As far as one can see from what (little) has been reported, Joe Biden did not act in any official capacity as vice president that would have benefited his son, who was appointed to the board of a Ukrainian oil company while his father was in office. But the "there's nothing to see here" defense is insufficient.
To the layperson, Hunter Biden's lucrative appointment to Barisma's board had nothing to do with his knowledge or experience, and everything to do with his being the son of the sitting vice president. Just a Trump can't use as a defence "Ukraine got their aid and the phone call so nothing's wrong here", neither can Joe Biden claim that just because he didn't do anything that would have benefitted Hunter that's OK too. Family and friends who have access to powerful people often try to leverage that access for personal gain; and there is no other word for that but "corrupt". Not calling it out is precisely what (thinking) people mean by the swamp of political influence in DC, namely the acceptance of bought and paid for influence.
Biden's defense would be far stronger had he not dismissed the concerns his aids expressed to him at the time. That in hindsight was poor judgement. Simply asserting that it wasn't his decision to make wasn't good enough; he should have gone on record as disapproving of his son's choice to take up the offer. That may be hard for a father of a troubled son to do, but it would have been the right call.
The Democrats are wrong not to call him on this; yes, he may be their best bet to oust Trump next year, but by pretending the issue will go away - Trump won't let it - they are both deluding themselves and displaying the same double standard as the GOP. They rail against nepotism in Trump's white house yet are silent when it's in their own camp. That makes them look both corrupt and hypocritical to boot.
Biden needs to get out ahead of this by making clear that even if at the time he didn't think it was an issue, in today's context he wouldn't have made the same choice. But that's a weak defense given that at the time he was advised against letting his some take the position which makes it clear that it's not that times have changed. Better would be to own it; to admit that he let his love for his son cloud his judgment; and that he won't let that happen again.
Of course that's a risk since admitting to poor judgement isn't going to help his election chances either in the primary or the general election. Letting it slide, on the other hand, may help him to the top of the ticket, but will compromise his chances of reaching the White House.
Whatever Biden Snr. decides, everyone should be clear that when family members take positions that can only reasonably be attributed to their proximity and access to power, at the very minimum, holders of public office, elected or otherwise, need to go on record and state clearly that they will erect a Chinese wall between them. That may not be sufficient to drain the swamp, but a necessary starting point is stating publicly that buying access to power isn't right. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Trump stew
Whether or not it was Nancy Pelosi's intention, her withholding of the Articles over Christmas and New Year seems inspired. Although Trump's mindless boosters at Fox and in the GOP claim, without evidence [sic], that Trump is completely untroubled by his impeachment, his ranting letter to the Speaker and the tweetstorm of mindless vitriol he has spewed over the last few days suggest otherwise. Trump seems angry probably because he is not in control of the situation and because he has been bested by a powerful woman. Perhaps Pelosi thought that letting him stew for a few weeks might knock him completely off his rocker and generate some more impeachable material in the process. Even if it doesn't, it was certainly worth a try; and it keeps the Never-Trumpers energised. Not too shabby.
Strange times
Who would ever have thought that we would see phrases like these about a sitting US president.
"Trump went on to claim, without evidence, that..."
"Trump, ... has spent the Christmas period furiously tweeting and retweeting false claims and conspiracy theories..." [emphasis added].
Yet this is not uncommon in the reporting of many of not most of Trump's public statements.
And notwithstanding the denials from the duplicitous nut-jobs that now seem to make up the public face of the GOP, to have any public figure, much less the president, lie so ubiquitously with such a lack of shame or conscience, continues to be as shocking, three years on, as it was on his rise to power. Politicians often shade the truth but before Trump, at least in democracies, they did so in subtle ways that were not completely outrageous or easy to disprove. But as with some many norms, Trumps has paid them no heed. And in re-setting the bar, a bar that Newt Gingrich had already lowered considerably during his time as Speaker, Trump has set a new low for honesty, or lack thereof, in public office.
