To Comfort The Afflicted
And Afflict The Comfortable

To Comfort The Afflicted And Afflict The Comfortable

Thursday, April 9, 2020

New Observercast

The Only Question Left

on

What are usually the hard questions are easy this time. He did it. It was wrong. Now who cares is the question.

He did just what all the un-contradicted testimony has established, what we knew going in, witness after witness saying exactly the same thing. It doesn’t matter who the whistleblower is, but the Republicans keep demanding his identity be made public [imagine the danger that would pose for the man and his family, much less the deterrent it would put on future truth telling] because multiple witnesses have now confirmed his account, and because there is un-contradicted testimony as to how Trump confirmed his plans for the quid pro quo with the ambassador to the European Union. No contradictions. You don’t need a nine-month investigation, which is another Republican straw man. Exactly what will they investigate? What if President Donald Trump abused his power for personal gain with other countries? Irrelevant, they would claim. It’s just absurd. There are no disputed facts: If Ukraine wanted the aid it desperately needed, it would have had to investigate Joe Biden and his son to get it. No ifs, ands or buts.

And, of course, that was wrong. Even Trump’s defenders don’t argue otherwise: They try to minimize it [Trump did release the aid but only after notice of the whistleblower campaign] or dismiss it [no harm no foul when it’s only attempted treason]. Mostly they focus on process, rather than innocence, because there is no straight-face argument that would exonerate the president. The only person in the world who still thinks it is perfectly OK to condition desperately needed foreign aid on doing him a political favor is the president himself, who tweeted on Monday that he “did nothing wrong” and didn’t even try to explain how that could be.

So who cares?

Republican House members have already made clear they intend to vote on strictly partisan lines, not because they believe the president acted properly but because they will be on the ballot with him next year, and because Donald Trump is a very vengeful man whose partisan approach to his presidential powers is hardly limited to playing favorites with foreign aid. They need the safest district and the thickest skin to step up against Trump. They’ll be the ones Sean Hannity accuses of treason. And they call themselves leaders. Absurd. Sheep is more like it.

The Democratic House members have a different problem. It is not at all clear that a long Senate trial would help the Democrats. It would not only sideline the senators who are running but also possibly task public patience. The same witnesses. The same testimony. The Republicans’ best dodge may be to argue that, with an election coming, it is only right that the people pick their president. And the president will do what he does best: deny, deny, deny.

To state the obvious, it is clear that people do care. But how much? Enough to break the partisan stranglehold on Congress? Probably not. The president will be impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. The final verdict will be delivered by the voters. Trump’s partisan manipulation of foreign policy for his own benefit adds to a long list of instances where he has desecrated the office he holds and simply denied what was absolutely true. Whether it will ultimately cost him the presidency will likely depend more on who the Democrats offer as an alternative than how many more items get added to the list.

Facebook Comments

Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich
Estrich served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1988, she was the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential run, even though she had never before managed a political campaign. She was the first female campaign manager of a major presidential campaign, and the first female campaign manager of the modern era. [5] [6] Estrich appears frequently on Fox News as a legal and political analyst, and has also substituted for Alan Colmes on the debate show Hannity & Colmes. She writes regular articles for the conservative website NewsMax, for which she is a pundit.[7] She is also on the Board of Editorial Contributors for USA Today.[8] She is currently a law professor at the University of Southern California Law School and a political science professor at its affiliated undergraduate school. Before joining the USC faculty in 1989, she was Professor of Law at Harvard University, where she was the youngest woman to receive tenure.[9] On January 10, 2008, Estrich joined Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, a law firm based in Los Angeles, where she chairs their Public Strategy in High Profile Litigation: Media Relations practice area. [10][11] She writes a nationally syndicated print column distributed through Creators Syndicate.
Facebook Comments