Today (Sunday 10 November 2019), Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) appeared on Meet the Press for an interview with Chuck Todd. He did a particularly good job of clarifying and simplifying the argument for impeaching Donald Trump, so I want to relate pertinent pieces of that interview to the community.
In a related article, please check out Chuck Todd gets owned by Rand Paul then scolded by Congressman for incompetence by Egberto Willies, with a link to the interview.
Many times, we criticize Democratic officeholders for flawed representation of progressive views (or even Democratic ones). So, when someone does a good job, I think we should be sure to give them credit for good work.
What struck me particularly about Himes was his statement (referring to Donald Trump):
What we’re dealing with here is corruption, abuse of power, in a way that damaged American national security.
and that Trump:
…extorted a vulnerable country by holding up military aid.
This begins to get to the heart of the case. Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine, and that damaged American national security.
No doubt Republicans brought up “quid pro quo” as an attempt to move the discussion away from damage to U.S. national security, the most impeachable offense. The founders were extremely aware of the threat of foreign powers interfering in U.S. politics. They were specifically concerned about interference by great European powers—England, France, Spain, and Russia—that would weaken the U.S. They took steps in crafting our government to unify the country and protect it from foreign influence.
In that context, the Impeachment Clause can be read as another attempt to make it difficult for a foreign power to gain access. It specifically mentions treason and bribery. Of all impeachable crimes, holding up military aid to an ally in a fight against an adversarial foreign power goes to the core of what the founders wanted to avoid.
To get the full context, I suggest watching this edition of Meet the Press. Here are the specific questions and answers I think are most pertinent. These are my transcriptions, which are slightly edited for clarity and which paraphrase Chuck Todd’s questions:
Q: Will there be new information the public learns from the upcoming public hearings?
[Yes.] I suspect most of the public has not read the released transcripts, and what they are going to hear is they are going to hear immensely patriotic, beautifully [articulate] people telling the story of a President who—let’s forget quid pro quo, quid pro quo is one of these things to muddy the works—who extorted a vulnerable country by holding up military aid. So, yes, they are going to hear something new.
[Talks about an earlier exchange between Chuck Todd and Sen. Rand Paul on this show.]
When Senator Rand Paul comes on and says that what Donald Trump did, and the transcript is there, extorting a foreign government for his personal political gain, and that’s exactly the same thing as Joe Biden, “exactly the same thing” is what he said, as Joe Biden saying this prosecutor should be released, when Joe Biden is acting in consistency with American foreign policy—and back then we had a whole list of things that had to be done, and this was American foreign policy, it was European Union policy, it was IMF policy, that this prosecutor needed to go. When Rand Paul says that this is exactly the same thing as the President of the United States saying you need to find dirt on my political opponent—and with all due respect Chuck when you say, “Well, do two wrongs make a right?” Let’s be very clear. The President of the United States demanding, extorting a vulnerable country to do his political bidding, to go after his opponent, has nothing to do with Joe Biden executing the foreign policy of the United States or Hillary Clinton, who is a private citizen, doing opposition research on her presidential opponent. Those are radically different things. And what the President did is wrong and impeachable.
Here, Himes did a great job of rebutting Paul’s assertion Trump just did the same thing as Biden, which is a complete fabrication of what Biden was doing in support of U.S. interests. It’s important to take down these lies when they come up, and Himes did a masterful job of doing just that.
One fine point to note is that Hillary Clinton did not go to a foreign government for help in her election. She picked up an ongoing effort, started by a Republican, to get oppo on Donald Trump, from a private citizen. Again, what Clinton did and what Trump did are not comparable. She was not inviting an adversarial foreign government to help her get elected.
He also made an assertion that should be branding for the impeachment: “What the President did is wrong and impeachable.”
Q: You said you think the words “quid pro quo” shouldn’t be used any more. Does it just not [communicate] the seriousness of what happened?
I have two problems with quid pro quo. Number one, when you are trying to persuade the American people of something that is really pretty simple, which is that the President acted criminally and extorted, in the way a mob boss would extort somebody, a vulnerable foreign country, it’s probably best not to use Latin words to explain it. But, the other thing I object to is this is where the Republicans went. Extortion doesn’t require a you-give-me-this-and-I’ll-give-you-that kind of quid pro quo. It simply requires using your muscle to get something that you don’t have a right to. And, by the way, the crowning absurdity is now that they’re all pretty much admitting, because Ambassador Sondland has refreshed his recollection, they’re all basically admitting there was a quid pro quo, but gosh, it wasn’t that bad, it was exactly the same thing as Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton.
So, look, we have to get off this quid pro quo thing because it’s complicated. They’ve already attested to the fact it occurred. And, what we’re dealing with here is corruption, abuse of power, in a way that damaged American national security.
Not as strong. It’s not that quid pro quo is complicated. It’s that it’s immaterial. Withholding aid is what matters. The quid pro quo was just a distraction. And, yes, it’s evidence of a crime the Republicans have already admitted.
Q: Are you concerned Republican attempts to [sabotage] the process make it more difficult to air public testimony?
[This discussion drifted into the Republican call for Hunter Biden to testify.]
We can have a long conversation about whether the sons and daughters of high-ranking officials should [take positions with foreign entities]. That has nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do, with the actions of the United States President in extorting Ukraine in a way that damaged our national security.
Any attempt to get Hunter Biden to testify should be conditioned on testimony from Ivanka Trump, Jerrod Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump. In particular, I want to know if they feel their ties to Donald Trump Sr. or the Trump Administration have benefited them in their business dealings in foreign countries. Did they get favorable consideration for trademarks, for example? What are their actual business relationships in places like Russia? What are their relationships with the Saudis and other foreign powers? If we are going to see Hunter Biden give testimony, I think we could spend a good two weeks grilling the Trump “kids”.
The Republicans would never put them up for close examination. So, tying Biden’s appearance to theirs would eliminate that sideshow.
But frankly, the core crime here is not Trump’s extortion of Ukraine. It’s actually the withholding of military aid. That’s what is damaging to our national security. We need to go after this because damage to our national security is the most likely charge to persuade rank-and-file Republicans to back Trump’s removal. And because of that it is the best political strategy to defeat him should he survive impeachment, as well as sinking as many Republicans as possible in 2020.
Russia is an adversarial foreign power intent on gaining influence over our domestic politics. The U.S. has been under cyber-attacks from Russia since before the 2016 elections. Trump literally held up aid to a government resisting Russian military aggression.
Democrats should focus on this aspect of the charge. In fact, one article of impeachment should just be Trump’s damage to our national security, and withholding military aid to Ukraine should be one of the facts underlying that charge.
His abuse of power in extorting the Ukrainian government should be a second charge.
How do we present this to the American people? I think this is the real story. It has elements of speculation, but you tell me where it’s wrong:
Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to withhold military aid to Ukraine to make it easier for him to use military force to take over parts or all of Ukraine. Donald Trump wanted his cut, so he used a demand for investigations of Joe Biden and Ukrainian backing of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections as a reason to hold up that aid. This corruption caused someone in the foreign service to blow the whistle on him. Trump had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to commit this impeachable offense. Trump is corrupt and abused power. He damaged our national security in the process.
I think Rep. Himes did a very good job of moving the discussion away from the distraction of the quid pro quo and centering it on a core charge that is easy to explain to the American people: Trump extorted the Ukrainian government for personal gain, and in doing so he harmed American national security.
That’s a very simple and compelling story. Democrats should run with that.