Moscow Mitch continues pretense that he’ll run a fair impeachment trial

Posted on December 4, 2019 by Joan McCarter

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he wants to work out an agreement with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for the conduct of Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. The thing is, he has yet to schedule a meeting to discuss it, and his fellow Republicans are meeting regularly with Trump's people at the White House to strategize.

So when McConnell says, as he did with reporters on Tuesday, that the "first thing Sen. Schumer and I will do is see if there's a possibility of agreement on a procedure," take that with a dollop or two of salt. This is the part to take to the bank: "That failing, I would probably come back to my own members and say: 'OK, can 51 of us agree how we're going to handle this?'" See, he's pretending like that's his "backup" plan—staging the whole thing with a Republican majority that cuts Democrats out of the loop. As usual.

There is no template for Senate impeachment hearings, beyond what it’s conducted before. But there are no constitutional restrictions on them either, and the majority has maximum flexibility in determining how it would proceed, needing just 51 votes to do so. There's an exceedingly slim possibility that McConnell loses a few votes—maybe Mitt Romney, maybe Susan Collins, maybe even Lisa Murkowski, who is, as always, staying pretty mum on the whole thing.

Meanwhile, however, two of those Republican supposed "jurors" in the trial—Romney and Collins—joined a handful of colleagues being courted by Trump, while another group has been strategizing with White House staff. The Republicans will be lunching with White House counsel Pat Cipollone in their weekly conference lunch Wednesday "as part of an ongoing effort to keep Senate Republicans informed about White House thinking," says Sen. Mike Lee's spokesperson.

The fix is most definitely in and has been for months. McConnell has baldly said that he "can't imagine a scenario" in which he abandons Trump. He is certainly not going to allow a Senate impeachment trial to be anything but a sham. That's why Democrats need to make a very, very strong case to the voters, to maximize pressure on McConnell's minions.

We have to shut this down. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as Senate majority leader.

Barr threatens that ‘communities’ could lose ‘the police protection they need’ if they resist cops

Posted on December 4, 2019 by Joan McCarter

Donald Trump's personal lapdog Attorney General William Barr took time off from his fiction-finding efforts to manufacture evidence to exonerate his boss Tuesday and spoke to a group of police officers and prosecutors, taking the opportunity to threaten certain "communities" that if they didn't start giving "support and respect" to cops, "they might find themselves without the police protection they need."

Jeb Fain, spokesperson for American Bridge, the super PAC that recorded and released the comments, told HuffPost that Barr wasn't "being subtle and that shouldn't surprise us considering this administration's record. […] When it comes to communities of color, he sees justice and equal protection under the law as subject to conditions." Those conditions are shutting up and submitting. "Barr's words are as revealing as they are disturbing," Fain continued, "flagrantly dismissive of the rights of Americans of color, disrespectful to countless law enforcement officers who work hard to serve their communities, and full of a continuing disregard for the rule of law."

It's not new from Barr, though it is an escalation to direct threats. Back in August, he told the Fraternal Order of Police that there should be "zero tolerance for resisting police," and attacked prosecutors who stand against police abuses. "There is another development that is demoralizing to law enforcement and dangerous to public safety," he told the police group. "That is the emergence in some of our large cities of district attorneys that style themselves as 'social justice' reformers, who spend their time undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook and refusing to enforce the law."

There's that bullhorn of a dog whistle from Barr. The man the U.S. Senate confirmed to be the people's chief law enforcement officer is threatening some of those same people. While he didn't specify which people, his meaning was pretty damned clear. It's the people of color who have finally had enough with racist policing and the increasing death toll in their communities at the hands of law enforcement.

Republicans increasingly parroting Putin’s Ukraine conspiracy theory to defend Trump

Posted on December 4, 2019 by Joan McCarter

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy now has company among Senate Republicans in his efforts to infest the impeachment debate with pro-Putin talking points that Ukraine was the real culprit in election interference in 2016. That's despite all the evidence. That's despite the entire intelligence community telling them otherwise. That's despite David Hale, the No. 3 official at the State Department, testifying Tuesday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he is not aware of a single scrap of evidence that Ukraine had anything to do with the election.

