AMERICAN POLITICS - Self-Serving Republicans

"Republicans aren’t serving the country, or even the President.  Just themselves." by Michael Gerson, The Washington Post 1/23/2020

It is another of President Trump’s dubious achievements to turn the ultimate constitutional check on Presidential abuses of power into an utter farce.  Watching Republican senators complain that there is “nothing new” in the case made by House impeachment managers, while they are actively opposing the introduction of new evidence and new testimony, is confirmation of barefaced bad faith.  In this matter, elected Republicans are mainly serving, not the President, and certainly not the republic, but themselves.  Having decided that no amount of evidence would be sufficient for conviction, they realize that the presentation of a full and compelling case would convict them of servility and institutional surrender.  So a quick and dirty Senate trial is the best way to limit the exposure of their malpractice.

This crime against democracy is compounded by the eagerness of Republicans to use impeachment as a fundraising opportunity and method to energize base voters.  The theory seems to be: If you are going to betray the constitutional order, you might as well profit from it.

In the impeachment trial, all the dismal signs point to acquittal at any cost.  And it is not the first time the President has skated.  Despite compelling evidence of wrongdoing and obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, Trump largely escaped accountability (even as many of his smarmy advisers did not escape jail).  The appearance of vindication in this case immediately preceded the President’s decision to squeeze an embattled foreign power for his political benefit.  Give Trump an inch, and he’ll take Ukraine.

How has the President largely avoided the consequences of his corruption?  By employing the methods of his mentor Roy Cohn.  Admit nothing.  Stonewall investigators.  Defy subpoenas.  Viciously attack opponents.  Flood the zone with exculpatory lies.  Feel no shame.  Show no mercy.  Claim anything short of prison to be complete exoneration.

In terms that would have gladdened the heart of Richard Nixon in his day, the coverup is working.  Senate Republicans seem determined to cover up for Trump’s coverup.  What is essentially state-run media — Fox News and conservative talk radio — have created a narrative of establishment persecution that covers up for the Senate’s coverup of the Trump coverup.  The President is protected by layer upon layer of obfuscation, misdirection and deception.  Gradually at first, but now in a sudden rush, the norms of truthfulness, public service and ethical behavior have given way.  And the message has been sent to Trump and future iterations of Trump: Corruption has no consequence.

This is a danger to the country because success breeds replication.  Politicians who never dreamed of being anarchic and transgressive now conduct their public business like the Marx Brothers on a caffeine high.  Consider Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) responding to a perfectly appropriate question by CNN’s Manu Raju by saying, “You’re a liberal hack.”  It is nothing new for a senator to show his or her temper.  But McSally then posted her petulance on Twitter and began raising money on the basis of it.  It is human to lose your cool; taking pride in it is to lose one’s marbles.  But this is normal political behavior in the age of Trump.

There is further danger in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s likely acquittal by the Senate.  The President never views a near-miss as an opportunity for reflection and reformation.  He sees it as permission to indulge his every urge.  And his most consistent urge has been to seek unfair advantage in the upcoming Presidential election.  The months between Senate acquittal and the November vote will be fertile ground for further cheating.

And the election itself presents the greatest danger.  Trump avoided accountability after the Mueller probe.  He is likely to avoid accountability for the Ukraine squeeze.  That leaves one last source of accountability — the election in November.  This will be a test, not of the Republican Party, but of the republic.

Every Presidential election is important.  This one will have an added dimension.  It will be more than a referendum on the President.  It will be a referendum on the moral and ethical standards we apply to our political life.  Will corruption, cruelty and coverups be excused and encouraged?  Or will the boundaries of integrity, honesty and public spirit be redrawn?

Congress — with the large exception of the House majority — has largely failed to defend the democratic virtues essential to self-government.  American voters had better do better.

TRUMP vs IRAN - Weapon of Mass Distraction

Forget impeachment details, let the distraction begin......

"Iranians unite to mourn military icon Qassem Soleimani" PBS NewsHour 1/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets Monday to mourn Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday.  Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, led funeral prayers and wept over Soleimani's body.  But the fallout is more than emotional; as Iran and President Trump trade threats, the U.S. military is bracing for potential retaliation.  Nick Schifrin reports.

"Ambassador: Iran vows revenge, but has nothing against Americans" PBS NewsHour 1/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Friday killing of Iran’s best-known military commander in a U.S. airstrike prompted an outpouring of grief in Tehran -- along with vows of vengeance.  In the aftermath of Qassem Soleimani’s death, the country’s leaders and President Trump exchanged threats about what might come next.  To share Iran’s perspective, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht-Ravanchi joins Judy Woodruff.

"What killing of top Iranian general means for nuclear deal and the U.S. in Middle East" PBS NewsHour 1/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For two views on the latest developments in Iran and Iraq, Nick Schifrin speaks with Narges Bajoghli of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, author of “Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic,” and U.S. diplomat Ryan Crocker, who served as ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon and is now diplomat in residence at Princeton University.

"Iran says it has launched ballistic missiles at American air bases in Iraq" PBS NewsHour 1/7/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After trading threats with the U.S., Iran said Tuesday night it launched ballistic missiles on Iraqi facilities housing U.S. troops in retaliation for the American killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani.  The attacks come after President Trump and top U.S. officials defended the Soleimani strike, which has been blamed for pushing the U.S. and Iran closer to war.  Judy Woodruff and Nick Schifrin report.

" Foreign policy experts weigh in on Trump’s Iran strategy" PBS NewsHour 1/7/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. killing of one of Iran’s top military leaders has prompted questions about whether the Trump administration has an effective strategy for Iran, Iraq and the larger Middle East.  As Iran announces it has fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, Nick Schifrin talks to Mara Karlin of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and the Hudson Institute’s Michael Doran.