Since there is no longer a robust media to hold public figures to account, it is unlikely we can ever get back to even slightly higher ground (the "high ground" is completely out of reach).
Strange times, indeed.
"Trump went on to claim, without evidence, that..."
"Trump, ... has spent the Christmas period furiously tweeting and retweeting false claims and conspiracy theories..." [emphasis added].
Yet this is not uncommon in the reporting of many of not most of Trump's public statements.
And notwithstanding the denials from the duplicitous nut-jobs that now seem to make up the public face of the GOP, to have any public figure, much less the president, lie so ubiquitously with such a lack of shame or conscience, continues to be as shocking, three years on, as it was on his rise to power. Politicians often shade the truth but before Trump, at least in democracies, they did so in subtle ways that were not completely outrageous or easy to disprove. But as with some many norms, Trumps has paid them no heed. And in re-setting the bar, a bar that Newt Gingrich had already lowered considerably during his time as Speaker, Trump has set a new low for honesty, or lack thereof, in public office.
Since there is no longer a robust media to hold public figures to account, it is unlikely we can ever get back to even slightly higher ground (the "high ground" is completely out of reach).
Strange times, indeed.
Monday, December 23, 2019
A long drawn out process
Although it looks unlikely that an indefinite delay in sending the Articles to the Senate is tenable, a temporary delay has considerable utility. It allows senators with the vestiges of a conscience to think long and hard about the probity of their decisions. It allows time for more people to come forward with useful information. It might even allow the courts to render a verdict on Trump's preposterous assertion of immunity from demands for information from Congress. All have the potential to sway public opinion in in the Dem's favor in the longer term.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
High Stakes: impeachment #6
Nancy Pelosi has decided to hold on the Articles until she gets a commitment from Mitch McConnell that he will agree to a process for the trial phase that she believes is fair. Of course fair is to some degree in the eye of the beholder, but it's an interesting gambit. Her (and Chuck Schumer's) argument is that a fair trial would allow the calling of key witnesses, something McConnell is hoping to avoid at all costs.
There's no guarantee that even with those witnesses public opinion will be swayed, let alone Trump removed from office. But the delay itself is useful. For example today Christianity Today published an op-ed calling for Trump's removal from office: "But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral". Perhaps this is a harbinger of a bigger shift in public opinion. Given time for the facts to sink in before the matter disappears in the rear view mirror, it might move enough if not for a conviction but for his defeat at the ballot box.
McConnell has cleverly framed the gambit as Pelosi not wanting to go to trial because her case is weak. The beauty of his ploy is that there was really never any doubt that the Senate would acquit, in large measure because the Republicans seem not to be interested in a just outcome or a fair process. But by framing the all but certain acquittal as a function of a weak case rather than GOP intransigence, he has set up a high stakes showdown. If Pelosi blinks first, and sends on the Articles before getting the commitments she needs, the trial will be a circus starring Trump's sycophantic acolytes in the GOP. The longer she resists the more time McConnell has to hammer on his argument about the weakness of the case.
Getting any commitment from McConnell will be difficult, as unscrupulous and untrustworthy as he seem to be. But as wiley an operator as McConnell clearly is, in Pelosi he has likely met his match. Being in different chambers they have seldom sparred directly but now they are head to head, toe to toe. I suspect that McConnell has underestimated her; my money is on Pelosi to come out on top.
There's no guarantee that even with those witnesses public opinion will be swayed, let alone Trump removed from office. But the delay itself is useful. For example today Christianity Today published an op-ed calling for Trump's removal from office: "But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral". Perhaps this is a harbinger of a bigger shift in public opinion. Given time for the facts to sink in before the matter disappears in the rear view mirror, it might move enough if not for a conviction but for his defeat at the ballot box.
