Quick hits (part II)

1) EJ Dionne with the (I think) reasonable, middle-course on the impeachment issue:

This means the House Judiciary, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform committees should and will begin inquiries immediately. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) took the first step on Friday by subpoenaing the full, unredacted Mueller report, which the administration immediately resisted. Mueller himself has rightly been asked to appear before both Judiciary and Intelligence.

Nothing is gained by labeling these initial hearings and document requests part of an “impeachment” process. But impeachment should remain on the table. Because Trump and Barr will resist all accountability, preserving the right to take formal steps toward impeachment will strengthen the Democrats’ legal arguments that they have a right to information that Trump would prefer to deep-six.

For now, it’s useful for Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) to underscore the outrageousness of the abuses Mueller found by calling for impeachment while Democrats in charge of the inquiries such as Nadler and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, say, as both did on Sunday, they’ll reserve judgment while they sift through the facts…

Of course, Trump is not the only issue in politics. Democratic presidential candidates are already out there focusing on health care, climate, economic justice and political reform. The House can continue other work while the investigators do their jobs.

In an ideal world, the corruption and deceitfulness Mueller catalogued would already have Trump flying off to one of his golf resorts for good. But we do not live in such a world. Defending democratic values and republican government requires fearlessness. It also takes patience.

2) Pretty interesting research from our NCSU MPA director who’s office is across the hall from me:

The debate over tax incentives usually centers on whether they lead to job creation and other economic benefits. But governments must also pay attention to their own bottom lines. This begs the question: How do all the financial incentives that states offer actually influence fiscal health?

New research seeks to answer that question. Using data from the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, researchers at North Carolina State University tallied all incentives offered by 32 states from 1990 to 2015, effectively covering 90 percent of incentives nationally. What they found doesn’t portray incentives in a positive light. Most of the programs they looked at — investment tax credits, property tax abatements, and tax credits for research and development — were linked with worse overall fiscal health for the jurisdiction that enacted them.

“It’s not that incentives are bad or that we shouldn’t use incentives,” says Bruce McDonald, an NC State associate professor who led the research team. “But if a state or local government is going to provide an incentive, there needs to be some kind of clarity on what the realistic expectations are for what they might get back.”

3) San Francisco has been trying to use school choice to desegregate its schools.  It’s not working.

4) Seth Masket has been interviewing Democratic activists in early-primary states.  They are no fans of Joe Biden.

5) Elizabeth Drew on “The Danger in Not Impeaching Trump”

The principal challenge facing the Democrats is that they’ll have to answer to history. The founders put the impeachment clause in the Constitution to allow Congress to hold accountable, between elections, a president who’s abusing power. They specified that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not necessarily crimes on the books but arise from the singular power of the presidency.

It’s of course politically easier to go after a president for having committed a crime — for example, perjury, for which President Bill Clinton was ostensibly impeached. But that was because the House Republicans didn’t want to say out loud what they were actually going after him for: extramarital sex with an intern in the study next door to the Oval Office.

Many people are getting their history and their definition of impeachment wrong by asserting that what forced Nixon to resign was the revelation in August 1974, very late in the process, of a recording of his trying to obstruct justice. This leads them to the erroneous conclusion that it’s essential to find a “smoking gun” to impeach a president.

In fact, even before that tape was released, the House Judiciary Committee had already approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon. It was widely understood that opinion had moved so strongly against him that the House would approve those articles and the Senate would vote to convict Nixon on those grounds. The tape simply hastened the finale.

By far the most important article of impeachment approved by the House committee on a bipartisan basis was Article II, which called for the punishment of Nixon for abusing presidential power by using the executive agencies (such as the Internal Revenue Service) to punish his enemies and for failing to uphold the oath of office to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It also said, significantly, that a president could be held accountable for a pattern of abusive or even illegal behavior by his aides.

Madison and Hamilton didn’t say anything about holding off on impeachment because it would be politically risky. It’s hard to imagine they’d put political convenience on the same footing as the security of the Constitution. And the Democrats who prefer to substitute the 2020 election for an impeachment fight don’t appear to have considered the implications if Mr. Trump were to win: Would that not condone his constitutional abuses and encourage his authoritarian instincts? [emphases mine]

6) And Danielle Allen writes, “What Alexander Hamilton would say about the Mueller report”

To quote the Mueller report: “The President has no more right than other citizens to impede official proceedings by corruptly influencing witness testimony.” In addition, the president bears a second burden of personal responsibility — not merely to execute the powers of his office (for instance, hiring and firing) but also to execute those powers “faithfully.”