"After missile strikes on Iraqi bases, U.S. and Iran both appear to de-escalate" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump says Iran is “standing down” after firing missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops -- but causing no casualties.  But Iran says its goal is to see U.S. forces leave the Middle East.  The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour joins Nick Schifrin, Yamiche Alcindor and Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest developments.

"U.S. should ‘drive a wedge’ between Iranian regime and its people, says Rep. Gallagher" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2020

NOTE:  The effect is exactly opposite, the Iranian people and government are more united.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For a congressional Republican’s perspective on the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, we turn to Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former Marine who deployed twice to Iraq as a commander of intelligence teams.  He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he supported the decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani and what he expects next from Iran.

"Rep. Crow: Congressional questions about Soleimani strike ‘have not been answered’" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For a congressional Democrat’s take on the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, we turn to Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee.  Crow is a lawyer and former Army Ranger who deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan during his military career.  He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he is not satisfied with the Trump administration’s handling of the Soleimani strike.

"Will fallout from Soleimani killing drive U.S. troops from Iraq?" PBS NewsHour 1/10/2020

Fallout?  Russia wins, ISIS wins, (war criminal) Bashar Hafez al-Assad wins.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The fallout from the Trump administration’s killing of Qasem Soleimani continues to unfold -- and it could affect the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.  On Friday, Sec. of State Mike Pompeo rejected Iraqi calls for the U.S. to plan troop withdrawal.  Retired Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit, who served in the George W. Bush administration, and York University’s Thabit Abdullah join Nick Schifrin to discuss.

TRUMP'S WMD - Weapon of Mass Distraction

"Did Trump Assassinate Soleimani and Risk WWW III to Divert Attention From Damning New Evidence Corroborating the Ukrainian Extortion Scheme?" by Steve Jonas, MD, MPH - BuzzFlash 01052020

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President ....... is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.  Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else.  But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."

Theodore Roosevelt, Editorial in The Kansas City Star May 7, 1918

In brief, after an analysis of the all the information publicly available at the present time (that is, 1-3-20), and a review of all the indications that it was (to say the least) apparently done with no planning, no foresight, and no consideration of all the possible negative outcomes, given by a wide variety of authorities through the media to date (other than his "Trump-can-do-no-wrong" allies), it seems that the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was ordered by President Trump for just one reason.  A word that begins with the letter "U." To which we shall come at the end of this missive.

"Assassination" is a word believed to be derived from Arabic that means "political murder."  Now Trump may think that the Iranians speak Arabic.  For after all, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt (no lefty he) in 2015, after he had declared for the Presidency, Trump did not know the difference between "Quds" (as in the Iranian Quds Force) and "Kurds."  Then when Hewitt pressed him a bit, Trump went on the attack against Hewitt for trying to "run a quiz show."  (Hewitt has since become a strong Trump supporter.)

Trump may also not know that Iran is not an Arab country; that they have a language of their own, Farsi; that they have a history of civilized settlements going back over 8000 years; that they had a revolution in 1952 that among other things nationalized what is now British Petroleum.  As a result, the democratically-elected government was overthrown by the CIA in a coup organized by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (a grandson of Teddy's)  Fast forward, when the US first invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attack, Iran offered to help control the Taliban in Western Afghanistan but was officially turned down by President G.W. Bush (although there may have been informal assistance..)

Trump likely has very little Iran-specific historical knowledge, and very likely has a very poor grasp of what is actually going on the Middle East since, to fulfill one of his many random, not-thought-through, anti-Obama-policy political promises, he walked out of the Iran nuclear deal, without thinking through the potential consequences.  Thus, he likely gave little thought to what might, and very likely will, happen were Soleimani to be assassinated.  After all, this is an action contemplated under several US administrations but was never carried out because of the potential for dire consequences arising from it.

So why did Trump order the killing?  (We are leaving aside here all the Constitutional implications of essentially declaring war not only without consulting Congress, not even the pro forma consultation with the “Gang of Eight," although he told Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and a couple of other Republicans in Congress).  He offered no cover story beyond "I think that it is the right thing to do."  Which of course fits right into Trump's dictatorial approach to Presidential power: "I can do anything I want to."

There has been much speculation in the media and among his political supporters: Soleimani is a very bad man who needed to be dealt with, finally; Soleimani has killed many Americans; Soleimani ordered the recent attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad; Soleimani is indispensable to the Iranian military and government (BTW, a successor was appointed within about 12 hrs.; presumably the Iranian leadership, including Soleimani himself, given that he was targeted by the US and Israel, has likely been preparing for this possibility for quite some time).

Really?  Well, if it were for any of these reasons, particularly when the likely outcomes are taken into account, there would have been some long-range (or at least short-range) planning done at the Pentagon and the State Department to begin with to deal with the predictable fall-out.  But such planning was apparently scant, and apparently many senior officials were taken entirely by surprise.  Of course, this reflects the fact that there is no long-term strategy for dealing with Iran other than John Bolton's "regime change" by trying to grind it into the economic dirt through sanctions, which seems further away now than it ever was.

Furthermore, this assassination has, by all accounts thoroughly unified an Iranian politically that was beginning to show some cracks, especially under that US sanctions which have been decimating the Iranian economy and standard of living.  It is also apparently already unifying the US Western allies --- against the Trump US action.  The Russians and the Chinese are not going to take this very lightly, either.  (Putin must also be wondering if his control over Trump is starting to fail.  The attack came just after Iran, Russia and China ran a joint military exercise in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean.  Given the adoration for Trump by his followers, it is possible that none of the ton of stuff Putin must have on him would carry much weight with them.  And anyway, Hannity would then quickly maneuver to make Putin part of the “Deep State.”)

