GOP TRUMPERS - Threats to 7 Republican Senators

IMHO just more proof that today's GOP has been radicalized by Trump.  They no longer true conservatives nor believe in democracy and our Constitution and ONLY want more power, party before country.  Today's GOP do not support the poor or middle class citizen, they support only the very wealthy who can buy the GOP.

"Republican Senators who voted to convict Trump face political peril at home" PBS NewsHour 2/22/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It is a time of political peril for the seven Republican Senators who voted to convict the dominant figure of their party.  State and local Republican parties have censured -- or are thinking about censuring -- several of those Senators.  And Donald Trump himself is set to re-emerge for his first public appearance as former President this coming weekend.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 1/8/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on the Capitol attack and Trump’s impeachment" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the rampage at the Capitol, President Trump's potential impeachment, and the future of the Republican Party.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  We mark this momentous week with the next chapter in a "NewsHour" tradition.  That is Brooks and Capehart.

Joining our longtime Friday analyst, David Brooks, New York Times columnist, is Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post and anchor of "The Sunday Show" on MSNBC, and successor, I should add, to Mark Shields.

Jonathan Capehart, welcome to the "NewsHour," to Friday nights.  And it is a long tradition.

And you join us, we are sad to say, on a week that's probably one of the worst, certainly in Washington history, and American history, with this assault on the Capitol.

And I want to start with you, Jonathan.  How are you processing what happened?

Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post:  Well, first, Judy, thank you very much for the welcome.

And I also want to thank Mark Shields for setting an incredible example that I hope to meet every Friday.

This has been an incredible week.  I am still processing what happened.  I'm not surprised by what happened, given who the President of the United States is and his track record over the last four years, in terms of inciting passions in people that go way beyond what they should be.

But I will admit that I was shocked to see a marauding band of — and I will use this phrasing — domestic terrorists storming the citadel of American democracy, brazenly breaking into the United States Capitol, breaking into the Senate chamber, and then that iconic photo that was on the front page of The Washington Post, and I'm sure other papers around the country, of law enforcement officers inside the House of Representatives pointing their guns at the doors, and seeing the faces of the people trying to burst inside.

These are images and pictures that the American people never thought they would see in their country and in their nation's capital.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David Brooks, as you're reflecting on this, what are you thinking?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, it felt like a desecration to me.  I mean, this is our holy of the holies.  This is where America comes, usually in awe.

You go in that building.  I remember the first time I went in, 14, and I was in awe.  And you go in there with a sense of reverence and respect.  And to see it just trashed, both physically and morally, is just — it produces a — sort of a bone-wearying sadness, as desecration tends to.

And I — Jonathan's right to pick up on the images, the images of the guns on the floor, the images of that wolf man shaman guy, people scaling the walls in the chamber, the Confederate Flag being carried down the hallways of the U.S. Capitol.

These are just shocking images, the result of four years of what has been a — four years of moral degradation for the country and humiliation.

And I only end on the upbeat note that one of the reporters saw some National Guardsmen in the Rotunda today.  And this one had been their first time in the Capitol.  And these guys were in awe.  They were young men, and they'd never been there.  And they were just so proud of their democracy.

And so that's what America really is, I hope, I hope.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, it's good to be able to pick out something to — as you say, that's uplifting, as we move on from this.

But the repercussions, Jonathan, are enormous, condemnation raining down on President Trump for calling for his supporters to come to Washington, for urging them to take on the Capitol, to turn over the — reject the election results.

I will just say quickly, we had a — we joined with Marist in a poll, and NPR.  We asked people if President Trump is to blame.  Among national adults, the result, is he to blame, a great deal, a good amount, 63 percent, not very much, not at all, 35 percent.

And I should say, even 30 percent of Republicans agreed that the President is to blame.

Where do we go from here?  As you know, there's talk of impeachment, serious talk, starting in just a couple of days, invoking the 25th Amendment.  What should happen?

Jonathan Capehart:  Something should happen.  The President needs to be held accountable.

It does not matter that he has 12 days left in office.  He needs to be held accountable for what he incited on Wednesday.  He needs to be — and if that means removing him from office using the 25th Amendment, so be it.  It doesn't look like that that's going to happen.  The vice President has sort of made it clear, from reports I have seen, that he's not terribly interested in that.

So, then you remove him or try to remove him by impeachment.  But, as House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said in the interview with you, the emphasis, at least in the House is on impeachment.

And impeaching President Trump for the second time in his first term, I think, is a humiliation and a branding, a negative branding of his administration that would be well-deserved, precisely because of what he did to trash the United States Capitol, trash our American democracy, and once again show that he has neither reverence for or respect for the Constitution or the office of the presidency.

Judy Woodruff:  David, how do you see this question of what should happen with the President?

David Brooks:  Yes, I don't support the 25th Amendment.  That's for incapacitation.  The problem is, he's not incapacitated.

I would, I think, on the merits completely support impeachment.  If interfering with an election certification by sending an invading force is not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is.  And so I do support that.

I think it would be very useful.  Even if the House did it, and the Senate was deliberating, it would be an act of discipline.  It'd be a sword hanging over his [Trump's] head, which may restrain him in his final 12 days of office.  I think it's highly unlikely the Senate would ever convict.

The fallback position could be censuring him under Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prevents someone who's taken part in an insurrection against the United States from ever running for federal office.

And that's important, I think, because it would reduce his role as an intimidator in the Republican Party and reduce the possibility that he runs for office in 2024, which I do not think he has — deserves the standing to do right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, I should add that the social media platform Twitter has already stepped in tonight.  We have just learned that they have permanently blocked President Trump.  He will not be able to use Twitter anymore.

I know some people are asking, why now, after four years?  But this is a step that Twitter has taken.

And, Jonathan, I mean, it leads us to asking about the other Republicans.  So many Republicans in the House of Representatives, 138 of them, voted to block election — electoral vote results that had Joe Biden winning the election, in other words, rejecting Biden's win.

This is part of the fallout from all this.  Where does this leave the Republican Party?  Where does it leave the Biden presidency with this kind of rejection of him as he takes office?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, where it leaves the Republican Party is destroyed.

Yes, 138 House Republicans voted in — voted for the objection.  But the key thing is, they voted for that objection after the Capitol was invaded by seditionists.  And so that tells me a lot about those people who are sitting in the House.

And then there are the, I believe, it's eight senators who voted for the objections after what happened earlier that day on Wednesday.  And Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley especially should be ashamed of what they did to that chamber and to — and to our democracy by doing what they're — doing what they did, and doing what they're doing.

So, when it comes to the Republican Party, they have a lot of soul-searching to do.

