Ten weeks have passed since Nancy Pelosi abandoned her deliberate avoidance of the word "I" and endorsed the House impeachment inquiry. This period was defined by dozens of audiences, a series of impressive revelations about Donald Trump's behavior, and a sharp increase in views and partisan disputes. In the midst of all this, a definite sense of fatigue has set in at Beltway, leaving many legislators and officials ready to turn the page on impeachment. Fortunately for the weary, the Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday seemed to mark the beginning of the end of the chapter in Ukraine – at least in the House.
Perhaps symbolically, Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which served as the impeachment tour guide, was met with applause from his Democratic colleagues during an informal meeting Wednesday morning, an hour before the hearing. Subsequently, Pelosi "talked about the gravity and dark nature of this moment," according to a senior Democrat advisor, and emphasized that House Democrats needed to allow their classmates and spacemates to make their own conclusions about impeachment. But the consensus, according to the aide, was that members "predominantly indicated that they wish to continue advancing the investigation on its current deliberative path – one step at a time."
Contrary to the public hearings that marked the weeks leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday, filled with a parade of diplomats and public officials reporting on the actions of the president and other officials of the Ukrainian saga, Wednesday's hearing was announced. as an academic discussion. The goal was to constitutionally contextualize the investigation into whether Trump committed an unthinkable crime by pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about Ukraine and the 2016 elections.
Earlier this week, a senior Democratic official characterized the audience's goal as "as boring as possible" – rather than a Fox News partisan show and music video factory. With four law professors, Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, Michael Gerhardt, and Jonathan Turley – who was the Republican witness – was purposely designed to be similar to a university classroom. Anticipating Tuesday evening hearing, Congressman Jamie Raskin, who is on the Judiciary Committee, said the witnesses "would explain precisely why we have impeachment in the Constitution."
Discussions about how to define high crimes and felonies and what, oh what, the founding fathers would think of Trump's behavior, however, have revealed a skeleton of the impeachment articles that the House Judiciary Committee is likely to write. In recent days, several Democratic sources I spoke to have identified three broad categories of misconduct: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, and obstruction of justice. While Republicans burned most of the time raising complaints in the process and used Turley to argue that impeachment was a symptom of the country's political climate, rather than a consequence of the president's behavior, Democrats depended on the other three to eliminate the various episodes and revelations discovered in the impeachment inquiry in these general buckets. (Another Democratic source warned that any discussion of articles at this stage would be "speculation.")
“There were three basic reasons that were invoked at the foundation and one was the possibility of the president corrupting the electoral process. Another was the possibility of a president abusing his powers for private gain. And another was a president who essentially compromised our national security with foreign powers, ”said Raskin, himself a former professor of constitutional law. “No other president has come close to doing such an impatient thing. And you know, all you really need to do is one of them, and this president did all three. President Trump is in a league of his own compared to (Richard) Nixon, (Bill) Clinton and (Andrew) Johnson. "
. (tagsToTranslate) donald trump (t) nancy peloi (t) impeachment (t) ukraine (t) obstruction of justice (t) obstruction (t) adam schiff (t) democrats