That question of faithfulness is what Hamilton had in mind when he referred to the “delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility.” The constitutional apparatus gave to Congress the power and responsibility of addressing that delicate matter. The most important question now before us is whether Congress will use its power — and indeed, rebuild it after a period of decline — to reinforce two core principles of the Constitution: that the president is not above the law and that he or she should be held to a standard of faithfulness.

Hamilton was one of the leading architects of an energetic presidency and was also the person who was therefore most obliged to explain to the public how the country could be assured that such energy would not be misused. A key difference between the British crown and the new American president, he twice insisted in the Federalist Papers, was that the “person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable.” In contrast, the president was “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law.” The result of this was that, “In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?”

Above all, what was materially to be feared was that the president would exercise the powers of his office not faithfully but corruptly. He would use lawful powers — again, say, hiring and firing — not for public good, but personal gain.

7) Law professor argues that Mueller did “prove” a Trump conspiracy in Russia.  And, basically, if you use the civil standard of “preponderance of the evidence” rather than the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” that’s a pretty fair claim.  And there’s a good argument to be made that impeachment should use that lower standard.

8) It’s really just disgusting how Republicans are trying to do everything they possibly can to maintain unfair electoral advantages:

LAST NOVEMBER, Missouri was one of a handful of states in which voters decided to limit politicians’ power over redistricting, the decennial process in which political boundaries are drawn, because allowing politicians to choose their own voters has become an increasingly corrupt exercise. Now, Missouri Republicans, who have a lock on the state’s legislature and stand to lose some control under the new system, are trying to roll back the reform, insisting that voters were tricked into approving it.

Their cynical maneuver represents another new low in the steady Republican undermining of democracy through false claims of voter fraud, restrictions on voting and other tactics. The Supreme Court, deliberating on whether politicians can be trusted not to deprive voters of their rights through extreme gerrymandering, should take note.

Missouri voters approved a plan that would rely on a professional state demographer to draw lines that would not be warped in favor of one party or another. It was not perfect, but it was better than what Republicans wanted: a system in which the parties have more control — and in which partisan fairness is not a focus. More to the point: Once Missourians embraced a different approach, the debate should have been over. Nevertheless, with supermajorities in both chambers of the statehouse, the GOP can ram the plan through…

Over the years, both parties have angled for advantage in the political line-drawing process and in other areas of election administration. But Republicans have taken the practice to extremes. They heavily gerrymandered political maps in North Carolina and Wisconsin, discouraged voting among Democratic-leaning groups through a war on phantom voter fraud, limited weekend voting and closed voting places in areas where many Democrats live. Where their deck-stacking was not enough to keep them in power, they have undermined the Democrats who beat them, removing power from incoming Democratic governors and state attorneys general.

Meanwhile, as Missouri lawmakers debate their rollback, Texas Republicans are moving to treat mistakes on voter-registration forms as felony offenses that could bring jail time and to discourage people from casting provisional ballots, NPR reported. Tennessee Republicans want to heavily fine groups that turn in improperly filled-in voter-registration forms. Arizona Republicans would cut voters from the mail-in ballot rolls if they do not vote in two successive elections. All of these will help dampen the vote in a country that already suffers from low participation.

9) Catherine Rampell, “Warren’s free-college-and-debt-forgiveness plan may be liberal, but it isn’t progressive.”  There was a pretty good on-line twitter debate on this as it does take its funding from the wealthiest Americans, but there’s also a good case to be made that too much benefit goes to already advantaged middle/upper-middle class.  But, then again, investing in human capital through college degrees.  Honestly, not quite sure what the approach should be here.

10) Conservative writer argues that air pollution regulations show the folly and pointlessness of regulation.  Drum shows that he’s wrong. Yay, regulation.

