Russia, Trump and Impeachment

Starting on the first page - in large print - of the Book Review section in today's New York Times, is an analysis by liberal commentator Andrew Sullivan of two books. One, written by former Obama aid and confidante Cass Sunstein, is entitled "Impeachment, A Citizen's Guide," and is the subject of this post. The other, edited by Sunstein, is entitled "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," and is the subject of the next post. Sullivan starts his piece discussing the four times impeachment proceedings were begun, along with a general review of when impeachment might be proper.

After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"

Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?

Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?

The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.