10-30-2019, 05:06 AM
October 29, 2019
Well, let's start with the day's most important news: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified today before the House committees investigating impeachment, majored in History in college.
I mean, really, 'nuff said, right?
But there were a few other, less important things that happened today, too. (And, for what it's worth, I'm being a bit flippant because I am disturbed by what we saw today.)
Vindman, who is on the staff of the National Security Council (the NSC), which is the group of people charged with advising the president about foreign affairs and national security issues, said in a statement before his testimony that he was uncomfortable enough with the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine president Zelensky that he reported it to superiors. A few items leaked from the hearing, which took ten hours. They suggested that he tried to fill in the missing pieces of the readout as we have seen it (it is emphatically not a transcript, but rather a general representation) but was overruled. Vindman was actually on the July 25 phone call, and those who heard his testimony about that call said it was "very disturbing."
Vindman showed up to testify, appropriately, in his dress uniform. He is an active duty officer, who has served the United States in South Korea and Iraq, where he was wounded. He has sworn an oath to protect America, and he has put skin in the game.
But Trump and his supporters attacked him, viciously and insidiously. Trump said he had never heard of him and that he was a "Never Trumper" (in reality, Trump appointed him to the NSC). Truly disgustingly-- and I do not say that lightly-- Laura Ingraham and her guest John Yoo (who wrote the infamous torture memos for President George W. Bush), implied that Vindman, who was born in the USSR and immigrated to America as a three-year-old, was a spy.
Hold that thought, because here's the other major thing that happened today:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a resolution establishing procedures for the House impeachment investigation. Republicans have insisted that the investigation is not legitimate because there has not been a formal vote (this is dead wrong, as I keep saying: the House can order an impeachment hearing however it wants), and a judge last Friday shot this argument down. But now, with firm legal standing for their inquiry, House Democrats are giving the GOP what they demanded: a formal vote on procedure. But GOP complainers were grandstanding, while the House Democrats hold the winning hand on this issue. The procedures the Democrats are advancing continue the existing investigations among a number of House committees, but give the official lead to the House Intelligence Committee, led by California's Adam Schiff, and also authorize the Judiciary Committee to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.
These procedural rules allow Republicans to have the same time to question witnesses as Democrats do, but they only permit Republican witnesses if the Democrat-dominated committees agree. While this will gall today's Republicans, this is the formula established by Republicans in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment. And the time for questioning is tight, so there will not be endless hearings, which was a delaying tactic Republicans wanted. The hearings and the transcripts from the investigation can be public, as Republicans have demanded, but for all their calls for public hearings, the last thing Republicans want is for regular Americans to hear what has been uniformly damaging testimony. The House Rules Committee can make changes to this resolution (no one pays much attention to the Rules Committee, but it is hugely important because it, well, makes the rules), but I would not expect big changes from it. The House will vote on this resolution on Thursday, and it should pass.
Republicans have howled that the House investigation is illegitimate because there was no formal vote on impeachment. Pelosi has called their bluff, and is giving them one. But, for their part, Republicans instantly moved the goal posts. They insist that the vote they demanded for weeks doesn't actually change anything. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (who took Russian money from Parnas and Fruman-- I feel like we always need to say that with him) tweeted that he would still not cooperate with the investigation: "We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment."
It becomes clearer and clearer that Republicans are engaging in a war of narrative instead of operating in good faith to govern the nation. Republican Representative Ted Yoho from Florida, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has been vocal about the Democrat's "closed door" investigation, admitted today he had not bothered to show up for the hearings, which he should be attending. Although he admitted the hearings were constitutionally legitimate, he called them a "sideshow" and said he had more pressing business to attend to. (Remember, just days ago, Republicans stormed the hearing room demanding transparency... even though Republicans on the relevant committees have as much access as Democrats.) And the Republican House members in today's hearing with Vindman apparently kept trying to get him to identify the whistleblower. At this point, there is so much damning evidence there is simply no reason to identify him or her other than to please the president, who tweets about the whistleblower constantly. But, lest we forget, unmasking the whistleblower is a crime.
Today's developments have me introspective tonight. To me, the only reason Republican leaders could behave as they are is that they are unwilling to accept the legitimacy of Democratic governance under any circumstances.
They will dismiss a decorated military officer as a spy if he testifies against Trump, despite the fact he has clearances that Jared Kushner could not get (Trump had to overrule the security officers to get him clearance). They will demand procedural votes and then, when the Democrats provide them (with the same bias Republicans offered to Democrats in 1998), they spurn them out of hand. At least some Republicans are telling their base they are being shut out of impeachment hearings but the truth is they are choosing not to go. And our elected Representatives, sworn to uphold our laws, appear to be angling to break the law and out a whistleblower.
All of these things add up to a cabal that is willing to do anything to hold onto power. To me, it looks like they do not believe anyone else can legitimately govern.
Vindman could tell them that such a worldview leads a party to very bad places indeed.
