2.2.20: Instructive Iowa Caucuses Against the Backdrop of an Impotent Impeachment

Well, no one said it wouldn't be interesting. First interviews after the Senate's vote to not call for witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial, the Iowa Caucus tomorrow, State of the Union on Tuesday and the final vote in the Senate on Wednesday all mean that it's time to buckle up.

For a change of pace as this column has been wont not to comment on primary politics thus far, for all the noise that has been out there and we've taken the patience to see how things would shake out a bit before weighing in.

For all the complaints about the Iowa Caucuses, for Democrats they will be very instructive this election cycle.

Some argue that Iowa isn't diverse enough to be first and it's not a secret ballot, which as Tom Brokaw explained can cause some people to stay home. However, he also said that Iowans take their citizenship seriously and come out for these, as we all know. The Iowa Caucuses are the last rally for the candidates. They just happen to be all on the same night and they count this time. As today's panel agreed, the Democratic primary is so fluid because of all the factors at work for each candidate, serious citizens in public will provide some good guidance for the rest of the electorate, geography and the Bloomberg factor taken into consideration.

Democratic Strategist Cornell Belcher said with no clear front runner, Biden could finish anywhere from first to fourth. The elephant in the room of course is which candidate has sound proposes but more importantly beat Trump. Of the candidates at the top in Iowa - Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar - only three of the five survive the second test against Trump.

The National Review's Rich Lowry described Bernie Sanders as radioactive in terms of the attacks he'll face from conservatives, and he's right. Elizabeth Warren will get crushed in a general election, which leaves us with Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. In Iowa however, Sanders energy may carry the day. This is a scenario where Iowa will be less beneficial as a first stop because if Biden is still in for Super Tuesday, he and Bloomberg will be fighting it out. Anna Palmer from Politico explained that if Biden doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire that could be it for him, with Mr. Lowry adding that Mr. Biden suffers from low enthusiasm. In a general election, enthusiasm ground can be made up with Biden's pick for vice-president, 'steady hand at the top bolstered by high energy.'

With all that said, we can only tell you that Elizabeth Warren will have the most disappointing night of all the previous mentioned.

*****

It turns out that Senator Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) word on impeachment was the really the final one. He explained that there was no need for witnesses and documents because the Democratic House Managers clearly proved that President Trump pressured Ukraine for an investigation of the Bidens by withholding military aid. However, this action doesn't warrant the removal of the president from office with an election about to start. Mr. Alexander went on to say that the public should be the ones to decide.

Senator Alexander's reasoned explanation is understandable, but as Mr. Belcher pointed out it ignores the moral obligation to the Constitution and the rule of law, which is where we should all land. The president broke the law and he knew he was doing it. At one point Mr. Alexander said that maybe Mr. Trump didn't know not to do what he did, which is inexcusable to use as an excuse, especially at this point given the entire Russia investigation and the fact that Mr. Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president the day after Robert Mueller testified. What we will come to learn is that information will come out that confirms why the president could not be removed. EU Ambassador Gordan Sondland's statement "that everyone was in the loop" will prove correct.

But there you have it. The acquittal will be on Wednesday. The Tennessee senator recommended that during the State of the Union, the president shouldn't mention it at all, but something tells us that Mr. Trump won't be able to hold back in front of a national audience.

Mr. Lowry questioned why if impeachment is such a moral obligation then why haven't Iowa voters been talking about it, to which O. Kay Henderson, Iowa Radio News Director, responded that because of the foregone conclusion of what the Senate would do, there wasn't the need. Everyone knows where the Democratic candidates stand on it. Despite Mr. Lowry sophomoric observation, the impeachment vote and the Republican rollover will be a factor come the general election in November.

If many Republican senators feel the same as Mr. Alexander, maybe a censure of the president is called for - the proverbial slap on the wrist. Censure would be a win for Democrats. Not only could they say that the trial was a sham because Republicans didn't fulfill their obligation, but then they can also say that Republicans admit what the president did was wrong because of censure. That would have the president sniping at Republican Senators who are in enough trouble trying to hold onto their seats, just as Ms. Henderson said of Senator Joni Ernst in Iowa.


