TRUMP - Impeachment Hearings 11/18 - 11/23

"How both sides are preparing for a packed week of impeachment hearings" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2019

HINT:  A person can be arrested, tried, convicted of ATTEMPTED robbery, which means the crime was not completed.  This applies to what Trump attempted.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump says he will consider testifying on his own behalf in the impeachment inquiry.  Former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, career State Department official Jennifer Williams, departing National Security Council official Tim Morrison, and National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are scheduled to appear Tuesday.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

"What we learned from public testimony of officials on Trump’s July 25 call" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Tuesday marked a significant day in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as officials on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy testified in open hearings for the first time.  Lisa Desjardins, Nick Schifrin and Yamiche Alcindor join Amna Nawaz to discuss the day’s highlights, including a personal attack on a witness in the middle of testifying.

"Rep. Mike Johnson on Vindman’s reputation, witness credibility and Trump’s frustration" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House Judiciary Committee is ultimately responsible for deciding if impeachment charges will be brought against President Trump.  Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana is a member of that committee, and he joins Amna Nawaz to discuss why he is frustrated with the impeachment inquiry proceedings so far and whether he thinks the President should answer questions about his Ukraine dealings.

"Rep. Jayapal on ‘damning’ impeachment evidence and what happens next" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington [state] is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which will ultimately be responsible for deciding if impeachment charges are brought against President Trump.  Jayapal joins Amna Nawaz to discuss why she is disturbed by her Republican colleagues’ defense of Trump’s actions and the most “damning” evidence she has seen in the investigation so far.

"Why Gordon Sondland’s public testimony was ‘extraordinary’" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified to the House Wednesday that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine and that he followed President Trump’s orders to work with Rudy Giuliani.  Sondland also implicated Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence in a pressure campaign.  Nick Schifrin, Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

And from Trump's Propaganda Minister.....

"Kellyanne Conway says ‘there was no pressure applied’ to Ukraine" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration quickly pushed back on the claims of Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, among others, were aware of Sondland’s efforts to get Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens.  Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"What Rep. Steve Cohen thinks about the evidence against Trump" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House Judiciary Committee would hold hearings on impeachment after the House Intelligence Committee concludes theirs.  Do those Democrats feel they have enough evidence to move forward with articles of impeachment for President Trump?  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) is a member of that committee, and he joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what Ambassador Gordon Sondland said.

"How testimonies from Fiona Hill and David Holmes filled in Sondland’s ‘gaps’" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the week’s final day of public impeachment hearings, Dr. Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, the political affairs counselor at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified to the House.  Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor and Nick Schifrin join Judy Woodruff to discuss how the information they shared filled in the gaps.

"Leon Panetta and Bill McCollum on where the impeachment inquiry goes next" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Let’s take a broader view of all the testimony in this week's public impeachment hearings.  Leon Panetta was chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton and later served as director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense under former President Obama.  Former Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla) served as one of the House managers for Clinton’s impeachment trial.  They join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"What happens next in the impeachment inquiry" PBS NewsHour 11/22/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This week was a historic one for American government.  Over three days, the House Intelligence Committee held public hearings with nine more witnesses as part of an inquiry into whether President Trump should be impeached.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss when the Intelligence Committee might publish a report on its findings and the upcoming role of the Judiciary Committee.

"Impeachment inquiry is ‘only just beginning’ after testimony" PBS NewsHour 11/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As Congress takes a Thanksgiving break, Democratic and Republican staff members are drafting reports on the impeachment inquiry that will determine the next phases of the process.  Jami Floyd, a host and legal editor at WNYC New York Public Radio, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/15/2019

"Shields and Brooks on impeachment testimony, newest 2020 Democrats" PBS NewsHour 11/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including whether public impeachment hearings are making President Trump more or less vulnerable, what stood out about the witnesses who testified so far, whether Trump’s Ukraine dealings are surprising or "in character" and the latest dynamics among 2020 Democrats.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Now joining us to analyze this historic week in American politics are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, David, I guess you could say it's the best of times and the worst of times for President Trump.  On the one hand, we just reported the financial markets today were off the charts, setting new records all over the place, but, meantime, there are impeachment hearings going on just down the street from the White House.

Look at this first couple of days of hearings.  Have the Democrats strengthened their argument, or where are we?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I think they have.

The case is very solid and airtight that there was the quid pro quo.  All the testimony points to that.  And, mostly, you see a contrast.