After all, he majored in History.
Well, let's start with the day's most important news: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified today before the House committees investigating impeachment, majored in History in college.
I mean, really, 'nuff said, right?
But there were a few other, less important things that happened today, too. (And, for what it's worth, I'm being a bit flippant because I am disturbed by what we saw today.)
Vindman, who is on the staff of the National Security Council (the NSC), which is the group of people charged with advising the president about foreign affairs and national security issues, said in a statement before his testimony that he was uncomfortable enough with the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine president Zelensky that he reported it to superiors. A few items leaked from the hearing, which took ten hours. They suggested that he tried to fill in the missing pieces of the readout as we have seen it (it is emphatically not a transcript, but rather a general representation) but was overruled. Vindman was actually on the July 25 phone call, and those who heard his testimony about that call said it was "very disturbing."
Vindman showed up to testify, appropriately, in his dress uniform. He is an active duty officer, who has served the United States in South Korea and Iraq, where he was wounded. He has sworn an oath to protect America, and he has put skin in the game.
But Trump and his supporters attacked him, viciously and insidiously. Trump said he had never heard of him and that he was a "Never Trumper" (in reality, Trump appointed him to the NSC). Truly disgustingly-- and I do not say that lightly-- Laura Ingraham and her guest John Yoo (who wrote the infamous torture memos for President George W. Bush), implied that Vindman, who was born in the USSR and immigrated to America as a three-year-old, was a spy.
Hold that thought, because here's the other major thing that happened today:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a resolution establishing procedures for the House impeachment investigation. Republicans have insisted that the investigation is not legitimate because there has not been a formal vote (this is dead wrong, as I keep saying: the House can order an impeachment hearing however it wants), and a judge last Friday shot this argument down. But now, with firm legal standing for their inquiry, House Democrats are giving the GOP what they demanded: a formal vote on procedure. But GOP complainers were grandstanding, while the House Democrats hold the winning hand on this issue. The procedures the Democrats are advancing continue the existing investigations among a number of House committees, but give the official lead to the House Intelligence Committee, led by California's Adam Schiff, and also authorize the Judiciary Committee to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.
These procedural rules allow Republicans to have the same time to question witnesses as Democrats do, but they only permit Republican witnesses if the Democrat-dominated committees agree. While this will gall today's Republicans, this is the formula established by Republicans in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment. And the time for questioning is tight, so there will not be endless hearings, which was a delaying tactic Republicans wanted. The hearings and the transcripts from the investigation can be public, as Republicans have demanded, but for all their calls for public hearings, the last thing Republicans want is for regular Americans to hear what has been uniformly damaging testimony. The House Rules Committee can make changes to this resolution (no one pays much attention to the Rules Committee, but it is hugely important because it, well, makes the rules), but I would not expect big changes from it. The House will vote on this resolution on Thursday, and it should pass.
Republicans have howled that the House investigation is illegitimate because there was no formal vote on impeachment. Pelosi has called their bluff, and is giving them one. But, for their part, Republicans instantly moved the goal posts. They insist that the vote they demanded for weeks doesn't actually change anything. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (who took Russian money from Parnas and Fruman-- I feel like we always need to say that with him) tweeted that he would still not cooperate with the investigation: "We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment."
It becomes clearer and clearer that Republicans are engaging in a war of narrative instead of operating in good faith to govern the nation. Republican Representative Ted Yoho from Florida, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has been vocal about the Democrat's "closed door" investigation, admitted today he had not bothered to show up for the hearings, which he should be attending. Although he admitted the hearings were constitutionally legitimate, he called them a "sideshow" and said he had more pressing business to attend to. (Remember, just days ago, Republicans stormed the hearing room demanding transparency... even though Republicans on the relevant committees have as much access as Democrats.) And the Republican House members in today's hearing with Vindman apparently kept trying to get him to identify the whistleblower. At this point, there is so much damning evidence there is simply no reason to identify him or her other than to please the president, who tweets about the whistleblower constantly. But, lest we forget, unmasking the whistleblower is a crime.
Today's developments have me introspective tonight. To me, the only reason Republican leaders could behave as they are is that they are unwilling to accept the legitimacy of Democratic governance under any circumstances.
They will dismiss a decorated military officer as a spy if he testifies against Trump, despite the fact he has clearances that Jared Kushner could not get (Trump had to overrule the security officers to get him clearance). They will demand procedural votes and then, when the Democrats provide them (with the same bias Republicans offered to Democrats in 1998), they spurn them out of hand. At least some Republicans are telling their base they are being shut out of impeachment hearings but the truth is they are choosing not to go. And our elected Representatives, sworn to uphold our laws, appear to be angling to break the law and out a whistleblower.
All of these things add up to a cabal that is willing to do anything to hold onto power. To me, it looks like they do not believe anyone else can legitimately govern.
Vindman could tell them that such a worldview leads a party to very bad places indeed.
After all, he majored in History.