But still they persist. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is also a member of the Senate leadership and is close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, told reporters that Kennedy "has pointed out I think eight different stories" to show Ukraine and Russia "both meddled," but wouldn't elaborate on what he called meddling. "I'm not going to get in the middle of a fight that you want to have picked," he said when pressed for details.

McConnell himself refused to slap the conspiracy theory down. "The intelligence committees have the ability to look at any of these suggestions," he said Tuesday. "My view is that's something for Senate Intelligence to take a look at it, and I don't have a particular reaction to it." His particular reaction is deeds, not words—refusing to take up election security legislation from the House to protect the next election from malign foreign interference.

The most alarming comments, though, came from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina. His committee has actually conducted an investigation that found, definitively, that Russia was the culprit in interference in the 2016 election, "that [Internet Research Agency] social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump," and that the IRA worked "at the direction of the Kremlin."

Additionally, the report said that the "Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA' s interference in the 2016 U.S. election." But on Tuesday, Burr said, “There’s no difference in the way Russia put their feet, early on, on the scale—being for one candidate and everybody called it meddling—and how the Ukrainian officials did it."

"No difference," he said. He also said, "Every elected official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton. Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" The ranking member on Burr’s committee, Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, was not amused. "The idea that any other country had that kind of effort is just plain false," he told reporters. "There is absolutely no factual basis for this Ukrainian election interference/CrowdStrike nonsense. None," he tweeted. "Spreading this discredited conspiracy theory only serves to advance Russia's ongoing disinformation campaign against the United States."

Not every Republican is doing Putin's bidding. Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, and Mitt Romney all pushed back on the idea that Ukraine made any attempt to influence the election. But it's telling and frightening that their leader, Mitch McConnell, and their intelligence chair are leaving the question open. Just as Putin wants it. "Thank God," he told a group last month, "no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore; now they’re accusing Ukraine."

Some House Democrats need to be thinking more about their constitutional duty than their reelection

Posted on December 3, 2019 by Joan McCarter

As the House works toward impeachment, there's reportedly internal discussion and some conflict over expanding the articles brought beyond the confines of the Ukraine investigation. Apparently some moderates "wary of impeachment blowback in their GOP-leaning districts."

Members of the Judiciary Committee are considering drafting articles that include the 10 possible instances of obstruction outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller's report as well as results of other investigative and oversight work into the many instances of Trump's emoluments violations. One of the members who spoke to Washington Post reporters on the record is Judiciary Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat from Washington. "One crime of these sorts is enough, but when you have a pattern, it is even stronger. […] If you show that this is not only real in what’s happening with Ukraine, but it’s the exact same pattern that Mueller documented . . . to me, that just strengthens the case." Intelligence Committee member Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois agrees. "It's hard to ignore the extraordinary documentation and the weight that Mueller put behind the instances of obstruction detailed in his report."

Some of the so-called moderates pressuring House Speaker Pelosi on the issue, the Post reports, want to "keep impeachment narrowly focused on Ukraine, a strategy they believed would help them weather any political backlash in next November’s elections." Others supposedly "have actually encouraged leadership to let them vote against some articles of impeachment on the House floor while backing others, a move that would allow centrists taking heat back home to show a degree of independence from their party’s left flank and their leadership."

Here's what every House Democrat should be thinking about: the trust put in them by the citizens who voted for them to fulfill their oath of office. If they need a reminder: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

But if they want to think politically, they should be thinking about making the strongest possible case against Trump. That will demonstrate to voters just how craven, unpatriotic, and dangerous the Republicans supporting him continue to be.

Republican Judiciary member steps in it, says Mulvaney and Bolton ‘absolutely’ should testify

Posted on December 2, 2019 by Joan McCarter

Donald Trump is refusing to send lawyers to upcoming impeachment hearings after weeks of claiming the impeachment process is unfair because he's not getting his say. One Republican Judiciary Committee member says the White House needs to show up.

Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California appeared on ABC's This Week Sunday and said that acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton should testify. That's whether or not federal courts rule that the White House can't squelch subpoenas and they are compelled to testify. "And in fact, yeah," McClintock said, "it would be to the President's advantage to have them testify now."

As if suddenly aware that he might have stepped in it big time with the White House, he added, "But of course he has to weigh that against the enormous catastrophic damage that would do to the doctrine of executive privilege that assures that when policy is being developed within the administration, those discussions are unfettered, are candid, are thinking outside of the box. […] That’s why the doctrine of executive privilege exists." Uh huh. Attempting to recover, he went on: "I think more information is better than less in every aspect of an inquiry and the adversarial process is very important to test what's true and what's not."