When it comes to President Biden, or now still President-elect Biden, regardless of what happened — let's say Wednesday had not happened — he still would be dealing with a 50/50 Senate, with his vice President, Kamala Harris, casting the tie breaking vote, the smallest majority, Democratic majority in the House in a very, very long time.

So, his governing ability was already going to be constrained.  But if there's one possible silver lining that could come out of what happened on Wednesday, is that what happened on January 6 was so shocking to the conscience of more than a few Republicans on Capitol Hill, that it will shock them into getting back to work, because this nation has a lot of issues that need to be attended to, least among them — actually, top of mind, the coronavirus pandemic, as we keep breaking…

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  … death toll averages every day, including today.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, touching on what Jonathan just said, Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from Alaska, saying today she's considering whether she should even stay in the party.

But what about where this leaves the Republican Party and where our government, as Joe Biden prepares to take office?

David Brooks:  Yes, here, Jonathan and I are going to have our first disagreement.

I don't think the party is destroyed.  I think it's a 50/50 country.  There are going to be 50 senators.  There were — an extremely narrow minority in the House.

And I — my hope is that we break the fever here.  This is a couple days in which Lisa Murkowski, Chris Christie, a bunch, three Republican governors have called for the resignation.  We had The Wall Street Journal editorial page calling for the resignation of a Republican President.

There's — John Thune is coming out.  Mitt Romney was heroic Wednesday.  Ben Sasse is coming out.

I think, finally, at this late hour, after having their offices invaded, a lot of Republicans, not all, but a lot of Republicans are saying, this has gone crazy.

And I do think, finally, at this late hour — and they will get no praise and courage from this — but they are saying, we have got to redirect our party.

And the number of people who are even thinking about cooperating with an impeachment hearing on the Republican side surprises me.  I think I read correctly in our PBS poll 80 percent of Republicans opposed what happened on Wednesday, which is at least good news.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  And so I do think this is not the end of the Republican Party, but I hope it's the moment when the Trumpist fever broke.

Judy Woodruff:  We will see.

And, Jonathan, I'm going to give you the last word on that in about 30 seconds, because I just keep thinking back to what Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip, said, one of his enduring memories from Wednesday is seeing Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney huddled together talking about what to do to get back to work.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

And I hope they do get back to work.  Again, this country has a lot of issues and a lot of problems that need to be worked on.  And from the coronavirus pandemic, to the economy, to infrastructure, to the climate — to climate change, there's a lot of work to do.

And so, if Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney can sit and talk with each other, then I hope that that's something that happens with more frequency and more publicly, so that there is a signal that is sent to the entire nation that we're going to work together and we're going to get through this.

Judy Woodruff:  All right.

And I'm being told that I misheard Congressman Clyburn, that he actually said, Nancy Pelosi is talking with Mitch McConnell, and not with Mitt Romney.

Jonathan Capehart:  Even better.

Judy Woodruff:  So, that's my bad.  And I misheard it.

But thank you.  I think — I think the point is pretty much the same.

But thank you both very much, Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks.

Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Self-Serving Republicans

"Republicans aren’t serving the country, or even the President.  Just themselves." by Michael Gerson, The Washington Post 1/23/2020

It is another of President Trump’s dubious achievements to turn the ultimate constitutional check on Presidential abuses of power into an utter farce.  Watching Republican senators complain that there is “nothing new” in the case made by House impeachment managers, while they are actively opposing the introduction of new evidence and new testimony, is confirmation of barefaced bad faith.  In this matter, elected Republicans are mainly serving, not the President, and certainly not the republic, but themselves.  Having decided that no amount of evidence would be sufficient for conviction, they realize that the presentation of a full and compelling case would convict them of servility and institutional surrender.  So a quick and dirty Senate trial is the best way to limit the exposure of their malpractice.

This crime against democracy is compounded by the eagerness of Republicans to use impeachment as a fundraising opportunity and method to energize base voters.  The theory seems to be: If you are going to betray the constitutional order, you might as well profit from it.

In the impeachment trial, all the dismal signs point to acquittal at any cost.  And it is not the first time the President has skated.  Despite compelling evidence of wrongdoing and obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, Trump largely escaped accountability (even as many of his smarmy advisers did not escape jail).  The appearance of vindication in this case immediately preceded the President’s decision to squeeze an embattled foreign power for his political benefit.  Give Trump an inch, and he’ll take Ukraine.

How has the President largely avoided the consequences of his corruption?  By employing the methods of his mentor Roy Cohn.  Admit nothing.  Stonewall investigators.  Defy subpoenas.  Viciously attack opponents.  Flood the zone with exculpatory lies.  Feel no shame.  Show no mercy.  Claim anything short of prison to be complete exoneration.

In terms that would have gladdened the heart of Richard Nixon in his day, the coverup is working.  Senate Republicans seem determined to cover up for Trump’s coverup.  What is essentially state-run media — Fox News and conservative talk radio — have created a narrative of establishment persecution that covers up for the Senate’s coverup of the Trump coverup.  The President is protected by layer upon layer of obfuscation, misdirection and deception.  Gradually at first, but now in a sudden rush, the norms of truthfulness, public service and ethical behavior have given way.  And the message has been sent to Trump and future iterations of Trump: Corruption has no consequence.

This is a danger to the country because success breeds replication.  Politicians who never dreamed of being anarchic and transgressive now conduct their public business like the Marx Brothers on a caffeine high.  Consider Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) responding to a perfectly appropriate question by CNN’s Manu Raju by saying, “You’re a liberal hack.”  It is nothing new for a senator to show his or her temper.  But McSally then posted her petulance on Twitter and began raising money on the basis of it.  It is human to lose your cool; taking pride in it is to lose one’s marbles.  But this is normal political behavior in the age of Trump.

There is further danger in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s likely acquittal by the Senate.  The President never views a near-miss as an opportunity for reflection and reformation.  He sees it as permission to indulge his every urge.  And his most consistent urge has been to seek unfair advantage in the upcoming Presidential election.  The months between Senate acquittal and the November vote will be fertile ground for further cheating.

And the election itself presents the greatest danger.  Trump avoided accountability after the Mueller probe.  He is likely to avoid accountability for the Ukraine squeeze.  That leaves one last source of accountability — the election in November.  This will be a test, not of the Republican Party, but of the republic.

Every Presidential election is important.  This one will have an added dimension.  It will be more than a referendum on the President.  It will be a referendum on the moral and ethical standards we apply to our political life.  Will corruption, cruelty and coverups be excused and encouraged?  Or will the boundaries of integrity, honesty and public spirit be redrawn?