In the first two, the first two gentlemen that testified on the first day, they were just upstanding, solid public servants.  And I was like — I felt like I was looking back in time, because I was looking at two people who are not self-centered.  They, like, cared about the country.  They were serving.  They had not partisan axe to grind.  They were just honest men of integrity.

And I thought we saw that again today with Yovanovitch.  And in her case, the day was more emotional, because you got to see a case of bullying against a strong, upstanding woman.

And so I thought she expressed — like, the heavy moments of today where when she expressed her reaction to how badly she was treated.  And so that introduces an element of emotion and pathos into what shouldn't be just a legal proceeding.  It should be something where people see the contrast between good people and bad people.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you — how is it all adding up for you?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, the conventional wisdom, Judy, last Friday, was that it would be — the Democrats would impeach in the House and the Republicans would acquit in the Senate.

I think the conventional wisdom has been dealt a blow.  I think we have learned and reminded ourselves again that this is a not a static process.  It's a dynamic process.

Each testimony changes the narrative and changes the reality.  There's no question that the first two witnesses, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent, have inspired and encouraged and given spirit to other people to come forward, David Holmes today.

And Ambassador Yovanovitch, I agree with David.  After listening to Ambassador Taylor and Secretary Kent, you came away with a sense of respect and admiration.

Today, you were moved, not only at Ambassador Yovanovitch's own story, but there's a sense of outrage building.  This is a story of corruption, corruption not in Ukraine, corruption in the United States.

I mean, why?  Why did they go to such lengths to denigrate, to attack, to try and destroy and sabotage the career of a dedicated public servant, a person who had put her life on the line?  Why did they do it?  What was it, money?  Was it power?

Why was Rudy Giuliani doing it?  Why was the President involved?  I think there's a real narrative that's developing.

Judy Woodruff:  And you're saying that you think the Democrats are making the point…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  I think the witnesses are making the point.

And, obviously, the President, today, by tweeting and attacking, I mean, he invariably punches down.  This is a man who doesn't punch up.  He never takes on somebody his own size or somebody bigger.  It's always somebody smaller.

The idea of witness intimidation, of just the worst of bullying, before God and man, as he did it, is just — it's unforgivable.

And I think, as Mike Rogers, a former Republican congressman from Michigan, put it very well, the only time he isn't shooting himself in the foot is when he's stopping to reload his gun.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, I mean, the Republicans kept pushing back today, just saying the whole thing is a sham, is a waste of time, and worse.

What should we measure the success of these hearings by?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  I mean, what…

David Brooks:  I mean, if this were a football game, it would be 42-3.

The Republicans, I don't blame them.  There's just not much of a case there.  What he is accused of clearly happened.  And it's so hard to — you can throw up some flares and do some defensive measures, which Republicans are doing.  And they're complaining about whether the process is fair.  But they don't have much to work with.

I do disagree that this is somehow changing minds.  I have seen no polling evidence that it's changing minds.  I don't think people are watching particularly out in the country.

Since this whole impeachment thing has started, I have probably been in 20 states.  I can't think of too many places where people have talked to me about this.  And I talk to — you go out and interview lots of people and people are talking about other stuff.

And so if it's changing minds, especially in Middle America or in the swing states, I see no evidence of that.  My newspaper did a big story this morning, interviewing a lot of people there.  There was no evidence of that.

So I do think the case is a very strong one.  I do think what he has done was appalling.  But Americans who like him like him.  And the economy is the economy.

And so I'm not sure I see the evidence that Mark sees.

Mark Shields:  Let me…

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — yes, sure.

Mark Shields:  Let me just make two quick points in response to David.

First, it's a legal constitutional case, which I think is building and was — certainly the witnesses buttressed this week.  But the other thing is — whether it's the diabolical plotting of Nancy Pelosi or whatever, there's a political case.

And it makes it more difficult to stand up for Donald Trump.  It's going to make it more difficult for Republicans to stand up.  You just say, oh, that's Donald Trump being Donald Trump.

What he did today to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I mean, is just unforgivable at a human level.  You can't say, gee, he's my kind of guy, I like this kind of guy.

The other thing is, Judy, the collateral story, Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state…

Judy Woodruff:  State.

Mark Shields:  … the hollowing out of the department, this is a hollowed-out man.

In the Marine Corps, there's a simple rule every enlisted man learns.  And that is, officers eat last and that any officer worries first about feeding his or her privates and lieutenants before he even picks up a knife or a fork.