11) Krugman on “survival of the wrongest”

Evidence has a well-known liberal bias. And that, presumably, is why conservatives prefer “experts” who not only consistently get things wrong, but refuse to admit or learn from their mistakes.

There has been a lot of commentary about Stephen Moore, the man Donald Trump wants to put on the Fed’s Board of Governors. It turns out that he has a lot of personal baggage: He was held in contempt of court for failing to pay alimony and child support, and his past writings show an extraordinary degree of misogyny. He misstates facts so much that one newspaper editor vowed never to publish him again, and he has been caught outright lying about his past support for a gold standard. Oh, and he has described the cities of the U.S. heartland as “armpits of America.”…

Second, the people who got it wrong were if anything rewarded for their errors. Moore was wrong about everything during the financial crisis; he remained a fixture on the right-wing conference circuit, and in 2014 the Heritage Foundation appointed him as its chief economist. Kudlow, who dismissed those warning about the housing bubble as “bubbleheads,” and warned about looming inflation in the depths of recession, also remained a right-wing favorite – and is now the Trump administration’s chief economist.

So the attempt to install Moore at the Fed is right in character. And let’s be clear: The issue is not simply one of having made some bad forecasts. Everyone does that now and then. It’s about being consistently wrong about everything, and refusing to learn from error.

12) I really have to question the wisdom of experts who tell us that babies are literally not supposed to sleep well.  When we let our babies sleep on their stomachs, believe me, it was not about sleeping through the night, it was about getting any decent periods of sleep at all.  The idea that a infant sleeping not on its back will sleep way too long and therefore not get proper nutrition, I suspect, lacks any empirical evidence.

A paradox of the Rock ’n Play, and of infant “sleep aides” and “sleep guides” in general, is that, to some extent, these products are intended to solve a problem that should not be solved. No infant should sleep all night long, on an incline of any degree, because she needs to eat every few hours; what’s more, a baby who sleeps poorly when flat on her back—which is to say, many or most babies—is also a baby who is at lower risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or sids. (sids deaths fell precipitously after 1992, when the A.A.P. issued its flat-on-your-back sleep guidelines.) “Babies are not supposed to sleep through the night,” Rachel Moon, the chair of the A.A.P. Task Force on sids, told me. “Putting a baby on her stomach, and all these things to make babies ‘sleep better,’ quote-unquote, are dangerous because they make babies sleep more deeply, and, with sids, when they sleep more deeply, they can’t wake up.” Moon added that infant sleep is regarded as much more of a crisis in the U.S. than in any other country, owing to a lack of both paid parental leave and extended-family support networks. “When they have to get up in the morning and function for work, of course mothers and fathers get desperate for sleep,” she said.

 

 

Advertisements

Quick hits (part I)

Sorry I did not get to more blogging this week.  Busy catching up after a mini vacation, plus standard end-of-semester busyness.  But so much I wanted to write about and just didn’t have time.

1) As a parent who’s child was diagnosed with autism under 2 (our autism concerns were our first clue that actually read to his rare disease diagnosis), I’m definitely interested in the latest research looking for early signs of autism to allow for earlier intervention:

Every pediatrician knows that it’s important to diagnose autism when a child is as young as possible, because when younger children get help and intensive therapy, their developmental outcomes improve, as measured in everything from improved language, cognition and social skills to normalized brain activity.

“The signs and symptoms for most children are there between 12 and 24 months,” said Dr. Paul S. Carbone, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah and a co-author of “Autism Spectrum Disorder: What Every Parent Needs to Know,” published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. “If we can get them in for evaluation by then, the therapies are available as young as those ages, you can easily start by 2,” he said. “We’d like to give kids the benefit of getting started early.”…

Researchers looking to find a biomarker that may help with the early diagnosis of autism have seized on the question of how young children react to hearing their names called. Dr. Dawson was the corresponding author on a study in April in the journal Autismwhich used computer vision analysis to look at the reactions of toddlers from 16 to 31 months old, in response to hearing their names called. Those with autism spectrum disorder took significantly longer to look away from a video and orient toward the person who had called.

“Toddlers and infants who will go on to develop autism are paying attention to the world in a very different way,” Dr. Dawson said.

The hope is eventually to make a tool that would be easily available in low-resource countries, or in any area in the United States, perhaps by having parents collect data on their phones.