Congress — with the large exception of the House majority — has largely failed to defend the democratic virtues essential to self-government.  American voters had better do better.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/10/2020

"Shields and Brooks on Iran conflict, impeachment trial standoff" PBS NewsHour 1/10/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including how the Trump administration and Congress have handled conflict with Iran, indications House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial of the President and what all the tumult means for 2020 Democrats.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  Back on Capitol Hill this week, the House of Representatives voted to check the President's war powers against Iran, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her Democratic Caucus to prepare for the next chapter on impeachment in the days ahead.

Here to help make sense of it all, as well as some eye-popping polling numbers from the Democratic primary field, are Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Happy Friday.  Welcome to you both.

Let's start overseas, shall we?

David, it was a week ago that the U.S. assassinated the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, three days since Iran retaliated.

President Trump says he wants peace.  They just rolled out new sanctions against Iran today.  Is this de-escalation?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

A week ago, we didn't know where we were going.  And it certainly looks a lot calmer than it did a week ago.  And it looks more like a normal Middle East terror episode, in which case you have a terror army, whether it's Hezbollah or Iranian-state sponsored terrorism.  They're ramping up ramping up activities.

And then the U.S. says, stop.  You — let's — we're going to be in conflict, but let's not get carried away here.  You're pushing the boundaries here.

And so we do an action, and when you do this kind of action, like killing Soleimani, it's using violence as a form of communication, saying you have pushed the boundaries, time to stop.

And then the other side, the terrorist side, has a chance to say, no, we're going to keep going, or they have a chance to say, message received, we won't push the boundaries, it's not in our interests either.

And that seems to have been what has happened.  We have seen that through the Israeli-Hamas or fights.  We have seen it through other terror fights.  And it looks like a much more conventional sort of communication between a nation and a terror organization.

Amna Nawaz:  At the same time, Mark, we have had 176 civilians killed as a result of those escalated tensions, right?  That didn't happen in a vacuum, necessarily.

And now Iraq and Iran are kind of on the same page, wanting U.S. troops out, out of Iraq from the Iraqi Parliament, and out of the region from Iran, which has always been a stated goal.

I guess the question is — and we may not know this yet — but are we safer?  That's what the administration is arguing.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  My argument, I guess, would be that we're not.

But I go to the words of one exceptionally well-read Marine general, who later became secretary of defense, who said, history teaches — history teaches us that nations with allies thrive, nations without allies wither.

Every year, Pew Research, a very respected polling operation, polls in the world, 32 different countries, on trust and confidence.  And the fact is, the United States under Donald Trump has plummeted in the world.

Among five world leaders, including Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Macron, the fact is that Donald is at the bottom.  He has 29 percent of the world has confidence in him; 64 percent don't.

This is a total reverse, total reverse from Barack Obama, when 64 percent of the world had confidence in his judgment.

We are isolated as a people.  I mean, Secretary Pompeo complained that the Brits and the Germans didn't go along.  (A) there is no support in their country for it.  (B) they were never consulted.

So, no, I think — I don't argue with David's assessment of the individual discrete events.  But I think the overall pattern is that we're paying a terrible price for isolation.

And alliances have been the saving strength of the United States and the Western world since World War II, and they are in total disrepair at this point.

Amna Nawaz:  A lot of the questions revolve around what will happen next, for sure, right?  There's concern there could be an increase in some of those proxy militias you had mentioned, David.

I want to play a sound bite for you, though, from President Trump at a rally in Ohio last night.  He was responding to the House's move to try to restrict some of those Presidential war powers that Presidents have had for several years now post-9/11.

Take a listen to what President Trump had to say last night:

President Donald Trump:  They're all trying to say, how dare you take him out that way?  You should get permission from Congress.  You should come in and tell us what you want to do.

(BOOING)

President Donald Trump:  You should come and tell us, so that we can call up the fake news that's back there, and we can leak it.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

Amna Nawaz:  David, to some degree, no surprise the House said, we want you to come to us before you take more action against Iran.

But then we also saw a Republican senator, right, Mike Lee from Utah, outraged after a briefing from military intelligence leaders that he felt was completely insufficient.

Is this the time you think Congress starts to claw back some of that power?

David Brooks:  No, I don't think so.

I mean, they have had the chance in bin Laden.  They have had a lot of chances, and the executive has taken this power.

I do think the laws we have are obsolete.  They're — for a time when not a terror war, whether it was like World War II or Vietnam, when there was a moment of peace and then a moment of war, and there was a transitionary moment where Congress would act between those two states.

But in an ongoing terror war, there's no moment of peace and there's no moment of war.  It's constant engagement.  And so for the President, in a position of constant conflict with Iran, where they're ramping up pressure, we're trying to fight them, a discrete episode seems to me outside the bounds of Congress.

Having said that, the President, executive branch shouldn't be running a long-running terror war without the constant communication with Congress and with the intelligence communities and the Intelligence Committees.

And so while I don't think Congress should be approving every little individual operation, it's certainly up to the executive branch to be in constant communication, so there are no surprises.  And that doesn't seem to have happened.

Amna Nawaz:  Mark, what do you make of the way the administration has been responding to those calls for greater oversight, maybe explaining and providing justification for this strike on Soleimani in the first place?

Mark Shields:  Oh, I don't think there's any question the President has asserted the total autonomy of his office.

I mean, he sees no need to consult.  He sees no congressional restraints.  And I think, in spite of the fact that the House did act on the war policy, it's not going to go anywhere in the Senate.

But there are there are pockets of resistance.  I mean, it was — whether it was Senator Lee or Congressman Gaetz in the House.  I mean, whether in fact it takes on a larger dimension remains to be seen.

But make no mistake about it.  Donald Trump and his administration make a serious mistake by not consulting.  If they're not with you on the takeoff, they're not going to be with you on the crash landing.

And there's no — they have no stake in what happens as far as his policy is concerned.  Obviously, they do care about the nation.  But as far as his policy and whatever political damage there is done to him, if they in no way are consulted or asked their opinion or their judgment or just told to shut up and join…

David Brooks:  And despite this episode with Soleimani, I do think there's a bipartisan move, almost a consensus, a populist consensus.

Trump has used military force less than any President since Jimmy Carter.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  He's [Trump] not normally a military guy.

From the populists on the left and populists on the right in different versions, it's like the Middle East is a mess.  We are not good at dealing with that region.  Let's stay away.

And I do think, whether it's Mike Lee or people further on the left — Mike Lee's a Republican — there's a consensus, we shouldn't be involved in that region, or as little as possible.

TRUMP vs IRAN - Weapon of Mass Distraction

Forget impeachment details, let the distraction begin......

"Iranians unite to mourn military icon Qassem Soleimani" PBS NewsHour 1/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets Monday to mourn Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday.  Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, led funeral prayers and wept over Soleimani's body.  But the fallout is more than emotional; as Iran and President Trump trade threats, the U.S. military is bracing for potential retaliation.  Nick Schifrin reports.