Panel: O. Kay Henderson, News Director Radio Iowa; Anna Palmer, Politico; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist

One more thing...
Can't forget about the Super Bowl - Andy Reid gets the championship, Chiefs all the way!

1.26.19: False Hope for a Fair Impeachment Trial

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.

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

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

12.29.19: What Mr. Trump and Mr. Zuckerberg Have in Common

There's much to unpack from today's "Meet The Press" special edition on Facts and a Post-Truth Society. However, as a jumping off point it's worth pointing out that at this moment in time, there is a party that is most responsible and a party that is most irresponsible in this country.

Most responsible to the attack on truth and our institutions is Donald J. Trump.  Over 15,000 misleading claims since he has become president with countless attacks on individuals all to satisfy his own ego and greed for power. Executive editor of The Washington Post, Marty Baron, pointed out that the public may be numb to all of Mr. Trump's misleading statement but that it's important to keep holding political leaders accountable. But that's the problem. Ultimately, Mr. Trump has not been held accountable in the slightest. Mr. Trump has been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives but the Senate will acquit or let's say absolve him of any wrongdoing, which will only enable him to continue on this destructive course.

Russia, specifically the Kremlin, is almost a sidebar from this perspective because the Trump Administration has done little to beat back their propaganda because Mr. Trump has personally benefited from it.  The president acting in the best interests of the country over himself is quickly becoming an antiquated notion. Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, said that it is the responsibility of journalists to separate the fact from the fiction and to be more open minded when reporting. These are qualities that entities like The Washington Post and The New York Times demand of themselves and it is what the public demands.  But it is not demanded from the president of the United States.

Whether you agree with the viewpoints of those respective journals' editorial page, they strive to be responsible in their reporting.

This brings us to the most irresponsible for the assault on truth, unregulated social media and it's biggest offender of taking no responsibility whatsoever, Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg, the hero, has now lived long enough to become the villain. The dream of connecting people around the world has become a dystopian nightmare. As Kara Swisher explained, Mr. Zuckerberg has conflated free speech with hate speech, and we'll say propaganda as well. A media and content distribution platform that demands no accountability of itself as Mr. Zuckerberg has irresponsibly defended.

Chuck Todd mentioned the phrase 'toxic cynicism' where nothing is on the level and everything is for sale. This is what Mr. Trump and Mr. Zuckerberg have propagated; it's what they have in common.


Panel: Matthew Continetti, American Enterprise Institute; Kara Swisher, technology journalist; Joshua Johnson, NPR, Susan Glasser, The New Yorker

12.22.19: Trump Formally Impeached... What Now?

This week for the third time in American history, the president of the United States has been impeached by the House of Representatives so what's next?

There's already been a lot of back and forth with the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) describing the senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as a rogue leader of the Senate, who has already said that he is coordinating with the White House on the Senate trial. Senator Lindsey Graham has also stated that he does not intend to be impartial at all, but none of this comes as a surprise to anyone as the sides have already dug into their respective positions.

As for procedure, Speaker Pelosi is holding back on delivering the 2 articles (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress) to the Senate until Mitch McConnell and minority leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) negotiate what the rules will be, namely if additional witnesses will be called. Marc Short, chief of staff to vice president Mike Pence asked how you reconcile the statements of Speaker Pelosi that this is an air tight case against the president but that the Senate should call additional witnesses. Mr. Short must not have read the second article, which is obstruction of Congress. Additional witnesses must be called because the White House has refused to have anyone in the Trump Administration testify and has provided no requested documents with regard to the withholding of aid to Ukraine. It is an air tight case, but so that the American people know to fully know all the facts, administration officials must testify. And speaking of witnesses, what about the Bidens? Senator Corey Booker said he was exhausted with this angle of the Ukraine affair because calling them as witnesses is not germane to the president's actions and it's not.

