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.

I said that yesterday’s post might – or at least should be – the last I wrote about impeachment.

I lied.

Which makes me a lot like President Donald Trump who lies for a living.

Today, I write to follow up on two articles I read in the Wall Street Journal this morning – one by a retired U.S. diplomatic official, David Seminara, and another by one of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan.

First, the retired diplomat, Seminara, wrote this:

“I think the House impeachment inquiry is a partisan fishing expedition, but as a former U.S. foreign-service officer, I tuned in to the hearings rooting for my erstwhile colleagues to acquit themselves well. Instead, the hearings were a made-for-TV spectacle in which foreign-service officers were used as props in a political drama.”

This critique caught my attention because, as I watched hours of the impeachment process this week, I was very interested in the conduct of the administrative officials who testified at the request, if not demand, of Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

That was because, at one point in my career, I served in various administrative capacities in government, in both the Executive and Judicial Branches, albeit without the very high-profile nature of those who testified in Washington D.C. this week.

I found myself feeling just a bit of sympathy for them as they performed on a national stage, including with TV cameras whirring. No doubt they would rather have been back at work doing the down-to-the-earth business of government.

Were they, as alleged by Seminara above, “props in a political drama.” Perhaps, but I say they had very little choice.

Almost to a person, I thought they did a decent, workmanlike job of testifying to what they knew or thought. They came across generally as competent, reasonable public officials.

I could make an exception for Gordon Sondland, the person with Oregon connections who bought his way into an ambassadorship.

As has been the case with his actions as ambassador, he seemed clearly out of his depth on the national stage. As one of my partners in my old lobbying firm said, “he does what he does in a state of hubris.” Much of that owes to the fact that he enjoys telling people how rich he is and, as a hotelier with an acid tongue, sometimes acts like Trump.

Still, it should be said that his testimony, whatever his motivation, confirmed first-hand that Trump sold out American security interests for his own political ends.

During the proceedings, I also found myself wondering what it would be like to serve as staff to members of the Intelligence Committee because, without any of the profile of this process, that’s what I did when I was in Washington, D.C. many years ago – serve as staff to a congressman, one from Oregon.

Preparing drafts of public statements and question lists would have been what I would have been doing. So, seeing, on camera, some of staff in the background watching their bosses perform, brought back memories for me.

On to the columnist, Noonan. She wrote:

“What was said consistently undermined Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

“He not only doesn’t know where the line is; he has never wanted to know, so he can cross it with impunity, without consciousness of a bad act or one that might put him in danger. They were no match for his unpredictability and resentments, which at any moment could undo anything.”

Noonan gets it right – Trump crosses all normal political lines with impunity because he thinks he is above it all and he knows his supporters — almost unthinkingly, I add — will go along with him.

He doesn’t want to know about the lines of conduct and political behavior. If it was only that, it would be one thing. But his “unpredictability and resentments” have gotten the U.S. in trouble internationally, not to mention nationally, during his three years in the Oval Office. The very foundations of U.S. democracy are stake. The impeachment process is only the most recent instance of his hubris, to use that word again.

It remains likely that we, as Americans, will not see Trump leave office until the next election, if then.   Despite all of the evidence, the U.S. Senate is not likely to convict him. So, I say all of us should identify a candidate who can provide real, ethical, honest leadership for the country – and then elect him or her in 2020.

Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff put it very well as he ended the current roster of public hearings.

In a reference to Watergate, he said, “What we’ve seen here is far more serious than a third-rate burglary of the Democrat headquarters.”