OK.  So, no real understanding by Trump of what is really going on in Iran and Iraq for starters.  No long-range strategy for dealing with Iran in light of the US's unilateral abandonment of the nuclear deal.  No achievable goals for peace in the region.  No plans for war either, apparently.  No close allies for this latest provocation.  So why, and why now?

I have come to the conclusion that transactional Trump did this for just one reason.  It happens to have nothing to do with Iran, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, Israel, or the US European allies.  As noted above, it all comes down to one word, that begins with the letter "U”: Ukraine of course.  If Trump is the master of anything beyond his constant strategy/tactic of "Always attack; Never defend," it is his mastery of his own WMD: Weapons of Mass Distraction.

On Dec. 29, 2019, came out The New York Times report on what really happened in the engineering and attempted implementation of the Ukraine extortion plot.  This report is supported by numerous unredacted emails made available under a FOIA request that the Administration was unable to block.  Indeed, the evidence drop confirmed an attempted extortion plot against Ukrian carried out under the direction Trump.

This report lays it all out, in a way that Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and various White House staff would have.  Under oath, they could not have wriggled our of this one.  Trump clearly did commit an impeachable offense.  Now that the report shows that there was a clear violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, Trump may have provided the basis for a Third Article of Impeachment to be added by the House.  (Please, Madame Speaker: do not send over the first two articles anytime soon!)

This news had been all over the front pages of the real newspapers, all over the chryons of television news.  Have you noticed?  It's not there today (that is Jan. 3).  And it is anybody’s guess if it will survive under Trump’s drumbeat of war.  Depending upon what the House does with the new Ukraine extortion plot emails it may come back into the news.  But for now, Trump has what he wants, transactionally.  The Trump-action has taken away almost all of the attention from a set of documents that seal the deal on the Trump-Ukraine extortion plot, to transform the narrative into "Trump as a man-of-action."  That is even though he didn't bother to leave Mar-a-Lago for the totally secure White House Situation Room in the face of the largest international crisis of his time in the Presidency.  Can't miss too many rounds of golf, donchaknow?

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at StonyBrookMedicine (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 35 books.  In addition to his position on OpEdNews as a “Trusted Author,” he is a contributor to Reader Supported News/Writing for Godot; a contributor to From The G-Man; a Contributor for American Politics to The Planetary Movement; an occasional contributor to BuzzFlashReborn; and a Deputy Editor, Politics, and a “Witness to History,” and an occasional contributor for The Greanville Post; He is also a triathlete (37 seasons, 256 multi-sport races).

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/13/2019

"Shields and Brooks on articles of impeachment, FBI’s Russia mistakes" PBS NewsHour 12/13/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the House Judiciary Committee’s passage of articles of impeachment along party lines, Republicans’ defense of President Trump, how impeachment affects Trump politically, what the Horowitz report says about the FBI and a bombshell report on the Afghan war.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as of today, those are the Judiciary Committee-approved charges against President Trump.  Now it is on the full House of Representatives to decide whether or not to impeach him.

To help us analyze this important week, as always, are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So these two articles of impeachment, David, how strong a case have the Democrats made with this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, two things.  One, I think they have made a strong case.

I think there was clearly a campaign to have a quid pro quo with Ukraine, and it's clearly an impeachable offense.

As for the articles of impeachment, I don't like them.  Abuse of power, what is that?  Like, that's not a criminal thing.  Like, it's a vague construct.  And same with obstruction of Congress.  Like, these are both extremely vague constructs.

And I think they lead away from what actually happened, what crime was committed, and what should the punishment be.  And they will lead to a debate over these vague concepts.

The concepts should hug closely to some sort of criminal concept that's in our court system, so we all have a history about it, so we know the structure of it, and these sort of waft away from it.  So, I think they make the case.  I just don't like the way they framed it.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, too vague and not on the point?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  David, too vague?  No, never.

Judy, I think the best case was made by a unique person, in the sense of Zoe Lofgren, who was a staffer for Don Edwards on the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment, was a member at the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment, is now in the House Judiciary Committee.

And she — I thought she drew the distinction quite compellingly.  And that was that Richard Nixon, no comporting with a foreign power, no attempt to bring the foreign influence into our elections, that he had tried to influence the election improperly, and tried to cover it up with the FBI and the CIA, and paid for it.

That Bill Clinton, no foreign influence, no rigging of an election, he had, totally improperly and indefensibly, had sexual relations with a 21-year-old intern and lied about it.

But this was a President [Trump] trying to rig an election coming up in 2020, using a country, an ally under duress, facing an external threat to its survival from Moscow and — from Russia, and in need of our assistance that had already been voted for, and asking for exchange to get that, to meet — or meeting even with the President to validate the new leader of our ally there, that they spy on an upcoming election in the President's principal opponent.

Judy Woodruff:  And you're saying these articles capture that?  Or they…

Mark Shields:  I think they capture — I mean, I think it's pretty — I just think it's quite straightforward and clearly understandable, and clearly understandable to anybody.

And I think, Judy, quite honestly, no Republican I know will be able to explain to his or her grandchildren why he or she voted against this, I mean, that this was defensible, that this was acceptable behavior on the part of a President of the United States.

David Brooks:  I think it will say, oh, I might have voted for censure.  This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

I still think that's their strongest argument, aside from just throwing up smoke.

Judy Woodruff:  But are you saying, David, that there's another — there's a different article that they could have, should have come up?

David Brooks:  Well, I should have gone to law school because I would know.

(LAUGHTER)

I didn't go to law school.  So I don't have the exact phrase.  I just think the phrase abuse of power just doesn't — it just means nothing and everything to me.