2) I learned about the legal thicket of sex-by-deception pretty recently.  It’s actually a complicated and varying legal issue:

Abigail Finney was in her freshman year at Purdue University in Indiana in February 2017 when she fell asleep in her boyfriend’s dorm room. During the night he snuggled up to her in bed in the pitch black, his hand grazing her breast, and they began having sex.

She soon stopped to go to the bathroom and, when she returned, discovered, to her horror, that it wasn’t her boyfriend who was in bed with her.

Was it rape?

Ms. Finney thought so and went to the police, who arrested Donald Grant Ward, the 19-year-old impostor. Mr. Ward, a friend of her boyfriend’s, admitted that he knew he was tricking Ms. Finney; he was charged with two counts of rape, which carries a sentence of three to 16 years.

The Finney family connected with Joyce Short, an activist and sexual assault survivor who runs ConsentAwareness.net. Ms. Short, 70, wants a universal law stating that consent is “freely given, knowledgeable, and informed agreement.” This may sound obvious, but it’s actually not, because there’s no universal definition of consent in the United States. Each state defines it differently, if it defines it at all.

3) So fascinated by and enjoying James Holzhauer’s run on Jeopardy.  Nice NYT interview.  And cannot say I disagree with Drum’s take: “The Key to “Jeopardy!” Is Knowing Lots of Stuff”

As a longtime Jeopardy! fan, my problem with Holzhauer is that I feel like I’m watching a different species play the game. Even with a guy like Ken Jennings, I could sort of fool myself into thinking that I could beat him if I just got a little lucky. But Holzhauer? Forget it. He’d crush me like an ant. His buzzer timing and his board skills are off the charts, which merely masks the fact that he’s also wildly knowledgeable on a wide range of topics. I don’t think there’s been a category yet where he’s shown any serious weakness.

So that’s that. The Jeopardy! folks should probably be thinking about a special two-entity showdown between Holzhauer and IBM’s Watson, since I’m not sure any other human has a chance of beating him.

4) This is interesting, “Tiny Knee Bone, Once Lost in Humans, Is Making a Comeback: The fabella disappeared from our lineage millions of years ago, but over the last century, its presence in people’s knees has become more common.”

5) Criminalizing voter registration drives due to the totally foreseeable human errors involved is so wrong.  And, sadly, so indicative of today’s GOP.

6) The technology to stop spoofed (e.g., fake your area code) calls to your cell phone may actually be on the way.  Hooray!

7) I find it rather intriguing that hockey has the smallest home field advantage of major American professional sports despite that it’s the one sport to give a clear, rules-based advantage to the home team (the timing of line changes during stoppages).  Ended up having a great discussion on the matter when I shared this on FB recently.

8) Great piece from Rebecca Traister asks what changes when the presidential field is full of men:

The tight knot for women in politics (and perhaps in life) has been, will always be, this: Everything associated with motherhood has been coded as faintly embarrassing and less than — from mom jeans to mommy brain to the Resistance. And yet to be a bad mom has been disqualifying, and to not be a mom at all is to be understood as lacking something: gravity, value, femininity. Just this month, Tucker Carlson wondered, about New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whether “someone who’s never even raised children gets the right to lecture me about morality,” as if parents are given a moral compass upon the birth of a child.

Fatherhood for male politicians so far has, for the most part, worked only as a bonus. It’s been a way to show off the shiny white teeth of a strong gene pool and an escape hatch from a job you’re getting fired from — in order to spend more time with your family! It’s been a way for powerful men to signal respect for women without evincing femininity themselves: They are the fathers of daughters, folks. At its best, presenting publicly as a committed father has offered an opportunity for men who otherwise cast themselves as tough and authoritative to demonstrate their tender side.

 

Impeachment would be a disaster for Democrats. Or not.

So tired of pundits proclaiming this based on little evidence except for the fact that Republicans clearly over-reached in 1998 in the case against Clinton.  Fair to say, the case against Trump is different.  And dramatically more damning.  And, it also totally ignores the case of Nixon where the impeachment proceedings very much worked to turn the public against Nixon.

