A never Trumper former republican and patriot, this guy is sharp and a keen observer. Don't agree with him ideologically, but it's hard not to respect his personal integrity, opinions and arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘The Force of Trump’s Lying Has Ruptured the Space-Time Continuum’: Steve Schmidt on Impeachment
By
James D. Walsh
Former GOP operative and current MSNBC pundit Steve Schmidt is nervous: “I think in America a sociopath will beat a socialist seven days a week.”
nymag.com
Before his hiatus in January, Steve Schmidt was a fan favorite for many MSNBC viewers. As a lifelong Republican, his screeds on the political and constitutional morass of the Trump era had a special credibility for many MSNBC viewers. As a strategist, Schmidt advised the campaigns of George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and John McCain. He was as famous as a political strategist could be, thanks to Woody Harrelson’s portrayal of him in Game Change.
Schmidt was a charter member of the Never Trumpers and officially renounced his membership in the Republican Party last year, calling it “fully the party of Trump” and saying the GOP had become “corrupt, indecent, and immoral.”
Last week, Schmidt returned to MSNBC after an eight-month hiatus, which included a stint as an advisor to Howard Schultz’s brief and inglorious flirtation with a third-party run. Intelligencer caught up with Schmidt on the phone this week and asked him about impeachment, the Schultz debacle, and the Democratic field.
A few days ago you said that we’ve entered the “consequences stage” of the presidency. What are the consequences you foresee?
I think what’s missing from the coverage in the middle of all of the chaos that Trump produces, and the daily drama that emanates from this White House, is the degree to which Trump has been an extremely consequential president. There is an argument to be made that he is the most consequential president since FDR, because he is systematically unraveling, at an extremely fast pace, the U.S.-led global order that was architected by FDR, built by Harry Truman, and maintained from Eisenhower through Obama. And everywhere around the world, all of the countries and all of the groups that we don’t want to see winning on the field of geopolitics — Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Russia, Turkey — are advancing while American interests are retreating.
He has completely remade the American presidency through his debasements of its traditions. He has pitted the country against each other in a cold civil war and he is the first president purposefully who, with each and every utterance, he seeks to incite and divide as opposed to unifying around core principles. He is attacking and degrading our institutions and the concepts of the rule of law that are necessary for the maintenance of the constitutional republic from within. He is utterly infidelitous to his oath to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Constitution of the United States. That makes him, not a clown and a joke, but a dangerous and profoundly consequential figure. I caveat “consequential” by saying it’s not a celebratory statement — it’s one of alarm.
There are people out there who make the argument that his presidency, so far, is also proof that the framework or system is working. Whether it’s his attempt to roll back health care or even backing down from the G7 at Doral, but from your perspective his presidency is proof it’s cracking. Where is the weakness?
The Doral example is a singular instance of retreat amongst hundreds of examples of heretofore unacceptable acts of corruption and self-dealing and enrichment in the use of the office. He has thoroughly remade the presidency. He has shattered the systems and the boundaries and the protections that exist within the system around the president and he has made the country weaker and more isolated and assaulted the values that the country at its best stands for.
Is he going to face consequences?
If you read Federalist 65 and 66 — what the Founders wrote, what Alexander Hamilton wrote, about the importance of impeachment, which he advocated for — it was a protection against a president who is described in perfect detail by Hamilton: Someone who abuses the public trust. The standard isn’t criminal, it’s political. It’s high crimes and misdemeanors. It’s about abuse of power. So Trump has forced a question. And the question is: Does Donald Trump get to ride above the law? Does he get to do whatever he wants? Can he target, through the power of his office, Americans for persecution for political reasons because of political differences? Or is the co-equal branch of government constitutionally obligated to begin a process to correct the abuse of power that was built into the system by the geniuses who established the American republic?
I think that Nancy Pelosi is exactly correct. She said that Donald Trump had left them no choice but to move forward with the impeachment inquiry. Whether that leads to an impeachment should be done on the facts and the basis of evidence and should accord Trump every due process protection that he’s entitled to.
But there’s certainly a scenario where Trump could be impeached, acquitted in the Senate, and reelected. And an impeached, acquitted, and then reelected Donald Trump is a Donald Trump without any constraints on him. I think that would be extremely dangerous. I think that one thing that’s missing from all the coverage is the possibility that Donald Trump could be reelected. It’s not talked a great deal about speculatively. You look at the standings right now, he has a historic cash advantage. Republicans have a significant technology advantage. Most Americans have made their minds up and this will be a very narrowly decided election.
At the same time, just yesterday there was a poll that said for the first time 50 percent of Americans believe in going forward with this impeachment hearing. So there is evidence of sentiment changing.
What the polling indicates is growing majority awareness that he crossed a line that he had not yet crossed and that his behavior warrants, if not impeachment, an impeachment inquiry. I think it’s a mistake to interpret that number as fixed, concertized, or that there’s a popular mandate to remove Donald Trump from office. Impeachment we know, even if you believe like I do, that it’s mandated, that it’s duty-required. A very careful examination of the facts, and what we understand to be true here. On the testimony, that none of this has been made public, accounts from behind closed doors, that is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. All of this will need to play out at the appropriate time and the appropriate moment. The American people are extremely troubled by this behavior and understand this to be an abuse of power, but what it doesn’t mean is that Americans have reached the conclusion that he needs to be removed from office. It doesn’t account for the tremendous division that will accompany this.
more...
