With the failure of the Democrat's effort to remove Trump from office, his election in November is all but assured. And on the day that the UK leaves the EU, that has consequences for Britain.
Today, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -- united perhaps only until Scotland holds another referendum on secession -- leaves the EU and begins the task of renegotiating access to European markets and simultaneously finding new trading partners.
Boris Johnson's hope that Trump will come through for Britain is entirely misplaced; as alike as they are in many ways, if one thing is clear it's that Trump is will use all the leverage at his disposal to benefit America and his friends.
In particular, since he'd like money from pharmaceutical companies to help in his reelection, and they want to be able to sell product without facing a monopsony, he will condition any trade deal with Britain on a relaxation of the NHS bargaining over prices for drugs. While that won't put Britain into the same category as the US in terms of overpaying for health care, it will put additional strain on the NHS budget. And since Johnson won't raise taxes to make up for the increase in costs, and the bonanza from EU withdrawal is very likely "creative accounting", the services the NHS provides will suffer.
Friday, January 31, 2020
Impeachment #7.1 - What next
As of 11am today (January 31st, 2020) it appears as though the the Senate will vote not to hear additional testimony or subpoena and consider any additional evidence. Among Republicans, there seem to be two camps; those who see nothing wrong with Trump's actions, and those who think it wrong but not sufficient to warrant removal from office. Since it is thus very unlikely that Trump will be convicted in the Senate, the question arises; what next?
No doubt Trump will declare victory (indeed, he prevailed in his case) and try to leverage that into campaign contributions and votes. It is also likely that he will now actively exploit the precedent that has been set, that in effect he is untouchable. The free pass that Congress has in essence afforded him opens the door for no end of abuse of office in the run up to the 2020 election. This has to be the Democrats' worst nightmare; a rogue chief executive with no constraints at all.
And while the House might continue to pursue its investigations, its hope that using the impeachment process to pry open the White House cone of silence is dashed. Its only remedy is through the courts, and the relatively slow pace at which arguments will move through the judicial system make this evenue moot for the November election.
While it has been largely understood that the impeachment process was never going to result in Trump's removal from office, and was therefore principally about shining a spotlight on his conduct, that effort has largely failed. At the same time it has given Trump licence to reoffend and since jeopardy would seem to be attached, so no further action, at least on this case, can be brought.
The Democrat's lack of appreciation of the effectiveness of their opponent's ruthless disregard of political norms could also play out in their selection of their candidate for the presidential election. The mood in much of the country is not one of sitting and listening to carefully constructed arguments about this or that policy. Much of the country seems depressed, distrustful of policy wonks and political elites, and just wants a larger than life "hero" figure. With his "America First" MAGA doctrine, Trump provides just that. No hard to grasp nuanced argument, just chest-thumping, feel good rhetoric. Then we can get on with our daily lives.
In hindsight the Dem's decision to impeach Trump may be seen as a stunning defeat and a terrible error of judgement, since it all but guarantees Trump's reelection. More worryingly, it has set an appalling precedent that significantly weakens Congress' ability to act as a check on the authority of the Executive branch. Absent legislation or an amendment to the Constitution, the Executive branch has been gifted vastly more autonomy. Whatever happens next, historians will rightly look back at 2019 as a watershed year in American democracy.
No doubt Trump will declare victory (indeed, he prevailed in his case) and try to leverage that into campaign contributions and votes. It is also likely that he will now actively exploit the precedent that has been set, that in effect he is untouchable. The free pass that Congress has in essence afforded him opens the door for no end of abuse of office in the run up to the 2020 election. This has to be the Democrats' worst nightmare; a rogue chief executive with no constraints at all.
And while the House might continue to pursue its investigations, its hope that using the impeachment process to pry open the White House cone of silence is dashed. Its only remedy is through the courts, and the relatively slow pace at which arguments will move through the judicial system make this evenue moot for the November election.
While it has been largely understood that the impeachment process was never going to result in Trump's removal from office, and was therefore principally about shining a spotlight on his conduct, that effort has largely failed. At the same time it has given Trump licence to reoffend and since jeopardy would seem to be attached, so no further action, at least on this case, can be brought.
The Democrat's lack of appreciation of the effectiveness of their opponent's ruthless disregard of political norms could also play out in their selection of their candidate for the presidential election. The mood in much of the country is not one of sitting and listening to carefully constructed arguments about this or that policy. Much of the country seems depressed, distrustful of policy wonks and political elites, and just wants a larger than life "hero" figure. With his "America First" MAGA doctrine, Trump provides just that. No hard to grasp nuanced argument, just chest-thumping, feel good rhetoric. Then we can get on with our daily lives.
In hindsight the Dem's decision to impeach Trump may be seen as a stunning defeat and a terrible error of judgement, since it all but guarantees Trump's reelection. More worryingly, it has set an appalling precedent that significantly weakens Congress' ability to act as a check on the authority of the Executive branch. Absent legislation or an amendment to the Constitution, the Executive branch has been gifted vastly more autonomy. Whatever happens next, historians will rightly look back at 2019 as a watershed year in American democracy.
Impeachment #7
The case for removing Donald Trump from office, whatever one's feelings about is fitness for office, is not cut and dried.
What seems generally accepted is that Trump used the power of his office to pressure a foreign government to provide dirt on a political opponent and then sought to prevent Congress from looking into what he had done.
One interpretation, that advanced by the House Managers, raises three issues; that Trump abused the power of the office by using it for personal gain, that he was inviting foreign meddling in a US election, and by stonewalling Congressional requests for information and testimony, he was obstructing Congress which has the right (and the duty) to hold the executive branch to account.
However, there are reasons to suggest that impeachment and a verdict of removal from office would be inappropriate.
First, with respect to Article 1, there is the central question of motive. If asking for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden was in part motivated by a desire to deal with corruption, then the act, even though it had as a 'side-effect' of benefitting Trump in the upcoming election, might not qualify as an abuse of power. If it cannot be definitively ruled out that an element of Trump's intent to further the rooting out of corruption, something that would be (and has been) a legitimate US foreign policy goal, his conditioning official acts on Zolensky opening of an investigation could be seen as a legitimate exercise of the power of the office. Thus the first article, abuse of office, cannot be definitively proven. While the most probable interpretation of Trump's actions is that it was solely about political gain and not corruption in general, it is unclear that this can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, with or without the testimony of Bolton, Mulveny, and Pompeo and others who might provide corroboration. Proving intent here is difficult.
Second, with respect to Article 2, it has been argued that in the absence of a case for the first article, the second is moot; if there was no offense, there could be no cover-up, even if the scope of the refusal to cooperate with Congress want far beyond historical precedent and the normal exercise of executive privilege. The problem with this argument is that the determination of whether there was an offense or not cannot be left to the defendant, the Executive branch in this case, but must be made by the prosecution, the House.
Perhaps a better defense is that Congress' right to demand information from the Executive branch has not been fully tested in court. While the Supreme Court ruling on the Nixon tapes suggests that the Executive's prerogative to withhold information from Congress is not without exception, the limits of what must be divulged and what may be withheld may still be subject to debate and adjudication. And since the House did not pursue its request through the judicial branch, the case for obstruction can't be made since it is not clear that the House has an indisputable right to the information it sought.
While utterly farcical, Alan Dershowitz' argument that if the president believes his reelection is in the "public interest" then any action he takes in pursuit of that end is is, by definition, in the public interest and therefore not impeachable could be applied to both articles. The original abuse of power was intended to help Trump get reelected, and the exposure of this act would have damaged his reelection chances, so covering it up was also material to his reelection. Thus both articles are nullified according to the Dershowitz doctrine. The Dershowitz theory, fortunately, is unlikely to survive the test of time, public opinion or the courts.
So while to many the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to Trump's guilt on both counts, it is perhaps not incontrovertible; and if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then perhaps removal from office is not an appropriate remedy.
The case for impeachment is not cut and dried, but US democracy is left torn and tacky.
What seems generally accepted is that Trump used the power of his office to pressure a foreign government to provide dirt on a political opponent and then sought to prevent Congress from looking into what he had done.