And Mike Pompeo is the antithesis of that.  He is missing in action.  He's absent without leave.  When his own people are under attack and under siege, he goes quiet.  He goes mute.  I mean, he is a disgrace to the United States military, the United States military academy, and is just a hollowed-out man.

David Brooks:  Well, Trump governs by fear.

But I think this only changes if we're surprised.  And if Trump had been a Boy Scout up until this week, we would all be shocked by this behavior.  But we have been sitting here three years angry and outraged week after week, throwing spittle around because of how upset and offended we are.

Judy Woodruff:  So, you're saying there's not that much new?

David Brooks:  There has to be a surprise for this to change.

And Trump's behavior today and over the course of this episode is totally in character.

Mark Shields:  Stay tuned, David.

David Brooks:  OK.

Mark Shields:  Stay tuned.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 3/1/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Cohen testimony, North Korea summit" PBS NewsHour 3/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week in politics, including reverberations from Michael Cohen’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee and conclusions from the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  It has been a turbulent week in the Trump administration, from hours of damning testimony from the President's former personal lawyer, to the collapse of nuclear talks with North Korea.

To help navigate the different twists and turns, we turn to Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome to both of you.  Are you ready to navigate the twists and turns?

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks, New York Times:  Just another week in Caligula's Rome.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Ooh.

Judy Woodruff:  Ooh.

All right, on that note, we're going to talk about Michael Cohen's testimony all day long this Wednesday, David, before the House Oversight Committee, Government Oversight Committee.

What was your main takeaway from it?

David Brooks:  There were some things we learned.

We learned that Trump asked about the Moscow building project all the way through the campaign.  We learned about the $35,000 check.  We learned a few things.

But, to me, it was more of a moral occasion, more than anything else.

Judy Woodruff:  A moral occasion?

David Brooks:  A moral occasion.

What it illustrates is a President and, frankly, Michael Cohen who long ago decided that celebrity and wealth is more important than being a good person.  And they have dragged us all down there with us.

And the people they have dragged most effectively are the House Republicans, a lot of them on that committee, who decided that they were completely incurious about whether Donald Trump was a good guy or a bad guy or a really awful guy, that — their own leader, they didn't seem to care about that, but they were going to rip the skin off Michael Cohen.

And so they attacked him.  And what struck me is how moral corrosion happens, that you decide you're going to defend or ignore Trump, and then to do that, you have to morally distance yourself from him.  And then you have to morally distance yourself from him every day.

And, eventually, you just get numb to everything.  And so Jim Jordan and other people on the committee were saying, oh, we all knew this, like, it's all unremarkable.  And so that's — that's how moral corrosion happens.

Judy Woodruff:  How did you see the — I mean, was it — what role did the Republican questioning take, when most of them went after Michael Cohen, as David was saying, rather than talking about President Trump?

Mark Shields:  They took the old attack route, Judy, which is, if you can't argue the substance, you go after the source.  If you can't deal with the message, you shoot the messenger.

And that's what their whole strategy was.  The very fact that not a single member of the Republican committee defended Donald Trump or what he was charged or alleged to have done, to me, was revealing.  They just decided to go after Michael Cohen.

Now, it was — Michael Cohen's defects are there.  They're on the record.  He's going to pay for them, the legal defects in particular.  But there was no payoff for him to lie.  I mean, the Mueller crowd was sitting there, the Mueller, special counsel office.

They know exactly what he said.  If he said anything that was false or perjured himself, he faced further problems from them.  So there was a strong incentive for him not to lie.

And, to me, it reminded me of scripture's injunction that the meek will inherit the earth.  If that's the case, then the congressional Republicans someday will be land barons, because they are the meekest, most docile, most submissive group of people when it comes to any judgment at all, any opinion on what Donald Trump does.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, David — go ahead, David.

David Brooks:  What strikes me is that they don't fear final judgment.

I don't mean that in the ultimate sense, just like…

Mark Shields:  Primary judgment.

David Brooks:  Primary judgment.

The idea that you can side and suborn your soul to someone who lies constantly, and that you won't ultimately pay for that, how does that work?  Michael Cohen ultimately paid.  In my suspicion, Donald Trump will ultimately pay.  Most people who lie and cheat their way through life ultimately pay.  Maybe some get away from it.

But why you would want to hitch your career to that kind of wagon is just a mystery to me, because that's just not the way the law of the universe works.

Judy Woodruff:  But, of course, the Republican argument, Mark, is that Michael Cohen is a flawed character, that he's lied before, he's lied a lot.  Why should we believe him now?

