We begin today’s roundup with an op-ed by seven Democratic members of Congress highlighting the national security implications of the president’s conduct:
This flagrant disregard for the law cannot stand. To uphold and defend our Constitution, Congress must determine whether the president was indeed willing to use his power and withhold security assistance funds to persuade a foreign country to assist him in an upcoming election.
If these allegations are true, we believe these actions represent an impeachable offense. We do not arrive at this conclusion lightly, and we call on our colleagues in Congress to consider the use of all congressional authorities available to us, including the power of “inherent contempt” and impeachment hearings, to address these new allegations, find the truth and protect our national security.
Here’s The Washington Post’s take and some more context on Rudy Giuliani’s actions in Ukraine:
Mr. Giuliani has a record of doing business with Ukrainians close to Russia and to former president Viktor Yanukovych, a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin who, after being ousted by a popular uprising in 2014, was accused of looting millions of dollars. To obtain his concocted allegations of wrongdoing, Mr. Giuliani relied on two former Ukrainian state prosecutors, both of whom were enemies of the reform movement and were accused by Western officials of blocking anti-corruption investigations.
And let’s not forget the acting Director of National Intelligence’s conduct as well. Chris Whipple explains:
Maguire will pay a price should he decide to turn over the whistleblower’s complaint to the congressional committees. He will be savaged by Trump and might well lose his job. There was hell to pay for Coats, too, when he told the truth to the American people, defending intelligence community assessments that contradicted the president. He did not care. He did his job.
By all accounts, Maguire is an honorable man and a straight shooter who defended this country as a Navy SEAL. It is time for him to do the same as director of national intelligence.
David Graham says that it’s time for accountability:
If the worst consequence was some articles in the press and handwringing by Democratic politicians, Trump wasn’t worried. Who cares what they think? But the introduction of the formal legal complaint changed the calculus. The whistle-blower process is laid out in law, which is bad enough; and trying to circumvent the procedures has Democrats talking more seriously about impeachment, which would be an even worse consequence.
Talking about impeachment, though, is a long way from actually going forward with it. Trump will be watching what Democrats do, not what they say. He might be angry while he watches, but he won’t be ashamed.
Jonathan Chait:
The House will probably vote soon to make clear its intention to impeach Trump unless he hands over the full whistleblower complaint. Perhaps he will do so, and perhaps it will not incriminate him. What seems more likely now is a prospect that had appeared remote just days ago: The House of Representatives will hold impeachment proceedings for President Donald Trump.
At USA Today, Evan McMullin says Congress must assert its powers:
One of the vital lessons I learned as an undercover CIA officer, and later as an adviser to Republicans in Congress, was how corrupt leaders escalate their abuses of power at the expense of their citizens’ freedom while trying to retain power. [...]
Republicans and Democrats in Congress should perform their vital responsibility to uphold the Constitution without further delay, demonstrating Trump’s danger and the importance of their power, while setting the stage for political renewal in America. If they do not, they should expect Trump’s attacks on American democracy to further escalate — and they should bear responsibility for its consequences.
On a final note, don’t miss John Cassidy’s latest:
Can the Presidential wrecking ball be stopped before Trump reduces everything to rubble? Not by the laws of the land, which—he has been delighted to discover—don’t seem to apply to a sitting President. Impeachment was the remedy that James Madison and some of his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention came up with, and this could prove to be the moment at which Nancy Pelosi, losing control of her caucus, finally takes the plunge. But Madison assumed that all parties and factions in Congress would be sufficiently independent to bring a rogue President to heel. That assumption no longer applies. With most elected Republicans terrified of incurring the wrath of the maga hordes, it seems inconceivable that the Senate would convict Trump of impeachable offenses, regardless of the evidence.