By Adam Schiff and Dianne Feinstein COVID-19 has altered the course of our nation's history in so many ways. Even as we fight to bring the virus under control and save lives, we are also aware that our country will be feeling the effects of the pandemic for years and possibly decades to come. It isn't enough to beat the virus, we have a responsibility to learn from our mistakes so we can be better prepared in the future. This pandemic has devastated communities across America. As this piece gets posted, nearly 4 million Americans have been confirmed as infected, and more than 140,000 have died. Our home state of California is particularly hard hit, with most of the state seeing a renewed surge of cases and hospitalizations. The economic devastation, too, is of historic proportions. Tens of millions are unemployed or under-employed. The unemployment rate skyrocketed from 3.5% earlier this year to 11% today, and many of those who were laid off won't get their old jobs back. And unfortunately, we are still in what the scientists say is the first wave of this devastating virus. In other words, it will likely continue to get worse before it gets better. Many regions of the U.S. reopened too soon or with insufficient safeguards -- such as universal masking and adequate distancing leading to the exact increase in infections and deaths that health experts warned us about. We all have to take steps now to contain this virus to save lives and let people get back to school and work safely, but it's not too early to start planning for the next virus, and that starts with examining how we got here. That's why we introduced legislation in the Senate and the House to ensure a comprehensive review of the action, and inaction, that led us to this crisis point. After the shock of the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans demanded action, but they also demanded answers. Answers about how the attacks took place, what we missed, and what we needed to do better to secure our nation from terrorist threats. In the wake of that tragedy, Americans, and especially the families of those who we lost, supported a truly comprehensive review of the attacks. Congress passed legislation in 2002 to create the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The commission's work was independent, impartial and thorough. The country suffered from many of same partisan divides we have today, but the commission didn't seek to assign blame to score political points. It simply got to work to ensure we could prevent future tragic events. The 9/11 Commission's hearings were deemed invaluable in explaining to the American people how those attacks came about, and its recommendations were widely respected and largely implemented. For example, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center -- two essential components of the U.S. intelligence community -- were created as a direct result of the commission's findings and recommendations. We are presented with a similar opportunity today, a chance to look back, so that we can move forward together. To that end, our legislation would create a bipartisan commission that would begin work in 2021. It would rigorously examine U.S. government preparedness in advance of this pandemic, as well as the federal government's response, complementing other oversight efforts in Congress. The commission would provide recommendations to improve our ability to respond to and recover from future pandemics. And importantly, the commission would hold open hearings, as the 9/11 Commission did, to obtain information to provide a full accounting to the president, Congress and the American people of the facts and circumstances related to the outbreak in the United States. We need a firmer grasp on the best information, not as a political exercise to cast blame, but to learn from our mistakes so we can prevent the problems we now face from being tragically repeated. It is our hope that Congress and the White House, this one or a future one, would share a similar desire to enact legislation to establish a COVID-19 commission in support of our nation's health and welfare. The nation's response to the pandemic presents us with an opportunity to learn what has worked, and what hasn't. An honest analysis is the only way to adequately prepare for the next novel virus or another disaster. An effective response can save lives, but designing it requires a transparent reckoning with all the facts.

Democrats are ecstatic over the latest closed-door testimony by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. They say it damns the president. We’ll have to take their word for it -- or not. For us poor folks not on the guest list of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, it’s impossible to know what’s happening behind closed doors. The testimony has not been released, even though no classified materials are involved. It’s not even clear why Schiff’s panel, rather than the House Judiciary Committee, is leading the investigation. Like so much about this process, it is unprecedented, with ad hoc rules made up along the way. All we know about the testimony is what trickles out in fragments, leaked by each side to advance its case. This kind of secrecy is shameful in a democracy. So is the refusal to let the accused call his own witnesses or even send his attorney to the proceedings. Given this “fog of secret impeachment,” it helps to step back and ask what the debate is really about. I see three main questions so far. All are related to President Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the delay in providing U.S. aid to Kiev. (1) Did President Trump demand a quid pro quo? That is, did he require Ukraine to do something specific before the U.S. would release aid money? Or did he simply request it? (2) Did Ukraine’s leaders believe that aid would be withheld unless they complied with Trump’s dictum? Apparently not, at least until several weeks after the phone call. “How can there be a genuine quid pro quo,” Trump supporters ask, “if the people allegedly being coerced don’t know about it?” (3) Did the U.S. ask for anything improper? No one doubts that corruption is pervasive in Ukraine, that the U.S. has good reasons to reduce fraud, bribery, and insider deals in its aid recipients, or that the Burisma energy company was considered a “corruption problem” deserving investigation. The question is whether it was proper for Trump and his surrogates to seek a Ukrainian investigation of this alleged corruption or, alternatively, whether it was illicit because it directly involved the Biden family and Trump highlighted their role? Democrats say such a request is clearly improper, whether or not it involved U.S. aid or a quid pro quo. Why? Because Trump used his official power, they say, to seek an investigation involving one of his main rivals in the 2020 election. That assertion could gain more traction as Schiff’s investigation (and that of U.S. attorneys in Manhattan) look into the actions by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Republicans respond that Burisma was corrupt and needed to be investigated, that it hired Hunter Biden simply to provide political cover at home and abroad (he had no other qualifications for the highly paid job), and that Vice President Joe Biden, who oversaw Ukrainian policy in the Obama administration, stopped a much-needed inquiry as it was closing in on his son. Biden’s defenders say his actions were justified because the local investigator was himself corrupt and that other Western entities with interest in Ukraine, including the IMF, were calling for his ouster. Biden’s adversaries say he employed strong-arm tactics to protect his own interests. That charge, ironically, is the same one Democrats are now making against Trump. It’s easy to see how personal and national interests were intertwined for both Biden and Trump, and it’s easy to see what their defenses are. Each says his only interest was in protecting U.S. national security. Their critics don’t believe it. If Joe and Hunter Biden were not in the picture, it would be perfectly fine for Trump to demand Ukraine reopen its investigation of earlier corruption and possible interference in the 2016 U.S. election. With the Bidens in the picture, however, Trump’s actions raise troubling questions. Rep. Schiff’s investigation is not designed to answer them. It is designed to build a case against the president, and to do it speedily and secretly. When he has assembled whatever he thinks is enough evidence, he will release a partisan report and hope it gains public support. Republicans will rebut the substance and claim the whole process was a kangaroo court. Democrats seem confident they can win an impeachment vote in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a large enough majority to do it, even if it imperils some new members from swing districts Trump carried in 2016. As of now, it’s unlikely House Democrats will garner – or even seek -- any Republican votes. That means the Democrats’ main hurdle is public relations: explaining to nonpartisan Americans, who will be crucial in the 2020 election, the urgency of removing a duly elected president only months ahead of their chance to vote on him. Without more evidence or a general collapse in Trump’s poll numbers, Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans will fall short of the two-thirds needed in the Senate to remove the president. They know it, and they fear it. So, what’s the point? Democrats hope to accumulate more hard evidence, enough to convince some GOP senators and more independent voters. They hope to rattle Trump, generate more chaos in the White House (never in short supply), and prompt damaging, unforced errors from a furious, frustrated, and thin-skinned president. Most of all, they hope to mire Trump in enough dirt and scandal to weaken him badly in 2020. Democrats are betting voters will tire of the endless drama, blame it on Trump, and vote him out. That’s the aim of their strategy: win the vote in the Electoral College, not the Senate. To do it, they are counting on widespread distaste for Trump personally, especially among educated voters and suburban women, and the perception that he’s only out for himself. Among younger voters, they are counting on “social justice,” inequality, and racial issues. Trump is counting on a strong economy, significantly higher incomes for average Americans, success in curbing illegal immigration, and revulsion at the Democrats’ unending “resistance.” He may be blessed with a Democratic opponent on the far left, proposing unaffordable programs and fundamental changes that would eviscerate America’s market economy. This nasty election battle comes, oddly, at a time of peace and prosperity. What truly divides the country are not traditional pocketbook issues or foreign policy quagmires, but sharply divergent visions about how a constitutional democracy should be governed, how powerful its central government and bureaucracy should be, and, ultimately, what path forward America should take. Impeachment is part of that deep-seated struggle, just as the venomous battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination was. Impeachment will be resolved in a few months, the 2020 election in a year. But these larger issues will not be settled nearly so fast, not definitively. The divisions are too deep, the stakes too high. The best advice, to paraphrase Bette Davis, is to buckle your seat belts because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

On February 5, 2020, President Donald Trump (R) was acquitted of abuse of power by a vote of 52-48 and obstruction of Congress by a vote of 53-47. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) first announced the House would pursue an inquiry into Trump on September 24, 2019, following allegations that Trump requested the Ukrainian government investigate former Vice President Joe Biden (D) and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for aid. Trump denied the allegations and called the inquiry "the worst witch hunt in political history." Following weeks of public hearings, the House voted to impeach Trump on December 18, 2019, charging him with abuse of power by a vote of 230-197 and obstruction of Congress by a vote of 229-198. For a breakdown of the U.S. House votes by representative and party, . Schiff became chair of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on January 3, 2019. As chair of the committee, he presided over the House impeachment investigation into the allegations against Donald Trump. On January 15, 2020, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi named Schiff one of the seven managers responsible for presenting the case for impeachment to the Senate.