NOTE:  This updates post from earlier this morning.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Well, at the moment at least, I cannot stop – reflecting and writing about impeachment.

In between games of golf – my priority – I have watched at least some of the impeachment hearings.

Not great TV if the goal is ratings, given the often-arcane nature of the testimony. The ranking member on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, Representative Devin Nunes from California, announced in one of his opening statements that ratings would not be up – and he came across as thankful for that, given that he is a Trump defender.

To Nunes, I say who cares.

The point is not TV ratings. It is a serious process to assess the conduct of President Donald Trump and his apparent efforts to condition U.S. aid to Ukraine on getting dirt on one of his possible opponents in the 2020 presidential election.

As a government junkie, I also have been very interested in the interplay between and among federal agencies, especially the State Department, the Defense Department and the Office of Management and Budget.

Does Trump’s apparent conduct rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors?”

It’s a legal phrase better defined by my attorney friends than by me, a retired lobbyist.

But I answer yes.

For Trump and his acolytes to consider political favor conditions as being appropriate is a dereliction of public duty. The issue is Ukraine security, not dirt on one of Trump’s opponents.

Trump didn’t understand that, which is typical of his behavior – what he wants for his own aggrandizement always tops what is good for the country. It’s the same selfish, narcissism we have seen for three years now.

According to my on-line dictionary, “High crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review – ‘The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for ‘intentional, evil deeds’ that ‘drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency’ — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.’”^[

That’s interesting stuff in the sense that, even the Harvard Law Review, opines that high crimes and misdemeanors can refer to misdeeds by a president “without violating any criminal laws.”

An attorney friend suggested that what the founding fathers meant by the phrase was more important that what the Harvard Law Review says now. Well, point taken, but who knows what the founding fathers meant? I prefer to take their language and reflect on what it means today so many years after the good words actually were put to paper.

Yesterday, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, produced riveting testimony before the Intelligence Committee. He confirmed that there was a “quid pro quo” in the Trump Administration dealings with Ukraine, but not one in the normal business of international security negotiations. It was a deal related to getting the dirt Trump wanted on Joe Biden.

Sondland witnessed the Trump demands and heard what Trump said about what he wanted.

Here’s the way The Atlantic put it:

“…in his testimony today, Sondland seems to have found his sense of care. Systematically but consistently, he is undermining all of the pillars of Trump’s defense that he did not extort political assistance from Ukraine.

“Was it a quid pro quo? ‘The answer is yes.’ Were Sondland and others acting on their own? ‘We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.’”

Trump defenders tried to deflect Sondland’s words by saying he was reflecting what he “thought” or “presumed,” rather than what he knew first hand.

But, for me, there can be little question but that Trump wanted something of benefit for his upcoming political campaign, not something for the good of the U.S.

To me, regardless of political affiliation, obstruction and witness intimidation are obviously “high crimes.”

Impeach the president in the House, then convict him in the Senate.