"Ambassador: Iran vows revenge, but has nothing against Americans" PBS NewsHour 1/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Friday killing of Iran’s best-known military commander in a U.S. airstrike prompted an outpouring of grief in Tehran -- along with vows of vengeance.  In the aftermath of Qassem Soleimani’s death, the country’s leaders and President Trump exchanged threats about what might come next.  To share Iran’s perspective, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht-Ravanchi joins Judy Woodruff.

"What killing of top Iranian general means for nuclear deal and the U.S. in Middle East" PBS NewsHour 1/6/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For two views on the latest developments in Iran and Iraq, Nick Schifrin speaks with Narges Bajoghli of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, author of “Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic,” and U.S. diplomat Ryan Crocker, who served as ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon and is now diplomat in residence at Princeton University.

"Iran says it has launched ballistic missiles at American air bases in Iraq" PBS NewsHour 1/7/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After trading threats with the U.S., Iran said Tuesday night it launched ballistic missiles on Iraqi facilities housing U.S. troops in retaliation for the American killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani.  The attacks come after President Trump and top U.S. officials defended the Soleimani strike, which has been blamed for pushing the U.S. and Iran closer to war.  Judy Woodruff and Nick Schifrin report.

" Foreign policy experts weigh in on Trump’s Iran strategy" PBS NewsHour 1/7/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. killing of one of Iran’s top military leaders has prompted questions about whether the Trump administration has an effective strategy for Iran, Iraq and the larger Middle East.  As Iran announces it has fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, Nick Schifrin talks to Mara Karlin of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and the Hudson Institute’s Michael Doran.

"After missile strikes on Iraqi bases, U.S. and Iran both appear to de-escalate" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump says Iran is “standing down” after firing missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops -- but causing no casualties.  But Iran says its goal is to see U.S. forces leave the Middle East.  The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Karim Sadjadpour joins Nick Schifrin, Yamiche Alcindor and Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest developments.

"U.S. should ‘drive a wedge’ between Iranian regime and its people, says Rep. Gallagher" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2020

NOTE:  The effect is exactly opposite, the Iranian people and government are more united.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For a congressional Republican’s perspective on the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, we turn to Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former Marine who deployed twice to Iraq as a commander of intelligence teams.  He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he supported the decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani and what he expects next from Iran.

"Rep. Crow: Congressional questions about Soleimani strike ‘have not been answered’" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For a congressional Democrat’s take on the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, we turn to Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee.  Crow is a lawyer and former Army Ranger who deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan during his military career.  He joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he is not satisfied with the Trump administration’s handling of the Soleimani strike.

"Will fallout from Soleimani killing drive U.S. troops from Iraq?" PBS NewsHour 1/10/2020

Fallout?  Russia wins, ISIS wins, (war criminal) Bashar Hafez al-Assad wins.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The fallout from the Trump administration’s killing of Qasem Soleimani continues to unfold -- and it could affect the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.  On Friday, Sec. of State Mike Pompeo rejected Iraqi calls for the U.S. to plan troop withdrawal.  Retired Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit, who served in the George W. Bush administration, and York University’s Thabit Abdullah join Nick Schifrin to discuss.

TRUMP'S WMD - Weapon of Mass Distraction

"Did Trump Assassinate Soleimani and Risk WWW III to Divert Attention From Damning New Evidence Corroborating the Ukrainian Extortion Scheme?" by Steve Jonas, MD, MPH - BuzzFlash 01052020

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President ....... is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.  Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else.  But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."

Theodore Roosevelt, Editorial in The Kansas City Star May 7, 1918

In brief, after an analysis of the all the information publicly available at the present time (that is, 1-3-20), and a review of all the indications that it was (to say the least) apparently done with no planning, no foresight, and no consideration of all the possible negative outcomes, given by a wide variety of authorities through the media to date (other than his "Trump-can-do-no-wrong" allies), it seems that the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was ordered by President Trump for just one reason.  A word that begins with the letter "U." To which we shall come at the end of this missive.

"Assassination" is a word believed to be derived from Arabic that means "political murder."  Now Trump may think that the Iranians speak Arabic.  For after all, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt (no lefty he) in 2015, after he had declared for the Presidency, Trump did not know the difference between "Quds" (as in the Iranian Quds Force) and "Kurds."  Then when Hewitt pressed him a bit, Trump went on the attack against Hewitt for trying to "run a quiz show."  (Hewitt has since become a strong Trump supporter.)

Trump may also not know that Iran is not an Arab country; that they have a language of their own, Farsi; that they have a history of civilized settlements going back over 8000 years; that they had a revolution in 1952 that among other things nationalized what is now British Petroleum.  As a result, the democratically-elected government was overthrown by the CIA in a coup organized by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (a grandson of Teddy's)  Fast forward, when the US first invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attack, Iran offered to help control the Taliban in Western Afghanistan but was officially turned down by President G.W. Bush (although there may have been informal assistance..)

Trump likely has very little Iran-specific historical knowledge, and very likely has a very poor grasp of what is actually going on the Middle East since, to fulfill one of his many random, not-thought-through, anti-Obama-policy political promises, he walked out of the Iran nuclear deal, without thinking through the potential consequences.  Thus, he likely gave little thought to what might, and very likely will, happen were Soleimani to be assassinated.  After all, this is an action contemplated under several US administrations but was never carried out because of the potential for dire consequences arising from it.

So why did Trump order the killing?  (We are leaving aside here all the Constitutional implications of essentially declaring war not only without consulting Congress, not even the pro forma consultation with the “Gang of Eight," although he told Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and a couple of other Republicans in Congress).  He offered no cover story beyond "I think that it is the right thing to do."  Which of course fits right into Trump's dictatorial approach to Presidential power: "I can do anything I want to."

There has been much speculation in the media and among his political supporters: Soleimani is a very bad man who needed to be dealt with, finally; Soleimani has killed many Americans; Soleimani ordered the recent attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad; Soleimani is indispensable to the Iranian military and government (BTW, a successor was appointed within about 12 hrs.; presumably the Iranian leadership, including Soleimani himself, given that he was targeted by the US and Israel, has likely been preparing for this possibility for quite some time).

Really?  Well, if it were for any of these reasons, particularly when the likely outcomes are taken into account, there would have been some long-range (or at least short-range) planning done at the Pentagon and the State Department to begin with to deal with the predictable fall-out.  But such planning was apparently scant, and apparently many senior officials were taken entirely by surprise.  Of course, this reflects the fact that there is no long-term strategy for dealing with Iran other than John Bolton's "regime change" by trying to grind it into the economic dirt through sanctions, which seems further away now than it ever was.