As if his—or any other Republican’s—vote in committee is uncertain; as if he's going to actually consider the evidence presented.

The best revenge is taking even more seats from Trump. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these House races!

Ukraine President Zelensky, pinched between Putin and Trump, moves to fight corruption

Posted on December 2, 2019 by Joan McCarter

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is shrewdly telling Donald Trump to put his action where his mouth is. Trump and the White House have been insisting that the quid pro quo Trump demanded of Zelensky in the phone call that has led to the House impeachment investigation was really all about encouraging the country to fight corruption in order to receive U.S. assistance. That assistance is critical for Zelensky to leverage against his biggest threat, Vladimir Putin.

In an interview with Time and three European publications, Zelensky explained that he needs U.S. support in upcoming peace talks with Putin, though his expectations are low. His concern is that allies and would-be allies will point to Trump's charges of corruption in Ukraine to deny the country assistance: "When America says, for instance, that Ukraine is a corrupt country, that is the hardest of signals." While he denied again that he and Trump discussed the withholding of aid contingent on his announcing an investigation of the Bidens or Ukraine's fictitious interference in the 2016 election (what else can he do, needing the U.S.?), he criticized the freeze on aid. "If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us," he said. "I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo."

So what's he doing about it? Fighting corruption, starting with officials linked to Rudy Giuliani's pressure campaign. He plans to kick more than 500 prosecutors out of government by the end of the year, and one of the first to go is Kostiantyn Kulyk. Kulyk is one of the key officials who worked with Giuliani, and, according to his former associates who spoke with The Washington Post, wrote a seven-page memo of cooked-up dirt that was passed on to Giuliani. Zelensky's new prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, who he told Trump in July is "100 percent my person," is also reviewing previous investigations into the owner of Burisma, the natural gas company that employed Hunter Biden.

Zelensky's anticorruption effort seems to be not just a ploy to get Western aid, one senior Western diplomat told the Post, but also a real desire to answer income inequality and advance his country. "Zelensky told me, ‘It's morally wrong for people to be dying and for all this wealth to be around,'" the diplomat said. "It's the first time in all these years I've heard an official really talk that way. To be so genuinely appalled."

Trump adds new front to trade war with metal tariffs on Brazil and Argentina

Posted on December 2, 2019 by Joan McCarter

Donald Trump is taking his impotent impeachment rage out on familiar territory for him, opening up a new front in South America in his trade wars. The White House announced Monday that it would reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentina in retaliation for "a massive devaluation of their currencies. which is not good for our farmers."

The tariffs on imported metals from the two countries is effective immediately. In addition to lashing out against the two countries, Trump attacked the Federal Reserve, saying it should "act so that countries, of which there are many, no longer take advantage of our strong dollar by further devaluing their currencies. This makes it very hard for our [manufacturers] & farmers to fairly export their goods. Lower Rates & Loosen—Fed!"

The U.S. is one of Brazil's largest steel markets, accounting for about $2.6 billion last year for the country, which is suffering a stagnant economy and unemployment above 10%. Likewise, Argentina's economy is struggling, with high inflation and a plummeting peso. The surprise tariff move shocked leaders in those countries and could complicate efforts to get a deal on the remade North American Free Trade Agreement with the House.

The announcement also contradicts Trump’s own Treasury Department, which reports twice annually on the currency policies of the rest of the world's major economies, on the lookout for currency manipulation. It's at least the second time Trump has popped off with the charge against other countries—in August it was China—in contradiction of Treasury's findings.

Trump ‘a real existential test for this Supreme Court’

Posted on November 27, 2019 by Joan McCarter

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will meet on Dec. 13 to consider whether to hear arguments in a full briefing on Donald Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling giving access to his tax returns and other financial records to prosecutors in New York.

This is the first of many cases involving possible Trump corruption, including potentially questions involving his impeachment, that a supposed "neutral" court, there just to "call balls and strikes," in Chief Justice John Roberts' words, could hear. A lot more is at stake than Trump's presidency, including the integrity of the court and every justice serving on it.