What is also exhausting is person's like Mr. Short defending the president's reprehensible comment he made this week about deceased Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) at a rally in Mr. Dingell's home state, in which he said Mr. Dingell was 'looking up at us' [from hell]. Mr. Short also said that evangelicals are not a monolithic group in response to a query about Christianity Today's editorial calling for the impeach and removal of Mr. Trump on moral grounds, but how is one anymore able to accept or take seriously anything that comes from evangelical leaders who still support Mr. Trump? Answer: You can not.

The president is guilty of obstructing Congress and if he were innocent, these administration officials would testify under oath about what they know. Why is the president blocking this? It's not because he did nothing wrong. If the president has nothing to hide then he would provide documents and witnesses, however, this president has run his administration accountable to no one, putting himself above oversight and the law.

Chuck Todd asked the question of whether impeachment would curb the president's monarchical behavior or accelerate it. With the easily predictable acquittal in the Senate, Mr. Trump will be given a green light to break norms and laws in what ever way he decides. A sham trial for a slimy man in the presidency will only embolden him more. Also, it will not keep him for seeking foreign interference in the U.S. presidential election because in his mind the Senate will have said that it is OK to do so.

The chaos that is the Trump presidency will continue and the acceleration of it will be lead by one of the worst people to ever hold political office in American history, Senator Mitch McConnell. Democrats are hoping that in November that the electorate will vote Mr. Trump out, but sadly the same result as in 2016 may happen. The administration will more quietly (this time) welcome foreign interference and Mr. Trump will once again lose the popular vote but sneak by in the electoral college. Former Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) said that voters have already sorted themselves. There is no middle.

But have voters really sorted themselves or have politicians sorted the voters? You want more civility, more truth, more compromise in U.S. politics? Make all the congressional districts square. All gerrymandering has done is further divide the country to keep ultra-partisans in power.

United States Congressional Map

Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian

One more thing...
Helene Cooper clarified a tragedy of American society when discussing the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. She explained that this shooting prioritized gun rights over children's deaths. For defenders of the NRA, let that sink in hard...

12.15.19: After The President's Impeachment Acquittal, His Problems Will Only Be Just Beginning

The conversation with voters in Kent County, Michigan that includes the city of Grand Rapids was the most informative bit on impeachment from today's program. Six individuals, consisting mostly of Republicans, were individually unsure if the president had committed an impeachable offense but were very certain on the outcomes - that House Democrats would vote to impeach and that the Republican-controlled Senate would acquit.

The result, as one person put it, is baked in. What you could glean from the conversation was that the group of voters were leaning toward not impeaching the president, however also very informative was the fact that they all agreed that the president, on a daily basis, does something wrong.

If you consider that conversation and the panel's discussion of how there will be more information coming out after the impeachment saga is over, what we can expect is that the president will be deeper underwater in his approval rating he can anticipate. Heidi Przybyla explained that after impeachment some will say that he's already been exonerated (Republicans) and some will say that he walked (Democrats). However, the information that will come out - the trial of Lev Parnas and potentially criminal charges against Rudy Giuliani coupled with the Supreme Court possibly ruling that the president's tax returns will be released to Congress and or the Southern District of New York. The president will be pushed into some very awkward explanations as to why he may have paid no taxes. For the American people, it's one thing to explain that one has paid little tax, but it's another to read that he may have cheated on paying tax. The latter is something that the American people will not look kindly upon.

Regarding the Senate impeachment trial, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) said that it was in the best interest of the Senate that Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), work across the aisle to set the rules. However, if there is one thing that we have come to learn, it's that Mr. McConnell has never had the best interest of the Senate, as a body, in mind - only maintaining power. Mr. Coons also said that it is in times like these that we miss the late Senator John McCain who was able to speak truth to his own party, not to mention keep the president's chief toadie Lindsey Graham from making a mockery of the institution.

Senators will have to take an oath, invoking God, before the impeachment trial begins that they will be impartial jurors. Despite what they say at this moment, the oath means little to them especially if you listen to Senator Graham and that Republicans' loyalty is solely to this president. Just writing the name Lindsey Graham causes this column to throw up in its mouth a bit.

However, there are Senators like Pat Toomey (R-PA) who take care to be honest brokers to their principles. He may not vote to impeach and remove the president but he was not dismissive of calling witnesses. Maybe it's setting the bar too low, but at the very least it's refreshing that Mr. Toomey stays away from the hyperbolic partisan rhetoric.

