our allies to do them political favors.

We’re certainly witnessing history. And not for the first time, impeachment-wise. Do you have any memories of the Clinton crisis that you want to share?

Bret: Vivid ones. I was working in New York for The Wall Street Journal at the time. The impeachment saga just seemed much more momentous then than it does now. There were the rumors: The president has had an affair! There was his finger-wagging, unequivocal public denial. There was Ken Starr’s relentless investigation, and then the blue dress. There was the president’s tormented summer confession, followed by that heartbreaking picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton walking on the White House lawn with daughter Chelsea between them, both separating and connecting them. And then the windup to the impeachment itself, which coincided with a major bombing campaign of Iraq.

Gail: I had just come to work on the Times editorial board and was trying to get my footing. I was a local government person so obviously not an expert on the constitutional issues at hand. But fortunately, I had just written a book on political scandals, and when we were facing one of those endless days of impeachment furor but no new news, my editor would say: “Hey, Gail, can you do one of your Grover Cleveland things?”

Bret: A “Grover Cleveland Thing” sounds naughty. Go on.

Gail: Well, Grover was the president with the controversy over an illegitimate child — one of the all-time political taunts was: “Ma, ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House ha, ha ha.” So I got the chance to tell the story while pointing out that Clinton was the first president whose sex scandal was televised. And to compare the role of Hillary with the role of Frankie Cleveland, who happened to be both the first lady and the daughter of the guy who many Cleveland supporters thought was the real illegitimate father.

So, basically — I was most definitely not the most important opinion writer on that last impeachment, but I might have had the most fun.

These days, when I’m running out of Trump thoughts, I call my friend Brenda Wineapple, who’s written a history of the Andrew Johnson impeachment, and say: “Hey Brenda …”

Bret: At least that impeachment involved real drama: Johnson only escaped being convicted and thrown out of office by a single vote in the Senate. This time there just aren’t as many surprises. We knew Trump would be impeached the moment Nancy Pelosi started the process in September. We knew the specific nature of the offense. We knew that the administration was lying through its teeth when it insisted there was no quid pro quo. We knew Trump would express no contrition for what he had done. And we know he isn’t going to be removed from office by the Senate. It all feels like a film with no major plot twists, except perhaps one: What happens if Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate?

Gail: One of the very few pieces of good news from this saga is that Nancy Pelosi is the heroine. Not only do her fans think she has the right principles; we know she’ll work out a plan to move forward while keeping her party together. Without doing anything that history will judge as irresponsible.

Bret: Did you see that gesture she made to the members when some of them started cheering after the first article of impeachment passed? I felt like I had just witnessed a split-second rendition of “Mother Knows Best.”

Gail: Totally works for me. Go Nancy.

Bret: Pelosi is very sharp, but she has a quandary. If she tries to bottle up impeachment in the House on grounds that the Senate won’t call witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, she’ll look hypocritical, for two reasons: First, the House went ahead with impeachment without waiting to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney. And second, she’ll be obstructing the very constitutional principles that Trump’s impeachment is supposed to vindicate. One Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman, claims impeachment doesn’t actually happen until the House forwards the articles to the Senate. Whether that’s true or not, most Americans expect that impeachment in the House, if it is to mean anything, must mean some kind of trial in the Senate.

Gail: Only about six people in the country understand this issue. As far as public opinion goes, Trump’s wishes have come true: it’s all about whether you love him or hate him. But go on …

Bret: On the other hand, if Pelosi lets the Senate take over from here, Mitch McConnell will arrange an expedited trial leading to guaranteed acquittal, leading much of the public to conclude that the entire process was a waste of time.

Honestly, I’m not sure how she finesses it. What am I missing?

Gail: Mitch McConnell has already made it clear the Senate is not going to make any attempt at fair judgment. All Pelosi can do is draw as much attention as possible to the fact that the jury is fixed.

A handful of Republicans, like the ever-overestimated Susan Collins of Maine, are up for re-election in states that aren’t wildly pro-Trump and they could be in trouble. So in 2020 maybe the Democrats will win the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
I know that’s not your ideal vision of the future. But it works for me.

Bret: Maybe it’s because I’m Jewish, but I have a fatalistic outlook on life and a bad feeling about 2020. Trump just seems like one of those Marvel Comics villains who are all-but indestructible when you try to take them down by ordinary kinetic means. The Stormy Daniels scandal? It felt like a feather flung at a tank. The Mueller investigation? A rock. Impeachment? A small-caliber bullet. And looking at the field of candidates on the stage in L.A. last week, I just wasn’t seeing Captain America.

Gail: Yeah but there are lots of Marvel heroes. Maybe a Democratic Ant-Man?

Bret: Sounds like you’re warming to Mayor Pete! The question is, what’s the secret weapon that will bring Trump down?

The economy is doing too well to be a winning issue for Democrats. The endlessly revolving wheel of Trump scandals is becoming a dizzying blur for most Americans. We’re not involved in a major, draining war. The Labour Party just got its butt kicked by the quasi-Trumpian Boris Johnson. And the Democrats are having public spitball fights about wine caves. If Trump just keeps his mouth shut for the next 10 months, he’s all but guaranteed a win.

Gail: I’m not rooting for the economy to sour but that doesn’t seem impossible to me, given all the trade issues we’re having and the shakiness of some of our manufacturing base.

And the Democratic presidential candidates are still in their toddler phase. My guess right now is that we’ll get Biden with a woman in the second slot — Amy Klobuchar? Stacey Abrams?

Bret: Amazing how resilient Biden is. I’d sort of written him off as the Jeb Bush of this season but he’s still the man to beat. And Klobuchar would be an excellent veep pick.