Judy Woodruff:  And obstruction of Congress?

David Brooks:  Well, that's a little closer.  But, frankly, so many people have been accused and sometimes removed for office from that, that do we really undo an election over that one?

And I think something serious happened here.  But it was that — what Mark just described.  But, somehow, the way we're about to debate this doesn't seem to get the seriousness of it.

Mark Shields:  Well, just one side has engaged in the debate.  I mean, the Republicans have not.

I mean, there was an acknowledgment on the part of Clinton's defenders that he had done something wrong, even with Nixon, that there had been a break-in.  I mean, the Republicans are just in a state of denial.  They're sailing blithely on the river denial, I mean, that there was nothing, nothing was done.

This is — Mick Mulvaney tells us, wake up and grow up and accept it.

Judy Woodruff:  The Republicans are calling it a sham, a waste of time.

The President himself is doing the same thing.  He's tweeting a lot.  He was out on the campaign trail this week.  He was in Hershey, Pennsylvania, talking about the impeachment process, also singling out the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.

And here's what the President said:

President Donald Trump:  The president of Ukraine repeatedly declared that there was no pressure, but he didn't want to say that.

We said, say it.  Say it, you crooked bastard.  Say it.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

President Donald Trump:  But he doesn't want to say it.  We said, say it.

I'd like to force him to say it.

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  He will walk up to the mic.  "Ladies and gentlemen."

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  The guy total corrupt guy.

Judy Woodruff:  So that plays well with Trump supporters, doesn't it?

David Brooks:  He's a showman.  And that's showbiz.

And I have to say, I had a friend come from — he'd been away in Israel and came back to the United States.  And he came to me, he said, Trump's really funny.

And I don't always see the humor.  But, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, tens of thousand of people saw the humor, and hundreds of thousands of million — hundreds of millions — or tens of millions of people around the country see the humor.

And they just think the guy's funny, and I like that.

Judy Woodruff:  It seems — it's working?  I mean, he's using coarse, tough language.

Mark Shields:  It's not working.  He's running behind Joe Biden and every other leading Democrat.

Judy, just think of politicians, political leaders in your lifetime, whether it's the city — shining city on a hill, or the hope, and that's — or what we can do together, you know, what we owe each other.

This is the antithesis of that.  This is the politics of grievance.  This is not that we are surrounded by those with whom we can work, we can reach across, we can — that my opponent is — my adversary is not mistaken or ill-informed.  My opponent is my enemy and is evil and hates this country and hates you.

And, boy, that didn't echo through Jim Jordan's words.  I mean, Donald Trump has spawned protégées and knockoff versions: They hate us.  They're out to get us.

It really is — it's a terribly bleak and dismal and dark America that this President portrays and those who support him.

David Brooks:  You know, we have all based our careers on the notion that we can have a conversation.

And so I would stand up for those values as much as anybody.  But in a time when people hate the political establishment so much, one of Trump's secrets is to find there has to be a stylistic way of talking that seems different.

And even for those of us on our side have to find the stylistic way of talking that feels authentic to people.  And some of the old communication styles that we used to do or that candidates used to do, I think that just is not resonating with people right now.

And that's been true around the world.  And you can get somebody who's conservative or progressive who doesn't exhaust everybody all the time and who actually talks in a normal tone and actually listens.

Mark Shields:  Yes.  No.

David Brooks:  But, somehow, something has to change.  And that's one of the things we have learned, not only from Trump, but the world politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Some people are pointing to Boris Johnson winning in Britain.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

I guess just — and I agree with David, but just one point, Judy, and that is, at no point is there any celebration of what we have achieved in this country, I mean, the fact that we have cut the poverty rate among people over the age of 65 by two-thirds, that we have removed 85 percent of lead from the air, I mean, all of the things we have done and are doing.

We have got a long way to go.  But we have achieved, and there are good things that America does.

Judy Woodruff:  Two — well, in a completely different direction, two investigations I want to ask you both about.

One, David, is the inspector general at the Department of Justice went back and looked at the origins of the Trump campaign Russia investigation.  Republicans had been saying it would show political bias.  The inspector general said — didn't find political bias, but he did find a lot of mistakes.

What do we take away from this?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, with Fiona Hill and a lot of people who testified, we saw the federal government at its best.  And now we're seeing another side, which is incompetence.

And I take them at their word there was no political bias.  But there was certainly a lot of incompetence, and they were certainly spinning the game.  And the investigation into Carter Page, just for one [actually the only] example, he was meeting with the Russians.  And he was telling the CIA, I just want you to know I'm meeting with them.

And the FBI did not disclose that fact that he told the CIA, which certainly makes it look a lot less suspicious than it otherwise would be.  And, frankly, this vindicates a lot of the — not everything, but a lot of the stuff Devin Nunes was saying, House Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, saying they weren't playing fair.

And so this is a case where I don't like — maybe there wasn't bias, but there was certainly a lot of incompetence and there were certainly people getting over their skis in trying to pursue an investigation, maybe without as much cause as they pretended.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you take away from that.

Mark Shields:  That there wasn't — I agree with David.  There were serious mistakes made.

And I think that FISA process is open, not only to scrutiny, but to severe criticism.  But I — when Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, appointed by President Trump, says investigations were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with the adequate federal predication — predication the recent word that is now in vogue — but he gets lambasted by the President.

It's like everybody got something out of this investigation, except the President, who wanted it to be a coup.  And there was no coup.  That's it.  I mean, I think a lot of people have to answer what they did as far as the visa [FISA?], but there was no coup.

COMMENT:  What David Brooks is failing to realize is that impeachment does NOT have to relate to a crime like in normal courts.  The definition of "High crimes and Misdemeanors" are totally up to the House and can be political.

