Despite senators getting into a bit of tizzy about House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff's comment about having their heads put on a spike (figuratively) by this president if they stand up to him, it's still surprising that as NBC's Kristen Welker explained, there aren't 4 votes at this time from the Republican side of the aisle to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are quite attuned to the stances that keep them in the good graces of their constituents at home but at the moment it is most evident that Senate Republicans are trying to figure out how to best save their political skins.
Republican senators such as Mitt Romney (UT), Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are all sending mixed messages so as to avoid any direct heat one way or the other because at least 70 percent of the American people according to polling want to see witnesses called by Senators. The aforementioned Senators and others are concerned with the polls, though it's quite clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not. Mr. McConnell has never been one to care about the American people's opinion writ large and this time will be no different.
Why haven't any senators come forward, Romney tepidly, to call for witnesses. As the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter explained, there is no upside for moderate Republicans. It's a lose-lose for someone like Susan Collins in Maine. If Senator Collins softens on witnesses, she upset her base and Democrats in her state will say, 'good for you,' but still won't vote her. Ms. Collins only has a principled stand, in which to make a statement. However, what we've seen in the past, she'll twist those principles for political survivor. The same case can be made for Senator Corey Gardner (R) in Colorado and Joni Ernst in Iowa. There's no motivation to alienate the base if you're not going to pull moderates or Democrats over.
Even if there were 4 votes in favor of calling witnesses, a fair trial is simply not going to happen if Mr. McConnell has anything to say about it, and he does; he sets all the rules - from length of testimony to how many to what time they testify to admissible evidence, all of it.
Adam Schiff once again made his case today on having a fair trial and the American people knowing the whole truth, which includes calling witnesses and handing over documents. Neither have been forthcoming from the administration throughout the process. But no matter what, fairness will remain elusive in the midst of continuing complains because the outcome has already been decided.
Mr. Schiff reminded us that the president's counsel has not made the argument against the facts of what Mr. Trump did and orchestrated, but the process by which the House arrived to the point. He also made the case for removal on the factual basis that this isn't the first time the president has welcomed foreign interference in the election and will be free to continue this behavior.
This brings us to Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) who said that he thinks that the president will learn from this episode and not repeat this kind of behavior. Me thinks Mr. Braun a bit naive. He did sound quite reasonable in explaining this and for anyone else living in the normal world, it would be a teaching moment, but we're talking about Donald Trump, for whom the rules do not apply apparently. Mr. Braun said that a Senator's view about calling witnesses is very much dependent on constituents' views, which means that he'll be looking at the polls in his state, but safe to say that it would be to everyone's astonishment if Mr. Braun voted for them.
However, as Senator and candidate for president Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said, we may be surprised about who and how many will vote to call witnesses. A strong candidate with weak poll numbers, but let's hope springs eternal for improvement for both.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Lanhee Chen, Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine
One more thing...
Chuck Todd mentioned the Lev Parnas recording of the president saying get rid of her [then Ukraine Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch) to which he asked if it would be better to get all this out in the open by calling witnesses, instead of finding all this out later. It's all about the short game for Republicans as Mr. Leibovich mentioned and also said that acquittal for the president may not be as great as everyone on his side would think. He didn't elaborate but after the president is acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, drips and draps of information are going to be hitting throughout election season right up until the end in November.
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Sunday, January 12, 2020
1.12.20: A Reckless or Bold Decision?
The question that framed the interviews and the panel discussion was whether the president's decision to kill Iranian Maj. General Qassem Soleimani was reckless or bold. From what we know, it was really both. It was bold because of the options that were presented to the president, he chose the boldest move. However, it was also reckless because he didn't have a strategy or forethought as to what would happen after it.
And then there are the shifting explanations for the administration's timing of the strike and the fact that senior congressional officials were not notified prior to the operation, which speaks to the point that Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) made that the president and his administration hold both the American people and Congress in contempt. The administration seems to feel that they do not owe any explanation for their actions to anyone. As an American, you demand an honest accounting of actions such as this done in your name. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) pointed out the inconsistency of saying that the threat was imminent but they couldn't identify when or where exactly.
In last week's column, we stated indicated reticence regarding the cynical motivation that by executing this strike against Soleimani that it would distract from impeachment. However, there was a point touched on that raises the proverbial eyebrow when it was pointed out that the president said that fmr. National Security Advisor John Bolton can not testify before the Senate because he was involved with administration discussions on Iran.
Speaking of the National Security Advisor, during the interview with the current NSA Robert O'Brien, he stated, twice, that the intelligence on threats to embassies was 'exquisite.' Using a term such as that immediately raises a red flag given that it connotes that there was 100% certainty in the information. Using Senator Paul's phrase, it's hard to square that circle. First, never is there 100% certainty in intelligence, hardly enough to make it exquisite. Secondly, the president has repeatedly said that the U.S. intelligence community is the 'deep state' and is not to be trusted so the American people need to trust that he trusts now? NPR's Steve Inskeep explained that when the president says he believes there was an imminent threat to American embassies, you can not fact check a belief. Extrapolating that out, it means that if you do not believe what the president does, you're labeled by the president as crooked or even treasonous.
With that said, Time magazine columnist and founder of 'The Dispatch' David French (notably no longer with the National Review) explained that all of these vague explanations were unnecessary. Mr. French explained that Soleimani was an enemy combatant in a theater of war and was therefore fair game and a lawful target. He explained that the administration could have united the country but instead just decided on an 'own the libs' strategy. One shouldn't be surprised if the administration now throws that explanation into the stew. Unfortunately, the president has never once in his three years in office decided to try to be the president for all Americans.
All of this speaks to two larger points. The first of which is war powers debate and Congress taking back it's authority to grant the administration use of military force, as Senator Paul was talking about. You would have to agree that it is a wise idea and it wouldn't be that controversial for bipartisan support. However, given the state of our politics, the House's vote this week on such a measure didn't garner any bipartisan support. It's become a reflexive notion to not support anything other side of the aisle is for, at least in the House. On top of this, Congress has ceded war powers to the executive branch for so long through Democratic and Republican administrations alike that it will take an extraordinary circumstance for them to regain control of this issue.
Then there is the administration's overall foreign policy strategy and the fact that, sadly, there doesn't really seem to be one. Regarding Iran, it's clear that the administration didn't have an answer for the what if, had the regime decided for direct military confrontation, e.g. war. One of the end results of these recent actions is that NATO allies have no faith in what the United States is doing. And whether it be North Korea, a one-sided love affair gone bad; or a resurgent Russia and its de facto cyberwar; or China and the economic cold war there don't seem to be many tangible results beneficial to Americans.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; David French, Time Columnist; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour;
Steve Inskeep, NPR
And then there are the shifting explanations for the administration's timing of the strike and the fact that senior congressional officials were not notified prior to the operation, which speaks to the point that Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) made that the president and his administration hold both the American people and Congress in contempt. The administration seems to feel that they do not owe any explanation for their actions to anyone. As an American, you demand an honest accounting of actions such as this done in your name. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) pointed out the inconsistency of saying that the threat was imminent but they couldn't identify when or where exactly.
In last week's column, we stated indicated reticence regarding the cynical motivation that by executing this strike against Soleimani that it would distract from impeachment. However, there was a point touched on that raises the proverbial eyebrow when it was pointed out that the president said that fmr. National Security Advisor John Bolton can not testify before the Senate because he was involved with administration discussions on Iran.
Speaking of the National Security Advisor, during the interview with the current NSA Robert O'Brien, he stated, twice, that the intelligence on threats to embassies was 'exquisite.' Using a term such as that immediately raises a red flag given that it connotes that there was 100% certainty in the information. Using Senator Paul's phrase, it's hard to square that circle. First, never is there 100% certainty in intelligence, hardly enough to make it exquisite. Secondly, the president has repeatedly said that the U.S. intelligence community is the 'deep state' and is not to be trusted so the American people need to trust that he trusts now? NPR's Steve Inskeep explained that when the president says he believes there was an imminent threat to American embassies, you can not fact check a belief. Extrapolating that out, it means that if you do not believe what the president does, you're labeled by the president as crooked or even treasonous.
With that said, Time magazine columnist and founder of 'The Dispatch' David French (notably no longer with the National Review) explained that all of these vague explanations were unnecessary. Mr. French explained that Soleimani was an enemy combatant in a theater of war and was therefore fair game and a lawful target. He explained that the administration could have united the country but instead just decided on an 'own the libs' strategy. One shouldn't be surprised if the administration now throws that explanation into the stew. Unfortunately, the president has never once in his three years in office decided to try to be the president for all Americans.
All of this speaks to two larger points. The first of which is war powers debate and Congress taking back it's authority to grant the administration use of military force, as Senator Paul was talking about. You would have to agree that it is a wise idea and it wouldn't be that controversial for bipartisan support. However, given the state of our politics, the House's vote this week on such a measure didn't garner any bipartisan support. It's become a reflexive notion to not support anything other side of the aisle is for, at least in the House. On top of this, Congress has ceded war powers to the executive branch for so long through Democratic and Republican administrations alike that it will take an extraordinary circumstance for them to regain control of this issue.
Then there is the administration's overall foreign policy strategy and the fact that, sadly, there doesn't really seem to be one. Regarding Iran, it's clear that the administration didn't have an answer for the what if, had the regime decided for direct military confrontation, e.g. war. One of the end results of these recent actions is that NATO allies have no faith in what the United States is doing. And whether it be North Korea, a one-sided love affair gone bad; or a resurgent Russia and its de facto cyberwar; or China and the economic cold war there don't seem to be many tangible results beneficial to Americans.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; David French, Time Columnist; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour;
Steve Inskeep, NPR
Sunday, January 05, 2020
1.5.20: Is The United States Safer Today?
This is the core question: Is America and Americans abroad safer that now that Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani has been killed by a U.S. military drone strike?
Before we get to that answer, it's important to consider what individuals on today's program said. First, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and presidential candidate suggested that the president engaged in a 'wag the dog' scenario - escalating military action to distract from impeachment - which is incredibly cynical. It's not an unthinkable notion for Donald Trump to go in the direction but for the moment, we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt... For the moment. That aside, Betsy Woodruff-Swan explained that Ms. Warren's statements in the past week are trying to placate both edges of the Democratic party. She called Soleimani a terrorist and then said his killing was an assassination, which carries legal ramifications in the United States. It's this type of modulating that ultimately makes Ms. Warren a potentially disastrous president. Domestically, it was first Medicare-for-all and now it's a transition.
One the other end of the spectrum there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told Chuck Todd the the United States is 'absolutely' safer as a result of this escalation with Iran. That statement on its face is troubling because nothing is absolute especially when you're dealing with an adversary such as Iran that is vowing 'harsh revenge.' Secretary Pompeo explained that Soleimani is a terrorist and that the cost of doing nothing was greater than acting now, tamping down the suggestion that this attack was a political distraction. This along with the fact that Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security said that his former department just issued a warning that Iran can conduct cyber attacks against the United States and that Hezbollah is able to attack the American homeland. How are we 'absolutely' safer?
Even though Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was briefed after the military action, he said that he believed there was a real threat. That's not a statement to be taken lightly, but he also explained that he needed have more information to determine if it was imminent. What's problematic in all cases with this administration is more information is never forthcoming. Going back to Mr. Pompeo for a moment, he said something that certainly raised an eyebrow. He stated that Mr. Todd was focusing on the moment, but that President Trump was concerned about Iran in terms of the 'long haul.' If we look at the administration's track record so far, a long-term strategy on anything hasn't been in the offering.
As of this writing the Iraqi prime minister is recommending that U.S. troops leave the country, which will only give Shiite militias aligned with Iran more room to operate. NBC's Richard Engel reported at the top of the program that the push back and protests against too much Iranian control in Lebanon have ebbed and that in Iran itself protests against the government have now changed into denouncing the actions of the United States. Mr. Engel reported that the Iranian government was on the ropes but the actions of the Trump Administration has had the opposite effect as the country's citizens are now rallying behind the government. He also assessed that if an attack were to come, it would most likely be an asymmetrical one, coming from Iran's proxies in the region.
So to revisit the question of whether or not America is safer, it's difficult to conclude that it is when there is such a strong possibility of armed conflict. The harsh revenge that the Iranian regime promises it will only prompt the United States to reciprocate in a bigger fashion.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff-Swan, The Daily Beast; Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security; Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor of North Carolina
Before we get to that answer, it's important to consider what individuals on today's program said. First, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and presidential candidate suggested that the president engaged in a 'wag the dog' scenario - escalating military action to distract from impeachment - which is incredibly cynical. It's not an unthinkable notion for Donald Trump to go in the direction but for the moment, we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt... For the moment. That aside, Betsy Woodruff-Swan explained that Ms. Warren's statements in the past week are trying to placate both edges of the Democratic party. She called Soleimani a terrorist and then said his killing was an assassination, which carries legal ramifications in the United States. It's this type of modulating that ultimately makes Ms. Warren a potentially disastrous president. Domestically, it was first Medicare-for-all and now it's a transition.
One the other end of the spectrum there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told Chuck Todd the the United States is 'absolutely' safer as a result of this escalation with Iran. That statement on its face is troubling because nothing is absolute especially when you're dealing with an adversary such as Iran that is vowing 'harsh revenge.' Secretary Pompeo explained that Soleimani is a terrorist and that the cost of doing nothing was greater than acting now, tamping down the suggestion that this attack was a political distraction. This along with the fact that Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security said that his former department just issued a warning that Iran can conduct cyber attacks against the United States and that Hezbollah is able to attack the American homeland. How are we 'absolutely' safer?
Even though Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was briefed after the military action, he said that he believed there was a real threat. That's not a statement to be taken lightly, but he also explained that he needed have more information to determine if it was imminent. What's problematic in all cases with this administration is more information is never forthcoming. Going back to Mr. Pompeo for a moment, he said something that certainly raised an eyebrow. He stated that Mr. Todd was focusing on the moment, but that President Trump was concerned about Iran in terms of the 'long haul.' If we look at the administration's track record so far, a long-term strategy on anything hasn't been in the offering.
As of this writing the Iraqi prime minister is recommending that U.S. troops leave the country, which will only give Shiite militias aligned with Iran more room to operate. NBC's Richard Engel reported at the top of the program that the push back and protests against too much Iranian control in Lebanon have ebbed and that in Iran itself protests against the government have now changed into denouncing the actions of the United States. Mr. Engel reported that the Iranian government was on the ropes but the actions of the Trump Administration has had the opposite effect as the country's citizens are now rallying behind the government. He also assessed that if an attack were to come, it would most likely be an asymmetrical one, coming from Iran's proxies in the region.
So to revisit the question of whether or not America is safer, it's difficult to conclude that it is when there is such a strong possibility of armed conflict. The harsh revenge that the Iranian regime promises it will only prompt the United States to reciprocate in a bigger fashion.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff-Swan, The Daily Beast; Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security; Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor of North Carolina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)