The truth is, it is hard to predict exactly what the response to an impeachment would be.  But that said, there’s a lot of stuff we do know that strongly argues against the case that this would be the disaster for Democrats that many pundits suggest.  Great post from Seth Masket that you should read in full.  But, the highlights:

ISN’T THE PUBLIC AGAINST THIS?

That really shouldn’t be the standard for determining whether the president has committed impeachable offenses. But if it is, it’s worth remembering that less than 20 percent of the public favored removing Richard Nixon from office when Congress first convened its impeachment hearings. That grew slowly as more abuses of power were revealed, and a majority favored his removal only a few weeks before he resigned. The impeachment process itself can change—and has historically changed—public opinion.

Some have suggested impeachment might drive support for Trump. However, the single thing most responsible for high approval ratings for presidents is a strong economy. Trump has that, and his approval rating is mired in the low 40s at best. The idea that there’s a latent wellspring of support for Trump is not supported by evidence. [emphases mine]

WON’T IMPEACHMENT STIR UP TRUMP’S BASE?

Trump’s base is always stirred up! His base was never going to sit back and let the 2020 presidential election season unfold like normal. A plan to not stir up Trump’s base is like a plan to bring a baby to a Bruce Springsteen concert but to sit near the back so it won’t wake up.

OK, TRUMP’S ACTIONS WERE BAD, BUT IS IT REALLY WORTH CREATING A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?

It is not a constitutional crisis to follow procedures delineated in the Constitution. It is a constitutional crisis to ignore those procedures when they are warranted because they’re not politically convenient.

Short version: the right thing to do for our democracy is to impeach the demonstrably unfit President.  There may be a political cost to undertaking the procedure to do so.  An uncertain short-term political cost (which doesn’t actually seem all that likely) is not a sufficient reason to uphold basic pillars of democracy and the rule of law.  And, impeaching Trump– whether he is removed or not– is damn well upholding basic pillars of democracy and the rule of law which his presidency is eroding on a daily basis.

Trump’s immigration policies and Trump’s base

Ron Brownstein sums up the strong support for Trump’s hardline (and generally cruel and foolish) immigration policies among GOP elites and the party base:

Among elected Republicans, opposition to Trump’s immigration policies has “fragmented and collapsed,” says Douglas Rivlin, the communications director for America’s Voice, an immigrant-advocacy group that has typically pursued bipartisan legislative coalitions. “If you think immigrants are welcome in our country, you are not welcome in the Republican Party—that seems to be the bottom line.”

One reason resistance has eroded is that congressional Republicans have largely retreated to the parts of America least touched by immigration, and often least affected by diversity. Democrats already hold 31 of the 40 Senate seats in the 20 states where the foreign-born share of the population is highest…

After sweeping losses in diverse suburban and urban districts in November, Republicans now hold fewer than one in five of the House seats where the minority population exceeds the national average, and fewer than one in eight of the seats in districts with more immigrants than average…

All of this means that the voices that might most object to Trump’s direction are no longer in the room when Republicans caucus. “Part of the problem is the members who used to do that, or need to do that, they are not around anymore,” says Davis, who’s now a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Holland & Knight. “Most of the members you thought would speak up for this, because of their own political advantage, they are gone.”

But the Republican acquiescence to Trump also reflects the larger reality that the party is now relying on an electoral base preponderantly tilted toward the white voters most hostile to immigration and most uneasy about demographic change overall—what I’ve called “the coalition of restoration.” Those attitudes, with only a few exceptions, are dominant not only among the white Republicans without a college degree who comprise Trump’s base, but also among the college-educated Republicans who have expressed more qualms about other aspects of Trump’s behavior…

For instance, last year, not only did 76 percent of white Republicans without a college degree support building Trump’s border wall, but so did 71 percent of white Republicans with a degree, according to detailed results provided to me by Quinnipiac University. (Meanwhile, nearly three-fifths of the country overall opposed the wall.) In that same poll, nearly three-fifths of non-college-educated white Republicans and just under half of those with a degree supported Trump’s policy of separating parents from their children at the border. (Two-thirds of the country overall opposed it.)…

White-collar and blue-collar Republicans also converge on questions measuring more fundamental attitudes about race relations and demographic change. Polling by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center released last monthfound that 66 percent of white non-college-educated Republicans and 61 percent of white college-educated Republicans believe that the U.S. becoming a majority-minority country will “weaken American customs and values,” according to numbers Pew gave me. (Americans overall split evenly on that question.)