Gail: If Biden can get through the first couple of primaries without a total disaster, he’s probably home. And lately, he’s been looking as if he could handle the campaign.

Trump’s support is always going to be shy of 50 percent, and if the Democrats can produce a strong turnout in a few crucial states, there you go.

Bret: Just remember: National poll numbers mean nothing, or less than nothing. The Democratic nominee could win the popular vote by an even larger margin than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 and still lose. All that matters is whether the Democratic nominee can win in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, and perhaps Arizona.

Gail: Yeah, the rest of the nation is used to the idea that their vote doesn’t mean squat when it comes to details like electing a president.

Bret: That’s going to require someone who doesn’t seem too “coastal” in his or her cultural sensibilities; who speaks persuasively and soberly to middle-class needs and anxieties; who won’t be massively outspent by the president; and who will be able to shrug off his attacks and convey a sense of decency, good judgment and excitement.

I really would love to know just who that candidate is. I’m still enthusiastic about Michael Bloomberg, even if he has a few of the defects I just mentioned. It would help if he campaigns as if he already has the nomination in the bag: the Democratic Party might just turn to him once they realize he’s the candidate with the strongest shot of winning in November.

Gail: There are several Democrats I can see evolving into a winning candidate. Don’t despair. I think we’ll have a really happy new year — at least come November. And then you’d be liberated to start complaining about liberals again.

Bret: And then we could finally disagree more than we agree! Happy Hanukkah, too.

Anguish and Anger From the Navy SEALs Who Turned In Edward Gallagher nyt

This alone is another major reason tRump is a sorry ass jerk and unelectable to any office!

Propaganda-in-Chief:

Durham investigation puts CIA Director Gina Haspel on notice

CIA Director Gina Haspel is the latest Intelligence official to reportedly be dragged into John Durham’s investigation of the Russia probe. On Friday, Politico reported Haspel may have information on former CIA Director John Brennan, who served under the Obama administration.

That information could help Durham learn whether the CIA used unauthorized surveillance on 2016 Trump campaign officials.

Two Possibilities in Trump Wiretapping, and Neither Is Good

Whichever explanation seems more likely, the end result should be infuriating to every American. Either your nation's premiere law enforcement agency was breathtakingly incompetent when the stakes were the highest, or select officials in that organization made deliberate decisions to break the law, undermine the Constitution, and illegally spy on a fellow American. Either possibility has deeply damaged the reputation of the FBI and DOJ in addition to the reputations of thousands of honest FBI Agents and DOJ attorneys. Despite the legitimate concerns of civil libertarians, the FISA process has indisputably proved an invaluable resource in safeguarding the country from terrorism. If the heinous abuses documented in the I.G.s report result in a weakening or loss of FISA, we will all be the worse for it. If those responsible are not held to account, this will happen again. There is no happy face to put on this episode.

So in other words durham has nothing but conspiracy theories.

Congressman: Democrats Still Refusing To Release Transcripts From ‘Secret’ Depositions

Texas Republican Representative Michael Burgess revealed during an interview on Friday that Democrats are still refusing to release transcripts of depositions that were conducted in secret by Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

“Congressional Democrats’ current posture may be too cute by half, and is perhaps politically ill-advised, but any argument that they’ve entered a legal limbo by stalling the delivery of articles to the Senate falls flat,” he said, adding that the Constitution requires both a House vote and a Senate trial to try to prevent an overtly political outcome.

“The Framers set a two-thirds requirement for conviction, because it knew that some impeachments might be pure political exercises,” he wrote.

“The House calls out presidential transgressions that meet the standard of ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ That is not an ultimate finding of guilt, and alone can’t effect a president’s removal. But make no mistake, the House speaks in its own voice and in its own time. It did so on Dec. 18, 2019.”

Pelosi, who pushed to get the impeachment done before Christmas, said a week ago that she was in no rush to send the articles to the Senate because Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had not revealed how a trial would be conducted.

McConnell has said he was working hand-in-glove with the White House while devising strategy for a Senate trial, rejecting Sen. Chuck Schumer’s call for top administration officials to testify.

Congress Wants to Force Trump’s Hand on Human Rights in China and Beyond

Lawmakers aim to pass veto-proof legislation in 2020 that would punish China over its treatment of ethnic Uighur Muslims.

WASHINGTON — In a rare show of bipartisan unity, Republicans and Democrats are planning to try to force President Trump to take a more active stand on human rights in China, preparing veto-proof legislation that would punish top Chinese officials for detaining more than one million Muslims in internment camps.

The effort comes amid growing congressional frustration with Mr. Trump’s unwillingness to challenge China over human rights abuses, despite vivid news reports this year outlining atrocities, or to confront such issues globally.

To press Mr. Trump into action on China, lawmakers plan to move ahead with legislation that would punish Beijing for its repression of ethnic Uighur Muslims, with enough supporters to compel the president to sign or risk being overruled by Congress ahead of the 2020 election. A version of the legislation, known as the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act, passed both the House and Senate this year, but its path to the White House was stalled this month by a procedural process.

Human rights causes draw rare bipartisan support in Congress, and many Republican lawmakers have broken from Mr. Trump on the matter, even as they move in lock step with the president on nearly every other issue, including defending him against impeachment.

I don't know if you caught this opinion piece by David Brooks, but what do you make of it? Do you think he ignores the influence of the right wing media has on people who read or listen to it as just regional?

This is a wonderful opportunity for us to think about our jobs in more profound ways. The core insight is that in a hyper-pluralistic society you can’t know people in other groups until you know how they know you.