Mark Shields:  Well, I mean, I just come back to the — there was no incentive and there was a strong disincentive for him to lie on — in his appearance under oath on television before the world.

So, I mean, everybody in the world could hear what he was saying.  And it could be stacked up to what he had — he had previously said and sworn to.  So, no.  And he acknowledged the fact.

I mean, you spend 10 years with Donald Trump, and it's going to come at a moral cost.  I'm sorry.  I mean, that is the lesson we have learned.  The one person in this entire administration that has gotten away with a reputation enhanced seems to be Nikki Haley.  Everybody else who's near him [Trump] is somehow tarnished, diminished, hurt, wounded by that association.

It is absolutely remarkable.  I think…

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  Dan Coats.  You can think of a few.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  Yes, Dan Coats.  Yes, Dan Coats.  You're Right.

David Brooks:  He's the Director of National Intelligence.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  The thing that got me about Cohen is, how many times did you become a thug to small businessmen to stiff them for dealing with the Trump administration?

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  Five hundred times.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And so that's — I don't know if it's illegal or what.

But it's unbecoming in the extreme.  And so I don't treat Michael Cohen as sort of the repented Chuck Colson.  I mean, he — I think he didn't have any the air of someone who's really repented or really faced the spiritual music.  He's just decided one side is against his interest, which is Donald Trump, and now the other side is for his interest, so he will say things that are nice for his interests.

I don't think he lied.  I think what he told was basically the truth, but he was basically catering now to the left and some sort of GoFundMe campaign that will help pay his legal bills.

Judy Woodruff:  But does this advance…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  I don't know.  I don't have that kind of moral X-Ray.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  I mean, I don't know if he was a sinner and became a saint.

I will say this.  The story of 500 people did you threaten or entities, did you threaten on Donald Trump's behalf, it was a good question asked by Congresswoman Speier from California.  And it was a — and he said 500 — 50, 100, 200, 500.  Let's say 500.

And — but the thing about it is, when he stiffed those small business — the plumbers and the electricians who did the work in the Trump projects, and he came back, and Donald Trump loved to hear about it, I mean, reveled in it.

Now, I mean, at what point do you say that there's no honor here?  I mean, there's nothing to admire.

Judy Woodruff:  And he made a point of telling that — of sharing that…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  He did.  He was not — he did not set out to flatter…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  But quickly, to both of you, does this advance the case against Donald Trump, advance the case of impeachment, David?

David Brooks:  I think a little.

We know the Trump Tower stuff in Moscow, the hush money.  I tend to think there's much more — and, actually, everybody agrees, and I agree too, that AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, did a very good job of laying down specific questions for specific predicates.

And she focused quite a lot on the business side of the Trump empire.  And if I'm a Republican, I'm thinking there's a lot of bad news to come from there, and just whether it's taxes for all — whether it's other things.

And that's what the Southern District of New York is looking into.  And so I think I'm less concerned that — there seems to be less to the Russia collusion and a lot more to everything else.

Mark Shields:  I agree.

I mean, he advanced the collusion case not at all, but he certainly laid out — I mean, he gave them leads, suggestions, people to talk to, to interview, and I would say enough stuff to keep several committees going.

I did want to give a shout-out to Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the committee.

Judy Woodruff:  The chair.

Mark Shields:  I thought he did a good job.

I mean, I thought there was an earnestness and a directness about him.  And I thought his summation is worth repeating and thinking about for all Americans, that this is important and we have got to return to normal.  This is not normal.

DRUG POLITICS - Big Pharma

Pharmaceutical industry, like the health care insurance industry, knows it has customers over a barrel, aka under ransom demand.  'Pay what we want or you die.'  And Republicans will continue to be enablers of these gang-land ransom demands.

"Lawmakers grill pharmaceutical executives over drug prices, but CEOs avoid big pledges" PBS NewsHour 2/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Health care costs are a major concern for Americans, who spend more on prescription drugs than residents of any other country.  On Tuesday, executives from seven of the biggest pharmaceutical companies appeared before a Senate committee to explain their rising prices.  They were questioned about R&D spending, patent extensions, and their own compensation.  John Yang reports on a contentious hearing.

SESSIONS - Spin and Obfuscation

"What former Justice officials heard in Sessions' testimony" PBS NewsHour 6/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  From dealings with former FBI Director James Comey to the Attorney General's recusal from the Russia probe, Judy Woodruff gets analysis from George Terwilliger, Walter Dellinger, and Carrie Cordero, three former Justice Department officials with extensive experience in government and the law.