Whistleblower, Act 1

I watched a few hours of the testimony of Acting DNI Chief Joseph Maguire today.  I also read the whistleblower complaint;

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pqFxJABWA5oogCwf21SFZHcPuYFgiZrN/view

All I can say is there may be a time in history when we will be asked where we were when the impeachment proceedings against President Trump began, and what was our opinion of the proceedings, and I for one will know precisely my answer to those questions.

A few thoughts.

What is transpiring in live action is the result of decades of erosion in the balance of our three branches of government.  While one might say that for the most part, the Supreme Court has avoided too serious a lurch in the favor of one political party over another, hence has released rulings that have favored and irritated both sides, the legislature has incrementally abdicated its power to the executive branch.  Rather than tackling the difficult topics of the day, Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have punted the really hard decisions down the line, leaving the presidents to handle them through executive action, or resulting in non-action, which has created a lack of trust and respect in the electorate.  Additionally, a number of opinion papers within the judiciary of the executive branch have moved the needle of executive privilege and, hence, non-accountability, to the point where, as we speak, there are lawyers representing the president in court claiming that he can not be indicted or investigated while in office.  In other words, we are seeing the idea of "president' moving ever closer to King.

The good news is that there are whistleblower laws within our government that specify that complaints must be evaluated, investigated and brought to the attention of the appropriate entity, and that the whistleblower must be protected from retribution.  And while I have no doubts, after watching acting DNI director Maguire's testimony, that he believes that he followed the law, I do have doubts that had there not been reporting of this particular complaint in the news, we may have never learned about this complaint, at least not through the proper channels.

Clearly, Maguire believes the integrity of the whistleblower, and the Inspector General (IG) who received the complaint, investigated it within the appropriate time frame, deemed it credible and urgent, and then passed it onto Maguire.  But just as clearly, Maguire also believes that it is not within his job description to evaluate the actions of the president, regardless of the seriousness of the accusations, and that his only recourse for this "unprecedented" complaint was to refer it to the justice department for its legal advice.  Perhaps this reveals a naivete on his part, in light of Attorney General Barr's handling of the Mueller report, and the current spate of rulings that seem to elevate the president to a place above the law, and perhaps when he referred it to the FBI he expected they might investigate, but. like Robert Mueller, he missed his chance to demonstrate a patriotism that transcends the law, a patriotism that compels us to reveal the illegal machinations of a CEO, a state representative, or the POTUS, despite a ruling or opinion.

Mueller should have indicted the president after detailing the double digit instances of obstruction of justice, (if you haven't at least glanced at the Mueller report, why?), and Maguire should have turned over the complaint to the Intelligence Committees as required by law, without checking with the accused, his lawyers and his lap dog Attorney General, as to what to do.

There are times when principle stares us right in the face, when our true character is revealed, such as the recent video of a neighbor helping firefighters rescue children from a burning home by catching the kids as they were dropped by their dad.  There are times when we must act, without covering our ass.  While I do not blame Maguire for his decision, I fully believe that when one works in a bureaucracy or corporation, it is wise to learn to follow the rules as laid down by those above you, without question.  It is a good recipe for advancement, but not the best attributes for leadership.

There were a number of questions asked by GOP representatives.  Some chose to laud Maguire for his public service to date, which is, in fact, an admirable achievement.  We need men and women like him to do the everyday work of protecting our country and serving the public good without regards to politics.  Some emphasized that he did his job to the letter of the law, which, as I have explained is a bar not hard to reach, but perhaps one which needed to be leaped over, in this case.  More than one apologized to Maguire for having to appear, as if his testimony was an affront to decency.  Isn't it the job of the legislative branch to investigate these exact type of issues? And some alluded to the idea that the whistleblower might be a "leaker" and that perhaps he/she should be investigated, which I found to be an incredible insult to the entire concept of providing protection for those who truly see illegalities before them.

None of the GOP questioners, however, touched on the actual complaint, although one emphasized that the person willingly stated that much of the complaint was not witnessed by him/her, but based on multiple accounts from multiple people.  And, of course, none of them brought up the fact that the IG is a Trump appointee, which reveals as high an act of patriotism as one could imagine in this bipartisan environment.

My biggest problem with Maguire was his insistence that the complaint was not related to election security when the white house released notes which detail Trump broaching the subject of investigating the Biden's multiple times (remember, this was in July when Biden was comfortably leading in the polls), and the president's statements that he would have his private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and the Attorney General call him to hash out the details.  Additionally, the fact that Trump mentioned Crowdstrike in his phone call, also indicates that he is still trying to absolve Russia from interfering in the 2016 election, a belief that runs contrary to our own national security infrastructure.

The real issue, the one that is staring us all in the face in regards to Donald J Trump, is the danger of imbuing the power of the presidency of our great country into the hands of a person who has demonstrated time and again his belief that he can do whatever he pleases.  His entire life of business dealings and personal relationships reveal the same insidious thread; abuse of power whether that power has emerged from his father, his own wealth, his influence through "donations" to public servants of both parties who were far too willing to due his bidding to preserve their office or line their pockets, the hundreds of non-disclosure agreements that he foists on almost all who enter his world, and the nonchalant way he suggests that anyone who disagrees with him is a bad person.  He has convinced far too many Americans that if you are not pro-Trump you are not pro-America. 

His tweets questioning the party affiliation of the whistleblower reveals it all.  No one on my team questions me, so anyone who questions me must be against me, and by extension, America.  He has no ability to entertain the thought that someone might disagree with him and love America, it is just not possible.  His publicly stated disappointments with ex-Attorney General Sessions for not having his back, adds even more fuel to the fire, as his love of himself justifies his use of, and control, of all other public servants.  They all work for him, not America.  And so, we have handed over immense and awesome powers to a person who calculates every move, performs every action through the lens of what is good for Donald Trump. 

Trump demands loyalty above all, even when that loyalty runs against the good of the country.  His GOP enablers have demonstrated the loyalty he requires, placing the importance of the party over the needs of the country.  This is not to say that the Democrats have not done the same thing in the past, did not ignore President Clinton's obvious flaws, and lies.  At the time, 4 articles of impeachment were voted on by the House, two passed (perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice), and two failed  (a second vote on a different instance of perjury, and abuse of power).  Five Dems voted for 3 of the 4 articles, one for all  articles.   Five Republicans voted against the first article, 8 against the second resulting in those two moving along to the Senate, while 28 Republicans voted against the third article, and a whopping 81 against the abuse of power article, which is why those two did not move onto the Senate.  In the Senate, where 2/3 majority is required, all 45 Democrats voted against the two articles thereby making them mute, but also 5 Republicans voted against the perjury charge and 10 against the abuse of power, making, that last article a bipartisan rejection of impeachment. 

It is not certain that there will be an impeachment vote in the House and trial in the Senate.  If there is one thing for sure, the Democrats are great at misplaying the obvious.  They have let us down more than once by checking the direction of the wind, rather than leading the electorate, more worried about polls and gaining political power than doing what is right.  But just as certain, Nancy Pelosi is shrewd, and appeared to have been waiting for just the right misdeed to galvanize her caucus, waiting for President Trump to go just a bit too far.  The fact that both House and Senate voted unanimously to compel the release of the white house notes and whistleblower complaint, is a possible first crack in the bubble that has protected Trump from bipartisan scrutiny. 

If I were to predict anything, it would be that at least two articles of impeachment would be presented, relating to using taxpayer money to extort foreign interference in the 2020 election, and abuse of power.  I would expect the Democratic majority in the House to garnish enough votes as they hold 235 seats and only need 218 for passage, not withstanding if any members of the GOP caucus vote their conscience. 

The Senate however, is a far different animal.  If all Dems and the 2 Independents vote to convict, that still leaves the necessity of 20 Republican Senators to vote for impeachment.  It is one of the main obstacles that drove Pelosi to express doubt about the wisdom of impeachment, up until now.  In addition to what seems a futile gesture, I had also had my doubts about impeachment from the standpoint of exacerbating country disunity, and the reluctance to void the democratic election and decision by the people of America to elect President Trump.  I would imagine that perhaps that last thought was in the mind of the brave GOP representatives who voted not to impeach Clinton, determining, maybe, that bad personal behavior is not enough to cancel out the voice of the citizenry.

Unfortunately, I believe we are far past just bad personal behavior.  And, not withstanding Maguire's clearly stated loyalty to the office of the presidency, I don't believe Trump has earned such loyalty.  He has besmirched the office in countless ways, not the least of which is using its power, and the monies designated by the Congress, to extort "a favor" from a foreign leader so as to help him win the next presidential election.  And, not to make too fine a point on it, a favor that would not have required any actual facts behind it, as Trump clearly demonstrated with his use of lies and misinformation in the past, most notably the insinuation that ex-President Obama was not born in America.

I was hoping that we might see a resounding defeat of President Trump in 2020, as a way of repudiating a man who believes that all that is good emanates from him, and all that is bad comes from those who disagree.  But it appears now, that Trump was not going to let that happen without using the full powers of the presidency to make sure he is elected again.  Just like those world leaders he admires so much, Putin, Jinping, Erdogan, and the like, Trump will do whatever he can to retain his power,  regardless of the rule of law or the preciousness of our American democracy.