McConnell has cleverly framed the gambit as Pelosi not wanting to go to trial because her case is weak. The beauty of his ploy is that there was really never any doubt that the Senate would acquit, in large measure because the Republicans seem not to be interested in a just outcome or a fair process. But by framing the all but certain acquittal as a function of a weak case rather than GOP intransigence, he has set up a high stakes showdown. If Pelosi blinks first, and sends on the Articles before getting the commitments she needs, the trial will be a circus starring Trump's sycophantic acolytes in the GOP. The longer she resists the more time McConnell has to hammer on his argument about the weakness of the case.
Getting any commitment from McConnell will be difficult, as unscrupulous and untrustworthy as he seem to be. But as wiley an operator as McConnell clearly is, in Pelosi he has likely met his match. Being in different chambers they have seldom sparred directly but now they are head to head, toe to toe. I suspect that McConnell has underestimated her; my money is on Pelosi to come out on top.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
The die is cast: impeachment #5.1
After the vote was taken, Speaker Pelosi indicated that there may be some delay in sending the Articles to the Senate. Although she conditioned their transmittal on Mitch McConnell's commitment to a fair process, it is possible that this stalemate might continue for some time as noted in my previous post. Indeed, it might become the final answer: Trump was impeached; but never acquitted. That might be the best outcome of the whole sordid business.
Once the die is cast: impeachment #5
If events proceed as anticipated, the House will vote in the affirmative to impeach Trump, the Articles will be sent to McConnell and the Senate will acquit him in short order. At that point Trump entirely free to act as he pleases since there is now check whatsoever on his abuse of office. He could (and likely will) act to undermine the democratic process to secure another term in office. Once impeachment is done, and the verdict is in there is no other remedy besides the election and that he would likely rig in his favor. The only possible check on potential malfeasance is to hold the charges in abeyance as a sword of Damocles over his head to keep him slightly more honest than he otherwise would be.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Nonsense is no defense
1) "It's not a crime". Impeachment is a remedy set out in the Constitution and does not require a crime under US law. It is applied when the Constitution, the highest law in the land, appears to have been violated.
2) "The aid was released, and the meeting happened". The completion of an illegal or improper act does not alter the fact of the attempt. A failed robbery attempt is still a crime, albeit not as serious as were the robbers to have been successful. So is attempted murder.
3) "We do it all the time: get over it". While bargaining is certainly an important part of diplomacy, the 'bargain' being stuck here was for private personal gain, not for the good of the country. That makes it abuse of office.
4) "The Biden's (father and son) were acting corruptly so the call for an investigation is legitimate". If the investigation requested had been into corruption in general, and not into the Bidens in particular the claim might have had merit. But because it was specifically directed at Trump's likely political opponent and was only requested after Biden declared his candidacy, indeed only after he appeared to be Trump's most threatening opponent, it can't be argued that his interests was about corruption in general, else why did he not pursue the matter his first three years in office?
5) "It's a politically motivated witch-hunt / coup". While there have been some Democrats who were calling for Trump's impeachment almost since his election, (and arguably with some reasonable cause), most resisted it. Since the Dems took back the House, they have been looking into a series of allegedly nefarious dealing by the President, but none, even Meuller's allegation of obstruction of Justice by the White House, were considered by the Democratic leadership as strong enough to support impeachment. The Ukraine matter is different in that not only does it conform almost, stereotypically, to a pattern of behaviour, it was also so simple as to make it easily understandable to a public that may not have time for the minutiae of the Meuller report. And in a single effort, Trump has committed three offenses: the solicitation of foreign interference in a US election; the abuse of his high office; and the obstruction of Congress in its oversight responsibility. Not a bad triumvirate for an amateur. (It might have been clearer to the public to charge only the second article, that of obstruction of Congress, since that is the clearest example of the repeated pattern of obstruction this White House has engaged in. But to charge obstruction without a serious offense worthy of Congressional investigation would have been problematic, as it would have allowed the GOP to argue that the requests for information being refused were frivolous).
5) "We haven't heard from all the possible witnesses" First, if 17 witnesses all consistently make the same allegation, it is unlikely that another witness will, under oath, add or detract from the account of events established so far. The "additional witness" defense is not intended to bring forward anyone who knows about the attempted extortion, but to bring in other people simply to muddy the waters (like Hunter Biden).