RUSSIA PROBE - DOJ Inspector General Findings

Of course Trump's 'Personal' attorney AG Barr disagrees.  Again Barr forgets he works for the American people not Trump.

"DOJ inspector general finds Russia probe was appropriately opened — but Barr disagrees" PBS NewsHour 12/9/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A long-awaited report into the origins of the Russia probe found no evidence of a political conspiracy against President Trump.  But the Justice Department’s Inspector General criticized the FBI’s handling of wiretap applications used in the early stages of the investigation.  William Brangham reports and Judy Woodruff talks to John Carlin, former assistant attorney general for national security.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/29/2019

"Shields and Brooks on impeachment public opinion, shifting 2020 Democratic race" PBS NewsHour 11/29/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including public opinion and legal debate in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, the shifting race among 2020 Democrats and what we’re thankful for during this holiday week.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Now here to analyze the politics of this Thanksgiving week, as always, are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Hi, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  So, the impeachment process, we are seeing the Judiciary Committee marching ahead, David.

There's a hearing next week where they are going to talk to constitutional scholars about impeachment.  The committee sent a letter to the White House saying the President has until next Friday to say whether he's going to call witnesses and provide evidence.

Meantime, the President is out on the campaign trail saying the whole thing is a witch-hunt, and he's not going to cooperate.

And is he making some progress, because we're seeing the polls show some slipping in support for impeachment?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, especially in swing states.

And so I think the contrast for the coming week will be that the Democrats will be ever more treating this like a legal matter, and Donald Trump will be ever more treating it like a political matter, and them trying to close it in on the exact events and him trying to widen it, see, this is just what they have been doing at me.  They have been — this is an attack on you.

And they will both win.  And the impeachment now numbers are just like every other numbers in our politics, completely divided right down the middle, and with nobody moving on either side.

And so I suspect Trump will see this as a tremendous way to get his base, and Democrats will see the same way.  And we will march forward.  And eventually it'll end.  And then we will turn our attention the Democratic Party, and I'm not sure what will have been achieved.

Judy Woodruff:  His best defense, go out and call it a witch-hunt?

Mark Shields:  David is such a Pollyanna.

Look, Judy, I think continues to slide is just a little bit of an overstatement.

If you think — compare this to Watergate, it took 26 months after the break-in at Watergate, 14 months of hearings, to get to the point where we are now with Richard Nixon.  That was the summer of 1974, one month before he resigned, to the point we are with Donald Trump right now.

And as far as — I mean, you can look at all the polls.  Ipsos does it — has done six since the end of October.  It's gone from 47 percent in favor of impeachment, to 41 against, to 47 percent in favor of impeachment, 41 — 40 against.  I mean, it's been next to — next to no movement.

I just I think that we have, quite frankly, is early stages.  And we're very much in the early stages.  And I think for us to rush — Jeff Horwitt, the Democratic pollster who does The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll with Bill McInturff, the Republican, compares it, the impeachment and conviction in the Senate, as to the criminal part of a trial.

And the civil — the civil trial will be the election of 2020.  Donald Trump may very well be not guilty in the criminal part, but, right now, he's in just terrible, terrible shape looking at November 2020.

Have 47 — 6 percent of Americans who say they would vote for anybody except Donald Trump.  And 34 percent say they will vote for Donald Trump, regardless of who runs against him.

David Brooks:  Yes.

Mark Shields:  So, I mean, he's really just in worse shape than any incumbent in my lifetime.
Judy Woodruff:  So are you saying — and I'm going to turn to David on this.  Are you saying that this is not about impeaching him and removing him from office by the Congress, but doing it — but damaging him enough so that it happens at the polls next November?

David Brooks:  Well, that's not the way it's supposed to be.

Mark Shields:  No.

David Brooks:  It's supposed to be a legal thing to see if he did high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don't — I agree, I think Donald Trump is in serious trouble, more than — more than most of my Democratic friends do.  That having said, in swing states, The Times had a poll that gave everybody anxiety on the Democratic side about two weeks ago showing Trump winning all these swing states.

And we have, surprisingly, shockingly little data on how he's doing in swing states or how impeachment is doing in swing states.  The one thing we do have is a poll that Marquette did in Wisconsin, which was 40 percent support, 55 percent oppose.

And so if that's the way the swing states are reacting, then that's not a good thing, because this is not going to be about looking at how the whole country views this.  This is about how those swing voters are viewing it.

And whether the Democrats want to go and do Watergate style or Watergate length set of hearings, it seems to me that's highly problematic.

I think there's a case, as we discussed last week for bringing in Mike Pompeo, and trying to ask him some questions.  But the Democrats so far seem loath to do this because they want to rush this thing.  And so that — that's just a big philosophical difference.  Do they go big and try to engineer that, or do they say, let's just get this over with?

TRUMP'S CONSIGLIERE - Rudy's Business Dealings

Consigliere:  Is a position within the leadership structure of the Sicilian, Calabrian and American Mafia.  The word was popularized in English by the novel The Godfather (1969) and its film adaptation.  In the novel, a Consigliere is an advisor or counselor to the boss, with the additional responsibility of representing the boss in important meetings both within the boss's crime family and with other crime families.

"What were Rudy Giuliani’s business dealings in Ukraine?" PBS NewsHour 11/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It was another day of revelations in the saga of President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, which prompted the impeachment inquiry.  What was Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, doing in that Eastern European country?  What did the President know about the whistleblower complaint -- and when?  Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest and put it into context.