One interpretation, that advanced by the House Managers, raises three issues; that Trump abused the power of the office by using it for personal gain, that he was inviting foreign meddling in a US election, and by stonewalling Congressional requests for information and testimony, he was obstructing Congress which has the right (and the duty) to hold the executive branch to account.
However, there are reasons to suggest that impeachment and a verdict of removal from office would be inappropriate.
First, with respect to Article 1, there is the central question of motive. If asking for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden was in part motivated by a desire to deal with corruption, then the act, even though it had as a 'side-effect' of benefitting Trump in the upcoming election, might not qualify as an abuse of power. If it cannot be definitively ruled out that an element of Trump's intent to further the rooting out of corruption, something that would be (and has been) a legitimate US foreign policy goal, his conditioning official acts on Zolensky opening of an investigation could be seen as a legitimate exercise of the power of the office. Thus the first article, abuse of office, cannot be definitively proven. While the most probable interpretation of Trump's actions is that it was solely about political gain and not corruption in general, it is unclear that this can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, with or without the testimony of Bolton, Mulveny, and Pompeo and others who might provide corroboration. Proving intent here is difficult.
Second, with respect to Article 2, it has been argued that in the absence of a case for the first article, the second is moot; if there was no offense, there could be no cover-up, even if the scope of the refusal to cooperate with Congress want far beyond historical precedent and the normal exercise of executive privilege. The problem with this argument is that the determination of whether there was an offense or not cannot be left to the defendant, the Executive branch in this case, but must be made by the prosecution, the House.
Perhaps a better defense is that Congress' right to demand information from the Executive branch has not been fully tested in court. While the Supreme Court ruling on the Nixon tapes suggests that the Executive's prerogative to withhold information from Congress is not without exception, the limits of what must be divulged and what may be withheld may still be subject to debate and adjudication. And since the House did not pursue its request through the judicial branch, the case for obstruction can't be made since it is not clear that the House has an indisputable right to the information it sought.
While utterly farcical, Alan Dershowitz' argument that if the president believes his reelection is in the "public interest" then any action he takes in pursuit of that end is is, by definition, in the public interest and therefore not impeachable could be applied to both articles. The original abuse of power was intended to help Trump get reelected, and the exposure of this act would have damaged his reelection chances, so covering it up was also material to his reelection. Thus both articles are nullified according to the Dershowitz doctrine. The Dershowitz theory, fortunately, is unlikely to survive the test of time, public opinion or the courts.
So while to many the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to Trump's guilt on both counts, it is perhaps not incontrovertible; and if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then perhaps removal from office is not an appropriate remedy.
The case for impeachment is not cut and dried, but US democracy is left torn and tacky.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Presidential power according to Dershowitz
"If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment". Alan Dershowitz, Jan 29 2020.
So, hypothetically, if a president requested a foreign power to 'detain indefinitely' a political rival, in return for say government aid and believed that his (re) election was in the national interest that would be an acceptable quid pro quo?
But Dershowitz doesn't qualify this as limited to a foreign power. He might ask the his Attorney General to open an investigation into a rival candidate in return for a promise of another job, perhaps at State, or as a director of one of his companies; that too would be an OK quid pro quo?
Or perhaps, he could offer local returning officers a position in his cabinet if they stuffed the ballot boxes in the elections they are charged with overseeing?
Because, let's face it, no candidate running for office is ever going to think that their getting elected is NOT in the public interest; if they did -- and had any integrity-- they wouldn't be running.
Dershowitz appears not to see much further than the glare of the spotlight he appears to so enjoy. Is this really the kind of "intellect" the Harvard Law School wants to associate itself with?
So, hypothetically, if a president requested a foreign power to 'detain indefinitely' a political rival, in return for say government aid and believed that his (re) election was in the national interest that would be an acceptable quid pro quo?
But Dershowitz doesn't qualify this as limited to a foreign power. He might ask the his Attorney General to open an investigation into a rival candidate in return for a promise of another job, perhaps at State, or as a director of one of his companies; that too would be an OK quid pro quo?
Or perhaps, he could offer local returning officers a position in his cabinet if they stuffed the ballot boxes in the elections they are charged with overseeing?
Because, let's face it, no candidate running for office is ever going to think that their getting elected is NOT in the public interest; if they did -- and had any integrity-- they wouldn't be running.
Dershowitz appears not to see much further than the glare of the spotlight he appears to so enjoy. Is this really the kind of "intellect" the Harvard Law School wants to associate itself with?
A Flawed Deal
The "Deal of the Century" as Trump, with uncharacteristic humility, is calling Jared's plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is dommed; but that may not be unintentional. Like so much of Trump's initiatives it's more about the sizzle and less about the steak, how it plays on TV rather than what it might actually accomplish.
At least as being reported, the plan legitimizes the settlements Israel built in the West Bank; it does not guarantee right of return; it does not halt but only temporarily freezes further annexation of disputed land in the West Bank and Israel may well continue to expand its settlements. And in return there is a promise, unlikely to be kept, for $50 billion to support the new quasi-independent State of Palestine.
The plan reflects Kushner's inexperience and naivety; offering a deal that is in essence a very large bribe is not a viable solution to three generations of killing and hatred, as anyone from Northern Ireland could have told him. Second, he appears not to have learned anything from the US' nation-building debacle in Iraq (or for the matter in post cold war Russia). The institutions of a well functioning society cannot be created out of thin air. Their efficacy depends on trust, which takes years to build (and much less time to erode as his father-in-law is so deftly demonstrating).
However given international reaction, particularly in the Arab world, this is likely to be the end of any serious support for Palestinian statehood. The world, it seems, has grown tired of 70 years of conflict and now simply wants to turn away and move on.
What that means for the stability of the region is an open question; my worst case scenario prediction is that the region will unfold as another ugly Syria-esque situation. The Palestinians will refuse the deal, violence will increase, Israel will do much as Bashar Al Assad did and create a refugee crisis as it annexes the Gaza strip and the West Bank; and the world, increasingly nationalistic and inwardly focused, will eventually come to terms with the de facto reality on the ground.
At least as being reported, the plan legitimizes the settlements Israel built in the West Bank; it does not guarantee right of return; it does not halt but only temporarily freezes further annexation of disputed land in the West Bank and Israel may well continue to expand its settlements. And in return there is a promise, unlikely to be kept, for $50 billion to support the new quasi-independent State of Palestine.
The plan reflects Kushner's inexperience and naivety; offering a deal that is in essence a very large bribe is not a viable solution to three generations of killing and hatred, as anyone from Northern Ireland could have told him. Second, he appears not to have learned anything from the US' nation-building debacle in Iraq (or for the matter in post cold war Russia). The institutions of a well functioning society cannot be created out of thin air. Their efficacy depends on trust, which takes years to build (and much less time to erode as his father-in-law is so deftly demonstrating).
However given international reaction, particularly in the Arab world, this is likely to be the end of any serious support for Palestinian statehood. The world, it seems, has grown tired of 70 years of conflict and now simply wants to turn away and move on.
What that means for the stability of the region is an open question; my worst case scenario prediction is that the region will unfold as another ugly Syria-esque situation. The Palestinians will refuse the deal, violence will increase, Israel will do much as Bashar Al Assad did and create a refugee crisis as it annexes the Gaza strip and the West Bank; and the world, increasingly nationalistic and inwardly focused, will eventually come to terms with the de facto reality on the ground.
Friday, January 17, 2020
House managers and unscrupulous lawyers
The team of House Managers the Dems have put together to conduct the prosecution of the impeachment case against Donald J. Trump comprise some very experienced legislators. They are up against two very wiley and unscrupulous lawyers (Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz).
The outcome was always certain from outset, but Trump's legal team is going to crush the Dems in the PR battle too.
Expect a second MAGA term.
The outcome was always certain from outset, but Trump's legal team is going to crush the Dems in the PR battle too.
Expect a second MAGA term.
Priorities
"They won a championship while cheating!" proclaimed an outraged Fox on air talent, about something having to do with baseball?
Interesting! Trump won an election while trying to cheat (whether his efforts were directly responsible for Russian intervention is unclear) and has been actively cheating in the run up to the 2020 election (trying to extort Ukraine to provide political dirt on his political rival using the power of his office).
