#joe hawley when i get you joseph | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Are There Any Republicans Running For President

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-any-republicans-running-for-president/

Are There Any Republicans Running For President

The ’70s Were A Crazy Time For Everyone

Republican Lawmakers Are Terrified Of Trump Running For President Again

Jimmy Carter

After the 1968 fiasco, the Democratic National Committee created a commission charged with proposing reforms to the nominating process.

Its report brought state delegate allocations into line with the distribution of population and required state parties to adopt open procedures for selecting delegates rather than allowing state party leaders to pick them in secret.

In practice, states mostly implemented this by adopting presidential primaries which generally induced Republicans to make the same change.

The new system kicked off a chaotic era in which mavericks and factional leaders could win over the objections of party leaders.

In 1972, McGovern took advantage of his own reforms to win the Democratic nomination, even with an ideology so unacceptable to major party factions that the AFL-CIO didn’t support him over Richard Nixon.

Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter won the Democratic nomination despite a total lack of ties to the party establishment in Washington, and proceeded to win the White House and then not pursue the party’s agenda.

Also in 1976, incumbent President Gerald Ford faced an extremely strong primary challenge from conservative leader Ronald Reagan and was forced to drop the incumbent vice president from the ticket in order to appease conservatives.

Four years later, incumbent President Carter was challenged from the left by Ted Kennedy, his renomination secured only by the rally-round-the-flag effect induced by the Iranian hostage crisis.

Trump As A Stalking Horse

Of course, there was plenty of speculation during the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination that Trump was trying to sabotage the GOP candidates by saying outrageous things and making a mockery of the process in a bid to help Hillary Clinton win the election.

Ã¢Donald Trump is trolling the GOP,Ã¢ political reporter Jonathan Allen wrote. Trump also threatened to run for president as an independent, a move many believed would siphon votes from the Republican nominee as other, similar candidates have done in the past.

Sen Ted Cruz Of Texas

Cruz, 50, could start out a 2024 election campaign in a much stronger position than his first run in 2016, when he came in second. Its not uncommon for Republicans to select the recent runner up to later be their nominee which is what happened to Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan.

A lot has happened to Cruz since 2016. For one, he became an ardent Trump supporter and grew a beard. But Cruz has also learned lessons from his first presidential run. Should he run again in the 2024 election, hed be a much more experienced campaigner with a more finely tuned message, higher name ID, and a carefully maintained donor base, one Republican strategist said.

Cruz has also faced backlash for objecting to President Joe Bidens Electoral College win. Following the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, seven Democrats asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Cruz and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for amplifying claims of election fraud that led to violence. In Texas, the Republican Accountability Project paid for 100 billboards calling on Cruz to resign. Cruz also angered some close to him, like a longtime friend and former campaign chair who denounced him, and his chief spokesperson, who resigned, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Don’t Miss: How Many Republicans Are In The House

I Made A Decision To Live My Life In Service

Brock Pierce is a former child actor who appeared in the Mighty Ducks franchise and starred as the presidents son in the 1996 comedy First Kid. But thanks to his second career as a tech entrepreneur, hes also probably a crypto currency billionaire.

Why is he running for president? Partly because he is deeply concerned by the state of the country.

I think that we lack a real vision for the future I mean, what kind of world do we want to live in, in the year 2030? What is the plan? Where are we trying to get to, you know? You have to aim for something. And I see mostly just a lot of mud being thrown around, not a lot of people putting forth game-changing ideas. Its getting scary. And I have a view of what to do.

For the last four years, Mr Pierce has focused on philanthropic work in Puerto Rico, where his foundation recently raised a million dollars for PPE to give to first responders.

Asked what Americas priorities should be for the next four years, he suggests the country stops pursuing growth for growths sake, and measures its success by how well life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are upheld.

I have many liberal tendencies, just like I have conservative tendencies, Mr Pierce says. And I think its time we take a collective breath and a brave step into the future, because all of these ideologies have something to teach us.

And if he doesnt pull it off? Mr Pierce says he has offers.

How Are Primary Elections Conducted In California

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election regardless of party preference – move on to the general election. Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

Prior to the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, the top vote-getter from each qualified political party, as well as any write-in candidate who received a certain percentage of votes, moved on to the general election.

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local office.

You May Like: Who Won Democrats Or Republicans

Whos Running For President In 2020

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the presumptive Democratic nominee to challenge President Trump in the 2020 race.

The field of Democratic presidential candidates was historically large, but all others have dropped out. Mr. Trump had also picked up a few Republican challengers, but they have also ended their campaigns.

Running

Has run for president twice before.

Is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters.

His eight years as Barack Obamas vice president are a major selling point for many Democrats.

Signature issues: Restoring Americas standing on the global stage; adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act; strengthening economic protections for low-income workers in industries like manufacturing and fast food.

Main legislative accomplishment as president: a sweeping tax cut that chiefly benefited corporations and wealthy investors.

Has focused on undoing the policies of the Obama administration, including on health care, environmental regulation and immigration.

Was impeached by the House of Representatives for seeking to pressure Ukraine to smear his political rivals, but was acquitted by the Senate.

Signature issues: Restricting immigration and building a wall at the Mexican border; renegotiating or canceling international deals on trade, arms control and climate change; withdrawing American troops from overseas.

Ended her campaign in March 2020 and said she would back Mr. Biden.

Republican Presidential Hopefuls Move Forward As Trump Considers 2024 Run

Less than three months after former President Trump left the White House, the race to succeed him is already beginning.

Trumps former secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo, has launched an aggressive schedule visiting states that will play a pivotal role in the 2024 Republican primaries and has signed a contract with Fox News Channel. Mike Pence, Trumps former vice president, has started a political advocacy group, finalized a book deal and later this month will give a speech in South Carolina, his first since leaving office. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been courting donors, including in Trumps backyard, with a prominent speaking slot before the former president at a GOP fundraising retreat dinner this month at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida resort where Trump now lives.

Trump ended his presidency with such a firm grip on Republican voters that party leaders fretted he would freeze the field of potential 2024 candidates, delaying preparations as he teased another run. Instead, many Republicans with national ambitions are openly laying the groundwork for campaigns as Trump continues to mull his own plans.

Theyre raising money, making hires and working to bolster their name recognition. The moves reflect both the fervor in the party to reclaim the White House and the reality that mounting a modern presidential campaign is a years-long endeavor.

Recommended Reading: Do Republicans Want To Impeach Trump

Elites Still Matter Enormously In Primaries

George H.W. Bush

Just when journalists and political scientists were ready to proclaim the death of parties in favor of candidate-centered politics, the pendulum started to swing back.

Over the past 35 years, incumbent presidents have had zero problems obtaining renomination even presidents like George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton who alienated substantial segments of the party base with ideological heterodoxy during their first term. Reagan and Clinton both passed the baton to their vice presidents without much trouble.

Insurgent candidates who caught fire with campaigns explicitly promising to shake up the party establishment Gary Hart in 1984, Pat Robertson in 1988, Jerry Brown in 1992, Pat Buchanan in 1996, John McCain and Bill Bradley in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Mike Huckabee in 2008, and Rick Santorum in 2012 repeatedly gained headlines and even won state primaries.

