The Democrats in the House will open it, and soon. But then the Republicans in the Senate will shut it down.
Why are the House Democrats suddenly moving so fast with their "impeachment proceedings"? One simple answer: Speaker Pelosi has unleashed the caged beasts--it is now OK to be actually "proceeding". The second is that Trump has gifted his opponents with a superb opportunity, one that forced Pelosi to act.
While the nuances ("quid pro quo" or no? Is there a Biden thing, and does it matter?) remain to be fleshed out, the facts seem clear. Trump asked for something he should not be requesting, in a manner that is incriminating. Private citizen/Trump personal attorney Giuliani compounded the legal problem by purporting to act on behalf of the US Government, something illegal for him to do. The decision on this one, for most House Democrats, is going to be way too easy. And because their votes are not needed, House Republicans will hardly be troubled to vote No.
This will take it to the Senate, where the Republicans would like to use their majority to quickly vote No and end it, but it will not be so easy. There will be witnesses who must be heard: Giuliani, Toady Barr (who tried but failed to cover it up), Secretary Pompeo, and the senior people in the State Department who want Pompeo pushed under the bus like the other two lackeys. One very important witness, especially with regard to the question of the existence of any Senate Republican votes for conviction will be the whistleblower, and the character of that person (as yet unknown), and the manner in which that person's story unfolds. Chief Justice Roberts will be on his best behavior, trying to seem as even-handed as possible.
What kind of defense can the Republican Senate leadership put up? In a normal trial, it would pretty much be "defense rests"--they'd know they have the votes in the jury to prevent conviction. This is overtly a political trial, though, and their objectives in the process will be complicated. They will debate the facts, they will debate whether these rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors", but those are weak arguments, made for the record, that will be discounted. The main argument will be "I'm running for re-election; why are you wasting my time? It doesn't mean anything--we were always going to give Ukraine the assistance, just as we are doing. It's just Trump being Trump--who knows why he makes these confused tactical gambits?"
That last part--his total incapacity for the job, his faulty understanding of the laws and the Constitution he is sworn to apply, along with a refusal to learn--must be part of the articles of impeachment in my view. As for Trump, it is quite interesting to learn now that the White House knew all about this weeks ago, and that his seeming off-the-cuff remarks recently were just ones hastily prepared by a depleted and discouraged White House staff. For example, he remarked, "I know, as the President, one has to be careful on the phone. There are a lot of people listening." That sounds exactly like what those who attempt to handle him would have told him afterwards.
Though much of this Thing is destined, what bothers me about it is that everyone can now go out and campaign on this imitation of justice, while most of Trump's malfeasances will not be fully exposed in Congress or before the public. It's not that there isn't time before the election; it's that most Congresspeople have to go out and raise money for their campaigns. That's what has to be fixed, and it's a bipartisan problem.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Censure Immediately. Impeach--Maybe Later.
The bill should come from the Ethics Committee, it should stick to the variety of established facts regarding Trump's conduct while in office which have harmed it and harmed the balance of powers fundamental to the Constitution he is sworn to protect.
There is plenty of material, and each, or each category--emoluments, obstruction of investigations, violating rules on disclosure (both personal and administrative disclosures), failure to maintain the function of government agencies, disregarding appropriations law, failing to protect the integrity of American elections-- should be framed in a separate count discussed, at length, on the House floor. Let's see if Republicans have his back on behavior they have often condemned already.
A rider to it should censure his toady Attorney General William Barr for intentionally deceiving the public and Congress on the contents of the Mueller report and his testimony about it.
A censure motion would pass--it will be very interesting to see if any Republicans vote in favor of any of the counts, or the motion itself--and it will be dismissed by Trump, probably publicly so (because he has no sense of shame or sensitivity at all); however, it will not be meaningless. A censure motion states unambiguously that the behavior described is unacceptable.
The other question is whether to impeach the President for abuse of his office. In order to do this, a lot more information is needed, information that is going to be very difficult and time-consuming to extract from the Administration. The debate on the censure motion would help guide how broad the potential articles of impeachment should be composed.
Today's thrust forward by Speaker Pelosi is on a single, narrow violation: Trump seeking Ukrainian President Velensky to "collude" with him in interference with the upcoming election, and refusing to allow the release of the whistleblower report to Congress. It may not be enough, in itself, especially when the White House finally releases the report to Congress, after spinning it as much as is humanly possible.
