Krishnamoorthi, who was born in Delhi, is a member of a group of Indian American lawmakers in US congress that he has christened the “Samosa Caucus”, which Hindustan Times reported first in 2017.
“If the United States is not a place where no one is above the law, other countries will take note,” Krishnamoorthi said in an interview.
The two-term lawmaker is a leading member of the House intelligence committee that investigated charges at the heart of the impeachment probe — that Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House meeting to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rivals, former vice-president Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump in 2020, and his son Hunter Biden and the Democratic National Committee.
The House judiciary committee is drafting the articles of impeachment based on that investigation and is moving swiftly to vote before Christmas to recommend Trump should be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanor. The Republican-controlled senate will determine the final outcome in a trial starting in January.
Krishnamoorthi, who was born in Delhi’s Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (called Wellington Hospital back then), is a member of a group of Indian American lawmakers in US congress that he has christened the “Samosa Caucus”, which Hindustan Times reported first in 2017.
Here are excerpts from the interview:
Q. Congressman, when you were first elected to the House (of Representatives) in 2016 did you ever expect to participate in an impeachment inquiry against a president?
A: No, I don’t think I even said the word impeachment when I ran for Congress the first time, and so this is kind of the last thing in the world that I would’ve wanted to be a part of, you know, after entering Congress.
Q. You must have followed the last impeachment proceeding, against president Clinton (President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998 but was acquitted after a trial in senate, which is a scenario that is most expected to play out in Trump’s case as well, unless something changes between now and then).
A: Yes.
Q. Were you a student then?
A: I was. I was going to law school (Harvard Law School). That’s right. I was in law school during the last impeachment trial.
Q. Any similarities so far?
A: Not really. The conduct at issue here is far more egregious and serious for our national security as well as its election integrity and anything that happened with Bill Clinton or even Richard Nixon for that matter.
Q. How have the last two weeks been as you participated in these closed door and public hearings as a member of the house intelligence committee? Was there a lot of homework to be done? A lot of things to catch up with? Reading?
A. Yes. There’s a tremendous amount of background reading, but also basically attending depositions. And of course getting ready for the questioning of witnesses at the live hearings and as I said to someone else, preparing for questioning these witnesses often felt cramming for final exams the night before you have to get ready. So it was quite an intense experience.
Q. And it would, of course, never cease.
A. Well it was seven hearings in five days, which is a very intense pace around here. You know, a lot of times we’ll spend a week preparing for one hearing and so to have seven in five days with actually 12 witnesses is a very, very aggressive pace. (The committee took more than 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses in closed-door hearings and more than 30 hours of testimony from 12 witnesses in public hearings).
Q. Were you able to see your family during the time?
Not very much.
Q. And constituents of course must have taken a rain check on a lot of things.
A. Well, we had to postpone a lot of activities during that time. But I think people understand because of the gravity of the proceedings.
Q. Congressman, what are you hearing from your constituents on the impeachment? Republicans argue people are not very happy about the impeachment hearing, that it is the country at a time when it’s already so divided.
A. We’ve been tracking the responses since the beginning of the opening of the impeachment inquiry. The responses, at least from my constituents, have been far more favorable to continuing with the proceedings than otherwise.
That being said, America is a big country and so clearly people have a lot of different opinions about what’s going on. I think, in that situation, I think we have to do what’s right and we have to protect and defend the constitution and basically fulfill the oath that we took on day one — to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.
Q. Which brings me to the next question. The allegations against President Trump are well known now. What do you think is really at stake here?
A: I think that there are at least two issues. At least three issues, let me put it that way. One is, are we going to routinely invite other countries to try to influence our elections? Whether it’s for one candidate or another candidate. Is that just going to become the norm?
The second issue is, are we going to allow a president to use the tremendous powers of the presidency to basically investigate private citizens for … purely personal partisan motives. At the expense of our national security, by the way.