But while 1970s insurgents were able to use early wins to build momentum, post-Reagan insurgents were ground down by the sheer duration and expansiveness of primary campaigns.

Tactics that worked in relatively low-population, cheap states like Iowa and New Hampshire simply couldn’t scale without access to the broad networks of donors, campaign staff, and policy experts that establishment-backed candidates enjoyed.

It’s this “invisible primary” among party elites that truly matters.

Endorsements were better at predicting the outcome than polls, fundraising numbers, or media coverage.

List Of Registered 2024 Presidential Candidates

Republican Support for Convicting Trump GROWS in the Senate

The following table lists candidates who filed with the FEC to run for president. Some applicants used pseudonyms; candidate names and party affiliations are written as they appeared on the FEC website on the date that they initially filed with the FEC.

Candidates who have filed for the 2024 presidential election Candidate

You May Like: What Did The Radical Republicans Stand For

Republican Presidential Nomination 2020

Presidential election changes in response to the coronavirus pandemic

The Republican Party selected President Donald Trump as its presidential nominee at the 2020 Republican National Convention, which was held from August 24-27, 2020.

Prior to the national convention, individual state caucuses and primaries were held to allocate convention delegates. These delegates vote at the convention to select the nominee. Trump crossed the delegate threshold necessary to win the nomination1,276 delegateson .

George H.W. Bush was the last incumbent to face a serious primary challenge, defeating political commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992. He was also the last president to lose his re-election campaign. Franklin Pierce was the first and only elected president to lose his party’s nomination in 1856.

Sixteen U.S. presidentsapproximately one-thirdhave won two consecutive elections.

Wheres Kamala Last Person In Room Harris Silent 6 Days Amid Afghan Pullout Chaos

Democrats are increasingly fearful Vice President Kamala Harris missteps will open the door for Republicans to regain the White House, a new report said Friday.

Dems, including senior White House officials, fear that Harris will lose to any Republican she faces including former President Donald Trump if President Biden does not seek reelection in 2024, Axios reported.

At 56, Harris is more than two decades Bidens junior and has been considered the heir apparent to the 46th president since he selected her to be his running mate last year.

While Harris will still be the presumptive nominee if Biden becomes the first president since Lyndon Johnson to not seek a second full term, Axios reports that a series of blunders have left officials and operatives concerned.

Right now, one operative told Axios, the feeling among Democrats isnt Oh, no, our heir apparent is fing up, what are we gonna do? Its more that people think, Oh, shes fing up, maybe she shouldnt be the heir apparent.

Harris has repeatedly been criticized for her handling of the illegal immigration crisis along the US-Mexico border, a problem Biden dumped in her lap in March by tasking her to deal with the root causes of the issue.

According to Axios, several White House officials have also described Harris office as a shtshow, poorly managed, and staffed with people who dont know the vice president well.

Don’t Miss: Are There Any Republicans Running Against Trump

Georgia And Arizona Senators Show Progressive

Walker, the 1982 Heisman Trophy winner and a Wrightsville, Ga., native, has long lived in Texas after a professional football career that ended in Dallas, but he changed his voter registration last week to an Atlanta house owned by his wife, Julie Blanchard. Blanchard is under investigation by the Georgia secretary of states office over potential illegal voting after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported she voted in Georgia despite living in Texas.

Walker has also repeated false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election despite elections officials finding no evidence of widespread fraud that affected the outcome.

Its unclear when Walker will make a formal Senate announcement. The campaign paperwork filed Tuesday ends months of speculation about his political plans, including a prediction in June from Trump that the former football star would soon suit up for the Republican primary.

He told me hes going to, and I think he will, Trump said on the conservative talk radio Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Hes a great guy. Hes a patriot. And hes a very loyal person, hes a very strong person. They love him in Georgia, Ill tell you.

Some national Republicans have been wary of Walkers candidacy, though. The first-time candidate comes with potential baggage that could harm his chances in both the primary and general elections, including his Texas residency.

Ryan Sit U.S.Donald TrumpMike PenceBen SasseBob Corker

Here are 10 Republicans who may challenge Trump:

None Of Them Can Win But They Could Play Spoiler

Remember when half of American white males over the age of 40 declared themselves for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016? There were so many candidates that they couldnt fit them all on two packed debate stages. One guy stayed in after receiving a grand total of 12 votes in the Iowa caucuses; in New Hampshire, Jim Gilmores showing improved to , an unprecedented 1,000 percent increase. Reader: He didnt withdraw for another six days.

Since Donald Trump is our incumbent president, and will thus almost surely be the GOP nominee in 2020, we should be spared a repeat, and really ought to be able to give our undivided attention to the approximately 437 mostly Social Security-eligible senators, governors, congressmen, mayors, and billionaire activists looking to run on the Democratic ticket in 2020. Unfortunately, Trump will almost certainly be challenged, either in the ostensibly meaningless Republican primaries or by one or more independent right-of-center candidates.

Stephen Bannon thinks 2020 will be a proper three-way race. #NeverTrumpers are already ferreting around for someone to challenge the president for the GOP nomination. I just finished reading a book about the French resistance. It reminds me of that. People are meeting over their garages their ateliers trying to figure out whos going to do it, one of them toldNew York recently.

Here are five people who might just fit the bill.

1. John Kasich

Chance of running: 80 percent

2. Jeff Flake

Also Check: Are Republicans Or Democrats More Educated

Us Election : The Other 1214 Candidates Running For President

The US has had presidents for more than 230 years, but only the first George Washington has ever been elected as an independent candidate.

The twin peaks of US politics, the Republican and Democratic parties, dominate media coverage and campaign donations so completely that the chances of an outsider winning are virtually nil.

What kind of person looks at those near-insurmountable odds and thinks Im running anyway?

Quite a range as it turns out: As of 9 October, some 1,216 candidates have filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for president.

The BBC asked three of them a concert pianist and motivational speaker, a Native American IT technician, and a crypto billionaire what they stand for, and why they deserve the votes of Americans.

President Trump Your Legacy Is Secure Stop The Stolen Election Rhetoric

As many on the left have pointed out, the 2020 election was less a repudiation of Trump than a narrow loss for a man who proved just unpalatable enough for a critical sliver of his coalition.

Sean Spicer, a former Trump press secretary, told The Post his ex-boss would be an instant front-runner in a 2024 primary. He has a rock-solid base, I just dont think that there is anyone else who even comes close.

Teasing a potential run in 2024 would at the very least ensure Trump stays relevant and in the press for years to come.

If Trump himself passes on the opportunity, his two very political children Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump could also potentially pick up the mantle. Trump Jr. has long acted as an outside surrogate for his father online and in the press and connects strongly with his base. Ivanka, meanwhile, has years of administration experience under her belt as a White House adviser to her father.

Also Check: Who Supported The Republicans In The Spanish Civil War

Votes By State For Biden And Trump

The following table shows the number of votes Joe Biden and Donald Trump received in each state.

Votes by state for Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential eleection State

There were 21 candidates on the ballot each in Vermont and Colorado. The next largest presidential ballots were Arkansas and Louisiana with 13 candidates each. Twelve states had only three candidates on the ballot.

The following map shows the number of presidential candidates on the ballot in each state.

1 note · View note

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

Democrats Seek to Pre-empt Trump’s Defense in Impeachment Trial https://nyti.ms/2NShPki

"This article is written as if Donald Trump's incessant lying is not part of the public record and not germane to ascertaining the truthfulness of his assertions. Considering everything we know about Trump the person and his effort to strong arm Zelensky, there can be no doubt that his actions were self-serving and not in the public interest. Congressional Republicans are peddling a fictional narrative, taking their cues from our president, because without his support they will not be reelected. They will continue to dissemble the facts thru propaganda, misinformation and social media to protect Trump at any cost denying the American people the truth of his extensive 'ABUSE OF POWER' and 'OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE' with no regard for the U.S. Constitution.

Democrats Seek to Pre-empt Trump’s Defense in Impeachment Trial

The House impeachment managers sought to undercut the central elements of President Trump’s defense, wading into a detailed defense of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

By Sheryl Gay Solberg | Published Jan. 23, 2020 Updated Jan. 24, 2020, 12:18 p.m. ET | New York Times | Posted January 24, 2020 |

WASHINGTON — House Democrats sought on Thursday to pre-emptively dismantle President Trump’s core defenses in his impeachment trial, invoking his own words to argue that his pressure campaign on Ukraine was an abuse of power that warranted his removal.

On the second day of arguments in the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, Democrats sought to make the case that Mr. Trump’s actions were an affront to the Constitution. And they worked to disprove his lawyers’ claims that he was acting only in the nation’s interests when he sought to enlist Ukraine to investigate political rivals.

In doing so, they took a calculated risk in talking at length about Mr. Trump’s targets — former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden — and underscored the political backdrop of a trial that is unfolding only 10 months before the election and is likely to reverberate long after the verdict.

“You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country — you can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, said in an impassioned appeal as the clock ticked past 10 p.m. “This is why if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Right matters and the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost.”

The team of seven Democratic impeachment managers repeatedly attacked the idea that when the president withheld military aid from Ukraine and sought to secure a promise to investigate Joseph Biden, he was merely making a foreign policy decision to root out corruption in Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has consistently suggested, without any evidence, that Mr. Biden pushed to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company with a long history of corruption that employed Hunter Biden on its board. Representative Sylvia R. Garcia, Democrat of Texas, spent nearly an hour debunking the claim, and said that, in fact, the opposite was true.

The prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was “widely perceived as corrupt,” she said, and Mr. Biden was acting in accordance with official American policy, as well as the policy of the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations in calling for his removal.

Moreover, Mr. Shokin had already let the Burisma investigation “go dormant,” Ms. Garcia said, so his ouster “would only increase the chance that Burisma would be investigated for possible corruption.” She asserted that neither the elder Mr. Biden nor his son had done anything wrong, and that American officials — and Mr. Trump — knew it.

“Every single witness who was asked about the allegations again said that Biden had nothing to do with it and it was false; they testified that he acted properly,” Ms. Garcia said, adding, “There is simply no evidence, nothing, nada in the record to support this baseless allegation.”

It was, in effect, a defense of one of the Democrats’ leading 2020 presidential candidates and a potential challenger to the president. Mr. Schiff later volunteered that neither he nor his colleagues had a position on the Democratic presidential primary.

Mr. Schiff also brought Mr. Trump into the chamber — at least on video — to use the president’s own words against him, with a clip in which the president called both Bidens “corrupt” and called for Ukraine to start a “major investigation” into them.

“The president has confirmed what he wanted in his own words,” Mr. Schiff said. “He has made it clear he didn’t care about corruption, he cared only about himself. Now it is up to us to do something about it, to make sure that a president, that this president, cannot pursue an objective that places himself above our country.”

But in focusing on the Bidens, Democrats took a strategic risk. Some Republicans have already threatened to call the Bidens as witnesses, even suggesting that they would insist on hearing from them as a condition of agreeing to subpoena John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.

Democrats have refused to consider the idea, and Mr. Biden has said he would not take part in any such swap. And on Thursday, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he would not “give in to that pressure” from some of his colleagues to do so.

But Mr. Trump’s legal team said the Bidens were now fair game in the trial.

“They have opened the door,” said Jay Sekulow. “It’s now relevant.”

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said the Democrats’ arguments had made testimony from the Bidens vital.

“If we’re going to call witnesses,” he said, “it’s now clear we absolutely must call Hunter Biden, and we probably need to call Joe Biden.”

Mr. Trump seemed to be paying attention. At a Republican National Committee event on Thursday evening at the president’s club in Doral, Fla., he told 400 people that the proceedings were “impeachment lite” compared with the trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999 and the case against President Richard M. Nixon in the 1970s.

In laying out their case against Mr. Trump, the Democrats focused tightly on the first of two charges against him: that he abused his power by trying to compel a foreign power to help him win re-election in 2020 and withheld two official acts — the provision of $391 million in military aid and a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president — in an effort to advance his illicit scheme.

“President Trump exploited our ally, Ukraine, for his own political benefit to the detriment of American national security,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York. “Is that conduct impeachable? The answer is categorically yes. The Senate must hold this president accountable for his abuse-of-power crimes against our Constitution.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said: “Impeachment is not punishment for a crime. Impeachment exists to address threats to the political system.”

“Impeachment is the Constitution’s final answer to a president who mistakes himself for a king,” he added.

Democrats expect to wrap up their case on Friday with presentations aimed at proving the second charge: that Mr. Trump obstructed Congress by withholding documents and witnesses and otherwise working to conceal his behavior. On Saturday, Mr. Trump’s defense team is expected to lay out its case.

On Thursday, Mr. Nadler drew on quotes from Alexander Hamilton; from George Washington’s farewell address; and from a 1792 letter to Thomas Jefferson from John Adams that warned of “foreign intrigue and influence” in arguing that Mr. Trump warranted impeachment and removal from office — regardless of whether he committed a crime.

“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections,” Mr. Nadler said, adding, “It puts even President Nixon to shame.”

Mr. Nadler also turned to Trump allies — including Alan M. Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor who is assisting in the president’s defense, and Mr. Graham — to make his case, using video clips of their comments from the Clinton impeachment trial to undercut Mr. Trump’s defense.

In one clip, Mr. Graham, an impeachment manager during the Clinton trial, explained why a “high crime” — one of the criteria the Constitution sets forth for the impeachment and removal of a president — does not necessarily require breaking a law.

“When you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime,” Mr. Graham said.

Even before Thursday’s session got underway, it was clear that Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nadler and the other managers had not changed the minds of many Republicans. Senate Democrats were privately expressing concern that they may not get the four Republican votes they would need to bring witnesses and documents into the trial.

If they do not, the case could be over by the end of next week. Publicly, though, Democrats were putting on a good face.

“I am more hopeful than ever that four conscientious, brave Republicans will come forward and tell Mitch McConnell you can’t shut this down without witnesses, you can’t shut this down without documents,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, referring to his Republican counterpart.

The rules of the trial require senators to “keep silent, on pain of imprisonment,” and after two lengthy days of first voting on motions on Tuesday and hearing oral arguments on Wednesday, Republicans were growing weary.

Some complained that Democrats were simply reciting the same facts time and time again, more for the television viewing audience than for the audience in the chamber. Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, handed out fidget spinner toys to his colleagues, ostensibly to ease the boredom — and to deliver a not-too-subtle dig at Democrats.

“They spent a lot of time, they’re well prepared — I just don’t think they have much to work with,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. “They’ve got about a one-hour presentation that they gave six hours on Tuesday and eight hours yesterday.”

But Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said the Democrats had good reason to be repetitive: Many senators — not to mention the public — did not pay close attention to the House inquiry. One Republican, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, told reporters as much on Wednesday.

“Senators didn’t know the case,” he said. “They really didn’t. We didn’t stay glued to the television. We haven’t read the transcripts.”

Reporting was contributed by Michael D. Shear, Emily Cochrane, Nicholas Fandos, Peter Baker and Catie Edmondson from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York.

______

"It is indeed ironic that Senate Republicans are critical of House impeachment managers repeating the same set of facts, thoroughly vetted and corroborated, over and over again during the course of their meticulous presentations. Of course their own amoral leader, the corrupt Fake President, constantly and shamelessly recites the same baseless, fact-free propaganda over and over again, as the running compilation of his telling over 16,000 lies since the inauguration underscores. Better to be bored Senators." JOHN GRILLO, EDGEWATER MARYLAND

"Trump attempted to rig his own upcoming election. He then engaged into a wide scale cover up of the rigging attempt. The evidence is overwhelming. There is no defense being put forth by Republicans for Trump trying to rig his own election or covering it up. Instead, they are focusing on someone who the President has never met, who has never committed a crime despite being investigated, and who just happens to be related to Trump's main rival in the upcoming election. GOP Senators have already entered into a Faustian bargain in the matter. On the other hand, suburban, educated, swing state voters (such as in my state of Pennsylvania) will not forget in November. None of my co-workers, neighbors or community group friends who voted for Trump in'16 are supporting him in 2020. Good luck with that deflection strategy Republicans as the only key voting demographic left that will likely determine the election outcome is turning away from your corruption and lies." RANDY, PENNSYLVANIA

Calling witnesses is not likely to benefit Democrats. Even if Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo were called as witnesses it's not going to change the result. But it would give Republicans a chance to call their own witnesses, for propaganda purposes. The House team is doing a professional job of presenting their case and rushing to (in)justice is likely to work against the Republicans. Let's concentrate on making sure Trump and McConnell lose their jobs this year."

F. MCB, NY

"This report mainly covering the trial mangers' arguments debunking Trump's claims against Joe Biden and the Ukraine today does not capture the thoroughness, clarity and precision of their case against Trump and the nonexistent ones against the Bidens and the Ukraine. Coverage of this impeachment trial deserves stronger and sharper reporting than this. I encourage readers to watch the trial and to find out where yesterday's and today's coverage is repeated. The work of most of the managers is exceptional in its organization and presentation of the facts."PJ. COLORADO

"The sad reality is that Republicans care more about money and beating the Democrats than about the Constitution, the Country, the American people, and/or the environment. The impeachment trial result will thus be a farce and serve to only further divide the nation in addition to highlighting the immorality of the Trump Republicans." JAMES, LONDON

" What is the relevance of the Bidens to the charges of high crimes/misdemeanors against Trump? Don’t get that one. Sure, the Republicans will use any and all excuses to deflect, but - doesn’t it have to be legally substantiated somehow? Otherwise may as well bring Bucky Dent into the equation. Or Ivanka, for that matter."

ROB, SAVANNAH

"Having opened up the Biden issue, the President’s lawyers are going to make it clear why it was good for America to investigate the Bidens in Ukraine" Let's dissect your comment. - You believe that Ukraine is corrupt. (To some degree, yes.) - You believe that Donald Trump cares about stopping corruption. (Laughable.) - Donald Trump did not question congressionally authorized aid to Ukraine in 2017 or 2018, but he suddenly did in 2019. Why? - Donald Trump claims that the most corrupt person in Ukraine is not a Ukrainian citizen, but rather an American citizen, who just happens to be the son of Trump's most formidable political rival named Biden. (Patently ridiculous.) The Trump Republican sycophants are living in La La Land, an alternate reality. If this is what passes for critical thinking in the United States of America today, then God help us all. We get what we deserve.

"Vote every Republican out of office. From president, to senator, to dog catcher. Every last one of them. That is the only thing that the corrupt Banana Republican party will understand. Complete and utter destruction at the polls on November 3, 2020."

MIDTOWN ATL, ATLANTA

Fun fact about Chairman Schiff: He competes in triathlons. What an orator. I thought Wednesday night's closing argument was one for the history books, then tonight happened. What a moving moment for our country. I don't know if it will sway any Republican Senators but wow....it is the first time I have felt any sort of patriotism about my country in the past 3+ years. Thank you Chairman Schiff and the rest of the wonderful, dedicated impeachment managers. You are giving this jaded American a small glimmer of hope in these dark times. JOSH, SOMEWHERE OUT WEST

"If the House Democrats have new evidence and new witnesses that the Senate refuses bring in, the House must hold a 2nd impeachment. If our national security and our election is at risk they must do their job. Nothing else is acceptable. The Republicans cannot stop the House. Conducting a second impeachment to get new evidence out to the voters is 100% totally dependent on them."DR. JOHN, SEATTLE

If the House Democrats have new evidence and new witnesses that the Senate refuses bring in, the House must hold a 2nd impeachment. If our national security and our election is at risk they must do their job. Nothing else is acceptable. The Republicans cannot stop the House. Conducting a second impeachment to get new evidence out to the voters is 100% totally dependent on them." JOSH GREYBEARD, NYC

On Saturday, January 25, 2020, the president’s legal team, led by Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollini, present their case. Sekulow’s case is that the crimes don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The facts haven’t been proven. Finally, the bureaucrats don’t get to set foreign policy. Pay attention to that last one. Sekulow will call them bureaucrats rather than brave, career-risking civil servants, and, for Vindman, an Army staff-level officer. To the Republicans, they are the “deep state” sticking up from underground. He'll argue that because they were Obama-era holdovers, they are trying to undermine the Trump foreign policy, He'll note the Constitution expressly bestows on the president the power to conduct foreign affairs. Sekulow will deliberately conflate (i) Trump extorting a vulnerable foreign ally with (ii) an actual foreign policy of fighting corruption. Sekulow will argue that it was the job of the bureaucrats to follow Trump’s corruption-fighting foreign policy regardless of the offensive form it may have taken. This is wrong. A crime, or an abuse of power, consisting of extortion or birbery, is not a valid foreign policy. If a president can order a bureaucrat to facilitate his criminal policy, he can order him or her to commit a crime, leaving the bureaucrat an only defense: “I had to follow the order.” Under our legal system, “I was only following orders” is NOT a defense."MURRAY GORDON, EVANSTON IL

"Watching Schiff in Action is like sitting in a Master Class. A very astute Teacher. Schiff simplifies complicated, intertwined information. Schiff is Teacher, Hero, Senator, Orator, Samurai with words Schiff ends with this thought wirh emotion— If Right doesn’t matter we are lost. The Framers could not protect this Country if the right and the truth do not matter. No Constitution can protect us if right doesn’t matter anymore. You can believe this president will not do what is right for this country. He will do what right for Donald Trump." THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID, THE WEST

