Editor's Brief

The Inquiry’s Ominous Verdict

US President Donald Trump reads from his notes as he talks to the media on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One in Washington, DC, November 20, 2019, en route to Austin, Texas. (Photo by Joshu... US President Donald Trump reads from his notes as he talks to the media on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One in Washington, DC, November 20, 2019, en route to Austin, Texas. (Photo by Joshua Lott / AFP) (Photo by JOSHUA LOTT/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
November 21, 2019 11:04 p.m.

I wanted to share with you a few thoughts about the impeachment hearings which have just concluded.

1. I have grave misgivings about concluding this inquiry without receiving testimony from Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Lev Parnas and a number of others. This isn’t to say that I don’t understand the argument for not doing so. It is a strong logic. Doing so could lead to months of slow-rolling before a judiciary at best disinclined to get between the President and Congress and at worst reflexively friendly to President Trump. It’s also true that the evidence of the core wrongdoing is already overwhelming. By any reasonable standard we know more than enough to merit removal from office. But the layers of wrongdoing beneath that surface layer are, I suspect, profound. It’s not an easy question. But ending the factual inquiry here worries me greatly.

Prime Only Members-Only Article
To access exclusive analysis and reporting from TPM’s award-winning staff along with:
The Hive Member Forum
Members-Only Newsletter
Exclusive RSS Feeds
Commenting
View All Options
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Senior Editor:
Special Projects Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer:
SPECIAL DEAL FOR PAST TPM MEMBERS
40% OFF AN ANNUAL PRIME MEMBERSHIP
REJOIN FOR JUST $30