6) "The testimony is all hearsay and therefore not admissible". First nothing prevents hearsay evidence in an impeachment. Second, some witnesses had first hand knowledge of the plot to extort Zelensky. Third the call transcript is an official record of one element the attempted extortion; it is not so much a "smoking gun", as video of the gun being fired by the perpetrator at the victim. Moreover, the witnesses best placed to provide mitigating explanations are the same people, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, who have been told by Trump not to obey the congressional subpoenas. Were they really able to provide evidence that would change the understanding of the events concerned, Trump would certainly have encouraged, probably compelled, them to testify.
7) "There facts are not established". Just nonsense; the facts are clear. Only willful blindness leaves any doubt as to what was going on.
2) "The aid was released, and the meeting happened". The completion of an illegal or improper act does not alter the fact of the attempt. A failed robbery attempt is still a crime, albeit not as serious as were the robbers to have been successful. So is attempted murder.
3) "We do it all the time: get over it". While bargaining is certainly an important part of diplomacy, the 'bargain' being stuck here was for private personal gain, not for the good of the country. That makes it abuse of office.
4) "The Biden's (father and son) were acting corruptly so the call for an investigation is legitimate". If the investigation requested had been into corruption in general, and not into the Bidens in particular the claim might have had merit. But because it was specifically directed at Trump's likely political opponent and was only requested after Biden declared his candidacy, indeed only after he appeared to be Trump's most threatening opponent, it can't be argued that his interests was about corruption in general, else why did he not pursue the matter his first three years in office?
5) "It's a politically motivated witch-hunt / coup". While there have been some Democrats who were calling for Trump's impeachment almost since his election, (and arguably with some reasonable cause), most resisted it. Since the Dems took back the House, they have been looking into a series of allegedly nefarious dealing by the President, but none, even Meuller's allegation of obstruction of Justice by the White House, were considered by the Democratic leadership as strong enough to support impeachment. The Ukraine matter is different in that not only does it conform almost, stereotypically, to a pattern of behaviour, it was also so simple as to make it easily understandable to a public that may not have time for the minutiae of the Meuller report. And in a single effort, Trump has committed three offenses: the solicitation of foreign interference in a US election; the abuse of his high office; and the obstruction of Congress in its oversight responsibility. Not a bad triumvirate for an amateur. (It might have been clearer to the public to charge only the second article, that of obstruction of Congress, since that is the clearest example of the repeated pattern of obstruction this White House has engaged in. But to charge obstruction without a serious offense worthy of Congressional investigation would have been problematic, as it would have allowed the GOP to argue that the requests for information being refused were frivolous).
5) "We haven't heard from all the possible witnesses" First, if 17 witnesses all consistently make the same allegation, it is unlikely that another witness will, under oath, add or detract from the account of events established so far. The "additional witness" defense is not intended to bring forward anyone who knows about the attempted extortion, but to bring in other people simply to muddy the waters (like Hunter Biden).
6) "The testimony is all hearsay and therefore not admissible". First nothing prevents hearsay evidence in an impeachment. Second, some witnesses had first hand knowledge of the plot to extort Zelensky. Third the call transcript is an official record of one element the attempted extortion; it is not so much a "smoking gun", as video of the gun being fired by the perpetrator at the victim. Moreover, the witnesses best placed to provide mitigating explanations are the same people, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, who have been told by Trump not to obey the congressional subpoenas. Were they really able to provide evidence that would change the understanding of the events concerned, Trump would certainly have encouraged, probably compelled, them to testify.
7) "There facts are not established". Just nonsense; the facts are clear. Only willful blindness leaves any doubt as to what was going on.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Bribery or extortion?
There was some mention in recent weeks of the word bribery to describe Trump's actions vis a vis Zelensky and the Biden investigation he wanted announced. Ultimately the word didn't appear in the Articles as voted on by the House Judiciary committee. In his testimony before the House Intelligence committee, Noah Feldman suggested that because bribery wasn't a statutory felony when the Constitution was written, the word had a more expansive definition in the minds of the Founders than it commonly does today.