Who wins at baseball is clearly more important than who runs the country. The Fox broadcaster argued that the "championship be revoked". Pity we can't to that for the election Trump tried to rig.
Interesting! Trump won an election while trying to cheat (whether his efforts were directly responsible for Russian intervention is unclear) and has been actively cheating in the run up to the 2020 election (trying to extort Ukraine to provide political dirt on his political rival using the power of his office).
Who wins at baseball is clearly more important than who runs the country. The Fox broadcaster argued that the "championship be revoked". Pity we can't to that for the election Trump tried to rig.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Risky Business
Nancy Pelosi is taking a huge risk pushing for witnesses in the upcoming impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The argument Jerry Nadler, one of the House Managers who will be conducting the prosecution made, was that witness are important but should only be called if they are relevant. He suggested that witnesses with first hand knowledge of Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to deliver dirt on Hunter Biden is a violation of the constitution because it uses the office of the president for non-official (political) business (akin to making long distance personal calls on the company phone).
But his argument is flawed; the administration's defense is that Trump was not digging for dirt but looking for evidence in rooting out corruption, making his actions consistent with the aims of the country and something that the occupant of the White House might reasonably be expected to do as part of his official duties.
Hunter Biden is germain here because his links to his father look like corruption, at least as more broadly defined than by the Supreme Court. If the administration argues convincingly that Hunter Biden is party to corruption, not only does it help exonerate the President, but it makes his inevitable acquittal look justified and the Democrats look as though they are defending a corrupt system, thereby hurting Joe Biden's election chances. That makes Pelosi's gamble look not only very high stakes, but improves the odds of Trump being re-elected. The GOP clearly won this round.
But his argument is flawed; the administration's defense is that Trump was not digging for dirt but looking for evidence in rooting out corruption, making his actions consistent with the aims of the country and something that the occupant of the White House might reasonably be expected to do as part of his official duties.
Hunter Biden is germain here because his links to his father look like corruption, at least as more broadly defined than by the Supreme Court. If the administration argues convincingly that Hunter Biden is party to corruption, not only does it help exonerate the President, but it makes his inevitable acquittal look justified and the Democrats look as though they are defending a corrupt system, thereby hurting Joe Biden's election chances. That makes Pelosi's gamble look not only very high stakes, but improves the odds of Trump being re-elected. The GOP clearly won this round.
Friday, January 10, 2020
David Brooks on hyperventilation: a Reply
David Books, whose analysis on The PBS News Hour I watch religiously and deeply appreciate wrote an article in yesterday's NYT suggesting that Trump is bringing us all down to his level and that his detractors are making counter arguments in similarly over-hyped and simplistic terms. As evidence he cited Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's concerned about the possibility of going to war with Iran. While I agree that Donald Trump (and his boosters on Fox) tend to frame things in stupifyingly simplistic terms, I disagree that one should not have been very concerned by recent events.
First, the killing of a high profile Iranian military leader and political figure came with enormous risk, in part because there was little precedent to guide our understanding of Iran’s response. Second, Trump's public statements, and the comments made by those who have worked with him suggest, as Books noted, an impulsive generally uninformed decision making process. Third, it is unclear that Trump is consistent in his choices, appearing to go with the whim of the moment, or the choice that seems to appeal most to his base; just because he has said in the past he doesn’t want war does not preclude him embracing it in the future. Finally, it has been suggested that extreme and unexpected choices are particularly appealing to him. All of which suggests that as terrible a choice as going to war with Iran would likely be for the US and the region, it was not unthinkable that he would chose this course. Indeed, the somber tone of the Fox and Friends and Fox News anchors yesterday seems to indicate that they considered this a distinct possibility. So I do think we had cause for concern.
First, the killing of a high profile Iranian military leader and political figure came with enormous risk, in part because there was little precedent to guide our understanding of Iran’s response. Second, Trump's public statements, and the comments made by those who have worked with him suggest, as Books noted, an impulsive generally uninformed decision making process. Third, it is unclear that Trump is consistent in his choices, appearing to go with the whim of the moment, or the choice that seems to appeal most to his base; just because he has said in the past he doesn’t want war does not preclude him embracing it in the future. Finally, it has been suggested that extreme and unexpected choices are particularly appealing to him. All of which suggests that as terrible a choice as going to war with Iran would likely be for the US and the region, it was not unthinkable that he would chose this course. Indeed, the somber tone of the Fox and Friends and Fox News anchors yesterday seems to indicate that they considered this a distinct possibility. So I do think we had cause for concern.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
End of the road
In 1989 I bought my first personal computer, an IBM PS/2 for I think around £2,300. Stupid money, certainly but at the time I thought I'd go on from the MBA to a high paying job (little did I know). That machine in some ways altered my life subtly but profoundly. But that's another story. This is about my journey with Microsoft "killed apps".
The first useful software I installed was Windows 3.1 and Harvard Graphics. Lotus 123 for DOS was also on that machine (and OS/2 was for a while too). I know I ran DOS Word 5.0 and World 2.0 for Windows on it.
I had three Mac laptops at work but the Microsoft implementation of Office on the Mac was never really satisfactory. For a long time it had no visual basic macros.
I had a copy of Office 2007 running in Windows under VM which was the most reliable means of getting Office functionality in Linux at the time (and arguably sill is) .
The enhancements, which in the early days from one version to the next were dramatic, have become increasingly marginal to the point where from a functional standpoint I can't tell the difference between 2013 and 2016. Although keeping up with the latest version has been hampered by running Linux, I am still happily running software that is a decade old.
Today I downloaded a copy of Office 2016 for my home desktop (my work laptop I think has it installed but actually I'm not sure without looking which version I'm running on it). That's when I realized that it is probably the last desktop version of Office I will buy. For 30 years I've been eagerly (though recently less so) waiting to see what the next version brings, but now that journey is over. At least for the killer apps, I have reached the end of the road.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Asymmetric Warfare
Iran's carefully calibrated retaliation for the killing of Qasem Suleimani shows how astute Iran's leadership is. The missile strike allowed it to appease an already angry domestic audience, to demonstrate its improved technological capabilities, all without killing or even injuring any Americans which would have made US retaliation inevitable. That was needle very carefully threaded. The contrast with the White House is stark and illustrates another sense in which Iran and the US are in an asymmetric struggle; the US has the stronger military, but Iran clearly has the smarter leader.
Partisanship is divided along party lines
That the self-love and other-loathing is a predominantly Republican phenomenon is disturbing; one party, the GOP, believes that its political opponents really are "the other" while the other party (the Dems) see people as Americans. The GOP, adroitly aided and abetted by Fox and AM talk radio, through their interminable vitriol-filled pejorative rhetoric, are largely responsible for creating this division. Years of using fear and loathing of "the other" by the GOP for its own political ends has brought us to this point: that strikes me as supremely unpatriotic.
The Sound of Silence
With the US and Iran on the brink of war, what has been striking over the last 48 hours is the conspicuous silence of world leaders. One explanation, given that I write this from within the USA, is that the US media's focus on Trump and Iran blocks out everything else. But looking at the press' response in Europe the silence is deafening.
Le Monde on its website today has no coverage of Trump's address at all. The Frankfurter Allgemeine notes Germany's foreign minister condemning the Iranian missile strike but calling for de-escalation; no comment from Angela Merkel. Britain's Foreign Secretary made a similar statement yesterday, but the Guardian and the Telegraph both focused on the Prime Minister's difficulties with getting Brexit done. One can only assume that there was either tacit or explicit agreement amongst the allies that any public comments suggesting de-escalation would be counterproductive, given Trump's strained relations with European leaders, and that private communications would be more effective. They seem to have concluded that allowing Trump to take the limelight and the credit for stating the obvious is an important prerequisite to achieving their international policy goals.
Le Monde on its website today has no coverage of Trump's address at all. The Frankfurter Allgemeine notes Germany's foreign minister condemning the Iranian missile strike but calling for de-escalation; no comment from Angela Merkel. Britain's Foreign Secretary made a similar statement yesterday, but the Guardian and the Telegraph both focused on the Prime Minister's difficulties with getting Brexit done. One can only assume that there was either tacit or explicit agreement amongst the allies that any public comments suggesting de-escalation would be counterproductive, given Trump's strained relations with European leaders, and that private communications would be more effective. They seem to have concluded that allowing Trump to take the limelight and the credit for stating the obvious is an important prerequisite to achieving their international policy goals.