"If right doesn't matter, we are lost." - Congressman Schiff. Well said, and thank-you." RICH C, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA

" I just witnessed a superb closing argument by Adam Schiff tonight. Schiff rose to the occasion and he came across as sincere with conviction and with the passion we imagine of Paine when he wrote give me liberty or give me death. If Schiff's concise and pointed call fails to produce 20 Thomas Beckets among the ranks of Senate Republicans, it is because Senate Republicans are lost and everyone will know it." EDGAR ALLEN POE, CHICAGO

"It is not Trump that is on trial, he is guilty a thousand times, it is the republican senators. Punish them at the polls." SM, USA

"Meanwhile the Senators are bored. The American people aren't. How hard is it to sit and listen? We expect that of our children in school. We expect that of people at work. But Senators are too good, too important, too bored to participate in the most consequential debates of our lifetimes. They have their minds made up in advance. Not because they have heard or considered the evidence, but because they are partisan hacks and would support the devil if he was on their side. Vote the bums out. That is, of course, if our election systems are not so corrupted that we can't." BEAR LASS, COLORADO

"Knowing there will be no additional documents coming, nor witnesses called, it will be up to the American voters to save your democracy. As Adam Schiff made his closing statement tonight I was moved to tears feeling no matter the evidence they have presented it matters not to the Republicans. To think they will toss your democracy aside to protect their own jobs and a man so lacking in character is just stunning to me." HOLLY, CANADA

*********

Democrats have a last chance to persuade Republicans to pursue additional witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial of President Trump. Read why Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander and Cory Gardner are the senators are the focus of both Republicans and Democrats.

A look at the Republicans who might break with the party to vote for new witnesses.

So far, none has committed to do so.

By Michael D. Shear | Published Jan. 24, 2020, 10:51 a.m. ET | New York Times | Posted January 24, 2020 |

Republican moderates are in the spotlight on Friday as House managers conclude their oral arguments and senators turn to the question of whether to call witnesses and seek new documents in the impeachment trial. All four of the senators opposed Democratic motions for witnesses and documents at the beginning of the trial, but have said they might be open to switching their stances after opening arguments have been completed.

So far, however, none have committed to do so.

Here are the Republican senators to watch:

Mitt Romney of Utah has not said much since the trial started. But earlier, he indicated he would be open to new witnesses, and said he wants to hear from John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser.

Susan Collins of Maine is usually a swing vote in the Senate. Facing re-election this year, she is facing brutal blowback in her state for voting to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his seat on the Supreme Court. She has strongly suggested that she will ultimately vote to call witnesses. Doing so could help her mend fences with moderate voters she needs to keep her seat.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is an independent voice in the Senate. She was the only Republican to oppose Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation and has indicated she could be open to having the Senate examine additional evidence in the impeachment case.

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is retiring after a long career in the Senate. He has not given clear answers to whether he might support additional witnesses and is extremely close with Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader. But Democrats hope his institutionalist impulses might prompt him to be the fourth vote they need.

There has been additional focus on a fifth senator, Cory Gardner of Colorado. Mr. Gardner is a first-term senator who is facing a tough re-election race this year in a politically competitive state. He will need support from independent voters and even some Democrats to win, but Mr. Garnder has so far been mum on the question of witnesses, and has criticized the impeachment inquiry as a politically motivated exercise.

*********

Now Testifying for the Prosecution: President Trump.... Barred so far from presenting witnesses, the House managers prosecuting the president have focused on turning his own words against him.

WASHINGTON — The House managers prosecuting President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors have failed so far to persuade Senate Republicans to let them call new witnesses in his impeachment trial. But in their own way, they have come up with a star witness they can bring to the floor: Mr. Trump himself.

Barred at this point from presenting live testimony, the managers have offered up the president as the most damning witness against himself, turning his own words against him by quoting from his public remarks, citing accounts of private discussions and showing video clips of him making audacious statements that the House team argues validate its case.

Thanks to screens set up in front of the senators, Mr. Trump’s voice has repeatedly echoed through the Senate chamber the past three days. There he was on the South Lawn of the White House publicly calling on Ukraine to investigate a campaign rival, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. There he was calling on China to go after Mr. Biden, too. There he was declaring that he would willingly take foreign help to win an election. And there he was back in 2016 calling on Russia, “if you’re listening,” to hack into Hillary Clinton’s email.

The strategy seeks to capitalize on Mr. Trump’s astonishingly unfiltered approach to politics, which has led him again and again to say openly what other presidents with more of an understanding of the traditional red lines of Washington — or at least more of an instinct for political self-preservation — would never say in front of a camera.

In effect, the managers are challenging the president’s own penchant for announcing his motivations without apparent regard for whether it could get him into trouble. At the same time, the managers are challenging the senators to take Mr. Trump at his word about what really drove him to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into Mr. Biden and other Democrats.

While Mr. Trump’s lawyers have argued that he was legitimately concerned with corruption in Ukraine when he held up nearly $400 million in security aid to that former Soviet republic, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California and the other House Democrats on the managers team have pointed to the president’s own words to contend that he cared only about tarnishing his domestic rivals.

In his presentation on Thursday, Mr. Schiff played about a half-dozen video clips of Mr. Trump, including one of the president on the South Lawn of the White House on Oct. 3 speaking with reporters who asked him what he was hoping to get Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to do when they talked by telephone on July 25.

“Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens,” the senators saw Mr. Trump saying.

“So here we hear again from the president’s own words what his primary object is,” Mr. Schiff then told the senators, “and his primary object is helping his re-election campaign, help to cheat in his re-election campaign.”

Mr. Schiff said Mr. Trump’s own words made clear that he learned nothing from the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. “He was at it again,” Mr. Schiff said, “unrepentant, undeterred, if anything emboldened by escaping accountability from his invitation and willful use of Russian hacked materials in the last election.”

Under the trial rules, the president’s lawyers have had no chance to respond to their client’s star turn on the Senate floor over the last two days, but they are poised to open their own case on Saturday and almost surely will argue that the managers have misinterpreted or twisted Mr. Trump’s words. In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s team has been left to defend him in the hallways during breaks.

“You’re only hearing one side of the story here,” said Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, one of a squadron of House Republicans enlisted by the president to serve as an adjunct of his defense team, working the cameras outside the chamber rather than the senators inside.

Rep. Mike Johnson ✔@RepMikeJohnson

Was President Trump genuinely concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Of course he was.

Do we have examples of his concern about corruption elsewhere around the world? Of course we do.#AmericaFirst means protecting American taxpayer dollars.

3:41 PM - Jan 23, 2020

Mr. Johnson said it was wrong to contend that Mr. Trump was not concerned about corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere around the world. “Of course he was,” Mr. Johnson told reporters. “He’s been talking about it as a central theme of his campaign before he was president. When he ran on the priority of America first, that’s what he meant. He wanted to make sure that American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.”

Mr. Trump is not the only person who has been presented to the Senate via video clips during the prosecution arguments, but even the other witnesses against him were largely drawn from his own team. Many of them testified during House hearings last fall about their concerns over the president and his allies pressuring Ukraine for help with his domestic politics.