There's also Mr. Todd's question about how the Democrats could vote for impeachment this week but then turn around and approve the USMCA trade deal (the new NAFTA), wondering how it makes sense. Ultimately, it's a longer game the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is playing in as much as that it shows that Democrats can legislate and conduct oversight at the same time. It weakens the president's argument that Democrats are only obsessed with impeachment. If you look at it objectively and consider that Senator Toomey was disappointed that the president capitulated to all Mrs. Pelosi's demands, who is more obsessed with impeachment? The House Speaker or the gas lighter in chief? The only protections, Mr. Toomey explained, would be for the automotive sector and no others, which won't help his constituents in Pennsylvania.

The results of impeachment may already be baked in and the president will be acquitted, however, come June when it will seem like a distant memory, Mr. Trump's problems will only be beginning.


Panel: Heidi Przybyla, NBC News; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University; Peter Baker, The New York Times

12.8.19: The Weary American Soul

There will be many in Congress weighing in on what articles of impeachment will be drafted, but they will certainly be drafted. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, couldn't say which ones specifically but did say that it is clear that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress were two that were certainly clear. The latter is without question something that the president is guilty of as Mr. Trump has instructed his administration officials to refuse to testify or to hand over any documents pertaining to his seeking Ukrainian help leading up to the 2020 presidential election. This blanket refusal is something that no administration has ever done. Donald Trump has obstructed the Congress's Constitutional right, by law, to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

The Washington Post's Robert Costa explained that Republicans behind the scenes are weary of how an impeachment trial will go, with vulnerable Republican senators and evidence that is clearly not in Mr. Trump's favor. Regarding such evidence he also explained that he spoke with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who said that if the evidence and the Senate trial isn't going the president's way that he would call a vote to dismiss. The 'take the ball and go home' strategy. The Republican-controlled senate may have to employ such a strategy as they have no counter evidence and only attack the process, which if you're paying attention in the slightest is bogus on its face.

There is also the counter argument by Republicans that Ukraine also meddled in the 2016 election, which the intelligence community has widely condemned as a false narrative, but today we have Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) saying that he believes that Ukraine meddled citing an OpEd piece as evidence. Senator Cruz is definitely no profile in courage, that much is clear. Mr. Cruz supports a man who defamed his family, who he himself called a sniveling coward, but here we are. The political animal that he is, Texas right now goes for Trump so therefore Mr. Cruz is on board.

Mr. Cruz also said the Chuck Todd called Senator John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) a stooge for Russia, to which Mr. Todd refuted. However, this column will resolve that by saying that Mr. Kennedy by repeating Kremlin talking points is indeed a stooge. We'll get to Congressman Denny Heck (D-WA) more in a minute, but he said he is tired of politicians on the opposite side of the aisle continually taking views that are absent of truth.

Speaking of an absence of truth, there is fmr. New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani who is at the center of this scandal in Ukraine this week concocting evidence to what end, no one seems to know. Under investigation by the very office he used to lead, the Southern District of New York, Mr. Giuliani's fall from grace and respect has washed away all good deeds in his past. Supposedly, he intends to present his findings to Congress and to this end, Speaker Pelosi should review the coming articles of impeachment and sit on them and compel other potential witnesses to testify, namely fmr. National Security Advisor John Bolton who would effectively render Mr. Giuliani's finding void. Kristen Welker explained that once the articles go to the Senate, majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) could set a rule that bars any additional evidence from being presented or considered once the trial has started. However, Mr. McConnell should be weary of setting such a rule because if new evidence/ testimony comes up given the light and attention of the American people during an impeachment, it could easily steep public opinion away from his party, jeopardizing the Republicans slim majority in the Senate.