Furthermore, this assassination has, by all accounts thoroughly unified an Iranian politically that was beginning to show some cracks, especially under that US sanctions which have been decimating the Iranian economy and standard of living.  It is also apparently already unifying the US Western allies --- against the Trump US action.  The Russians and the Chinese are not going to take this very lightly, either.  (Putin must also be wondering if his control over Trump is starting to fail.  The attack came just after Iran, Russia and China ran a joint military exercise in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean.  Given the adoration for Trump by his followers, it is possible that none of the ton of stuff Putin must have on him would carry much weight with them.  And anyway, Hannity would then quickly maneuver to make Putin part of the “Deep State.”)

OK.  So, no real understanding by Trump of what is really going on in Iran and Iraq for starters.  No long-range strategy for dealing with Iran in light of the US's unilateral abandonment of the nuclear deal.  No achievable goals for peace in the region.  No plans for war either, apparently.  No close allies for this latest provocation.  So why, and why now?

I have come to the conclusion that transactional Trump did this for just one reason.  It happens to have nothing to do with Iran, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, Israel, or the US European allies.  As noted above, it all comes down to one word, that begins with the letter "U”: Ukraine of course.  If Trump is the master of anything beyond his constant strategy/tactic of "Always attack; Never defend," it is his mastery of his own WMD: Weapons of Mass Distraction.

On Dec. 29, 2019, came out The New York Times report on what really happened in the engineering and attempted implementation of the Ukraine extortion plot.  This report is supported by numerous unredacted emails made available under a FOIA request that the Administration was unable to block.  Indeed, the evidence drop confirmed an attempted extortion plot against Ukrian carried out under the direction Trump.

This report lays it all out, in a way that Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and various White House staff would have.  Under oath, they could not have wriggled our of this one.  Trump clearly did commit an impeachable offense.  Now that the report shows that there was a clear violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, Trump may have provided the basis for a Third Article of Impeachment to be added by the House.  (Please, Madame Speaker: do not send over the first two articles anytime soon!)

This news had been all over the front pages of the real newspapers, all over the chryons of television news.  Have you noticed?  It's not there today (that is Jan. 3).  And it is anybody’s guess if it will survive under Trump’s drumbeat of war.  Depending upon what the House does with the new Ukraine extortion plot emails it may come back into the news.  But for now, Trump has what he wants, transactionally.  The Trump-action has taken away almost all of the attention from a set of documents that seal the deal on the Trump-Ukraine extortion plot, to transform the narrative into "Trump as a man-of-action."  That is even though he didn't bother to leave Mar-a-Lago for the totally secure White House Situation Room in the face of the largest international crisis of his time in the Presidency.  Can't miss too many rounds of golf, donchaknow?

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at StonyBrookMedicine (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 35 books.  In addition to his position on OpEdNews as a “Trusted Author,” he is a contributor to Reader Supported News/Writing for Godot; a contributor to From The G-Man; a Contributor for American Politics to The Planetary Movement; an occasional contributor to BuzzFlashReborn; and a Deputy Editor, Politics, and a “Witness to History,” and an occasional contributor for The Greanville Post; He is also a triathlete (37 seasons, 256 multi-sport races).

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/13/2019

"Shields and Brooks on articles of impeachment, FBI’s Russia mistakes" PBS NewsHour 12/13/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the House Judiciary Committee’s passage of articles of impeachment along party lines, Republicans’ defense of President Trump, how impeachment affects Trump politically, what the Horowitz report says about the FBI and a bombshell report on the Afghan war.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as of today, those are the Judiciary Committee-approved charges against President Trump.  Now it is on the full House of Representatives to decide whether or not to impeach him.

To help us analyze this important week, as always, are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So these two articles of impeachment, David, how strong a case have the Democrats made with this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, two things.  One, I think they have made a strong case.

I think there was clearly a campaign to have a quid pro quo with Ukraine, and it's clearly an impeachable offense.

As for the articles of impeachment, I don't like them.  Abuse of power, what is that?  Like, that's not a criminal thing.  Like, it's a vague construct.  And same with obstruction of Congress.  Like, these are both extremely vague constructs.

And I think they lead away from what actually happened, what crime was committed, and what should the punishment be.  And they will lead to a debate over these vague concepts.

The concepts should hug closely to some sort of criminal concept that's in our court system, so we all have a history about it, so we know the structure of it, and these sort of waft away from it.  So, I think they make the case.  I just don't like the way they framed it.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, too vague and not on the point?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  David, too vague?  No, never.

Judy, I think the best case was made by a unique person, in the sense of Zoe Lofgren, who was a staffer for Don Edwards on the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment, was a member at the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment, is now in the House Judiciary Committee.

And she — I thought she drew the distinction quite compellingly.  And that was that Richard Nixon, no comporting with a foreign power, no attempt to bring the foreign influence into our elections, that he had tried to influence the election improperly, and tried to cover it up with the FBI and the CIA, and paid for it.

That Bill Clinton, no foreign influence, no rigging of an election, he had, totally improperly and indefensibly, had sexual relations with a 21-year-old intern and lied about it.

But this was a President [Trump] trying to rig an election coming up in 2020, using a country, an ally under duress, facing an external threat to its survival from Moscow and — from Russia, and in need of our assistance that had already been voted for, and asking for exchange to get that, to meet — or meeting even with the President to validate the new leader of our ally there, that they spy on an upcoming election in the President's principal opponent.

Judy Woodruff:  And you're saying these articles capture that?  Or they…

Mark Shields:  I think they capture — I mean, I think it's pretty — I just think it's quite straightforward and clearly understandable, and clearly understandable to anybody.

And I think, Judy, quite honestly, no Republican I know will be able to explain to his or her grandchildren why he or she voted against this, I mean, that this was defensible, that this was acceptable behavior on the part of a President of the United States.

David Brooks:  I think it will say, oh, I might have voted for censure.  This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

I still think that's their strongest argument, aside from just throwing up smoke.

Judy Woodruff:  But are you saying, David, that there's another — there's a different article that they could have, should have come up?

David Brooks:  Well, I should have gone to law school because I would know.

(LAUGHTER)

I didn't go to law school.  So I don't have the exact phrase.  I just think the phrase abuse of power just doesn't — it just means nothing and everything to me.

Judy Woodruff:  And obstruction of Congress?

David Brooks:  Well, that's a little closer.  But, frankly, so many people have been accused and sometimes removed for office from that, that do we really undo an election over that one?

And I think something serious happened here.  But it was that — what Mark just described.  But, somehow, the way we're about to debate this doesn't seem to get the seriousness of it.

Mark Shields:  Well, just one side has engaged in the debate.  I mean, the Republicans have not.

I mean, there was an acknowledgment on the part of Clinton's defenders that he had done something wrong, even with Nixon, that there had been a break-in.  I mean, the Republicans are just in a state of denial.  They're sailing blithely on the river denial, I mean, that there was nothing, nothing was done.