But since impeachment is about swaying public opinion, using antiquated language is not going to move the needle, or for that matter, Republican self-serving head-in-the-sand denials, however much more directly it appears to connect Trump's misbehaviour to the Constitution.
Bribery is generally seen as an offer made to tempt its potential recipient to act in an improper manner. Bribery is distinct from trade in that it implies the act sought contravenes some rule or regulation.
Blackmail and extortion on the other hand are based on a threat, generally of dire consequences, rather than an offer of something of value. With a bribe, the recipient will be better off then before after the exchange. In extortion the best the target of the blackmail can expect is that they won't be significantly worse off. That is perhaps why extortion seems far more egregious than bribery.
It could be argued that the offer of a White House meeting was a bribe since it would benefit Zelensky and wasn't something that he already had. The withholding of Congressionally appropriated funding, by contrast, was something that Zelensky could reasonably have expected was rightfully his and Trump was threatening to taking it away.
Despite the distinction, neither are acceptable or excusable.
But since impeachment is about swaying public opinion, using antiquated language is not going to move the needle, or for that matter, Republican self-serving head-in-the-sand denials, however much more directly it appears to connect Trump's misbehaviour to the Constitution.
Bribery is generally seen as an offer made to tempt its potential recipient to act in an improper manner. Bribery is distinct from trade in that it implies the act sought contravenes some rule or regulation.
Blackmail and extortion on the other hand are based on a threat, generally of dire consequences, rather than an offer of something of value. With a bribe, the recipient will be better off then before after the exchange. In extortion the best the target of the blackmail can expect is that they won't be significantly worse off. That is perhaps why extortion seems far more egregious than bribery.
It could be argued that the offer of a White House meeting was a bribe since it would benefit Zelensky and wasn't something that he already had. The withholding of Congressionally appropriated funding, by contrast, was something that Zelensky could reasonably have expected was rightfully his and Trump was threatening to taking it away.
Despite the distinction, neither are acceptable or excusable.
Friday, December 13, 2019
A terrible precedent and an immediate threat
Assuming things go the way almost everyone expects -- the House voting to approve the Articles of Impeachment drafted by the House Judiciary Committee, a Senate trial with a vote along party lines -- a constitutional precedent will have been established that blackmailing a foreign entity using the power of the presidency is not an unconstitutional act. Since the offence charged here involved both abuse of power and the involvement of a foreign entity in interfering in the US electoral process, both of which were problematic, that used in combination is not established as impeachable means that either one alone could not be either. That opens the door for purely domestic abuser of power, for example the dangling of a presidential pardon in exchange for political favors, and for the unsolicited interference of a foreign entity in a US election.
The precedent is not just something for future candidates to worry about (or revel in). It also paves the way for Trump to behave in nefarious ways in the run up to the next election. His acquittal by the Senate will embolden him to treat the election like one of his shady business deals; he will see himself as completely vindicated and untouchable. That's extraordinarily concerning.
The precedent is not just something for future candidates to worry about (or revel in). It also paves the way for Trump to behave in nefarious ways in the run up to the next election. His acquittal by the Senate will embolden him to treat the election like one of his shady business deals; he will see himself as completely vindicated and untouchable. That's extraordinarily concerning.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Partial symmetry, politicians and bureaucrats
Democrats and Republicans have both had investigations on which they pinned their hopes of a political knockout blow. For the Dems it was Meuller, for the GOP it was IG Horowitz. Both Meuller and Horowitz were public servants well used to serving masters of different political stripes and both presented their findings in carefully worded, fact based accounts. Neither gifted one side of the political aisle or the other with a clear case to sell to voters. Both political tribes were disappointed; but that's where the symmetry ends.
The differences in how Democrats and Republicans reacted is instructive. The Dems swallowed the bitter pill after trying (and failing) to leverage Meuller's testimony into a public condemnation of Trump's behavior that would have allowed them to start impeachment proceedings; they had to wait another 6 months until Trump misbehaved yet again to move forward.