An almost presidential address
Today was a pivotal moment in history: how would Trump respond to the previous day's ballistic missile strike by Iran? In an address to the nation, clearly warranted given the gravity of the situation Trump had largely created through the assassination of Qasem Suleimani, his challenge was two-fold; how to appear presidential and speak for the nation and what to do given the current situation. He managed, surprisingly, to steer a better course than expected on policy, but managed to not quite hit the mark on tone.
On policy, he stepped back from the brink and elected not to respond militarily to Iran's strike. That is to be applauded. Whether his fear of foreign entanglements in the run up to the next election or his military advisers were responsible for this decision is as yet unclear but the outcome is nonetheless welcome. The decision to de-escalate and not respond militarily is a momentous change in direction.
The path forward he set out is astonishingly multilateral, involving the original signatories to the JCPOA and NATO, an organization whose relevance he has repeatedly questioned. He appeared to be opening the door to negotiations, though given the gravity of the last few days it will be some time before Iran will be able to enter into dialog; Iran's domestic audience would not countenance a rapid resumption of talks.
On tone, he clearly struggled but on balance managed to come across as "mostly presidential". He stuck to the carefully worded script and no off the cuff additions. His tone of voice was appropriately somber. He didn't mention his Congressional adversaries or impeachment. He couldn't, however, resist taking a jab at his predecessor, and repeated the lie that Obama had "given" Iran billions of dollars.
Moving forward, the promised sanctions afford a degree to flexibility in severity that a military response would have precluded. The GOP will claim victory (with the killing of Suleimani) and Iran will too (with a militarily un-answered the missile strike), and the world will have narrowly avoided another calamitous war. Everyone can now exhale.
On policy, he stepped back from the brink and elected not to respond militarily to Iran's strike. That is to be applauded. Whether his fear of foreign entanglements in the run up to the next election or his military advisers were responsible for this decision is as yet unclear but the outcome is nonetheless welcome. The decision to de-escalate and not respond militarily is a momentous change in direction.
The path forward he set out is astonishingly multilateral, involving the original signatories to the JCPOA and NATO, an organization whose relevance he has repeatedly questioned. He appeared to be opening the door to negotiations, though given the gravity of the last few days it will be some time before Iran will be able to enter into dialog; Iran's domestic audience would not countenance a rapid resumption of talks.
On tone, he clearly struggled but on balance managed to come across as "mostly presidential". He stuck to the carefully worded script and no off the cuff additions. His tone of voice was appropriately somber. He didn't mention his Congressional adversaries or impeachment. He couldn't, however, resist taking a jab at his predecessor, and repeated the lie that Obama had "given" Iran billions of dollars.
Moving forward, the promised sanctions afford a degree to flexibility in severity that a military response would have precluded. The GOP will claim victory (with the killing of Suleimani) and Iran will too (with a militarily un-answered the missile strike), and the world will have narrowly avoided another calamitous war. Everyone can now exhale.
"How do I know what I think till I hear what I say"?
Variously attributed to E.M Forester and Marilyn Monroe, this seems to capture Trump's deliberative process. Most of us were cautioned to think before we speak. Trump, on the other hand, operates very differently. He has no filter, blurting out whatever thought wanders into his mind and then waits to see how it lands.
The likelihood of it becoming "policy" is negatively related to the ensuing outrage among "loyalists" and positively related to the degree to which it upsets his perceived enemies. It is an enormously efficient heuristic, one that offloads the heavy burden of carefully thinking things through to those around him.
The likelihood of it becoming "policy" is negatively related to the ensuing outrage among "loyalists" and positively related to the degree to which it upsets his perceived enemies. It is an enormously efficient heuristic, one that offloads the heavy burden of carefully thinking things through to those around him.
Fox Blinks
The guests on Fox this morning were unanimous in calling for de-escalation. Neither did the more news-worthy hosts on at 7am adopt their customary bellicose swagger. One even pressed a GOP member of Congress on the imminence of the attack on which the killing of Suleimani was predicated, an uncharacteristically aggressive question for a Fox anchor. Even the "Fox & Friends" show, usually among the most ridiculous crews the network has to offer, had moved from its usual couch-based format to a desk.
With reality staring them starkly in the face, Fox' presenters (and presumably producers) blinked. One can only hope that coming to grips with the consequences of unhinged bravado will lead to a more serious approach to its job both on the news and the propaganda sides of the network.
With reality staring them starkly in the face, Fox' presenters (and presumably producers) blinked. One can only hope that coming to grips with the consequences of unhinged bravado will lead to a more serious approach to its job both on the news and the propaganda sides of the network.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Choosing one's words carefully
Mike Pompeo, when questioned today about Trump's threat to bomb cultural sites in Iran, maintained adamantly that the administration would not break the law. He was, however, careful not to mention bombing of cultural sites in his answer.
He could have replied quite simply that the administration would not bomb cultural sites, yet on several occasions he used the same language about not breaking the law and did not say explicitly that cultural sites would be off-limits.
There seem to be two possible explanations. One is that he is being careful not to contradict his boss explicitly, but that presupposes Trumps is too dense to see "not breaking the law" as meaning not bombing cultural sites. And while I have my doubts about Trump's claim of being a "very stable genius", I doubt that he couldn't make that connection.
That leaves the the alternative explanation; that the administration believes either it has found a legal justification for bombing cultural sites (much in the same was that Cheaney and Busy sought to find a legal justification for torturing detainees), or that it does not recognise the jurisdiction of a supranational legal system, and since there may not be any US laws precluding such action, they would thus deem it legal.
Missing from all the discussion of its legality, the central question must be what would it accomplish? The answer is nothing of any benefit militarily, but it would certainly inflame anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.
He could have replied quite simply that the administration would not bomb cultural sites, yet on several occasions he used the same language about not breaking the law and did not say explicitly that cultural sites would be off-limits.
There seem to be two possible explanations. One is that he is being careful not to contradict his boss explicitly, but that presupposes Trumps is too dense to see "not breaking the law" as meaning not bombing cultural sites. And while I have my doubts about Trump's claim of being a "very stable genius", I doubt that he couldn't make that connection.
That leaves the the alternative explanation; that the administration believes either it has found a legal justification for bombing cultural sites (much in the same was that Cheaney and Busy sought to find a legal justification for torturing detainees), or that it does not recognise the jurisdiction of a supranational legal system, and since there may not be any US laws precluding such action, they would thus deem it legal.
Missing from all the discussion of its legality, the central question must be what would it accomplish? The answer is nothing of any benefit militarily, but it would certainly inflame anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.
The Moment of Truth Arrives
Iran this evening responded to Donald Trump's assassination of Qasem Suleimani but launching a ballistic missile strike from within Iran at US military targets in Iraq. A demonstrable response was expected. As well informed commentators noted (and as I did also) this was in part an inevitable effort to placate an angry domestic audience that was aggrieved that its sovereignty has been violated.
From what is being reported, the strike appears to have been carefully designed and calibrated to signal Iran's capabilities and its willingness to use them, while at the same time causing relatively few casualties, none of whom appear to be American. It provides a turning point at which deescalation might be achieved; the strike assuages Iranian domestic ire but does so without crossing Trump's red-line of another American death.
This is a moment of truth for Trump and the country.
His choice is clear. He can back down from his intemperate tweeting and ill-considered impulsive decision making, and turn instead to the diplomats to talk both sides down from the ledge. Of course, that's problematic since Mike Pompeo, who is more consistently bellicose than Trump, heads the State Department. But that would be the thoughtful, statesman-like and courageous move. And I very much doubt he's is up to it.
A more likely outcome is that his insecurity, vanity and fear of appearing to lose face will prevail; he will up the ante with a strike against targets inside Iran, to all intents and purposes thereby declaring war. If this is where we are headed, Trump will have single-handedly started a war of choice.
His decision in the next few hours could reshape the world order and have irrevocable consequences for years to come; it is, without doubt, the most critical moment, not only of his presidency, but the most momentous for the country since deciding to invade Iraq.