Obviously, I support Pelosi's action and her tactics, as well. I rise to suggest that there is another option; that beginning the inquiry does not lead necessarily to impeachment (and subsequent failure to convict) , and that there is a way to shame the President, publicly and definitively, without falling immediately into that trap.
Censure completed this fall allows the court processes, etc. to continue, all the way through the election.
In my view, this does not change the order of the ways in which Drumpfenreich comes to an end (see below, from a May, 2018 post), though I am thinking "suicide in the bunker" might end up being part of the rankings.
Trump did go too far this time, though he was understandably emboldened by the outcome of the Mueller report, which was contemporaneous with the egregious phone call with Ukraine. One thing I heard tonight which bothers me is that I heard one analyst saying that this scandal would imperil the vital military aid to Ukraine--that must not happen.
There is plenty of material, and each, or each category--emoluments, obstruction of investigations, violating rules on disclosure (both personal and administrative disclosures), failure to maintain the function of government agencies, disregarding appropriations law, failing to protect the integrity of American elections-- should be framed in a separate count discussed, at length, on the House floor. Let's see if Republicans have his back on behavior they have often condemned already.
A rider to it should censure his toady Attorney General William Barr for intentionally deceiving the public and Congress on the contents of the Mueller report and his testimony about it.
A censure motion would pass--it will be very interesting to see if any Republicans vote in favor of any of the counts, or the motion itself--and it will be dismissed by Trump, probably publicly so (because he has no sense of shame or sensitivity at all); however, it will not be meaningless. A censure motion states unambiguously that the behavior described is unacceptable.
The other question is whether to impeach the President for abuse of his office. In order to do this, a lot more information is needed, information that is going to be very difficult and time-consuming to extract from the Administration. The debate on the censure motion would help guide how broad the potential articles of impeachment should be composed.
Today's thrust forward by Speaker Pelosi is on a single, narrow violation: Trump seeking Ukrainian President Velensky to "collude" with him in interference with the upcoming election, and refusing to allow the release of the whistleblower report to Congress. It may not be enough, in itself, especially when the White House finally releases the report to Congress, after spinning it as much as is humanly possible.
Obviously, I support Pelosi's action and her tactics, as well. I rise to suggest that there is another option; that beginning the inquiry does not lead necessarily to impeachment (and subsequent failure to convict) , and that there is a way to shame the President, publicly and definitively, without falling immediately into that trap.
Censure completed this fall allows the court processes, etc. to continue, all the way through the election.
In my view, this does not change the order of the ways in which Drumpfenreich comes to an end (see below, from a May, 2018 post), though I am thinking "suicide in the bunker" might end up being part of the rankings.
End of Trumpism--the Headline(as I would rank order on likelihood)
1. Trump Defeated! ( in the 2020 Election)
2. Trump Quits! (Before 2020)
3. Trump Dies! (anytime OK)
4. Trump Announces He Will Not Run Again (most likely in early 2020, when the recession hits)
5. Trump Wins Re-Election, Civilization Crashes, Drumpfsterfire Blazes until Snuffed in Resulting Chaos... (I'd guess late 2022)
6. Trump Is Impeached and Convicted! (could even be in second term)
7. That 25th Amendment Coup-because-Trump-is-Crazy Thing! (Since it didn't already happen...)
Trump did go too far this time, though he was understandably emboldened by the outcome of the Mueller report, which was contemporaneous with the egregious phone call with Ukraine. One thing I heard tonight which bothers me is that I heard one analyst saying that this scandal would imperil the vital military aid to Ukraine--that must not happen.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Sunset for Netanyahu--The Finale!
The election results this week mark the beginning for the final act of this comedic drama. Benny Gantz' Blue and White party has edged Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud, in the number of Knesset seats 33-31, and he will get first crack at forming a government. There is the beginning of a glimmer of an idea of a happy ending.
It will not be easy for Gantz to get to a parliamentary majority of 61 seats.; there are so many oaths sworn not to ally between this and that group. He speaks of a "unity government": I see a potential coalition of parties united only by a desire to get Netanyahu out of office; that may be enough. To specify in gory detail:
That allows Gantz to get past the first hurdle, getting Netanyahu to accept that he will no longer be Prime Minister. A sort of intervention.