Among the prosecution’s key witnesses are officials appointed by the Trump administration itself, including Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union; Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine; Fiona Hill, the president’s former Europe and Russia adviser, and her successor, Tim Morrison; Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director; Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff; William B. Taylor Jr., the former top diplomat in Ukraine; and Thomas P. Bossert, the former White House homeland security adviser.

Others brought electronically into the chamber over the last three days include career public servants like Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine; Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a National Security Council staff member; and State Department officials like George P. Kent and David Holmes.

“Why did President Trump’s own officials — not so-called Never Trumpers, but public servants — report this in real time?” Mr. Schiff asked, referring to the mixing of politics with Ukraine policy. “Because they knew it was wrong.”

Indeed, the managers used Mr. Trump’s own appointees to rebut his assertion that he was right to push Ukraine to investigate its own supposed interference in the 2016 presidential election, a conspiracy theory that American intelligence agencies have called a Russian disinformation operation. The managers showed clips of Mr. Wray, Mr. Bossert and Dr. Hill all debunking the theory.

But the most compelling voice in the chamber this week has been that of the president himself. In his three years in office, Washington has learned that when it wants to understand what Mr. Trump is doing or thinking, he will likely spell it out in bracingly candid terms in front of a microphone or on Twitter — and not always follow the official party line offered by his aides.

That uninhibited style appeals to supporters who love that he does not hew to standard talking points, but it can make him a frustrating client for lawyers who would prefer he be more circumspect at the very least. Either way, it makes his statements more important in judging him. Which is presumably one reason his legal team has resisted Mr. Trump’s suggestions that perhaps he should attend the trial and testify himself.

Absent that, there will be the television clips and quotes from the rough transcript of his call with Mr. Zelensky and recollections of people like Mr. Sondland.

Mr. Schiff played one clip after the other that he said exposed Mr. Trump’s true intentions. In one, Mr. Trump told reporters: “There was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 election against us. We want to get to the bottom of it.”

When the clip was shown, Mr. Schiff focused on the “us” in Mr. Trump’s comment: “What does that president say? Corruption against us. He is not concerned about actual corruption cases, only matters that affect him personally.”

But the managers had it easy the last couple of days with exclusive access to the microphone and the screens on the Senate floor, and unchallenged by either the White House legal team or the senators. On Saturday, the president’s lawyers will have their chance to explain what Mr. Trump meant and provide the other side of the story, one that will interpret his words in a far different light than Mr. Schiff.

Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s lawyers, told reporters during a break on Thursday that the managers had presented nothing new and hardly proved their case.

“I saw nothing that has changed in the last day and a half, two and a half days, we’ve been going here,” he said. “We’re going to begin a robust case when the Senate says it’s time to start.”

*********

Trump Is Abusing His Tariff Power, Too

( MORE CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.)

By Paul Krugman, Opinion Columnist | Published Jan. 23, 2020 | New York Times | Posted January 24, 2020 |

So here’s the story: Donald Trump has abused the powers of his office to threaten a U.S. ally. His threat is probably illegal; his refusal to produce documents about his decision process is definitely illegal. And his claims about the motivation for his actions don’t pass the laugh test.

You probably think that I’m talking about Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukraine into producing political dirt on Joe Biden by withholding aid, and the subsequent cover-up — you know, the stuff for which he has been impeached (and that half the country believes should lead to his removal from office). But there’s another, somewhat similar story: his repeated threats to impose prohibitive tariffs on imports of automobiles from Europe.

Granted, the auto tariff story isn’t as vile as the Ukraine story, and it poses less of a direct threat to a fair election. But it’s recognizably part of the same syndrome: abuse of presidential power, contempt for the rule of law, and dishonesty about motivations.

Some background: U.S. tariffs — taxes on imports — are normally set the same way we set other taxes, through legislation that must pass Congress and then be signed by the president. The law does, however, give the president discretion to impose temporary tariffs under certain circumstances, for example to give U.S. industries a breathing space in the face of sudden import surges, to counter foreign export subsidies or to protect national security (Section 232).

Until Trump, Section 232 cases were rare. He has, however, used the national security justification for tariffs with abandon, and zero regard for plausibility. Canadian aluminum poses a national security risk? Really?

And so it was that in 2018 the Trump administration announced that it was beginning a Section 232 investigation of auto imports, especially from Europe and Japan. Every trade expert I know considered the notion that German or Japanese cars constitute a threat to national security absurd. Nonetheless, in 2019 a report from the Commerce Department concluded that auto imports do, indeed, endanger national security.

What was the basis for this conclusion? Well, we don’t actually know — because the Trump administration has refused to release the report.

This stonewalling is clearly illegal. The statute requires that all portions of the Commerce report that don’t contain classified or proprietary information be published in the Federal Register, and it’s hard to believe that any of the report contains such information, let alone the whole thing. Furthermore, Congress inserted a provision in a spending bill last month specifically requiring that the Trump administration turn over the report.

Why won’t Trump obey the law and hand over the document? My guess is that his people are afraid to let anyone see the Commerce report because it’s embarrassingly thin and incompetent. To be honest, I have some doubts about whether the report even exists. Remember, the Commerce Department is run by Wilbur Ross, whom readers of my colleague Gail Collins voted Trump’s worst cabinet member, which is quite a distinction given the competition.

Beyond all that, why does Trump even want to impose tariffs on European cars? Obviously it has nothing to do with national security. But what’s it really about?

Part of the answer may be that the self-proclaimed Tariff Man still believes that protectionism will revive American manufacturing, even though the evidence says that his trade war had the opposite effect.

Beyond that, it appears that Trump tried to use the threat of auto tariffs to bludgeon European nations into backing him up in his confrontation with Iran. This is, by the way, a clear violation both of U.S. law, which does not give the president discretion to impose tariffs for reasons unrelated to economics, and of our international agreements, which prohibit this kind of bullying.

And remember, the nations Trump was trying to bully are or were among our most important allies, part of the coalition of democracies we used to call the Free World. These days, our erstwhile allies can no longer consider America a reliable partner, on trade or anything else. Of course, that probably doesn’t bother Trump, who prefers autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Mohammed bin Salman.

So how should we think about the auto tariff saga? At one level it’s part of the broader story of Trump’s trade war, which has raised prices for American consumers, hurt U.S. businesses and farmers and deterred business investment by creating uncertainty.

But these economic considerations are, I’d argue, much less important than the political aspects. Trump’s scofflaw behavior with regard to auto tariffs is part of a broader pattern of abuse of power and contempt for the rule of law. On every front, Trump treats U.S. policy as a tool he can deploy as he chooses, in his own interests, without seeking congressional approval or even informing Congress about what he’s doing or why.

Basically, the man in the White House operates on the principle that l’état, c’est Trump. It’s a principle nobody who believes in American ideals should accept.

*********

Day 3 of Mr. Trump’s Trial: The Legal Seminar

The House managers walked the Senate jury through the constitutional and historical basis for the president’s impeachment.

