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 have made my views known on this subject in past weeks, but I want to do so again…for whatever reason (see below).

For one thing, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee has released an impeachment report summarizing its views, plus the points made by 17 witnesses who appeared before it.

For another thing, House Republicans are gearing up for a fight – a fight they stand to lose in the House, but one they are likely to win in the Senate.

And, for a third thing, the Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings today on whether to propose articles of impeachment and, as the Washington Post reports, the hearing could be marked by the tactics of a “bunch of brawlers,” which could boost TV ratings.

In the past, there used to be decorum in D.C. hearings. No longer.

The Intelligence Committee report’s conclusion shows the depth of Trump’s misdeeds:

“The president placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.”

In more detail, here’s the way the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote about the report’s conclusion:

“President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.”

I am not sure my views matter from my post in the cheap seats out West – and, even if they do in my own mind, I suspect no one pays much attention to them. But, still, I feel compelled to provide my views…again…as well as to go on record against the Wall Street Journal’s editorial proposition, which contended that “the report’s summary sentence reveals the weakness of its case with overstatement.”

No. Not overstatement. A statement of Trump’s sacrifice of the national interest in favor of his own.

I prepared this post having read a column in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank who skewers Trump and the Republicans for their duplicity as the process has moved forward.

So, giving credit to Milbank, here are elements of the duplicity:

TRUMP OR COUNSELS TESTIFYING: For months, the Trump White House and its congressional chorus have clamored for Democrats to allow President Trump’s counsel to be present at impeachment proceedings.

Trump and his supporters have shared that the impeachment resolution is unfair because it “doesn’t allow POTUS’ counsel to be present to question witnesses.”

So what do Trump and his over-the-top legal counsel Pat Cipollone do when offered a chance to participate?

They say “we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

SECRET IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS: Trump and his allies complained about secret proceedings. The proceedings were made public.

NO FORMAL IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTON: Trump and his allies complained that there was no formal impeachment resolution. A formal resolution was passed.

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS: Trump and his allies complained that deposition transcripts weren’t released. The transcripts were released.

IMPEACHMENT TIMING: Trump and his allies complained that Democrats should hurry up and “move on” with impeachment. Processes. But as Democrats worked to wrap up impeachment quickly, Georgia Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, complained that, “we’re rushing this.”

TESTIMONY FROM SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS: Trump and his allies have barred top administrative officials from testifying, which means they continue with a charge that the House Intelligence Committee is getting “only second hand information.”

What’s next?

The columnist, Milbank, continues: “Cipollone is plagued by inconsistencies, but he is blessed with a surfeit of adjectives and adverbs, which he deployed in great number in his committee’s report to Nadler (New York Representative Jerome Madler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee).

“It wasn’t just the impeachment inquiry but a “purported,” “baseless” and “highly partisan” one, with an “irretrievably broken process” characterized by “profound,” “unprecedented,” “historical,” “basic,” “arbitrary,” “fundamental,” “extremely troubling,” “false,” “rudimentary” and “unfair” elements.

“If the president had a better defense, it stands to reason, his lawyer wouldn’t need such an adjectival arsenal. If we had a healthier political climate, Republicans would acknowledge Trump’s wrongdoing and propose, in lieu of impeachment, a bi-partisan, bi-cameral resolution of censure.”

Then, we could move on to the 2020 election and see if it turns out there is a candidate who could beat Trump and, thus, free America from the misdeeds of worst president in our history who continues to operate with a sense of personal entitlement, not any semblance of the national interest.