After that, Gantz' team may have a lot more maneuverability, with the possibility of strengthening that bizarre initial formation. Lieberman's role I have explained in the past. He would hate having to depend on Arabs for his role in the new government, which I grant would be both malign and substantial, but this actually makes more sense for him than the thing he claimed to want: Kahol Lavan and Likud and him (preferably without Bibi). If those two parties came together, they wouldn't need him!
Gantz could possibly maneuver him into a lesser position later if he can get some Likud defections, post-Bibi. Or he could even let Likud into the government in a more complete way, with Bibi getting a role, if he doesn't get indicted. He could agree to a rotation with Likud coming in after a couple years. Any of these would relieve him of the stress of depending on the Arab Joint List for a government they planned to oppose. But the one thing that is non-negotiable for Gantz is that Netanyahu is not Prime Minister (or Justice Minister, or Interior) in the new government.
That one proviso could prevent any government from being formed, if Gantz and his team are not flexible and persuasive. Netanyahu will dig in, hard. He will deny it publicly, but his play is to try to prevent any government being formed, stay in as caretaker, all the way through a third round of elections early next year. He risks going to jail if he gives in, though I suspect any penalty would be fairly minor if he were convicted.
What impact will this have on Israel? Initially, not much; the group I described would produce a government which continues overtly Zionist policy through a strong and active military, though probably less willing to grant special favors to the Orthodox or illegal settlers, and which would not move aggressively on annexation of the West Bank. One that could be a partner for peace negotiations!
As for Netanyahu's old buddy Trump? Drumpf has already dumped him, cast him from his personal dumpsterfire. "Our loyalty is to the state of Israel", Chief Twit clarified, in lieu of the congratulations he woulda twit otherwise. He's working on the disclosure that he found Benjamin's wife, Sara, to be "nasty".
It will not be easy for Gantz to get to a parliamentary majority of 61 seats.; there are so many oaths sworn not to ally between this and that group. He speaks of a "unity government": I see a potential coalition of parties united only by a desire to get Netanyahu out of office; that may be enough. To specify in gory detail:
Kahol Lavan, 33 seats; Labor-Geshen and Democratic Union (allies to the center-left), 11 combined; Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beitanu 8, Yamina (led by right-wing former ministers now opposed to Netanyahu) 7.That gets you to 59; get the silent support of the Israeli Arab Joint List (13 seats) through abstention, and you have a working, if temporary, majority.
That allows Gantz to get past the first hurdle, getting Netanyahu to accept that he will no longer be Prime Minister. A sort of intervention.
After that, Gantz' team may have a lot more maneuverability, with the possibility of strengthening that bizarre initial formation. Lieberman's role I have explained in the past. He would hate having to depend on Arabs for his role in the new government, which I grant would be both malign and substantial, but this actually makes more sense for him than the thing he claimed to want: Kahol Lavan and Likud and him (preferably without Bibi). If those two parties came together, they wouldn't need him!
Gantz could possibly maneuver him into a lesser position later if he can get some Likud defections, post-Bibi. Or he could even let Likud into the government in a more complete way, with Bibi getting a role, if he doesn't get indicted. He could agree to a rotation with Likud coming in after a couple years. Any of these would relieve him of the stress of depending on the Arab Joint List for a government they planned to oppose. But the one thing that is non-negotiable for Gantz is that Netanyahu is not Prime Minister (or Justice Minister, or Interior) in the new government.
That one proviso could prevent any government from being formed, if Gantz and his team are not flexible and persuasive. Netanyahu will dig in, hard. He will deny it publicly, but his play is to try to prevent any government being formed, stay in as caretaker, all the way through a third round of elections early next year. He risks going to jail if he gives in, though I suspect any penalty would be fairly minor if he were convicted.
What impact will this have on Israel? Initially, not much; the group I described would produce a government which continues overtly Zionist policy through a strong and active military, though probably less willing to grant special favors to the Orthodox or illegal settlers, and which would not move aggressively on annexation of the West Bank. One that could be a partner for peace negotiations!
As for Netanyahu's old buddy Trump? Drumpf has already dumped him, cast him from his personal dumpsterfire. "Our loyalty is to the state of Israel", Chief Twit clarified, in lieu of the congratulations he woulda twit otherwise. He's working on the disclosure that he found Benjamin's wife, Sara, to be "nasty".