In the words of Walter Dellinger, the attorney who argued and lost at the Supreme Court on behalf of then-President Bill Clinton, "This is a real existential test for this Supreme Court." The case Dellinger lost was over whether Clinton was immune from a lawsuit. The court said he wasn't. "This will be a special moment for the independence of the judiciary and whether the hyperpartisanship that has infected so much of our culture has also infiltrated the Supreme Court," said Dellinger.

It's too late for that. It's clear that the Roberts court is part of the Republican establishment, and willing to be radically so. When Dellinger calls this an existential test, he's not exaggerating.

Trump unlikely to send lawyer to Judiciary impeachment hearing

Posted on November 27, 2019 by Joan McCarter

After months of screaming “Witch hunt!” and “No due process!” Donald Trump is likely to ignore the House Judiciary Committee’s invitation for him to appear himself or have his lawyer attend its upcoming impeachment hearing, with the first set for Dec. 4.

The Judiciary Committee told the White House that Trump’s “counsel may question any witness called before the committee, subject to instructions from the chair or presiding member respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination.” But the current thinking seems to be that Trump is winning the “process” argument by calling the whole thing a hoax designed to persecute him, so clearly having his lawyer appear would undercut that argument.

That means it’s up to the Republicans on Judiciary—including the bright lights Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, John Ratcliffe, and Matt Gaetz—to defend him. Of course, right now it’s not all that clear that Trump has an attorney to send. It’s not like he’s anxious to have Rudy Giuliani show up in front of Congress.

Democrats need to use the embarrassment of riches they have in articles of impeachment against Trump

Posted on November 26, 2019 by Joan McCarter

The key discussion House Democrats are currently engaged in is about how broad a net they will cast in drawing up articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. The possibilities are endless, but there's still reluctance among the more moderate faction to trust in the American public to be engaged enough and patient enough for it all to be examined.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has announced that he'll be drawing up a report for the Judiciary Committee, which in turn will draw up the articles, after Thanksgiving, but he hasn't ruled out holding more hearings and calling more witnesses. On the one hand, there's this argument: "We could have pages and pages and pages of articles of impeachment," said Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. "What we have seen over the last three years is, I think, unprecedented. I absolutely believe in being as focused as possible as well. I think the broader we go—that may pose challenges for the American people."

On the other hand, there are members who are looking at a broader picture. Another Judiciary member, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, argues that there's an entire report from Robert Mueller detailing some of the rot in the White House. He argues that Mueller's findings are "definitely something we need to consider because we've seen a pattern of obstruction of justice from the beginning." He added, "I would be inclined to look at the whole pattern of obstructionism by the White House, and then figure out how it best coheres with the articles of impeachment that are being suggested."

In a letter to House Democrats sent Monday, Schiff wrote that the report would detail the "months-long effort in which President Trump again sought foreign interference in our elections for his personal and political benefit," and would also document all of the instances in which the Trump administration defied House subpoenas. That "Trump again sought foreign interference" (my emphasis) leaves room for the Mueller report. Schiff wrote, "We will catalog the instances of non-compliance with lawful subpoenas as part of our report to the Judiciary Committee, which will allow that Committee to consider whether an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress is warranted along with an article or articles based on this underlying conduct or other presidential misconduct. […] Such obstruction was the basis of the third article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be hearing her moderates. "The clarity for the public to understand what is there wasn't as clear, in my view, when you say obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, 11 times in the Mueller report," she said. "That isn't justification enough for inquiring into an impeachment." All due respect, but obstruction of justice into an inquiry about Trump's potential collusion with Russia to win an election is absolutely justification for an impeachment inquiry. It is the House of Representatives’ job, Pelosi's job, to present that to the American public. At the same time, House general counsel Doug Letter has asked a U.S. appellate court, in his appeal for the full grand jury material from Mueller, "Did the President lie? Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?"

That's definitely something the American people would understand: Trump lying to investigators about whether or not he was working with the Russians to gain the presidency. It's also something that would put additional pressure on Senate Republicans. To be clear, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not going to let Trump be convicted. That's a given. But it's not a reason for providing a less-than-complete case to the Senate. In fact, it's the opposite: The strongest possible case needs to be shown to the American public, so that when McConnell and his cadre of Trumper Republicans blow it off, they are exposed for what they are. That's how Democrats win the White House and Senate next year.