TRUMP - Impeachment Update

"The latest from the impeachment inquiry, including new transcripts and a court ruling" PBS NewsHour 11/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  More transcripts from closed-door impeachment hearings were released Tuesday, providing new insight into how aid to Ukraine was delayed -- and why.  Meanwhile, a federal court ruled witnesses subpoenaed in the impeachment inquiry must testify, noting that "Presidents are not kings.”  Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss these developments and news from the House Judiciary Committee.

"How Nixon, Clinton and Johnson dealt with the threat of impeachment" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Impeachment is a rare event in American politics.  Amid the past few weeks of public hearings, we have wondered how this episode compares to previous instances of impeachment.  Amna Nawaz spoke with three historians, each focused on a former president who had to grapple with that threat: Peter Baker on Bill Clinton, Timothy Naftali on Richard Nixon, and Brenda Wineapple on Andrew Johnson.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/22/2019

"Shields and Brooks on impeachment hearing revelations, Democratic debate takeaways" PBS NewsHour 11/22/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the biggest revelations and most compelling characters from impeachment hearings, whether they will change voters' minds about impeachment, how 2020 Democrats performed in their fifth debate and President Trump’s moves on military justice.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Historic impeachment hearings and another debate for the Democrats running for President.  It was a very full week.  It has been, is a very full week for American politics.

And here to help us make sense of it all, as always, Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

Let's go straight to impeachment, Mark.

Five days of hearings now, three more this week, a lot of drama, a lot of attention on television.  What did you take away from it?

Mark Shields.  syndicated columnist:  I took away from it, Judy, a quote from Oscar Handlin, who was the great American historian, Pulitzer Prize-winning for his book "The Uprooted."

He said, I sought to write a book on American immigrants, the history of American immigrants, and I realized that immigrants are American history.

And that point was driven home so forcefully.  It was Ambassador Yovanovitch.  It was Colonel Vindman.  It was Fiona Hill.

And these are people who are Americans by choice, not by accident, like you and I.  And he and she, every one of them was reassuring.  And I have to say, for every cheap political ad that is run against nameless, faceless bureaucrats, these were people with names and with faces and who put their careers, their comfort, their peace of mind, their futures, in many cases, on the line to speak truth to power.

And I was humbled to watch them and to listen to them.

Judy Woodruff:  David?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I agree with that.  It was a good couple of weeks for Washington [DC] insiders, people who have been trained by the government to do things a certain way.

And that way — there's a right way and there's a wrong way.  And most of the people who have been trained by the Foreign Service understood quickly that this was the wrong way to go about things.  This was unethical.

I think Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, I don't think it ever occurred to them that this was unethical.  What strikes me — and this came out in Sondland's testimony — that everyone was in the loop, that this was not something they tried to hide.

This was just something they thought was the way politics gets done or foreign policy gets done, that there's no division between personal gain and public service.

And so I think that's the big takeaway for me out of these weeks, is that, when this started, you could have thought, oh, it was Trump just rambling on a phone call, because we had that transcript, if you remember.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  But now it's clear that everybody knew.  And some people reacted with shock and horror.  And some people said, well, this is just the crazy stuff we got to tolerate working for Donald Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  Is the case, Mark, now made stronger that the Democrats have been trying to make that they say is a slam dunk, that the President tried to get the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, in other words, to do the President a favor politically?

Mark Shields:  Yes, I think it is.

Yes, I think Ambassador Sondland was probably the least impressive, but the most damaging, of all the witnesses.  He was going to go down.  He was going to say, as David put it, in the loop were Secretary Pompeo, in the loop was Chief of Staff Mulvaney, in the loop was Ambassador Bolton, who, interestingly enough, we're going to find out if he has the same courage of his convictions, the same backbone as Fiona Hill, who worked for him did, or has a $2 million book sale advance bought his silence.

I would be interested to see if he's going to come forward and speak truth to power.

Judy Woodruff:  He tweeted today that he's going to speak.

(CROSSTALK)

But we don't know.

Mark Shields:  He got his Twitter back, is what I read in his tweets today.  And I'm just really reassured by that.

(LAUGHTER)

So, I just — I really think that the case is strong.

What I have underestimated — and I think David was right — is the fear that David — that Donald Trump exercises over Republicans.

I mean, people talked about Lyndon Johnson being a fearsome political leader.  They don't even approach.  I mean, he [Trump] strikes fear into the hearts of Republicans up and down the line.  And I think that is — that, to me, has been eye-opening in its dimensions.

Judy Woodruff:  So, the case — is the case stronger, David, or does it even matter?

David Brooks:  Well, the case is legally stronger, but it's not politically stronger.

We have had now a bunch of polls.  Nate Silver's Web site, FiveThirtyEight, has an agglomeration of them.  And it shows that the public support for impeachment has gone down very slightly over the last couple of weeks.  It's now about 45-45.  The nation is evenly divided.

In swing states, it's gone — impeachment has become less popular.  We don't have a lot of data.  But, in Wisconsin, only 40 percent of voters support impeachment.  Roughly 53 oppose it.

And I think we have seen there's a Politico poll where they asked independent voters, what do you think?  And independent voters don't like it at all, and by 61-23, they think that's the sort of thing that's more of interest to media people than it is to me.

And so I don't think — I don't think — I think everybody knows he's guilty.  They just don't think this is the issue that affects my life.  And why are they talking about all this stuff?

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — I mean, Mark, the Republicans keep saying, as we heard yesterday, it's a show trial, the Democrats have been out to get President Trump from day one.

Is that the argument that is winning people over?

Mark Shields:  It's an argument, Judy, but it's not a persuasive argument.  I mean, just as a political calculus, it was not — it didn't make sense.

I mean, there was no question, after the Mueller Report was botched, or however you want to put it, or the — Attorney General Barr stepped on it, Donald Trump felt liberated, and liberated enough to make that phone call.