Trump's Iran Policy
We are now in a spiral of escalation in the Saudi-Iran proxy war. President Trump's failed policy of aggressive sanctions against Iran has now produced responses that threaten to raise the level of violence. Can he find the means to keep the US from war? It seems even he shows reluctance to take that fateful step, of direct attack on Iran, for which we are grateful.
Saudi Arabia has indeed suffered an injury in this case--the attack on the oil field, which was done by targeted missiles, possibly augmented by other fire. Some of the missiles fell short and were not fully exploded; that and the angle implied by the fallen missiles pinpoints the launch near the Iraq-Iran border, and intelligence estimates are fairly clear that Iranian technology has been utilized.
The response has been typical of the subtlety of the Iranian approach. Responsibility for the attack was immediately claimed by the Houthis, the breakway faction in Yemen which receives some Iranian support in its war against the recognized government "coalition" of foreign forces led by the Saudis. The claim appears spurious on its face, but it helped to distract.
The Iranians, of course, deny responsibility; the science points to the border area. I'm guessing the Iranians arranged for the attack to be launched from Iraqi territory, by one of the militias, Iraqi in name, over which they exert control. They are probably puzzled that we can't figure that out--maybe we can, but we choose not to reveal that because of the complications that would cause there (near ex-ISIS territory, where there are still US advisors and volatile camp situations).
Now President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are coming to the US, granted visas for the purpose of attending the UN General Assembly. This is, of course, a great opportunity to turn the corner and head back toward peace. I don't expect Trump to meet Rouhani directly, at least until US Secy of State Pompeo and Zarif have a satisfactory initial, private, meeting.
What's the deal? Surprisingly straightforward: Iran back in the nuclear treaty, rapid release of sanctions, no more arms for the Houthis (to "punish" them for the attack on the Saudis). We can't touch Hezbollah, and nobody gets to Hamas in Gaza, so don't even think about it. As for Assad and the various forces struggling for power in "his" Syria, our interest is in the safe areas to be developed near Turkey to allow reintegration of refugees without life-threatening risk, and ensuring no WMD remain in Assad's hands.
All right, have I given you enough? Go out and make it happen. President Trump, I will raise your grade from F+ to D-. A passing grade, in some school systems!
Saudi Arabia has indeed suffered an injury in this case--the attack on the oil field, which was done by targeted missiles, possibly augmented by other fire. Some of the missiles fell short and were not fully exploded; that and the angle implied by the fallen missiles pinpoints the launch near the Iraq-Iran border, and intelligence estimates are fairly clear that Iranian technology has been utilized.
The response has been typical of the subtlety of the Iranian approach. Responsibility for the attack was immediately claimed by the Houthis, the breakway faction in Yemen which receives some Iranian support in its war against the recognized government "coalition" of foreign forces led by the Saudis. The claim appears spurious on its face, but it helped to distract.
The Iranians, of course, deny responsibility; the science points to the border area. I'm guessing the Iranians arranged for the attack to be launched from Iraqi territory, by one of the militias, Iraqi in name, over which they exert control. They are probably puzzled that we can't figure that out--maybe we can, but we choose not to reveal that because of the complications that would cause there (near ex-ISIS territory, where there are still US advisors and volatile camp situations).
Now President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are coming to the US, granted visas for the purpose of attending the UN General Assembly. This is, of course, a great opportunity to turn the corner and head back toward peace. I don't expect Trump to meet Rouhani directly, at least until US Secy of State Pompeo and Zarif have a satisfactory initial, private, meeting.
What's the deal? Surprisingly straightforward: Iran back in the nuclear treaty, rapid release of sanctions, no more arms for the Houthis (to "punish" them for the attack on the Saudis). We can't touch Hezbollah, and nobody gets to Hamas in Gaza, so don't even think about it. As for Assad and the various forces struggling for power in "his" Syria, our interest is in the safe areas to be developed near Turkey to allow reintegration of refugees without life-threatening risk, and ensuring no WMD remain in Assad's hands.
All right, have I given you enough? Go out and make it happen. President Trump, I will raise your grade from F+ to D-. A passing grade, in some school systems!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