And then the third, are we going to allow the president and his administration to effectively shut down investigations and the oversight powers of congress on behalf of the people in the United States by simply stonewalling and obstructing investigations? Not producing documents, not allowing witnesses to testify, trying to intimidate witnesses who are testifying or called to testify. I think these are very, very important questions. (Trump has barred officials from testifying in response to congressional subpoenas. Some obeyed, but most of them didn’t)
Q. Why aren’t Republicans on board yet, Congressman?
A: Well, you’ll have to ask Republicans that, but my observation is that, in many cases, Republicans I speak with do acknowledge that what happened here was at the least improper, inappropriate and is something that should not happen. But A, they’re not willing to share that publicly, always. And B, they fear the President will animate his base, basically run against them in a primary, or to oppose them in a primary election.
So I fear that the reason why they’re not standing up, I guess, standing up for what I believe to be the right side of this issue, is political.
Q: Is there an inflection point which would make Republicans change their position? (President Richard Nixon, who was facing an impeachment inquiry in 1974 for the Watergate scandal had resigned when abandoned by Republicans after the discovery of the “smoking gun” tapes).
I don’t know. I think that the fact that a majority of the country wanted this impeachment inquiry to happen in the first place was a sign that there are people who are still watching the proceedings and still trying to figure out where they stand. I’m talking about average Americans. So as the proceedings continue and people continue to digest and evaluate what’s happening, I think that there’s possibility that some Republicans will hopefully do the same and decide what happened is very serious and cannot happen again. Regardless of who’s President.
Q: Could a deposition from Ambassador Bolton (former National Security Adviser John Bolton) or acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney be that turning point? (Both were in the middle of Ukraine effort — Bolton opposed it, Mulvaney didn’t. Democrats believe their testimonies, if they agreed to it, could tip the scale).
I don’t know. Unfortunately in the case of Mick Mulvaney and other members of the administration, the White House’s effectively shut down their testimony. So that’s a big problem. And I just don’t know if they’ll allow them to testify going forward in any way. As for other witnesses, it’s a possibility that others might come forward. And I hope that people follow the example, the courageous example of the many public servants who came forward with evidence of wrongdoing. And who had absolutely no incentives to even testify let alone come forward, do so publicly. But let’s see what happens.
Q: Are you referring to Ambassador Bolton?
Well, I think that there are people like Ambassador Bolton and others who possess information. Our investigation continues in the intelligence community, nothing precludes people from coming forward with evidence of wrongdoing, even now.
Q: Congressman, how confident are you of the House voting to recommend impeachment? Do you fear defection from Democrats who were elected from conservative leaning constituents or seats that were won by President Trump in 2016? (Democrats control the House of Representative and they expect to use their majority to impeach Trump int he House, but there are fears of a split, or, at the least, some defections).
I really don’t know. I have withheld my judgment until I see what the House Judiciary Committee does. And I think that a lot of my colleagues are probably going to do the same until they have a chance to review and digest the work product of the House Judiciary Committee.
Q: And the Senate? With Republicans in charge there, isn’t President Trump guaranteed an acquittal?
Well the bar for removing a president that has been to trial is very, very high. And so I don’t know what is going to happen in the senate, what I do know is we have to do what’s right in the House, regardless of what happens over there.
Q: Finally, why should the world care about what is essentially an internal political matter of the US, and why should Indians care?
Well, I think the world, a lot of the world — everyday citizens from different countries to dissidents, to freedom fighters, the world over look to the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty, but also law and order. Governments around the world look to the United States as an example of how to conduct themselves. And if the United States is not a place where no one is above the law, other countries will take note. If the United States is not a place where you have different branches of government that form as a check and balance on each other so no one part of the government becomes overly powerful. Other governments and countries will take note.
And then, finally, if the US is not a place where an individual citizen can be protected from the overwhelming power of the chief executive of the country, who can prosecute or use his or her powers against that individual for improper purposes. What’s to stop other people and other governments from doing the same? And so that’s why I think people around the world are interested and are following what’s happening.
And by the way, one last thing with regard to Europe especially. We committed some 30 years ago I believe, to helping Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, or at least maintain its independence. And in recent years to defend it against Russian aggression. And if we waver in any way in defending Ukraine, then we invite further aggression, and we also put at risk the peace that millions of Americans fought hard and shed blood. and basically secured at the end of World War II and we put ourself in a position where we might fly back into hostilities that none of us ever want to happen again in Europe.
Prasanta Patnaik