New Pew polling released Tuesday similarly found that more than three-fourths of both college-educated and non-college-educated white Republicans believe that “people seeing discrimination where it does not really exist” is a greater problem than “people not seeing racial discrimination where it really does exist,” according to results given to me by Pew.

Short version: despite recent important partisan shifts related to education, there’s plenty of college-educated white people who are racially retrograde and xenophobic and happily at home in the Republican party.

Photo of the day

Yes, it was horrible, but many of the photos of the burning Notre Dame cathedral are pretty amazing.  Atlantic with a photo gallery:

Smoke and flames rise from Notre-Dame Cathedral on April 15, 2019. 

Hubert Hitier / AFP / Getty

I’m okay with “poor people”; “people on welfare” not so much

When I teach public opinion in my Intro class, I do two versions of a short little survey I made up to show the power of question wording.  Consistently, the most dramatic effect I get is support for federal spending for “poor people” in contrast to spending for “people of welfare.”  I love the looks I get when I ask them to consider that the vast majority of people on welfare are, well, you know, poor people.  I love that Drum just discovered that GSS has been asking both of these questions and made a nice little graph of it:

Lots of takeaways from this, but, as much as anything, 1) the power of political framing and; and 2) the need to be skeptical of any single public opinion question.

The our-constitutional-system-demands-it case for impeachment

As mentioned, I’m already pretty sympathetic to this view, but to have Lawfare’s Susan Hennessey, and Quinta Jurecic make this case, further strengthens my opinion on the matter:

Here is the other bottom line: The Mueller Report describes a president who, on numerous occasions, engaged in conduct calculated to hinder a federal investigation. It finds ample evidence that at least a portion of that conduct met all of the statutory elements of criminal obstruction of justice. In some of the instances in which all of the statutory elements of obstruction are met, the report finds no persuasive constitutional or factual defenses. And yet, it declines to render a judgment on whether the president has committed a crime…

On the Democratic side, there is a clear reticence in the  leadership to initiate impeachment proceedings that might politically backfire…

The problem with this approach is that, under the current system, the options for checking a president who abuses his power to the degree that Trump has are functionally impeachment proceedings or nothing [bold are mine; italics in original]

Currently, there are bad incentives on both sides of the aisle. Republicans don’t want to touch the matter because the president is a member of their party. His agenda aligns with theirs on many issues, and they fear angering his base in a way that might imperil their own reelection. Democrats, on the other hand, are worried that initiating impeachment proceedings will offer the president a rallying point for his base, and allow Republicans to paint them as fanatics out to get Trump at all costs. Besides, the thinking goes, Democratic base voters want to discuss policy issues that impact their lives, not perseverate on the many president’s sins.

The problem is that impeachment isn’t a purely political matter—though certainly it is political in part. It’s a constitutional expression of the separation of powers, of Congress’s ability to check a chief executive overrunning the bounds of his power. It’s also, under the OLC memo, the only release valve in the constitutional structure for the urgent and mounting pressure of an executive who may have committed serious wrongdoing. To say that the appropriate course is to simply wait for the next presidential election in 18 months, is to offer a judgment that—even in light of his conduct as described by Mueller—Trump is not truly unfit for the office. It is to say he is no different from, say, Vice President Mike Pence, who would take his place, or any other Republican for that matter. It is to say that what matters is winning elections, even if it risks further institutional harms…

Though hard questions remain about whether President Trump should be impeached and whether the evidence would be sufficient for the Senate to convict him, these are not questions that need to be answered at this stage. Congress’s responsibility at this point is to begin an impeachment inquiry as a means of finding an answer to them. And Mueller has provided more than enough information to justify initiating an inquiry: the report sets out evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing by the president during his time in office related to abuse of power, which is at the dead center of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” impeachment is designed to check…

In the face of this evidence, for Congress to not even consider impeachment as a matter of serious inquiry is to declare that the legislature is not interested in its carrying out its institutional obligations as a coordinate branch of government.

 

%d bloggers like this: