9.29.19: Well, Ain't This An (Im)Peach?

Despite what Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) says about no collusion on the part of President Trump and Russia, there indeed was collusion, which is not a legal term. When then candidate Donald Trump said during the campaign, "Russia if you're listening..." Mr. Mueller's investigation stated clearly that collusion was not a legal term, whereas conspiracy is and fortunately for Mr. Trump, conspiracy was not proven. Obstruction of justice? There were only 11 proven instances. However, that is not germane to what has transpired over the past week. If you read the transcript of the phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky, the mere mention of Joe Biden is an indication that Mr. Trump wants his main political rival to be sullied before the 2020 election; this is conjunction with the "I want you to do us a favor though" statement, which Mr. Todd emphasized throughout today's program makes it clear that the now President of the United States abused the power of his office for personal political gain. Mr. Scalise refused to answer the direct question of whether this obvious fact should be condoned. Most all Republicans have been loathe to directly refute these charges.it himself, "Don't look at what was  call."

Whether or not you think there is any grey area here, the president has breached his oath of office and a formal impeachment inquiry is warranted.

As Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA), explained if individuals from the administration are called to testify and do not cooperate because of executive privilege then those individuals are obstructing justice. And the gall of Hugh Hewitt to say that Mr. Schiff is not a fair arbiter of this process, may we remind him of one word, "Benghazi." There were no fair arbiters in that process.

The stench of most Republican hypocrisy is what has been most damaging to this country, and not the opening of an impeachment inquiry to hold a corrupt president accountable. This along with another falsehood that Mr. Scalise with his revisionist history outlined was the Obama Administration's unwillingness to investigate Russian meddling in 2016 as it was Mitch McConnell who dismissed the intelligence community's findings and warnings.

But this latest impropriety is not about 2016, it's about what the president has done moving forward to 2020. Unlike the Mueller investigation, this is much easier for the American people to wrap their heads around. The president wanted the Ukrainian government to reopen an investigation of his political rival to ensure aid to the country - leveraging U.S. foreign policy for personal political gain. Hard stop. The Trump Administration put out Republican talking points, which they were sufficiently incompetent enough to also send to Democrats, it stated that there was no quid pro quo so there is no need for an impeachment inquiry. Well, ain't that a peach? As fmr. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, explained there are no 'favors' in diplomacy, it's all a quid pro quo.

Mr. McFaul also outlined very clearly the timeline of how this all transpired:

Click to watch outline of the timeline

Most notable in the outline of all this is that the administration announced a freeze on $391 million of military aid to Ukraine on July 18, 2019 and then the call occurs on the 25th of the month.

It's been reported that there is rising anxiety within the West Wing, and there should be. It looks like one of the scapegoats is going to be the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) calls a free-range chicken. As a side note, Mr. Giuliani, mentioned over 30 times in the whistleblower complaint as a private citizen is representing the United States government in the eyes of the Mr. Zelensky's administration, which begs the question - Is Mr. Giuliani conducting his own personal foreign policy? And doesn't that violate the Logan Act? Maybe not, but it sure does come close.

Republicans office holders are tired Mr. Giuliani's antics and absurdities, they're fatigued. As Mark Leibovitch mentioned, there is a general fatigue with Trump, deemed Trump exhaustion. No doubt. Let the inquiry proceed.


Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Mark Leibovitch, The New York Times Magazine; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network

9.22.19: If... The Ukraine Mess and Trump's Self-Interest

According the whistleblower statute, the Director of National Intelligence must turn over the complaint to Congress, in this case the Intelligence Committee. However, the acting DNI Joseph MacGuire is blocking the House Intelligence Committee from seeing the complaint.

In the alleged quid pro quo between the president and the government of Ukraine, there are a lot of ifs. If Mr. MacGuire complied with the law instead of breaking it, clarity would be provided and there would be no need to turn over the transcript of the call, which Treasure Secretary Steve Mnuchin stated that it would set a bad precedent if done so. Congress doesn't need the transcript, they need the complaint. If they have the complaint then they would be in position to subpoena the transcript. If...

The complaint, as reported has to do with President Trump demanding that the Ukraine investigate presidential candidate fmr. VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Where the quid pro quo comes in is if Mr. Trump demanded that investigation in exchange for U.S. to Ukraine, the sum of $250 million.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that he had met with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky and said that Mr. Zelensky was puzzled as to whether the pending aid was contingent upon opening up an investigation into Mr. Biden and his son. Overtures by the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, compounded the confusion for the Ukrainian government because it was not clear whether Mr. Giuliani was acting on behalf of the administration. To digress for a moment, Mr. Giuliani should no longer be considered 'America's Mayor' or a hero. His statements and acts since that time has completely disqualified him forever from any such designation. The confusion on the part of the Ukrainians is understandable, however, for those of us paying attention in the United States it's clear. Mr. Giuliani is not part of the Administration so his actions are taken on behalf of the Mr. Trump himself, not the United States. With that in mind, he was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, which is soliciting help from a foreign government in a U.S. election. Apparently, Mr. Giuliani's meetings were set up by the State Department which also calls into question their accountability in all of this, specifically Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated that if that is the case, it is inappropriate and wrong. One can easily postulate that if the president did this and was acting in his own personal interest, which is in line with Mr. Trump's modus operandi writ large.

The fact that Mr. MacGuire is not turning over the complaint, the administration will not turn over the transcript of the call, that several officials have resigned or have been forced out since this call and that last week the administration finally released the aid to Ukraine all speaks to a corrupt intent. If...

Not to mention that not only did the Ukraine receive the $250 million but also received another $140 million that they didn't expect. Why? As Secretary Mnuchin of course said, there is no connection between the timing of the aforementioned events and the extra money to Mr. Trump's call.

As Robert Costa reminded us, the administration is intent on not cooperating with any Congressional oversight. Because of this the Democratically-controlled House needs to step up and not just threaten contempt of Congress orders but issue them. Unequivocally, Congress needs to step up.

In this instance, just like the other subject broached today, guns, Republicans refuse to do anything without the president's say so. Republican fecklessness knows no limits. Senate Republicans are on record as saying that they have no position or will not endorse any legislation that the president doesn't back. Doesn't Congress make the laws? As Mr. Toomey did on today's program, they are blaming Beto O'Rourke on stalling any gun legislation because Mr. O'Rourke said that if he were president he would institute a mandatory buy-back program for assault rifles. This is the lamest of excuses as Mr. O'Rourke is a candidate and does NOT hold any public office. Republicans aren't moving on gun legislation because a private citizen made a proposal that in reality carries on wait? Please.

Lastly, on the issue of Iran, Donna Edwards explained it plainly that Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Iranian nuclear agreement with no plan B. Let's face if the administration has a plan B for any foreign policy initiative, the Iranians would feel so emboldened in reeking havoc in the Middle East. Or if there were a plan B for the trade wars with China, U.S. farmers wouldn't be potentially losing the market for soybeans permanently.

Aside from punishing immigrants in variously different ways, this administration has no policies at all. It's only about keeping a man in power who has no regard for the United States' interest, only his own.


Panel: Donna Edwards, Fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Kristen Welker, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman (R-FL)

9.1.19: Republicans Could Act But Choose Not To

Hurricane Dorian and another mass shooting in Texas...

Though we can not do anything about a hurricane, we can and must prepare for it eventually making landfall. What we also know is that storms like Dorian and becoming more frequent and more intense.

This is where was can do something. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) speaks sensibly on the topic of hurricanes, having a lot of experience in dealing with them as governor of the state, which is more than we can say for his answers on gun legislation. The senator explained that residents now have to build their houses up to standard, a standard we presume means that the houses should be elevated and not built in high-risk areas.

But these are patches on the bigger problem that Mr. Scott and other Republicans will not acknowledge, which is a changing climate. How far do you pull back from the coast until it's safe? The answer is farther and farther back as time goes on, and until there is common consensus or just any sense of the part of Republicans, things will continue to get worse and the money for disaster relief will become any even more contentious issue. Mr. Todd asked Mr. Scott about 'adaptation and mitigation, to which Mr. Scott answered with building standards but this is just the adaption part. Mitigation is to address climate change and the warming of the oceans that cause these storms to become more intense. Individuals can do their part but it's only government that can move on policy to address this growing threat. Congress could do something but they choose not to.

Speaking of another instance in which Congress, namely Republicans in Congress could do something but choose not to is on gun legislation. The second mass shooting in Texas (Midland/ Odessa area) this month occurred yesterday leaving 7 dead and over 20 injured. Today's panel was divided on whether they can now see Congress doing something with regard to gun legislation when it comes back in session.

Fmr. Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson felt that it's different this time and that since there is a campaign coming up, Republicans will want to show that they have done something on guns. However, some on the panel cited the upcoming election season as the very reason that Republicans running for reelection won't do anything. They'll cater to their respective conservative bases and won't go 'soft' on guns. Conversely, fmr. HUD Secretary and Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro (D-TX), said that if he were president he would push for limiting high-capacity magazines, banning assault weapons and instituting universal background checks. These is standard in terms of the Democratic platform on guns though a majority of Americans are in favor of these measures. However, even on background checks, little, if anything, will change.

The president, Mr. Castro noted, has said after Parkland and after El Paso and Dayton that he would push for universal backgrounds but has since walked that back and will inevitably follow the intransigence of congressional Republicans, which would be Rick Scott who said that he was focused on mental illness. Mr. Scott, like other Republicans, mentioned red-flag laws, in which firearms can be taken from an individual if the person presents a danger to others or oneself. However, how many times do we find out after the fact of these mass shootings that the perpetrator had a manifesto or that friends thought something was 'wrong' with the person? Mr. Scott and other Senate Republicans will not bring a universal background check bill to the floor. That would be a slippery slope to an assault weapons bans or limiting magazine capacity.

In both cases, when Congress comes back from the August recess, these are two issues that Mr. Trump will dutifully distract us away from.


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Homeland Secretary; Shawna Thomas, Vice News; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute