This started out as an APR comment, but ended up being long enough for a short diary:
These are some questions the Sunday Morning pundits will never properly ask of their Republican guests, since none of them has the competence of Tim Russert, never mind the brilliance and patriotism of Edward R. Murrow. Or maybe they and their staffs are just too busy answering emails during the day to formulate probing questions.
- How can you claim “requests” made of Zelinsky were not a big deal worthy of impeachment? Trump tried to hide these requests, even going so far as to put them on the nation’s most highly classified server. Assume that the whistleblower had not come forward and Trump was successful. Given the history of the Hillary emails, which the press now admits were severly over-covered, this likely would have put a cloud over Joe Biden. Biden could have either been knocked out of the primary race, or severely damaged in the general, all due to secret machinations of Trump and Giuliani that the public never would have been aware of. How can this possibly not be tampering with our elections?
- Why could you possibly want to know the identity of the whistleblower, other than for retribution and to prevent further whistleblowing? Let’s take an example of an oil refinery, where to go along with your contention, an employee strongly dislikes their boss. Say that employee notices that a safety system is not working properly, but when they report it to their boss they say it is not a big deal, and furthermore the higher ups in the company agree. Since it is known in this company that whistleblowers are exposed and punished, contrary to the law, the man decides that maybe it is not in fact that big a deal, and keeps his mouth shut. As a result there is an explosion with complete destruction of the refinery, and hundreds die. How about as a result, the President of the company somehow incredibly decides that to avoid further such “embarassments”, that they forbid employees from inspecting safety systems in the future? That is what Trump is doing now when he says nobody can listen in on any of his phone calls! If on the other hand that whistleblower came forward and disaster was averted, what possible difference does it make what his motivations were, given that the safety system was failing?
- How can you say there isn’t sufficient proof of Trump’s wrongdoing so he can’t legitimately be impeached, when further fact witnesses have been blocked, and you agree they can be blocked? How is this not putting Trump above the law and declaring he is a king? Mueller did not exonerate Trump. He said some of his investigations did not go as far as they should have due to witnesses being blocked, so only had obstruction of justice charges to go with instead. How is this not the exact same playbook?
- What do you think about McConnell and Lindsey Graham publicly stating that they will violate the oath they will take before the Senate Trial. When Graham says that he will shorten the process of the trial as much as possible, in order to protect the American People, how is this instead not making sure evidence is hidden to instead protect President Trump? How does Graham get to decide before the trial even starts whether the evidence should be reviewed? How is it possibly fair that McConnell will coordinate completely with the defendant and his lawyers?
- How can a country prosper with a compromised judiciary and Justice department? Doesn’t even the most rudimentary study of history show that this leads to a slide towards authoritarianism and towards a country becoming a failed state? When has this ever made a country better? Republicans made an absolutely huge deal of the fact that Bill Clinton talked to then Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a tarmac, causing her to recuse her self, but now it is fine that the attorney general openly is the President’s personal attorney, and the Senate Majority leader will actively coordinate with the President in an impeachment trial?
- The Republicans say that we are too close to an election. The people should decide. How is this point being made in anything but completely bad faith? Remember that McConnell said the same thing when he blocked the Merrick Garland nomination from even being heard. It is a foregone conclusion that this moderate would have been overwhelmingly confirmed in a bipartisan fashion if a hearing had been held and his nomination had come up for a vote. This tampering with the makeup of the Supreme Court is a big deal. Now McConnell says that if Trump nominates another Supreme Court Justice, that he will hold a vote on it, and they can be confirmed with a simple majority. That shows conclusively that this appeal to “let the voters decide” is just a naked power play!
As a final comment – if we follow along this path, we will become a failed state. People need to become acquainted with just a little bit of history, because authoritarianism has been tried many times before. It never works. The Republicans are now publicly coming out against the rule of law and democracy. We are our last line of defense. We decide whether America’s long run is over — whether this generation is too weak and self absorbed to live up to the sacred responsibilities entrusted to it. The upcoming election is absolutely crucial.