Although the legal bar for a criminal indictment of conspiracy could not be met by Robert Mueller's inquiry, the report is nevertheless littered with scores of examples of contacts with a foreign entity (Russia) intent on discrediting Trump's opponent in 2016 and in service to his eventual electoral victory. As for the the matter of obstruction...it's case was illustrated with 10 principal instances of obstruction in word and deed. Instead of clearing Trump of this charge, the report outlined evidence to be taken up by Congress and/or other investigative bodies (keep in mind the ongoing investigations in the Southern District of New York) to determine wrongdoing as well as outright criminality (legally within the purview of Congress). Please remember that DOJ (Mueller's boss) guidelines prohibited the indictment of a sitting president but, as the report clearly indicates, leaves open the questions of collusion and obstruction and recommends ultimate adjudication of these matters for others (read:Congress) to decide. AG William Barr's cursory summary does nothing the clarify or seriously answer questions regarding Trump's ultimate culpability while the full report provides a substantive framework for the House to continue the pursuit of justice in this matter. There remains so much more to come.
In the meantime, Senator Elizabeth Warren has declared her support for the initiation of impeachment proceedings in the House to exercise the legislative imperative of holding a sitting president accountable for malfeasance, wrongdoing, and other acts of criminal behavior clearly outlined in Mueller's report. Internal Democratic opposition to this call for action was best articulated in an interview with MSMBC's Joy Reid yesterday by New York Representative Sean Maloney who, although ostensibly agreeing that Trump's acts of obstruction were worthy of impeachment, proceeded to assert a painfully wrought argument that attempted to state that the best way to hold this president accountable was to defeat him at the ballot box in 2020. In so doing, Maloney was loyally adhering to the long standing Democratic practice of deferring responsibly for addressing previous wrongdoing/illegalities with an appeal to 'practicality' and 'a desire to look ahead rather than behind' while, in reality, was merely uttering the same fearful response to the moral challenge of standing up to those who presume to boldly violate domestic and/or international law and common norms of decent behavior in favor of the assertion of an authoritarian prerogative not otherwise consistent with democratic values. This avoidance of confrontation and trepidation in the face of possible negative reaction of the opposing political party has been in evidence in both large and small instances in recent decades. In the aftermath of the first presidential debate in 2004, then DNC chair Terry McAuliffe admonished John Kerry for 'acting like a know-it-all' in his decisive refutation of George W Bush. It was feared that the Republicans would somehow use Kerry's command of the facts (a similar charge was leveled at Al Gore four years earlier) and portray him as a condescending 'intellectual' intent on 'beating up' on the less cleverly agile Bush. This relative minor instance would be followed by other examples of the abdication of responsible reaction to wrongdoing in a more serious context. In the wake of the 2008 election, the Obama administration was perfectly poised to hold the egregious excesses of the Bush/Chaney regime to account and to specifically address the illegal invasion Iraq and the lies that were the underpinnings of this misadventure as well as the violations of the Geneva Conventions on gruesome display at Abu Ghraib Prison near Baghdad. Instead, Obama chose to 'look ahead' thereby giving tacit approval to the lawlessness of the previous regime and setting a precedent for future administrations to ignore past transgressions in deference to fear of political retaliation. The dangerous result of this course of action over time is to gradually normalize wrongdoing as a a matter of unspoken national policy.
The acceptance of unlawful, immoral, and otherwise unacceptable behavior (the list is voluminous) as an ongoing expression of who we are as a people threatens to seriously alter our internal sense of collective identity as well as to permanently damage our international standing. It can be argued that the transformation is already occurring in plain sight. Sean Maloney would have us believe that he is 'playing chess, not checkers' as he attempts to characterize his response to the call to hold the Current Occupant accountable, through the constitutionally sanctioned means of impeachment, as some form of higher political intelligence. In fact, Maloney, like his fearful predecessors, is merely restating a familiar and increasingly unappealing refrain of cowardice in the face of a national crisis. At this critical juncture in our history, Ms Warren and a growing number of citizens are courageously showing us the way forward and proclaiming 'if not now, when; if not us, who' will restore a sense of our essential character to ourselves and to a world in need of our long-awaited leadership. It's never 'impractical ' to do the right thing.