The GOP in contrast has rubbished IG's report and slandered its author, someone their Justice Department appointed. The Trump administration's approach is to keep the revolving door of political appointments going until they find sufficiently unprincipled and sycophantic people who will follow the President's random walk through conspiracy-theory-land. If the tactic works and Trump and his ilk are elected next year, it will be a sad reflection on the ignorance and or callousness of those who voted for them.
The differences in how Democrats and Republicans reacted is instructive. The Dems swallowed the bitter pill after trying (and failing) to leverage Meuller's testimony into a public condemnation of Trump's behavior that would have allowed them to start impeachment proceedings; they had to wait another 6 months until Trump misbehaved yet again to move forward.
The GOP in contrast has rubbished IG's report and slandered its author, someone their Justice Department appointed. The Trump administration's approach is to keep the revolving door of political appointments going until they find sufficiently unprincipled and sycophantic people who will follow the President's random walk through conspiracy-theory-land. If the tactic works and Trump and his ilk are elected next year, it will be a sad reflection on the ignorance and or callousness of those who voted for them.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Spectacular
I got my first pair of glasses, I think, in 1976. The lenses were made of glass and cost sixty quid. That seemed a lot to someone in a high school (when LPs cost £2.99-£3.99). Today I just ordered a new pair of glasses; they are plastic, have high RI, are lighter than my first pair, and have multiple sophisticated coatings to cut UV and a frequency of blue light that (supposedly) is emitted by LED displays. The were $46.95. Adjusting for inflation, they were 91% cheaper than my first pair.
It is often said that we don't pay enough attention to the things we can now buy that were much more expensive a generation ago. And its true that inflation has outpaced middle earners' incomes for some time. Nevertheless there are examples, like this, of things that make ones dollars go further.
It is often said that we don't pay enough attention to the things we can now buy that were much more expensive a generation ago. And its true that inflation has outpaced middle earners' incomes for some time. Nevertheless there are examples, like this, of things that make ones dollars go further.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
In your face
The White House's decision to simply not participate, let alone cooperate, with the Congress' impeachment process is the most blatant example to date of exactly why impeachment is the only recourse and removal the appropriate remedy.
In maintaining that the President is not accountable to this Congress, Trump is behaving in precisely the way the Founding Fathers feared. And it is precisely to create accountability in the executive branch that impeachment was included in the Constitution. To those outside his adoring base, it also makes the President look as though he has something to hide, his loud public protestations of innocence notwithstanding.
Of course, this behavior is only possible precisely because this is an impeachment by Congress and not a case tried in the judicial branch. There is no mechanism to compel Trump to participate and the ultimate arbiter is not a quasi-randomly selected jury of 12 but an group of 50 senators and thus, ultimately, the 153 million registered voters.
A defendant in a criminal trial could not mount a defense based on the argument that the process was illegitimate (although many dictators bought to justice have done exactly that), but this is a in essence a political "trial" and Trump's strategy plays well with his base; its a gamble and the dice will again be rolled just under a year from now.
In maintaining that the President is not accountable to this Congress, Trump is behaving in precisely the way the Founding Fathers feared. And it is precisely to create accountability in the executive branch that impeachment was included in the Constitution. To those outside his adoring base, it also makes the President look as though he has something to hide, his loud public protestations of innocence notwithstanding.
Of course, this behavior is only possible precisely because this is an impeachment by Congress and not a case tried in the judicial branch. There is no mechanism to compel Trump to participate and the ultimate arbiter is not a quasi-randomly selected jury of 12 but an group of 50 senators and thus, ultimately, the 153 million registered voters.
A defendant in a criminal trial could not mount a defense based on the argument that the process was illegitimate (although many dictators bought to justice have done exactly that), but this is a in essence a political "trial" and Trump's strategy plays well with his base; its a gamble and the dice will again be rolled just under a year from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)