While Trump must take responsibility for the mess we are now in and the graver one we likely will be in by tomorrow, the GOP must shoulder an appreciable portion of blame. Its failure to stand up to Trump makes it complicit; its members stood quietly by as he emerged as the front-runner in the 2016 primaries; they allowed him to lie to the public on a daily basis without challenge or correction; many of them blithely repeated his lies; they looked the other way as he violated the constitution and the separation of powers. They have created a monster (or at least allowed one to assume the throne) and we will all be the lucky beneficiaries as he continues to flounder, causing mayhem and carnage. For any thinking Americans now having second thoughts about their voting choices in 2016, all I can say is "you had fair warning".
From what is being reported, the strike appears to have been carefully designed and calibrated to signal Iran's capabilities and its willingness to use them, while at the same time causing relatively few casualties, none of whom appear to be American. It provides a turning point at which deescalation might be achieved; the strike assuages Iranian domestic ire but does so without crossing Trump's red-line of another American death.
This is a moment of truth for Trump and the country.
His choice is clear. He can back down from his intemperate tweeting and ill-considered impulsive decision making, and turn instead to the diplomats to talk both sides down from the ledge. Of course, that's problematic since Mike Pompeo, who is more consistently bellicose than Trump, heads the State Department. But that would be the thoughtful, statesman-like and courageous move. And I very much doubt he's is up to it.
A more likely outcome is that his insecurity, vanity and fear of appearing to lose face will prevail; he will up the ante with a strike against targets inside Iran, to all intents and purposes thereby declaring war. If this is where we are headed, Trump will have single-handedly started a war of choice.
His decision in the next few hours could reshape the world order and have irrevocable consequences for years to come; it is, without doubt, the most critical moment, not only of his presidency, but the most momentous for the country since deciding to invade Iraq.
While Trump must take responsibility for the mess we are now in and the graver one we likely will be in by tomorrow, the GOP must shoulder an appreciable portion of blame. Its failure to stand up to Trump makes it complicit; its members stood quietly by as he emerged as the front-runner in the 2016 primaries; they allowed him to lie to the public on a daily basis without challenge or correction; many of them blithely repeated his lies; they looked the other way as he violated the constitution and the separation of powers. They have created a monster (or at least allowed one to assume the throne) and we will all be the lucky beneficiaries as he continues to flounder, causing mayhem and carnage. For any thinking Americans now having second thoughts about their voting choices in 2016, all I can say is "you had fair warning".
Monday, January 6, 2020
Why now, why this?
It is taken as read that Qasem Suleimani was engaged in actions that led to the death of many Americans. How he might be held to account is a complicated question (unless you are one of the mind-numbingly infantile Fox News crowd from whom everything is "real simple"). He was a government official in another country; it is unlikely that he would ever be held accountable in the US, although a case might be brought the ICC. Trump, who does no acknowledge that any supranational body has jurisdiction will argue that since he can't be brought to justice in the US, extrajudicial killing was the only option. But holding Suleimani to account for his past is not what the administration is arguing was the justification for the attack. It is claiming that it was necessary to prevent an imminent attack on US persons, and thus was permissible under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or the War Powers Act. That's the legal justification for not consulting Congress. A Congressional declaration of war would have been not only unlikely to pass but would have made any covert operation impossible. So an AUMF- or War Powers Act-based authorization may have been appropriate.
If so, two question need answers. First is why now? So far the administration has been circumspect as to the nature and timing of the imminent attack. So we need to know what the intelligence community concluded was being planned and when. This gets messy, first because the question only arises because the AUMF was invoked. And its use is contingent on the choice of action to be taken to respond to Iran's escalating meddling
The second question, and arguably the larger one, is not whether to have struck back, but how. There is a good case that to do nothing in response to the killing of an American contractor given the history of Iran's and its proxies actions (the strike against the Saudi refinery, the mining of tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, and the downing of a US drone), would be taken as weakness and a license for Iran to push further in an effort to extract concessions on economically crippling sanctions. Diplomatic channels, for whatever reason, were no longer a viable means of curtailing Iran's activities. That is largely a function of a choice made by this administration in favoring confrontation and threats of force over diplomacy. But the question of whether killing someone who was the Iranian equivalent of the Director of National Security of the CIA Director was the most effective way of dealing with Iran's posture is critical. Likely a menu of retaliatory actions were presented to Trump - indeed it appears it was something Pompeo had been discussion privately for some months - and it is possible that this was presented to Trump as a target of opportunity, an opportunity he took thinking it would help him win the next election. It is almost certain, given what we know about his management "style", that he made the decision impulsively with no clear understanding of its ramifications. As Oliver Hardy might have said "Well here's another fine mess you've gotten us into".
If so, two question need answers. First is why now? So far the administration has been circumspect as to the nature and timing of the imminent attack. So we need to know what the intelligence community concluded was being planned and when. This gets messy, first because the question only arises because the AUMF was invoked. And its use is contingent on the choice of action to be taken to respond to Iran's escalating meddling
The second question, and arguably the larger one, is not whether to have struck back, but how. There is a good case that to do nothing in response to the killing of an American contractor given the history of Iran's and its proxies actions (the strike against the Saudi refinery, the mining of tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, and the downing of a US drone), would be taken as weakness and a license for Iran to push further in an effort to extract concessions on economically crippling sanctions. Diplomatic channels, for whatever reason, were no longer a viable means of curtailing Iran's activities. That is largely a function of a choice made by this administration in favoring confrontation and threats of force over diplomacy. But the question of whether killing someone who was the Iranian equivalent of the Director of National Security of the CIA Director was the most effective way of dealing with Iran's posture is critical. Likely a menu of retaliatory actions were presented to Trump - indeed it appears it was something Pompeo had been discussion privately for some months - and it is possible that this was presented to Trump as a target of opportunity, an opportunity he took thinking it would help him win the next election. It is almost certain, given what we know about his management "style", that he made the decision impulsively with no clear understanding of its ramifications. As Oliver Hardy might have said "Well here's another fine mess you've gotten us into".
Assassination, war crimes and other language
If the US is not at war with Iran, then the extrajudicial killing of Suleimani is an assassination, that is the killing of a prominent persona, a senior government or a political figure in peace time. And since a declaration of war, an authority granted by the Constitution to Congress alone, has not been made, we are not technically at war with Iran. The action was undertaken either under the auspices of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or the War Powers Act that limits the scope of executive branch authority under Article II (the authority to declare war is granted to Congress Article I). But whatever one calls it, the first question should really be "what are its implications"?
Suleimani killing may have the intended effect of disrupting attacks on American targets, though no one is irreplaceable and if Iran decides to continue on its current course, his assassination may only serve to delay whatever it is being alleged was being planned (and "imminent"). The expected by-product is a ratcheting up of tension and the inevitable threat from Iran to retaliate (which elicited a predictably intemperate tweet from Donald Trump). But there are divergences from the purported expectation in two directions; there are things that were expected that likely won't happen and there are those that weren't that will.
It seems as though the administration has again failed to understand the way its actions would be seen abroad. It misjudged the reaction in Iran where throngs gathered to mourn the killing of one of their highest ranking government officials. While the Americans see Suleimani as a violent terrorist who supported and organized killings outside of Iran, as Trump himself has admitted, the CIA does much the same thing yet we don't consider its director a terrorist. Hence, there is considerable uncertainty as to Iran's response. While the administration hoped that Suleimani killing might have had a deterrent effect, the popular outrage in Iran puts its leaders in a bind. Their hands are now more tightly tied to a robust demonstration of retaliation in order to placate their domestic audience. The range of likely responses is now less predictable and arguably more troubling that those Iran has deployed in its foreign meddling to date. That in turn, given Trump's lack of impulse control and his need to appear tough to his base ahead of the election later this year, sets us on an upward spiral of escalating military action (including cyber) with no clear off-ramps.
The administration was also apparently unprepared, at least according to Mike Pompeo, for the lack of congratulatory high-fives from the Europeans. But since they weren't in on the surprise they were understandably underwhelmed; they might also, had they been forewarned, have advised against this course of action since they would have argued that it would have scuppered any hope of Iran adhering to the JCPOA, let alone coming back to the table to negotiate a more stringent (or at least a non-Obama) deal Trump appears to want.