And the reality is that there wasn't a Democrat who was not under indictment or detox who was thinking in terms of impeachment at that point.  It wasn't until the news of this came out, and it became so obvious.

I mean, not to act was an action itself that Democrats or anybody else in Congress or America would have to answer for.  I mean, if this is modus operandi, acceptable for an American President to do this, to extort basically another country that is dependent upon us, to get information, unflattering, unhelpful, damaging information the President's political opponent, and that is — that's, what, OK, acceptable, look the other way?

I mean, you have got a lot to answer for if you don't address it.

David Brooks:  Yes, I think that's a strong argument.  They had to do this just to uphold the standards of our country, and that I can't think of any President who has done anything as bad as this and didn't get impeached.

And so, I mean, that's basically true.  I think Democrats do have to acknowledge that it's not a political winner.  And some of them walked into this sort of knowing that.

Judy Woodruff:  Why not?  What do you mean, not a political winner?

David Brooks:  Well, I think if you're losing independents and you're losing swing states, and you're — it's very likely now that six of your Senate candidates will be sitting in Washington, D.C., through January during the Senate trial, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the rest, then this is a kind of a disadvantage.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  And I think it is just — I think — my conversations with Trump supporters in red states, first of all, when I go out there, nobody talks about.  It's just not on the subject.  Then, if you ask, everyone I have spoken to says, yes, he did it, and he shouldn't have done, it was a stupid thing to do.

But this is — we're in the context of a long political and cultural war in this country.  And, finally, I have got a guy who hits back at the people who hate me.  And so I'm not going to abandon him.

And so they don't see it as a unique trial about one incident.  They see it as part of the longer political battle we have in this country, and they're not going to abandon him.  That's been my experience with people I have spoken with.

TRUMP - Impeachment Hearings 11/18 - 11/23

"How both sides are preparing for a packed week of impeachment hearings" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2019

HINT:  A person can be arrested, tried, convicted of ATTEMPTED robbery, which means the crime was not completed.  This applies to what Trump attempted.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump says he will consider testifying on his own behalf in the impeachment inquiry.  Former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, career State Department official Jennifer Williams, departing National Security Council official Tim Morrison, and National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are scheduled to appear Tuesday.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

"What we learned from public testimony of officials on Trump’s July 25 call" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Tuesday marked a significant day in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as officials on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy testified in open hearings for the first time.  Lisa Desjardins, Nick Schifrin and Yamiche Alcindor join Amna Nawaz to discuss the day’s highlights, including a personal attack on a witness in the middle of testifying.

"Rep. Mike Johnson on Vindman’s reputation, witness credibility and Trump’s frustration" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House Judiciary Committee is ultimately responsible for deciding if impeachment charges will be brought against President Trump.  Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana is a member of that committee, and he joins Amna Nawaz to discuss why he is frustrated with the impeachment inquiry proceedings so far and whether he thinks the President should answer questions about his Ukraine dealings.

"Rep. Jayapal on ‘damning’ impeachment evidence and what happens next" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington [state] is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which will ultimately be responsible for deciding if impeachment charges are brought against President Trump.  Jayapal joins Amna Nawaz to discuss why she is disturbed by her Republican colleagues’ defense of Trump’s actions and the most “damning” evidence she has seen in the investigation so far.

"Why Gordon Sondland’s public testimony was ‘extraordinary’" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified to the House Wednesday that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine and that he followed President Trump’s orders to work with Rudy Giuliani.  Sondland also implicated Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence in a pressure campaign.  Nick Schifrin, Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

And from Trump's Propaganda Minister.....

"Kellyanne Conway says ‘there was no pressure applied’ to Ukraine" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration quickly pushed back on the claims of Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, among others, were aware of Sondland’s efforts to get Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens.  Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"What Rep. Steve Cohen thinks about the evidence against Trump" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House Judiciary Committee would hold hearings on impeachment after the House Intelligence Committee concludes theirs.  Do those Democrats feel they have enough evidence to move forward with articles of impeachment for President Trump?  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) is a member of that committee, and he joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what Ambassador Gordon Sondland said.

"How testimonies from Fiona Hill and David Holmes filled in Sondland’s ‘gaps’" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the week’s final day of public impeachment hearings, Dr. Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, the political affairs counselor at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified to the House.  Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor and Nick Schifrin join Judy Woodruff to discuss how the information they shared filled in the gaps.

"Leon Panetta and Bill McCollum on where the impeachment inquiry goes next" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Let’s take a broader view of all the testimony in this week's public impeachment hearings.  Leon Panetta was chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton and later served as director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense under former President Obama.  Former Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla) served as one of the House managers for Clinton’s impeachment trial.  They join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"What happens next in the impeachment inquiry" PBS NewsHour 11/22/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This week was a historic one for American government.  Over three days, the House Intelligence Committee held public hearings with nine more witnesses as part of an inquiry into whether President Trump should be impeached.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss when the Intelligence Committee might publish a report on its findings and the upcoming role of the Judiciary Committee.

"Impeachment inquiry is ‘only just beginning’ after testimony" PBS NewsHour 11/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As Congress takes a Thanksgiving break, Democratic and Republican staff members are drafting reports on the impeachment inquiry that will determine the next phases of the process.  Jami Floyd, a host and legal editor at WNYC New York Public Radio, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/15/2019

"Shields and Brooks on impeachment testimony, newest 2020 Democrats" PBS NewsHour 11/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including whether public impeachment hearings are making President Trump more or less vulnerable, what stood out about the witnesses who testified so far, whether Trump’s Ukraine dealings are surprising or "in character" and the latest dynamics among 2020 Democrats.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Now joining us to analyze this historic week in American politics are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, David, I guess you could say it's the best of times and the worst of times for President Trump.  On the one hand, we just reported the financial markets today were off the charts, setting new records all over the place, but, meantime, there are impeachment hearings going on just down the street from the White House.