This is — Mick Mulvaney tells us, wake up and grow up and accept it.

Judy Woodruff:  The Republicans are calling it a sham, a waste of time.

The President himself is doing the same thing.  He's tweeting a lot.  He was out on the campaign trail this week.  He was in Hershey, Pennsylvania, talking about the impeachment process, also singling out the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.

And here's what the President said:

President Donald Trump:  The president of Ukraine repeatedly declared that there was no pressure, but he didn't want to say that.

We said, say it.  Say it, you crooked bastard.  Say it.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

President Donald Trump:  But he doesn't want to say it.  We said, say it.

I'd like to force him to say it.

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  He will walk up to the mic.  "Ladies and gentlemen."

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  The guy total corrupt guy.

Judy Woodruff:  So that plays well with Trump supporters, doesn't it?

David Brooks:  He's a showman.  And that's showbiz.

And I have to say, I had a friend come from — he'd been away in Israel and came back to the United States.  And he came to me, he said, Trump's really funny.

And I don't always see the humor.  But, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, tens of thousand of people saw the humor, and hundreds of thousands of million — hundreds of millions — or tens of millions of people around the country see the humor.

And they just think the guy's funny, and I like that.

Judy Woodruff:  It seems — it's working?  I mean, he's using coarse, tough language.

Mark Shields:  It's not working.  He's running behind Joe Biden and every other leading Democrat.

Judy, just think of politicians, political leaders in your lifetime, whether it's the city — shining city on a hill, or the hope, and that's — or what we can do together, you know, what we owe each other.

This is the antithesis of that.  This is the politics of grievance.  This is not that we are surrounded by those with whom we can work, we can reach across, we can — that my opponent is — my adversary is not mistaken or ill-informed.  My opponent is my enemy and is evil and hates this country and hates you.

And, boy, that didn't echo through Jim Jordan's words.  I mean, Donald Trump has spawned protégées and knockoff versions: They hate us.  They're out to get us.

It really is — it's a terribly bleak and dismal and dark America that this President portrays and those who support him.

David Brooks:  You know, we have all based our careers on the notion that we can have a conversation.

And so I would stand up for those values as much as anybody.  But in a time when people hate the political establishment so much, one of Trump's secrets is to find there has to be a stylistic way of talking that seems different.

And even for those of us on our side have to find the stylistic way of talking that feels authentic to people.  And some of the old communication styles that we used to do or that candidates used to do, I think that just is not resonating with people right now.

And that's been true around the world.  And you can get somebody who's conservative or progressive who doesn't exhaust everybody all the time and who actually talks in a normal tone and actually listens.

Mark Shields:  Yes.  No.

David Brooks:  But, somehow, something has to change.  And that's one of the things we have learned, not only from Trump, but the world politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Some people are pointing to Boris Johnson winning in Britain.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

I guess just — and I agree with David, but just one point, Judy, and that is, at no point is there any celebration of what we have achieved in this country, I mean, the fact that we have cut the poverty rate among people over the age of 65 by two-thirds, that we have removed 85 percent of lead from the air, I mean, all of the things we have done and are doing.

We have got a long way to go.  But we have achieved, and there are good things that America does.

Judy Woodruff:  Two — well, in a completely different direction, two investigations I want to ask you both about.

One, David, is the inspector general at the Department of Justice went back and looked at the origins of the Trump campaign Russia investigation.  Republicans had been saying it would show political bias.  The inspector general said — didn't find political bias, but he did find a lot of mistakes.

What do we take away from this?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, with Fiona Hill and a lot of people who testified, we saw the federal government at its best.  And now we're seeing another side, which is incompetence.

And I take them at their word there was no political bias.  But there was certainly a lot of incompetence, and they were certainly spinning the game.  And the investigation into Carter Page, just for one [actually the only] example, he was meeting with the Russians.  And he was telling the CIA, I just want you to know I'm meeting with them.

And the FBI did not disclose that fact that he told the CIA, which certainly makes it look a lot less suspicious than it otherwise would be.  And, frankly, this vindicates a lot of the — not everything, but a lot of the stuff Devin Nunes was saying, House Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, saying they weren't playing fair.

And so this is a case where I don't like — maybe there wasn't bias, but there was certainly a lot of incompetence and there were certainly people getting over their skis in trying to pursue an investigation, maybe without as much cause as they pretended.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you take away from that.

Mark Shields:  That there wasn't — I agree with David.  There were serious mistakes made.

And I think that FISA process is open, not only to scrutiny, but to severe criticism.  But I — when Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, appointed by President Trump, says investigations were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with the adequate federal predication — predication the recent word that is now in vogue — but he gets lambasted by the President.

It's like everybody got something out of this investigation, except the President, who wanted it to be a coup.  And there was no coup.  That's it.  I mean, I think a lot of people have to answer what they did as far as the visa [FISA?], but there was no coup.

COMMENT:  What David Brooks is failing to realize is that impeachment does NOT have to relate to a crime like in normal courts.  The definition of "High crimes and Misdemeanors" are totally up to the House and can be political.

IMPEACHMENT - The Voters Speak

"What voters across America are saying about impeachment" PBS NewsHour 11/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In Washington, much attention is directed toward the impeachment inquiry.  But how is it viewed in other parts of the country?  We turn to three public media reporters to find out: Caitie Switalski with WLRN in South Florida, Mary Lahammer of Twin Cities PBS in Minneapolis, and Bente Birkeland of Colorado Public Radio.  The three join Judy Woodruff to discuss partisan divides and impeachment fatigue.

U.S. CONSTITUTION - "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

NOTE:  This is important.  All Americans need to understand that impeachment is a political process and not one of statutory law.

"Why the founders let Congress define impeachment-worthy crimes" PBS NewsHour 10/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The power to impeach a federal official such as the President has been exercised rarely in American history, and U.S. Constitution mentions the word only a handful of times.  What were the founders thinking when they included that power, and how have public views of these powers evolved over time?  Judy Woodruff looks back with presidential historian Michael Beschloss.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 8/30/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump at the G-7, Democratic debates" PBS NewsHour 8/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including whether impeachment will have any momentum when Congress resumes, President Trump’s performance at the G-7 summit, Joe Biden’s stories, the rules governing eligibility for the 2020 Democratic debates and the candidates’ latest poll numbers.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, David, let's look at what we just heard from these voters in Andy Kim's district in New Jersey.  You could say they are all over the map, but it is interesting, yes, it is a divided district.  These voters really are divided.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

And, you know, I think impeachment is just this big mess of interruption in our process of government, to the extent that we have one.  And that usually is accompanied by a cultural landslide, where people are talking about the issue of impeachment, perhaps on the front page, and the Watergate is breaking stories — The Washington Post and The New York Times are breaking stories.

