Advice and moving goalposts by @BloggersRUs

Advice and moving goalposts

by Tom Sullivan

Impeachment hearings continue today in the U.S. House, extending Donald Trump's very bad October and whining from Republicans that the inquiry lacks formal authorization.

William Taylor, now the lead U.S. diplomat in Kiev, testifies in the presidential impeachment probe this morning in a closed-door hearing before the Democratic-led House of Representatives Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight Committees. Taylor's text message to Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, that holding up approved military aid to Ukraine for political reasons would be "crazy" made the former Army officer and career U.S. diplomat a key witness in the House investigations.

Taylor had concerns about President Trump using military aid to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Taylor made sure concerns he'd voiced appeared on the record:

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

Sondland waited hours to reply. After consulting with President Trump, Sondland sent a "formal-sounding denial" (NYT) and asked Taylor to stop putting his thoughts in writing:

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

Republicans defending the president insist the Democrats' impeachment inquiry lacks validity without a House vote to authorize one. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused their demands, stating the House will not take a formal vote "at this time." A formal vote is not required.

Dahlia Lithwick gets at why acceding to Republican demands is a fool's game in a column explaining why a statement by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is not a crack in Trump's firewall. “If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing,” Graham said.

Pressure is mounting on Republicans, Lithwick writes, "to do something about the Trump administration’s human rights violations, blatant corruption, Giuliani-hackery, and mounting counterintelligence problems." But that doesn't mean GOP feints in the direction of accountability are meaningful. Graham simply moved the goal posts:

Look at what Graham said again. He claimed that he would vote for impeachment in the Senate as soon as someone showed him “a crime,” and not only that—it needed to be a crime that was “outside the phone call.” In the event that you missed the head-feint there, under the plain language of the Constitution, impeachment requires no finding of criminal lawbreaking. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal of the president and other high officers for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” We know what treason and bribery mean, but “high crimes and misdemeanors,” while amorphous, surely encompass a lot more than merely breaking criminal laws. As Frank Bowman has explained here in Slate, the notion that impeachment remedies only criminal conduct makes no sense.

Witness the same moving of goal posts when Graham goes one further in his alleged concession on impeachment to Axios. Not only does he claim that he needs to be shown a crime, he then goes on to constrain the crime he needs to see as one that demands a quid pro quo. First of all, recognize the absurdity of Graham saying he needs more proof of quid pro quo outside of that phone call, given that the phone call provides a pretty clear indication that quid pro quo-ing was going on.

"Quid pro quo" is simply the new "no collusion." Thus, Lithwick adds, "It’s not paranoia to suggest that whenever you are offered impeachment assistance from the likes of Graham, you’ll first want to check that gift horse for bleeding gums, cavities, and halitosis before agreeing that he’s actually moving the needle on the impeachment process."

This is why Pelosi will hold a formal impeachment vote in her own time and on her own terms. Republicans will reply to a formal impeachment vote by moving the goal posts. Digby suggested another reason for Pelosi to delay in a tweet yesterday:

Wouldn't it be smart to delay a Senate impeachment vote until after it's too late for the Republican Senators to draw a primary opponent?
— digby (@digby56) October 21, 2019

Graham is not the only one offering helpful impeachment advice. Kelly Jane Torrance of Spectator USA cautions Democrats they are doing impeachment all wrong:

Impeachment of an elected president, especially when he’s up for re-election in just over a year, is a serious step. If the American people — and Republican members of Congress — are going to have any chance of backing this inquiry’s final recommendations, it needs to be conducted in an open and transparent way that respects established legal principles, such as the right to face one’s accusers and to cross-examine witnesses.

"As talking points go, this one is constitutionally illiterate," the Washington Post's fact checker wrote on Oct. 10.

"And why not begin with a full House vote?" Torrance adds.

Not required, says the Congressional Research Service. The House could, but “has always chosen to conduct an investigation first.”

Neither the White House nor House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) responded to fact checker's questions regarding their talking points.

'Tis the season for gift horses and mouths and moving goal posts.