This brings us to the Congressman Denny Heck's (D-WA) retirement from Congress, who said he is tired and that his soul is weary from all the investigations but really it is from what he called the absence of the greater sense of decency and truth from Republicans. He also cited the lack of Constitutional principles on behalf of Republicans who have abdicated their responsibility to country. He said that the reelection of President Trump is a nightmare scenario, one that this column feels is an all too real possibility. If Mr. Trump is reelected, there is little doubt that American democracy will be changed forever for the worse. The equal rule of law will no longer apply to those in the president's favor.


Panel: Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Democratic campaign manger; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Republican Congressman of Florida

One more thing...
It's looking like that the Saudi national that shot 3 people at a Naval base in Pensacola, FL was an act of terrorism. We'll see how the investigation plays out but an apology from the Saudi government is hollow at the least and disingenuous at the worst. What's really disgusting is the president of the United States being the apologist in chief from despotic regimes.

12.1.19: The Whining and Complaining President

If impeachment inquiry of President Trump ends up with the Judiciary committee drawing up articles for a vote in the House which passes and then goes to the Senate for a trial where they vote to keep the president office (both votes along party lines), it will be what the American people already expect. This is exactly what will happen.

Republican strategist Al Cardenas explained that what President Trump did was worse than what Richard Nixon did, but that opinions on the president have already been set. Worse than Richard Nixon... think about that for a moment.

Impeachment must go forward even if the outcome is predetermined, which it seems it is because of the larger point that Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) outlined that the president has betrayed the trust of the American people. He consistently puts his personal advancement above the agenda of the American people. What kind of person who wins the presidency of the United States to become the most powerful person in the world constantly whines about unfairness like Donald Trump. This column for one is sick and tired of Mr. Trump playing the victim card.

He has gotten nothing done as president with the exception of a wasteful corporate tax cut and two Supreme Court justices. Healthcare, nothing. Prescription drugs, nothing. Opioid crisis, nothing. Gun violence, nothing. Foreign policy, worse than nothing - the American people have taken hits all over the world for the impulsively poor decisions that this president has made.

As for the circumstances of impeachment, it must move forward, popular or not, because you can not let the president's lawbreaking go unaccounted for. Of course, the president is going to muddy the waters and talk about the unfairness of it all. Please, he's the president and he's a whiner. All he does is whine and complain and Americans have little tolerance for someone if that's all he does. Yes, you could say that this column is filing a complaint about the president's whining and complaining.

The converse of this is what you heard from Senator Kennedy (R-LA) who seems like a pleasant person, but a person who had the gall to say that this president has a demonstrated record on fighting corruption. Where did this notion even come from? He also said that the former Ukrainian head of state, Petro Poroshenko, actively worked with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Simply stated, Mr. Kennedy is spouting Russian talking points. After Fiona Hill's testimony, an expert on Russia, the Senate was briefed by the intelligence community on Russian versus Ukrainian interference and the information on Ukraine is fiction. Mr. Kennedy told Chuck Todd that he wasn't briefed and that Ms. Hill is entitled to her opinions. It's funny in the most profoundly sad way that these are the people representing our country. Mr. Kennedy, sir, do your job and go to the briefings on national security.

And that's what is at stake here. John Kerry and Arnold Schwarzenegger started a World War Zero project to combat global warming and climate change. However, what's really should be in the works is a cyber-informational WW III in which America and it's allies stand up to Russia and cripple the economy and disinformation infrastructure. Russia is a petrol state and the two are tied together.  Talking and doing something about climate change and the environment directly impacts Russia and its misinformation hegemony.

However, not with this president, and not with this Republican senate, blindly loyal to a petty commander in chief who whines and complains about unfairness. Speaking of unfair, David Brooks reported that many Trump supporters were disgusted with the president's intervention in military cases involving Navy SEALS acting unlawfully. What sets America apart from others is our morality and our belief that we fight for good with honor, but the president not having any understanding of what it is to be in the service of one's country has decided that one of the aspects that makes the United States exceptional doesn't matter.

Mr. Trump makes irresponsible decisions all the while complaining and whining about fairness when he has broken the law. Life's not fair Mr. President, get a helmet.


Panel: Theresa Maria Kumar, Voto Latino; Betsy Woodruff Swan, The Daily Beast; David Brooks, The New York Times; Al Cardenas, Republican strategist