And as far as I can tell, the Russia investigation has drifted to the back of a lot of people's minds.  And so there is a core that still wants to do it, and there are over half of the Democratic Caucus want at least an inquiry into impeachment.

But I just don't feel the groundswell.  And I do think that sense that let's have this campaign and let's get to the issues is just going to make this impeachment thing peter out.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, what do you make of people, real people's reactions?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I thought Betty Wilson, the voter in Burlington, had the best summation.  I want to get rid of him, but let's just get on with the election, basically.

And I think that is the prevailing attitude now.  I don't think there is any question.  I don't question the intensity, the sincerity, the conviction of those who seek the impeachment.  But I think the practicality of that course has been disproved.  And I think Speaker Pelosi has made her position pretty clear on it.

Judy Woodruff:  But you do have — David, you said it.

You have now got more than half.  You have got a majority of the Democrats who have now come out and said, we should move ahead with an impeachment inquiry.  You have got some key committee chairs.  You have got Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

So what happens?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, to some degree — well, there is sort of the hard-core that wants to do this.  Then some people are saying, I am for the inquiry, but I am not sure I am for impeachment, which gives you — you're able to play both sides.

And then Pelosi's position has always been when the public case has been made for it.  And unless there is a groundswell, I think — I don't think she would go ahead and say the public case has been made for it.

And the risks of doing it are reasonably high.  We have seen that against the Clinton impeachment that backlashes tend to happen.  And that might happen in this case.

Judy Woodruff:  Risks?

Mark Shields:  Sure.  I mean, the steam went out of it, Judy.

It is not a matter of — a topic of common discussion in the country.  It is not at the top of any talk show list.  It just isn't.  There is an intensity obviously on the part of some Democratic partisans, but it's in no way is a majority position in the country or it hasn't changed.  It is not a growing position.

Bob Mueller's testimony came and it went, and it left in its wake no movement for impeachment.  I think that is fair to say.

Judy Woodruff:  Well…

Mark Shields:  And, plus, we are on the cusp of going to Iowa.  I mean, so there is an election.

Yap.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Well, let's talk for a moment about President Trump coming off, David, the G7 meeting of world leaders last week.  And I think it is fair to say this has been a tumultuous week for the President.  His position on trade with China was in one place and then another and yet another.

We were hearing something different almost every day.  You look back on the G7, again, the meeting in France last weekend, and it was more characterized by tension that he had with other world leaders than by any sense that anything was getting done.

David Brooks:  Yes.

That's sort of par for the course for G7 summits.  But I think what struck me this week was how the debate changed around Donald Trump.  There has been whispering, is he mentally not as fit as he was?  Are impairments rising?

That somehow seemed to rise and now become public conversation.  When he said his father was with born in Germany, when your father was born in the Bronx, that's not something you normally get wrong.  That his wife is good trends with the North Korean leader, when she had never met him.

I mean, there are just a lot of things coming out of his mouth.  And this has always been the case, but the verbal patterns — psychiatrists are not allowed to judge people they haven't met, but there are certainly a lot of people out there raising a lot of red flags.

So, that — to me, among the tumult of — the political tumult the G7, the psychological tumult is almost one of the key takeaways.

Judy Woodruff:  Do you think we are in a different place with regard to all that with the President, Mark?

Mark Shields:  I don't know, Judy.

I think there is a fatigue about Donald Trump.  I think there is a what is he going to do next attitude, and that, you know, what is the capacity for outrage?  Have we reached those limits?

As far as the G7 summit, what hit me about it was, I can't get over how he continues to denigrate President Obama.  I mean, that just — it's gratuitous.

And I had it explained to me by a Trump — longtime Trump watcher, who said, Trump knows that at that G7 meeting, they would rather have Obama than him — than rather have him.

And so he is almost driven to make up stories about President Obama, that President Obama gave away Crimea to Putin, that — you know, it's just — it's sort of a fabricated thing.  And that, to me, is bizarre.

But the other thing about it is — and Adlai Stevenson once said, better we lose an election than mislead the American people.

Donald Trump lies when he doesn't have to.  On the meeting of the G7 on the environment, and he skipped it, and he said, well, my — the reason he wasn't there was that he was meeting with Ms. Merkel and the prime minister of India, both of whom were at the meeting.

So it is not — it's just being — saying things that are so easily corrected and so easily proved that he is lying.  And at some point, I would just think the burden of working for someone like that becomes unbearable, just unbearable.  He lies to you, as a loyal staffer.  He lies to the people he is dealing with.

And, you know, at some level, in politics, your word is the coin of the realm.  And he is just — he's overdrawn on that bank account.

DEMOCRATS - On Impeachment

"Where do House Democrats stand on impeachment?" PBS NewsHour 6/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Congressional Democrats remain conflicted about whether to pursue impeachment against President Trump.  When asked about her plans investigating the president, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responded that “what we’re doing is winning in court.”  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest from Capitol Hill and why “there is so much pressure” on Democratic lawmakers over this issue.

"Why Seth Moulton thinks impeachment is the right thing to do" PBS NewsHour 6/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton redoubled his support Tuesday for beginning impeachment proceedings into President Donald Trump, saying that was the right course of action despite the potential political ramifications.

In an interview with PBS NewsHour managing editor and anchor Judy Woodruff, Moulton said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s concerns about starting an impeachment inquiry were valid.  But Moulton said he believes the situation rises above making political calculations.

“Maybe the politics make this tricky and I understand that.  I accept that might be the case,” he said.  “But how about just doing the right thing on principle on the oath that we swore, not to protect our political party but to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

Moulton is one of several 2020 Democrats who have called for an impeachment investigation.  House Democrats are divided on the issue, and are continuing to investigate the president while weighing next steps.

Asked how Democrats should respond to Trump’s name-calling — on Tuesday, the President called former Vice President Joe Biden a “dummy” — Moulton said it’s more important to focus on how Trump has “failed as commander in chief” and to “talk about how we are going to lead.”

IMPEACH THE SOB!

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 5/31/2019

"Brooks and Capehart on Mueller’s statement, Trump and McCain feud" PBS NewsHour 5/31/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The New York Times columnist David Brooks and The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week's political news, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s public statement, what Democrats should do about impeachment, why President Trump is so bothered by the late Sen. John McCain and new details about Republican strategy for redrawing congressional districts.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  Robert Mueller breaks his silence, John McCain's name is hidden from the President and newly discovered hard drives reveal a Republican plan to change the census.  It was a busy week.

Thankfully, we have the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart.

And welcome to both.

David, Robert Mueller broke his silence.  We have finally heard from him.