By Michelle Cottle, Ms. Cottle is a member of the editorial board. | Published Jan. 23, 2020 | New York Times | Posted January 24, 2020 |

Thursday was constitutional analysis day in the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Trump, which means the House managers’ case got more complicated, more abstract — and that much harder to hold the audience’s attention.

This is not a dig at the prosecution. As on Wednesday, when they spent eight hours constructing a detailed blueprint of Mr. Trump’s misbehavior, the managers threw themselves — with gusto — into explaining the constitutional ins and outs of impeachment. And just as before, they came equipped with slides, photos and video clips. They even brought instructional materials for the senators.

Their preparedness is impressive. Even Representative Matt Gaetz, the devoted Trump cheerleader from Florida, observed earlier this week that, thus far, the Democrats’ presentation looked as though it was “cable news” while the president’s defense team’s looked like “an eighth-grade book report.”

That said, while Wednesday’s narrative of presidential scheming and obstruction was a nonstop pile-on of damning testimony and other hard evidence, Thursday’s argument began with a lengthy seminar by one of the House managers, Representative Jerry Nadler, on the framers’ intent regarding impeachment.

Mr. Nadler sought to “examine the law of impeachable offenses,” with a special focus on showing that — contrary to the claims of Mr. Trump’s apologists — a crime need not have been committed to justify this course of action. This required much discussion of historical precedent, multiple clips of constitutional scholars testifying before the House and, of course, many, many quotations from the founding fathers.

Mr. Nadler was followed by a series of House prosecutors charged with putting Mr. Trump’s behavior into a framework of impeachable offenses. This required revisiting much of the previous day’s case, including replaying the same clips and retelling the same anecdotes.

Kicking off the day’s presentation, Representative Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, warned senators that there would be “of necessity some repetition” and begged their “forbearance.” There is, he promised, “some method to our madness.”

The day had its fresh spots, including a 1999 clip of Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders, sharing his take on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton: “Doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.” Alas, Mr. Graham was not present in the chamber for his star turn.

Significant time was devoted to anticipating — and shooting down — the defenses that Team Trump is likely to offer, including the president’s unsubstantiated claims about the Biden family’s corruption and the nutty conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine rather than Russia that hacked the 2016 election.

Not that any of this mattered to the president’s defenders, who continue to telegraph their disdain for the entire process. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky brought a crossword puzzle into the chamber on Wednesday and drew up a snarky “S.O.S.” sign for his desk. Thursday, he worked on a pen-and-ink doodle of the Capitol building.

Not to be outdone, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas took to Twitter midday Thursday with his stab at impeachment comedy: “Hour 23 of redundant impeachment arguments. For those following at home: Drinking game — every time House Dems say ‘drug deal’ or ‘get over it’ … drink a shot of milk!”

The milk crack was presumably a reference to the fact that water and milk are the only beverages allowed on the Senate floor during the trial. Or maybe Mr. Cruz just finds milk funny.

One can only hope that beyond the Senate chamber, at least some portion of the American public is viewing these proceedings with a slightly more open mind.

______

A FEW COMMENTS FROM READERS ON THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. PLEASE share your thoughts as well:

"Schiff's closing was brilliant. It was addressed to the senators, but more effectively to the American people. If I had a Republican Senator I would be on the phone now. Some of those 70+% of voters that want witnesses and documents are in red and purple states. I hope that they too were moved. Moreover, I can't see how Chief Justice Roberts could not be moved. How could this authority on history and Constitutional law not be thinking about what he could be doing to defend the balance of powers and system of checks and balances in this situation? Beyond maintaining order in the Chamber, he has the leeway to weigh in on the question of witnesses, even on what is an impeachable offense if he chose to—he is bound by the vague guidelines in the Constitution, not by a rulebook written by Congress in the 1970's. Would the Senate majority dare overrule him if he chose to assert himself?" YOJIMBO, OAKLAND

"In any event, this procedure will bring matters to a spike. As the case is clear as mountain water, voters will have to cast their votes to either move forward with democracy, or get over of it."

HSCHMETZ, HAMBURG 🇩🇪

"I am in awe of the level of preparation which the house managers (and presumably an army of staffers) have put into their presentations. Schiff and company are still going to lose this rigged game, but their efforts should be appreciated by anyone who hasn’t lost touch with reality." FW, WEST VIRGINIA

Truth matters. This democratic experiment has proven amazingly resilient – and has even achieved a kind of transformative beauty at its best, when its public servants have held fast to the Constitution and the rule of law. Even when blinded by racism, sexism and the narrowness of mind that characterize all persons that haven’t achieved sainthood, our founders ingeniously fashioned checks and balances that accounted for most human failings. But our country is fragile, right now. Our President has proven that he has betrayed our country and its allies, that he is guilty as charged, is dangerous and is not a “public” servant. Senate Republicans know this, too. However, these Republicans currently believe they can let Trump off-the-hook and still be true-blue patriots. They try to comfort themselves with questions like: “how much damage can he do in 10 months?” If they proceed, and vote to acquit, they may go down as among the most hubristically delusional public officials in the history of our country. And they risk being remembered as the 53 citizens that ushered in the end of America’s golden age of democracy, as imperfect as it was. Yes, Adam Schiff, truth matters." MARK KELLER, PORTLAND OR

"One can only hope.....some portion of the American public is viewing these proceedings with a slightly more open mind." This house is, and thousands upon thousands and more are watching or listening, or reading about the proceedings. And we see the ignorance of Rand, Cruz, Lindsay and others as they display a complete disregard of the chamber they are seated in. Our forefathers would be ashamed of them."CHERRYLOG754, ATLANTA

*********

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years ago

Text

Trump allies jolt into action to deflect Ukraine-whistleblower scandal

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/trump-allies-jolt-into-action-to-deflect-ukraine-whistleblower-scandal/

Trump allies jolt into action to deflect Ukraine-whistleblower scandal

Rudy Giuliani, personal lawyer for President Donald Trump. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

White House

It’s a familiar response when controversy seems to imperil Trump’s presidency.

Here we go again.

President Donald Trump sits at the center of another brewing scandal — this one over his communications with Ukraine’s new president — and his allies are already working to debunk, deflect, deny and ignore.

Story Continued Below

In this case, the allegation involves a whistleblower complaint, which The Wall Street Journal first reported Friday, that Trump repeatedly pressured his counterpart in Kiev to investigate presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son. The Trump administration is withholding the complaint from Congress, sparking outrage and endless speculation about just what, exactly, Trump might have said.

To the president’s fiercest critics, the situation is already prompting talk of impeachment and even conviction — what if Trump agreed to an illicit quid pro quo with a foreign leader for political gain?

“If this actually happened, @realDonaldTrump should be impeached and removed from office without delay,” George Conway, a conservative attorney and frequent Trump detractor who is married to White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, wrote Thursday on Twitter.

To the president’s defenders, it’s just another case of media bias and an angry anti-Trump cabal inside the government lashing out — what’s the whistleblower’s agenda? And so what if the president pressured foreign leaders to root out potential corruption?

“It looks to me like another deep state attack,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a top Trump booster, said Friday morning on Fox News. “We have seen this over and over and over in this administration from anonymous sources deep inside the bureaucracy.”

Yes, we’ve been here before.