That lack of understanding was also on full display (as was the lack of deliberation) when Trump tweeted that he would launch strikes against "cultural targets". Regardless or the fact that this is considered a war crime - Trump, in common with tin-pot dictators the world over, does not acknowledge legal jurisdiction to any supranational body, again the question should be what would such an action accomplish. It clearly would have no direct military significance; cultural artifacts are about as far as you can get from instruments or war. But it would clearly have a profound psychological impact, not only in Iran, but for all Shia Muslims in the region and potentially resonate around the world. America would clearly have ceded any moral high ground and provoked anti-America fervor in a large swath of the world's population, all of which makes
And finally it's worth noting Pompeo's answer to Jake Tapper's question about the timing of the threat on which the attack was predicated. When asked whether this was days or weeks, Pompeo said "if you're and American in the region, days and weeks... this is not something that's relevant.” That is in essence an admission that the threat was not at all "imminent", and thus the use of force could not be justified under the AUMF. Congress therefore has every right argue that the attack should not have been carried out without Congressional approval.
Americans, by and large are more invested in strong individuals and leaders and faceless institutions, but that has led increasingly since 911 to the shifting of power from Congress to the Presidency. Trump is that best illustration to date of just how big a problem that is.
Suleimani killing may have the intended effect of disrupting attacks on American targets, though no one is irreplaceable and if Iran decides to continue on its current course, his assassination may only serve to delay whatever it is being alleged was being planned (and "imminent"). The expected by-product is a ratcheting up of tension and the inevitable threat from Iran to retaliate (which elicited a predictably intemperate tweet from Donald Trump). But there are divergences from the purported expectation in two directions; there are things that were expected that likely won't happen and there are those that weren't that will.
It seems as though the administration has again failed to understand the way its actions would be seen abroad. It misjudged the reaction in Iran where throngs gathered to mourn the killing of one of their highest ranking government officials. While the Americans see Suleimani as a violent terrorist who supported and organized killings outside of Iran, as Trump himself has admitted, the CIA does much the same thing yet we don't consider its director a terrorist. Hence, there is considerable uncertainty as to Iran's response. While the administration hoped that Suleimani killing might have had a deterrent effect, the popular outrage in Iran puts its leaders in a bind. Their hands are now more tightly tied to a robust demonstration of retaliation in order to placate their domestic audience. The range of likely responses is now less predictable and arguably more troubling that those Iran has deployed in its foreign meddling to date. That in turn, given Trump's lack of impulse control and his need to appear tough to his base ahead of the election later this year, sets us on an upward spiral of escalating military action (including cyber) with no clear off-ramps.
The administration was also apparently unprepared, at least according to Mike Pompeo, for the lack of congratulatory high-fives from the Europeans. But since they weren't in on the surprise they were understandably underwhelmed; they might also, had they been forewarned, have advised against this course of action since they would have argued that it would have scuppered any hope of Iran adhering to the JCPOA, let alone coming back to the table to negotiate a more stringent (or at least a non-Obama) deal Trump appears to want.
That lack of understanding was also on full display (as was the lack of deliberation) when Trump tweeted that he would launch strikes against "cultural targets". Regardless or the fact that this is considered a war crime - Trump, in common with tin-pot dictators the world over, does not acknowledge legal jurisdiction to any supranational body, again the question should be what would such an action accomplish. It clearly would have no direct military significance; cultural artifacts are about as far as you can get from instruments or war. But it would clearly have a profound psychological impact, not only in Iran, but for all Shia Muslims in the region and potentially resonate around the world. America would clearly have ceded any moral high ground and provoked anti-America fervor in a large swath of the world's population, all of which makes
And finally it's worth noting Pompeo's answer to Jake Tapper's question about the timing of the threat on which the attack was predicated. When asked whether this was days or weeks, Pompeo said "if you're and American in the region, days and weeks... this is not something that's relevant.” That is in essence an admission that the threat was not at all "imminent", and thus the use of force could not be justified under the AUMF. Congress therefore has every right argue that the attack should not have been carried out without Congressional approval.
Americans, by and large are more invested in strong individuals and leaders and faceless institutions, but that has led increasingly since 911 to the shifting of power from Congress to the Presidency. Trump is that best illustration to date of just how big a problem that is.
Bolton's promise
Bolton's statement today that he will testify before the Senate, if subpoenaed, is surprising. It's hard to see what his motivation for making this announcement is other than wanting to throw Trump under the bus. But, given their disagreements, and the way he was let go, and what has just happened in Iraq, that might well be what he plans to do, if called.
His decision might be a longer term play to distance himself from Trump without helping to embarrass him in order to ensure his political future with the GOP. For this he'd need to be relatively sure that he won't be subpoenaed. McConnell clearly doesn't want to call him to testify, but here his fate lies in the hands of the tiny number of Senators up for reelection in more moderate states.
What might be interesting is if Nancy Pelosi were to have the House Judiciary or Intelligence committees subpoena him, and offer to add his testimony to the evidence to be presented as part of the articles of impeachment. She might even have Judiciary and the House amend the articles themselves. Bolton would then be in an awkward position of having to decide whether to honor a House subpoena, having already said he honor one from the Senate since to refuse would expose his offer today as a ruse. That would certainly hurt any political ambitions he might be harbouring.
His decision might be a longer term play to distance himself from Trump without helping to embarrass him in order to ensure his political future with the GOP. For this he'd need to be relatively sure that he won't be subpoenaed. McConnell clearly doesn't want to call him to testify, but here his fate lies in the hands of the tiny number of Senators up for reelection in more moderate states.What might be interesting is if Nancy Pelosi were to have the House Judiciary or Intelligence committees subpoena him, and offer to add his testimony to the evidence to be presented as part of the articles of impeachment. She might even have Judiciary and the House amend the articles themselves. Bolton would then be in an awkward position of having to decide whether to honor a House subpoena, having already said he honor one from the Senate since to refuse would expose his offer today as a ruse. That would certainly hurt any political ambitions he might be harbouring.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Fun fact
According to a YouTube home made documentary, John Lennon's first guitar, bought in 1957, cost £10. Taking inflation into account that's £243 in 2019 pounds, or $316 at current exchange rates. For a working class kid with a single parent, that's a tidy sum! His second guitar cost £17 in 1959, which is £398 2019 pounds, or $517. That's almost as much as I recently paid for my bottom-of-the-line Gibson SG - and I'm comfortably middle-aged and lower middle class.
Qasem Suleimani: the Aftermath
Global GPS was particularly interesting this week, with three well informed, intelligent and articulate panel discussants: Megan O'Sullivan, Richard Haas and Peter Beinart. The contrast to the ignorant, visceral ranting on Fox and Friends was as sobering as it was stark (a context in which Lindsey Graham sounded almost statesmanlike)!
Megan O'Sullivan noted that the thinking behind Qasem Suleinani's assassination may have been to trigger regime change. She also expressed some scepticism as to the justification of an "imminent threat" given that usually information would by now have been made available to allies and to Congress; that it has not raises legitimate questions.
Richard Haas noted that the decision, rather than aiding regime change, appears to have accomplished the opposite, turning popular animosity in both Iran and Iraq away from their governments and directing it towards the United States.
And as Peter Beinart noted, it is noteworthy (thought in my view not in the least surprising; it appears to be a "feature" of the political right) that a politician who so depends on nationalist sentiment is unable to see how the interference by a foreign power, particularly one that is seen by many in the region as overbearing and mettlesome, would play badly in another country. Beinart also suggested that some in the administration would like to start a war with Iran as a means of destroying militarily it's bomb-making capability; John Bolton's name springs immediately to mind even though he is no longer employed there.
After the show aired this morning two significant developments unfolded in short order. First, Iran announced that it was abandoning the JCPOA. While it's recent transgressions were aimed at applying pressure to the allies to re-engage with the deal, it has evidently decided that this is no longer a viable alternative. It seems likely that it will now move as fast as it can to acquiring a nuclear weapon. The outcome will be that the region will have two nuclear powers, making it only the second after India and Pakistan to have two nuclear-armed adversaries (North Korea and China are not technically adversaries). That will be a problem for Israel, whose strategic options in defending itself are now more complicated and limited. The second development was the vote taken in the Iraqi parliament to expels US troops from the country, further reducing US influence in the region. Whether that puts the Homeland and Americans at greater risk is unclear, but it necessitates a shift in US regional policy.