I want to ask you, though, because the conversation about impeachment continued on the Democratic side.

NBC's been updating their list, right, of how many Democrats, how many members of the House are actually supporting an impeachment inquiry.  It's at 53 last time I checked.

Last week, you said Speaker Pelosi was right to slow-walk the process.  Do you still believe that, based on what we heard this week?

David Brooks, New York Times:  A whole week later, I still believe that.

Amna Nawaz:  OK.

David Brooks:  Mostly because I think Democrats have a reasonably attractive Presidential field.

And if they spend their entire early election season fighting impeachment, they will detract away from that and give Donald Trump the fight he wants with Congress.  And Nancy Pelosi said she's waiting to build an intractable case, so even Republicans will have to come over.

Republican support for Donald Trump is now at its high.  And the more they go to impeachment, the more solid that support will be.  And so there's no there .  There's no way to get Republican votes in the Senate.

And so you can have the impeachment hearings, and maybe it'd be a good idea for — just for rule of law, but it's not going to go anywhere.

Amna Nawaz:  Let me play a couple quick sound bites, because, for anyone who missed it, there were a couple of key moments from both Robert Mueller and Attorney General Barr that we heard.

Just take a quick listen to what they had to say this week.

Robert Mueller:  If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.  We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

William Barr:  He could have reached a conclusion.

The opinion says you can't indict a President while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan, you wrote in your column this week, "Mueller just made life more difficult for Trump and Democrats."

Why?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Well, more difficult for President Trump because, if, say, special counsel Mueller does go to the Hill and does testify and only says what's in the report, just that quote that you had there from the special counsel, Mueller, alone is damaging.

And if he reads what is further down in the report, page two of volume two of the Mueller report, if you have it at home, it goes on to say that we have a lot of stuff here, but because of the OLC memo, we didn't even broach the subject of whether the President committed a crime.  We're not even going to go there, because, if we — if we charge him, and yet we can't bring him to trial, we can't indict a sitting President, well, it's unfair to the President, because you charge him with a crime, but then he doesn't have an avenue, a venue to defend himself, to clear his name.

And so that's why the OLC memo says you can't indict him while he's a sitting President, but you can do it once he's out of office, because then he has the possibility to defend himself.

Amna Nawaz:  And yet we have heard Speaker Pelosi say she wants an ironclad case before moving forward.  Is that an unreasonable goal?

Jonathan Capehart:  I don't think it's unreasonable.  And I think I'm with David on this.

Most people have not read the Mueller report.  Most people will never read the Mueller report.  In order for them to know what is actually in it, the Democrats, whether through the committee process or through the beginning of an impeachment inquiry, they will have to learn it by having witnesses come up and testify, having special counsel Mueller come up and testify.

And, again, if he only reads what's in the report, it will be news to the American people.  And the American people have to be brought along in this process, so that they're not blindsided and think that Congress is just doing something to hammer at the President, instead of, to David's point, standing up for the rule of law in this country.

Amna Nawaz:  David, do you think hearing from Mueller and Barr this week changed anything?

David Brooks:  I think it did, in that, as Jonathan said, a lot of people have erroneous views of what's in the report.  And a lot of Republicans do too.

And I'm reminded of that old phrase, I can tell it to you, but I can't listen it for you.

(LAUGHTER)

And so we have been talking about what's in the report, but a lot of people just don't know.  And, frankly, not all of America watches the "NewsHour" and not all of America reads newspapers.

Amna Nawaz:  That's shocking to me. [sarcasm]

David Brooks:  It is shocking and sad. [sarcasm]

Amna Nawaz:  That's shocking to me. [sarcasm]

David Brooks:  And so, when he gets up on TV, and he actually gives a voice, it reaches a broader audience.  Whether any minds are going to be changed if they go through the process that Jonathan describes, well, it would go against the last couple years of political history, where no minds have been changed by anything.

Amna Nawaz:  I want to ask you about something else that happened this week.  It was — President Trump was overseas.

There was a report, right?  Navy officials confirmed that the White House staff had actually requested military officials keep hidden the USS McCain while President Trump was there visiting troops in the Japanese port.

The President said, look, he knew nothing about it, but he also said it was well-meaning if someone had put forward that request.  That there is a picture of the McCain, and there is President Trump visiting with those troops.

David, there are a lot of concerns being voiced by a lot of people about the politicization of the military.  Do you see those concerns?

David Brooks:  Well, would it really give Donald Trump — like, trigger him if he saw the name John McCain on the back?  I have trouble believing this.

But it says something about the White House culture.  I believe Donald Trump probably didn't know.  But the staffers, it shows how they behave.  In most White Houses, the White House staff are in love with the President.  Imagine the best crush you ever had in high school.  That's how they feel about the President.

And they react, and they want to get his — right now his love.  But, here, it's fear.  It's, I don't want to do anything that will upset this volatile man at the top.

And so some staffer said, oh, I don't want to create a negative, so we will just sweep the McCain thing out of the way.

And so it's — it's a description of what the White House culture is like, which is driven by fear of his tweets and his angry reactions, more than the desire to actually serve anything positive.

Amna Nawaz:  You think they're acting preemptively to stop something from happening?

David Brooks:  Yes, I don't want to get on the bad side of the boss.

Amna Nawaz:  What did you think about that, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:  I thought it was small, petty, and shameful, and utterly predictable.

But what we have here is a well — the President, in his own words, said — well, it was, whoever did this was well-meaning.

And what you have here is an administration and a President who is triggered by a war hero, a former prisoner of war, the 2008 nominee of the Republican Party for President, an elder statesman up until his dying day.

And even after his passing, the President still cannot resist taking a dig at Senator McCain.  Whether he knew about the covering up of the name on the ship and stuff is beside the point.  When he was asked the question before getting on Marine One, even then, he couldn't resist hammering the late Senator McCain for casting the deciding vote that maintained Obamacare.

This speaks to — speaks to the culture of the White House, but speaks to a larger issue about the man sitting in the Oval Office.

Amna Nawaz:  David, it's worth mentioning that used to be sacred space, right?  You wouldn't impugn the memory of a former senator, former POW.

And yet, as Jonathan mentioned, he said, I'm not a fan of McCain, he killed health care for Republicans, when he was asked about this.

Is that sacred space now gone?

David Brooks:  Well, we have had a lot of sacred spaces.  It's a very small little island of sacredity, if that's a word.

He's — McCain has always gotten under his skin, for apparent reasons.  We could imagine what are they are, the manliness, the guy who actually did serve.

And Trump has sort of machismo vs. machismo.  And John McCain, who I knew pretty well, was definitely a macho man, and a genuine macho man who lived it out in pursuit of honor.  And so that — it would be natural that he would get under Trump's skin.