Look at this first couple of days of hearings.  Have the Democrats strengthened their argument, or where are we?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I think they have.

The case is very solid and airtight that there was the quid pro quo.  All the testimony points to that.  And, mostly, you see a contrast.

In the first two, the first two gentlemen that testified on the first day, they were just upstanding, solid public servants.  And I was like — I felt like I was looking back in time, because I was looking at two people who are not self-centered.  They, like, cared about the country.  They were serving.  They had not partisan axe to grind.  They were just honest men of integrity.

And I thought we saw that again today with Yovanovitch.  And in her case, the day was more emotional, because you got to see a case of bullying against a strong, upstanding woman.

And so I thought she expressed — like, the heavy moments of today where when she expressed her reaction to how badly she was treated.  And so that introduces an element of emotion and pathos into what shouldn't be just a legal proceeding.  It should be something where people see the contrast between good people and bad people.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you — how is it all adding up for you?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, the conventional wisdom, Judy, last Friday, was that it would be — the Democrats would impeach in the House and the Republicans would acquit in the Senate.

I think the conventional wisdom has been dealt a blow.  I think we have learned and reminded ourselves again that this is a not a static process.  It's a dynamic process.

Each testimony changes the narrative and changes the reality.  There's no question that the first two witnesses, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent, have inspired and encouraged and given spirit to other people to come forward, David Holmes today.

And Ambassador Yovanovitch, I agree with David.  After listening to Ambassador Taylor and Secretary Kent, you came away with a sense of respect and admiration.

Today, you were moved, not only at Ambassador Yovanovitch's own story, but there's a sense of outrage building.  This is a story of corruption, corruption not in Ukraine, corruption in the United States.

I mean, why?  Why did they go to such lengths to denigrate, to attack, to try and destroy and sabotage the career of a dedicated public servant, a person who had put her life on the line?  Why did they do it?  What was it, money?  Was it power?

Why was Rudy Giuliani doing it?  Why was the President involved?  I think there's a real narrative that's developing.

Judy Woodruff:  And you're saying that you think the Democrats are making the point…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  I think the witnesses are making the point.

And, obviously, the President, today, by tweeting and attacking, I mean, he invariably punches down.  This is a man who doesn't punch up.  He never takes on somebody his own size or somebody bigger.  It's always somebody smaller.

The idea of witness intimidation, of just the worst of bullying, before God and man, as he did it, is just — it's unforgivable.

And I think, as Mike Rogers, a former Republican congressman from Michigan, put it very well, the only time he isn't shooting himself in the foot is when he's stopping to reload his gun.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, I mean, the Republicans kept pushing back today, just saying the whole thing is a sham, is a waste of time, and worse.

What should we measure the success of these hearings by?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  I mean, what…

David Brooks:  I mean, if this were a football game, it would be 42-3.

The Republicans, I don't blame them.  There's just not much of a case there.  What he is accused of clearly happened.  And it's so hard to — you can throw up some flares and do some defensive measures, which Republicans are doing.  And they're complaining about whether the process is fair.  But they don't have much to work with.

I do disagree that this is somehow changing minds.  I have seen no polling evidence that it's changing minds.  I don't think people are watching particularly out in the country.

Since this whole impeachment thing has started, I have probably been in 20 states.  I can't think of too many places where people have talked to me about this.  And I talk to — you go out and interview lots of people and people are talking about other stuff.

And so if it's changing minds, especially in Middle America or in the swing states, I see no evidence of that.  My newspaper did a big story this morning, interviewing a lot of people there.  There was no evidence of that.

So I do think the case is a very strong one.  I do think what he has done was appalling.  But Americans who like him like him.  And the economy is the economy.

And so I'm not sure I see the evidence that Mark sees.

Mark Shields:  Let me…

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — yes, sure.

Mark Shields:  Let me just make two quick points in response to David.

First, it's a legal constitutional case, which I think is building and was — certainly the witnesses buttressed this week.  But the other thing is — whether it's the diabolical plotting of Nancy Pelosi or whatever, there's a political case.

And it makes it more difficult to stand up for Donald Trump.  It's going to make it more difficult for Republicans to stand up.  You just say, oh, that's Donald Trump being Donald Trump.

What he did today to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I mean, is just unforgivable at a human level.  You can't say, gee, he's my kind of guy, I like this kind of guy.

The other thing is, Judy, the collateral story, Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state…

Judy Woodruff:  State.

Mark Shields:  … the hollowing out of the department, this is a hollowed-out man.

In the Marine Corps, there's a simple rule every enlisted man learns.  And that is, officers eat last and that any officer worries first about feeding his or her privates and lieutenants before he even picks up a knife or a fork.

And Mike Pompeo is the antithesis of that.  He is missing in action.  He's absent without leave.  When his own people are under attack and under siege, he goes quiet.  He goes mute.  I mean, he is a disgrace to the United States military, the United States military academy, and is just a hollowed-out man.

David Brooks:  Well, Trump governs by fear.

But I think this only changes if we're surprised.  And if Trump had been a Boy Scout up until this week, we would all be shocked by this behavior.  But we have been sitting here three years angry and outraged week after week, throwing spittle around because of how upset and offended we are.

Judy Woodruff:  So, you're saying there's not that much new?

David Brooks:  There has to be a surprise for this to change.

And Trump's behavior today and over the course of this episode is totally in character.

Mark Shields:  Stay tuned, David.

David Brooks:  OK.

Mark Shields:  Stay tuned.