A risky decision has produced a significant shift in the world order in a matter of hours. I suggested two days ago that the decision was high risk setting a damaging precedent and disrupting norms that have taken years to establish, norms which have made the world generally a safer place safer. I thought then that it might take some time to see the ramifications of that decision but it appears we are seeing clear signs much earlier than I anticipated.
Megan O'Sullivan noted that the thinking behind Qasem Suleinani's assassination may have been to trigger regime change. She also expressed some scepticism as to the justification of an "imminent threat" given that usually information would by now have been made available to allies and to Congress; that it has not raises legitimate questions.
Richard Haas noted that the decision, rather than aiding regime change, appears to have accomplished the opposite, turning popular animosity in both Iran and Iraq away from their governments and directing it towards the United States.
And as Peter Beinart noted, it is noteworthy (thought in my view not in the least surprising; it appears to be a "feature" of the political right) that a politician who so depends on nationalist sentiment is unable to see how the interference by a foreign power, particularly one that is seen by many in the region as overbearing and mettlesome, would play badly in another country. Beinart also suggested that some in the administration would like to start a war with Iran as a means of destroying militarily it's bomb-making capability; John Bolton's name springs immediately to mind even though he is no longer employed there.
After the show aired this morning two significant developments unfolded in short order. First, Iran announced that it was abandoning the JCPOA. While it's recent transgressions were aimed at applying pressure to the allies to re-engage with the deal, it has evidently decided that this is no longer a viable alternative. It seems likely that it will now move as fast as it can to acquiring a nuclear weapon. The outcome will be that the region will have two nuclear powers, making it only the second after India and Pakistan to have two nuclear-armed adversaries (North Korea and China are not technically adversaries). That will be a problem for Israel, whose strategic options in defending itself are now more complicated and limited. The second development was the vote taken in the Iraqi parliament to expels US troops from the country, further reducing US influence in the region. Whether that puts the Homeland and Americans at greater risk is unclear, but it necessitates a shift in US regional policy.
A risky decision has produced a significant shift in the world order in a matter of hours. I suggested two days ago that the decision was high risk setting a damaging precedent and disrupting norms that have taken years to establish, norms which have made the world generally a safer place safer. I thought then that it might take some time to see the ramifications of that decision but it appears we are seeing clear signs much earlier than I anticipated.
Friday, January 3, 2020
Qasem Soleimani
 |
| The remains of a vehicle hit by missiles launched from a US drone outside the Baghdad airport. Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office, via Associated Press |
US allies and Congress are both upset that such a significant decision was taken without consultation. The ramifications of Soleimani's killing may be enormous and are very hard to predict. Informal norms of international behavior suggest that while extrajudicial killings of foreign nationals are not unusual, what makes this so shocking is Soleimani's position. While low level operatives and civilian terrorists have been targeted in the past, it is unprecedented in modern times for a top government official to be targeted.
The implications are many; a precedent has been set that makes it 'acceptable' to target foreign leaders. Diplomacy is now off the table when it comes to the US' relations with Iran. Any chance of a new nuclear deal has been quashed. Iran may now accelerate its development of atomic power and weapons. Support for US policy in Iraq will decline and its role as a US regional partner has been severely diminished. Americans in the region, both military and civilian, will be at much greater risk of coordinated and lone wolf retaliation.
Further afield, authoritarian regimes around the world will see this as a green light for the increased exercise of regional power though military action. Russia will be emboldened, putting Eastern Europe and the Baltic states at greater risk. China will expand its military activities in the South China Sea, further polarizing and already fracturing world order. Europe will face in increasingly difficult position between Russia on its Eastern doorstep and the US to the West, not to mention the China-US divide.
The decision to kill Qasem Soleimani will certainly change the course of history. It is too early to say whether this will be for the better. By upsetting generally accepted norms, significant decisions affecting the world order will now rely less on precedent and more on political power and calculus, making the future far less predictable.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Hunter Biden
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Impeachment #3
The likely events of the next few weeks are now relatively clear. The House Intelligence Committee will write its report; the House Judiciary Committee will draw up articles of impeachment, the House will vote along party lines to impeach, the Senate will take them up and then acquit Trump, again on party line vote.
Nothing is going to change that; Meuller's report didn't; the House Intelligence Committee hearings didn't; and nor will any new evidence that shores up a direct line of accountability from the attempt to blackmail a foreign leader to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Holding things of value to another country hostage may not be unusual; but doing so not in the national interest but in pursuit of personal gain is. Of course Trump's ego is so bloated that he could argue that his reelection is vital to the national interest; we've not heard that one so far but it may yet come.
As vile an individual as Trump is (his lying, cheating, lack of work ethic, celebration of his own ignorance, narcissism, his never seeing fault in himself but always in others, his lack of loyalty, his demeaning of those he dislikes), and the damage he is doing to America's standing in the world, to the rule of law, and to trust in venerable institutions on which we relied for a well ordered society, the question can legitimately be asked "does his breach of the norms of presidential etiquette and behavior warrant impeachment"?
Reluctantly, I have to say that it's not clear to me that it does.
However, were there to be a solid case for obstruction of justice, something that seems plausible given his instructions to his staff to defy congressional subpoenas and his refusal to comply with legitimate Congressional requests for information, then yes, a case for his removal from office becomes firmer.
As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her recent judgement "Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings". The balance of power between the three co-equal branches of government is in danger of being upset by an overly combative and obstreperous self-aggrandizing chief executive.
Such a precedent cannot be allowed to be established without a challenge from Congress. The executive branch cannot be granted blanket immunity from Congressional oversight. That is not what the founders wanted, and is decidedly not good for the country. A Congressional motion of censure would be symbolic but ineffective. Impeachment and removal from office therefore does seem the most appropriate remedy.
Nothing is going to change that; Meuller's report didn't; the House Intelligence Committee hearings didn't; and nor will any new evidence that shores up a direct line of accountability from the attempt to blackmail a foreign leader to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Holding things of value to another country hostage may not be unusual; but doing so not in the national interest but in pursuit of personal gain is. Of course Trump's ego is so bloated that he could argue that his reelection is vital to the national interest; we've not heard that one so far but it may yet come.
As vile an individual as Trump is (his lying, cheating, lack of work ethic, celebration of his own ignorance, narcissism, his never seeing fault in himself but always in others, his lack of loyalty, his demeaning of those he dislikes), and the damage he is doing to America's standing in the world, to the rule of law, and to trust in venerable institutions on which we relied for a well ordered society, the question can legitimately be asked "does his breach of the norms of presidential etiquette and behavior warrant impeachment"?
Reluctantly, I have to say that it's not clear to me that it does.
However, were there to be a solid case for obstruction of justice, something that seems plausible given his instructions to his staff to defy congressional subpoenas and his refusal to comply with legitimate Congressional requests for information, then yes, a case for his removal from office becomes firmer.
As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her recent judgement "Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings". The balance of power between the three co-equal branches of government is in danger of being upset by an overly combative and obstreperous self-aggrandizing chief executive.
Such a precedent cannot be allowed to be established without a challenge from Congress. The executive branch cannot be granted blanket immunity from Congressional oversight. That is not what the founders wanted, and is decidedly not good for the country. A Congressional motion of censure would be symbolic but ineffective. Impeachment and removal from office therefore does seem the most appropriate remedy.
Google's mantra
 |
| (c) Time Magazine; https://time.com/4023367/google-china/ |
But there's another way of thinking about it; specifically in terms of freedom of action. A seemingly converse statement "Do good" is in fact far more constraining. There are lots of courses of action that might be neither good nor evil, which are precluded under the latter dictum but available to Google. "Don't break the law" is very different from "be kind to everyone".