Almost every time a controversy emerges that seemingly imperils Trump’s presidency, the same playbook unfolds. Amid angry calls for impeachment, Trump’s allies largely sidestep a debate over the event itself, cast blame elsewhere and start rationalizing the president’s behavior. Countless times already, it’s worked as an effective counterattack that gives Trump cover as he defends his norm-busting behavior.

“I think we’re seeing a steady arc of removing constraints and institutional norms that continue to erode so that it’s really anything goes as to what he’s willing to say and do to advance whatever grievance he has at the moment,” said Randall Samborn, a former federal prosecutor and spokesman on the George W. Bush-era special counsel investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

“There just don’t seem to be any constraints upon him institutionally or legally or as a matter of political discretion to refrain from doing or saying almost anything,” he added.

One of the biggest frustrations so far stems from the inability to know precisely what’s happened, even as new details are dribbling out in the media.

Trump’s Justice Department is refusing to relay the content of the complaint to Congress — as is normally required by law — prompting Democrats to suggest a cover-up and threaten lawsuits. Others, including Trump defenders, have raised the possibility that the president’s communications are constitutionally protected.

But according to multiple news reports, the president told his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, that relations with the U.S. would improve only if Zelensky ordered an investigation into the Bidens.

Friday’s Wall Street Journal story reports that Trump urged Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, to get to the bottom of questions surrounding whether Biden, when he was vice president in the Obama administration protected his son from a probe of his ties to a Ukrainian gas company — allegations that have never been substantiated.

Trump on Friday did not deny that he discussed Biden with a foreign leader and told reporters the allegations against him were lodged by a “partisan” intelligence official, despite acknowledging that he did not know the official’s identity.

Trump also asserted that his exchanges with fellow heads of government are “always appropriate” and that “it doesn’t matter what I discussed,” before going on to say that “somebody ought to look into Joe Biden’s statement” on Ukraine.

Giuliani for months has been calling on Ukrainian investigators to examine the Bidens, and he also has been pressing for a probe into whether the country’s officials played a more sinister role in the 2016 presidential election to undercut Trump.

“That is an astounding scandal of major proportions which all of you have covered up for about five or six months,” the former New York mayor said during a heated CNN interview on Thursday night during which he accused the media of avoiding the story.

In fact, news coverage on the issue has increased in recent months — not all of it positive for Biden, who is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

The New York Times has documented Giuliani’s interest in getting a Biden investigation launched in Ukraine, and the president’s lawyer went on Fox in May to announce he was canceling a trip to the country where he’d planned to press its new leaders personally for the probe into Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, quoted Ukraine’s prosecutor general that month saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing by the former vice president or his son.

Three powerful Democrat-led House committee have since launched their own investigation into whether Trump and Giuliani have pressured Zelensky and the Ukrainian justice system “in service” of the president’s reelection bid.

Biden on Friday blasted the “clear-cut corruption” at play and called on Trump to immediately release the transcript of the call in question and allow the whistleblower notification to be sent to Congress.

“This behavior is particularly abhorrent because it exploits the foreign policy of our country and undermines our national security for political purposes,” he said in a statement.

The revelation that Ukraine was involved in the whistleblower’s complaint has sparked all manner of reply from Trump allies. One new line of defense to emerge is that the issue is merely a policy dispute.

“Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmeade, for example, argued on Thursday morning that the complaint boils down to, “do you like the president’s policy on Ukraine,” which he called better “than Barack Obama’s policy … where you just let the Russians steamroll the whole country and give them blankets to help them out.”

But national security lawyers and whistleblower experts say that’s not possible. Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, made a determination that the complaint constitutes an “urgent concern” that falls squarely within his purview.

“There is no way on earth this is just a mere policy dispute,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer who specializes in whistleblower cases. “The statute itself specifically and unequivocally excludes mere differences of opinion on public policy matters. So even if the whistleblower had just been disputing a policy, the inspector general would’ve taken that, reviewed it, and not raised it to the level of urgent concern.”

“The IG has determined, though, that this concerns a real, serious abuse of the law relating to the operation of an intelligence activity,” Moss said.

Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst for the Government Accountability Project who focuses on intelligence community and military whistleblowing, agreed, noting that the inspector general has already determined “that this goes far beyond a policy disagreement.”

Still, McCullough acknowledged, the inspector general is now “between a rock and a hard place.” If he went straight to Congress with the substance of the complaint, he could be fired. “But he still needs to retain his independence,” McCullough said. “It’s a completely unprecedented situation.”

On Capitol Hill, Trump’s GOP allies are giving the president cover as House Democrats openly suggest that the withheld whistleblower complaint could be roped into their impeachment efforts.

“I just go back to what we’ve had to endure at the Justice Department, what we’ve had to endure at the FBI with these same sorts of attacks and, frankly, unprecedented resistance measures by bureaucrats to try and stop an elected president from carrying out the policies that the people voted for,” Hawley said on Fox.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) suggested in an interview Thursday on C-SPAN that the entire claim could be fake, pointing to recent reporting about sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that Republicans have largely dismissed.

And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for his part appeared unaware that the Trump administration was withholding the complaint from the congressional intelligence committees.

“Who is the whistleblower — is he still working? Because I don’t know anything about him,” he told reporters Friday. “I’ve heard rumors it’s somebody who left. Why did he leave? And now this comes up.”

McCarthy also said the whistleblower could have come to Congress to report his or her allegation.

But that would come with its own serious consequences, including potential termination or loss of a security clearance. Whistleblower protection laws allow officials to go straight to the congressional intelligence committees, but once the director of National Intelligence steps in — as acting director Joseph Maguire did — that option is essentially nullified. Those laws are also meant to protect the whistleblower’s or her identity and prevent reprisals.

Democrats, meanwhile, are considering going to court to obtain the whistleblower complaint. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested this week that lawmakers could also withhold funding from the intelligence community in order to put pressure on Maguire.

The whistleblower saga could have serious ramifications for the impeachment debate that has been raging for months inside the House Democratic Caucus. Democrats said the decision to keep Congress in the dark over the whistleblower’s allegations is part of a pattern by the Trump administration to stonewall congressional oversight efforts.

Lawmakers who support impeaching the president have said the continued White House “obstruction” of Congress could be an impeachable offense on its own. Democrats, including Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), have noted several times this week that the third article of impeachment targeting President Richard Nixon centered on obstruction of Congress.

“If the president does not allow the whistleblower complaint against him to be turned over to Congress, we will add it to the articles of impeachment,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a member of Democratic leadership who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

But Democrats have also struggled to use former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to build public support for impeachment, and the party’s senior leaders — most notably, Speaker Nancy Pelosi — continue to resist it.

Some Democrats argue the whistleblower saga could mark a turning point.

“When you have the president calling in from other countries and whistleblowers are talking about compromising who he has deemed a political enemy, this is serious,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a liberal firebrand who has long supported impeachment. “This is very, very serious.”

Pelosi issued a lengthy statement on the controversy Friday, but notably omitted any mention of impeachment.

“If the president has done what has been alleged,” the California Democrat said, “then he is stepping into a dangerous minefield with serious repercussions for his administration and our democracy.”

Heather Caygle and Quint Forgey contributed to this report.

#Foreign #Politics #scandal #Ukraine-whistleblower

0 notes