While Facebook seems to neither care about the morality of its decisions, nor about the morality of obfuscating and dissembling to Congress and the public, Google was, for many, a beacon of hope that at least one of the the tech giants might be the bridgehead to a more socially responsible flavor of capitalism. I'd say the jury is decidedly still out on that question.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Impeachment #2
The numbers haven't moved. After two weeks of public testimony, the number of Republicans and Democrats wanting impeachment and removal was almost exactly where it was before they began. Disappointing as that is for the Dems, it is not entirely surprising. The most obvious go-to explanations are" party affiliation; tribalism; and news source echo chambers.
But that's inconsistent with the fact that the polling numbers did move when the scandal first broke. If these hypotheses were true, the numbers would not have moved at all even then. This suggests another explanation; that like rumors that move stock prices before any official announcement, people had already 'baked in' the information before the public hearings. Those who, on reading the transcript of the Zelensky call, viewed Trump's alleged behavior as wrong were already persuaded and the hearings merely corroborated what they already strongly suspect to be true.
That in turn suggests that Trump's consistently dishonest and inappropriate behavior had already prepared the ground and rendered the Zelensky phone call far less shocking than it would have been had it been made by any of Trump's predecessors. That's a sad reflection on how far he has undermined trust in the presidency.
But that's inconsistent with the fact that the polling numbers did move when the scandal first broke. If these hypotheses were true, the numbers would not have moved at all even then. This suggests another explanation; that like rumors that move stock prices before any official announcement, people had already 'baked in' the information before the public hearings. Those who, on reading the transcript of the Zelensky call, viewed Trump's alleged behavior as wrong were already persuaded and the hearings merely corroborated what they already strongly suspect to be true.
That in turn suggests that Trump's consistently dishonest and inappropriate behavior had already prepared the ground and rendered the Zelensky phone call far less shocking than it would have been had it been made by any of Trump's predecessors. That's a sad reflection on how far he has undermined trust in the presidency.
Friday, November 22, 2019
No inquiry wanted here
The ongoing impeachment investigation into Trump's attempts to extort political dirt from Ukraine centers around an exchange of things of value between two political heads of state for the personal benefit of at least one of them (a meeting with Trump might be considered as a Ukrainian domestic "thing of value").
Trump was conditioning a meeting that Zelensky wanted on his making a public announcement that he was reopening an investigation into Hunter Biden. Military aid that Ukraine wanted was also in the mix as part of the deal.
While there can be no doubt whatsoever that this was the bargain, or quid pro quo or whatever you choose to call it--it's still the same, its not clear that Trump actually wanted the investigation; rather he wanted the appearance of one, hence the ask for the announcement. Were there to be an actual investigation it is quite likely that no wrong doing would be found, undercutting Trump's case; better therefore to have an announcement that the GOP could speculate on endlessly with having to deal with an awkward fact-based counter-narrative. Trump thieves in a world of speculation, smears and innuendo. Facts constrain him, which is, in part, why he hates journalists.
Trump was conditioning a meeting that Zelensky wanted on his making a public announcement that he was reopening an investigation into Hunter Biden. Military aid that Ukraine wanted was also in the mix as part of the deal.
While there can be no doubt whatsoever that this was the bargain, or quid pro quo or whatever you choose to call it--it's still the same, its not clear that Trump actually wanted the investigation; rather he wanted the appearance of one, hence the ask for the announcement. Were there to be an actual investigation it is quite likely that no wrong doing would be found, undercutting Trump's case; better therefore to have an announcement that the GOP could speculate on endlessly with having to deal with an awkward fact-based counter-narrative. Trump thieves in a world of speculation, smears and innuendo. Facts constrain him, which is, in part, why he hates journalists.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
"The most transparent president in history".
According to the New York Times, Trump yesterday claimed to be "the most transparent president in history". While it could certainly by argued that he lies and dissembles with greater consistency than any president in history, what about transparency?
Well, a case might be made that he is right. He blurts out his rambling stream-of-consciousness thoughts with absolutely no filter or forethought. He confesses in public to wrong-doing (though never sees it as such). He is transparently self-serving, narcissistic, dishonest and corrupt.
If that's what he means by being transparent, then kudos for self-awareness!
Well, a case might be made that he is right. He blurts out his rambling stream-of-consciousness thoughts with absolutely no filter or forethought. He confesses in public to wrong-doing (though never sees it as such). He is transparently self-serving, narcissistic, dishonest and corrupt.
If that's what he means by being transparent, then kudos for self-awareness!
Monday, November 11, 2019
Impeachment #1
The question isn't "did he try to extort the leader of a foreign country to provide information for use in his election campaign, making a meeting with him, and Congressionally approved military aid, contingent on doing so". That's now abundantly clear: it is "Yes, he did". The facts are not in dispute.
The only question is does doing so rise to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" sufficient to remove him from office. And it appears the answer to that question is also clear. If you are a sitting Democratic Senator it's "Yes" and if you're a sitting Republican senator, it's "No". That's not going to change. Nothing short of shooting someone in 5th Avenue will cause the Republicans in the Senate to think otherwise.
For the record, the whistle-blower's testimony is completely immaterial. Everything he set out in his complaint has been corroborated by witnesses closer to the alleged transgression than he (or she) was, so her testimony is not only moot and a distraction but of lesser value that that of those who have already testified in the Congressional closed door hearings. And outing him would send a message that the executive branch cannot be held to account even when it goes completely rogue.
We are about to enter the public relations phase of the process and the Republicans have shown themselves vastly more adept at managing the messaging. The Dems complexly blew the Meuller report which should have been a clear case of obstruction of justice, the charges that caused Richard Nixon to resign. And they are in danged to blowing the Ukraine scandal too. Jim Jordan, the new GOP's point man on the House intelligence committee is a master at distraction, obfuscation and "whataboutism", and he will run rings around the calm and deliberate, but ultimately boring and non-telegenic Adam Schiff.
When the House moves articles of impeachment against the President relating to the Ukraine scandal, as it looks set to do, and the Senate then acquits the him, what matters is how the hearings and the messaging influence independent voters in swing states. If the Dems screw this up, which they look likely to do, Trump will be back in the White House for another term.
The only question is does doing so rise to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" sufficient to remove him from office. And it appears the answer to that question is also clear. If you are a sitting Democratic Senator it's "Yes" and if you're a sitting Republican senator, it's "No". That's not going to change. Nothing short of shooting someone in 5th Avenue will cause the Republicans in the Senate to think otherwise.
For the record, the whistle-blower's testimony is completely immaterial. Everything he set out in his complaint has been corroborated by witnesses closer to the alleged transgression than he (or she) was, so her testimony is not only moot and a distraction but of lesser value that that of those who have already testified in the Congressional closed door hearings. And outing him would send a message that the executive branch cannot be held to account even when it goes completely rogue.
We are about to enter the public relations phase of the process and the Republicans have shown themselves vastly more adept at managing the messaging. The Dems complexly blew the Meuller report which should have been a clear case of obstruction of justice, the charges that caused Richard Nixon to resign. And they are in danged to blowing the Ukraine scandal too. Jim Jordan, the new GOP's point man on the House intelligence committee is a master at distraction, obfuscation and "whataboutism", and he will run rings around the calm and deliberate, but ultimately boring and non-telegenic Adam Schiff.
When the House moves articles of impeachment against the President relating to the Ukraine scandal, as it looks set to do, and the Senate then acquits the him, what matters is how the hearings and the messaging influence independent voters in swing states. If the Dems screw this up, which they look likely to do, Trump will be back in the White House for another term.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Whiskey and soda
This evening I was looking for something to drink and neat scotch at 5:30 seemed a little premature. As I was reaching in the fridge for the water, I happened upon a bottle of San Pellegrino. Diluting a single shot of a reasonably good single malt with five times the volume of sparking water seemed mildly sacrilegious, but on dropping in a couple of ice cubes and taking a sip I was transported back to my childhood; that was my mother's drink of choice when we had guests, and I could see her sitting in her favorite chair in the living room and even, albeit faintly, remember the smell of her cigarette smoke.
Vat 69, soda and ice; that was Steyning in the 1960s. Later there was a spell where Dimple had pride of place in the corner shelf that held the drinks. In Storrington the shelves gave way to a more modest display on the trolley in the dining room where Grants was the preferred brand. How times change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)