Donald Trump is now officially the fourth president in American history to face a formal impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment, and the issue will now go to the full House for final action. If approved, it will go to the Senate for trial, and if convicted there he will be removed from office.
Whether that happens, of course, remains to be seen. Of the four presidents who have faced impeachment charges, two -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were not convicted by the Senate, and a third -- Richard Nixon -- resigned after the Judiciary Committee approved impeachment but before the issue could be taken up by the full House. Therefore, it cannot be said that Nixon was impeached.
It's not likely that Trump will follow Nixon's example and resign, and for now it's not likely that the Senate will convict Trump, forcing him out of office.
The two articles of impeachment that would indict Trump are about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. There were other issues that the House committee considered, but the panel chose these two as the most likely to be approved. Others, however, still dominate the news cycle will no doubt continue to be debated as the controversy continues.
Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister is set to meet the president and the secretary of state, the Justice Department said the FBI's probe of the 2016 presidential campaign and possible Russian interference was flawed, and Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani is in Ukraine for more talks with political leadership there.
Hmmm. What does it all mean?
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Wrangling Bothers
The political circus is in town and members of Congress juggle law and morality as they look for ways to impeach the president and still keep their seats.
Experts note that an official can break a law and not be impeached, or he can be impeached without having broken any law. It's like being fired from your job for bad behavior but you haven't stolen any of the merchandise.
For example, one of the reasons for impeaching Bill Clinton was that he had an affair with a woman who was not his wife, and then lied about it. But the activity was consensual, which means no law was broken. As for lying to Congress, it's not nice but it's not a crime that warrants impeachment.
In contrast, there is evidence that Donald Trump, among other things, broke the law in asking the president of Ukraine for a personal favor in exchange for government military aid.
That amounts to bribery and extortion, say his accusers, and attempted bribery is a crime even if it's not successful. But his supporters insist that even if true, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, since in politics "it happens all the time."
Confusing? Yes, but the Constitution is clear that an official can be impeached and removed from office and still face charges in a court of law.
Even that, however, applies only to federal charges. State and local jurisdictions can file charges against a president while still in office. See Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that punishment "shall not extend further than to removal from office," but nevertheless the official can still face indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Already, state jurisdictions have legal cases pending against the president, but it seems they are waiting until he leaves office before pursuing them. They were filed now so the cases would not run afoul of any statute of limitations.
It all amounts to a three ring circus of performances: Congress, White House and State House, leaving observers without a program to keep track of who's doing what to whom.
But that's what journalism is for.
Experts note that an official can break a law and not be impeached, or he can be impeached without having broken any law. It's like being fired from your job for bad behavior but you haven't stolen any of the merchandise.
For example, one of the reasons for impeaching Bill Clinton was that he had an affair with a woman who was not his wife, and then lied about it. But the activity was consensual, which means no law was broken. As for lying to Congress, it's not nice but it's not a crime that warrants impeachment.
In contrast, there is evidence that Donald Trump, among other things, broke the law in asking the president of Ukraine for a personal favor in exchange for government military aid.
That amounts to bribery and extortion, say his accusers, and attempted bribery is a crime even if it's not successful. But his supporters insist that even if true, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, since in politics "it happens all the time."
Confusing? Yes, but the Constitution is clear that an official can be impeached and removed from office and still face charges in a court of law.
Even that, however, applies only to federal charges. State and local jurisdictions can file charges against a president while still in office. See Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that punishment "shall not extend further than to removal from office," but nevertheless the official can still face indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Already, state jurisdictions have legal cases pending against the president, but it seems they are waiting until he leaves office before pursuing them. They were filed now so the cases would not run afoul of any statute of limitations.
It all amounts to a three ring circus of performances: Congress, White House and State House, leaving observers without a program to keep track of who's doing what to whom.
But that's what journalism is for.
Friday, December 6, 2019
Patterns and Politics
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern. -- Pug Mahoney
All of the economic downturns of the past century began during a Republican administration.
Moreover, each recession was preceded by an inversion in the financial yield curve, when short-term returns were higher than long-term bond yields.
Now, the nation has seen an inverted curve since last May, and a Republican occupies the White House.
Taken together, this means the American economy is likely to go into recession soon.
When? That's impossible to say, but if history is any guide, look for it to happen within the coming year -- in the middle of the presidential election campaign.
Meanwhile, the good news is that employment rose in November and the jobless rate was relatively steady at 3.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economists define recession as two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative economic growth. That is, a dip below zero in the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation.
The U.S. economy has been enjoying the longest expansion in its history, as recovery from the last downturn began in the first year of the Obama administration, some ten years ago.
GDP has risen in every fiscal quarter since then, though the growth rate has faded recently, and is now at about 2 percent, right in the target range eyed by the Federal Reserve, which is charged with monitoring the economy.
Specifically, GDP was 3 percent in the first three months of this year, 2.0 percent in the second quarter, and 2.1 percent in the quarter ended September. The first estimate for the fourth quarter of 2019 will be published January 30, and that would be the first official evidence of a possible problem.
Even so, it would take several more months to accurately quantify the extent of a downturn, and an additional three months to meet the standard definition of a recession.
That means that if GDP growth goes negative in the fourth quarter of 2019, it would require another dip in the first three months of 2020 to qualify as a recession. We won't know for sure until nearly summer that the U.S. economy has declined after a decade of growth.
That news would come just when political campaigning goes into high gear, as primary elections and national conventions are held to choose presidential candidates for next November.
Historically, here's the pattern of Republican presidents and the onset of economic downturns:
Herbert Hoover, 1929; Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953; Richard Nixon, 1970; Gerald Ford, 1975; Ronald Reagan, 1982; George H.W. Bush, 1990; and George W. Bush, 2001 and 2008.
Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows a correlation of negative yield curve to every recession since 1960, and using data through July 2019, anticipates the probability of a downturn in the coming year to be more than 30 percent.
Sharpen all your pencils, journalists. You've got a busy year ahead.
All of the economic downturns of the past century began during a Republican administration.
Moreover, each recession was preceded by an inversion in the financial yield curve, when short-term returns were higher than long-term bond yields.
Now, the nation has seen an inverted curve since last May, and a Republican occupies the White House.
Taken together, this means the American economy is likely to go into recession soon.
When? That's impossible to say, but if history is any guide, look for it to happen within the coming year -- in the middle of the presidential election campaign.
Meanwhile, the good news is that employment rose in November and the jobless rate was relatively steady at 3.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economists define recession as two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative economic growth. That is, a dip below zero in the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation.
The U.S. economy has been enjoying the longest expansion in its history, as recovery from the last downturn began in the first year of the Obama administration, some ten years ago.
GDP has risen in every fiscal quarter since then, though the growth rate has faded recently, and is now at about 2 percent, right in the target range eyed by the Federal Reserve, which is charged with monitoring the economy.
Specifically, GDP was 3 percent in the first three months of this year, 2.0 percent in the second quarter, and 2.1 percent in the quarter ended September. The first estimate for the fourth quarter of 2019 will be published January 30, and that would be the first official evidence of a possible problem.
Even so, it would take several more months to accurately quantify the extent of a downturn, and an additional three months to meet the standard definition of a recession.
That means that if GDP growth goes negative in the fourth quarter of 2019, it would require another dip in the first three months of 2020 to qualify as a recession. We won't know for sure until nearly summer that the U.S. economy has declined after a decade of growth.
That news would come just when political campaigning goes into high gear, as primary elections and national conventions are held to choose presidential candidates for next November.
Historically, here's the pattern of Republican presidents and the onset of economic downturns:
Herbert Hoover, 1929; Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953; Richard Nixon, 1970; Gerald Ford, 1975; Ronald Reagan, 1982; George H.W. Bush, 1990; and George W. Bush, 2001 and 2008.
Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows a correlation of negative yield curve to every recession since 1960, and using data through July 2019, anticipates the probability of a downturn in the coming year to be more than 30 percent.
Sharpen all your pencils, journalists. You've got a busy year ahead.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Piling On
The evidence is piling up, as the House Judiciary Committee begins its hearings on the proposed impeachment of the president.
But the question is whether Congress will listen to its own investigators and move forward on the path to impeachment, or will its members -- especially senators -- be so afraid of losing a bid for re-election that they will not act?
The House Judiciary Committee began hearing testimony from experts on the validity of the House Intelligence Committee's report, and the first day's session was marked by stalling and delaying tactics at every turn by Republican members of the committee. Yet none seemed able to poke holes in the testimony of the witnesses from academia. Instead, it seemed more like table-pounding than debate over fact or law.
Separately, there are reports that the Senate is indeed getting ready to receive an impeachment by the full House of Representatives. And there was a claim by supporters of the president that the impeachment vote must be approved by the Supreme Court before the Senate can take up the issue.
Not so.
No more so than the claim that the president's term in office should be extended because of the time spent on impeachment investigations and proceedings.
In short, we are in the middle of a major moment in American history. Only four presidents have faced impeachment proceedings. One -- Richard Nixon -- resigned rather than face a vote by the full House of Representatives. Therefore, it must be said that Nixon was not impeached. Of the others, neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton was convicted.
Moreover, all three cooperated with House investigators and provided evidence they hoped would clear them of any charges.
Donald Trump, however, has ignored all requests and subpoenas sent to him and his associates, and has told his subordinates not to talk to House investigators.
Meanwhile, the evidence supporting charges of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" seems to be overwhelming.
Nevertheless, rather than present evidence supporting the claim of presidential innocence, his backers metaphorically pound the table, attacking the process.
So the drama continues, and a formal vote to impeach the current president is likely within days. He will then be the third president to be impeached.
But will he be tried in the Senate, convicted and removed from office?
Stay tuned as the national drama continues.
But the question is whether Congress will listen to its own investigators and move forward on the path to impeachment, or will its members -- especially senators -- be so afraid of losing a bid for re-election that they will not act?
The House Judiciary Committee began hearing testimony from experts on the validity of the House Intelligence Committee's report, and the first day's session was marked by stalling and delaying tactics at every turn by Republican members of the committee. Yet none seemed able to poke holes in the testimony of the witnesses from academia. Instead, it seemed more like table-pounding than debate over fact or law.
Separately, there are reports that the Senate is indeed getting ready to receive an impeachment by the full House of Representatives. And there was a claim by supporters of the president that the impeachment vote must be approved by the Supreme Court before the Senate can take up the issue.
Not so.
No more so than the claim that the president's term in office should be extended because of the time spent on impeachment investigations and proceedings.
In short, we are in the middle of a major moment in American history. Only four presidents have faced impeachment proceedings. One -- Richard Nixon -- resigned rather than face a vote by the full House of Representatives. Therefore, it must be said that Nixon was not impeached. Of the others, neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton was convicted.
Moreover, all three cooperated with House investigators and provided evidence they hoped would clear them of any charges.
Donald Trump, however, has ignored all requests and subpoenas sent to him and his associates, and has told his subordinates not to talk to House investigators.
Meanwhile, the evidence supporting charges of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" seems to be overwhelming.
Nevertheless, rather than present evidence supporting the claim of presidential innocence, his backers metaphorically pound the table, attacking the process.
So the drama continues, and a formal vote to impeach the current president is likely within days. He will then be the third president to be impeached.
But will he be tried in the Senate, convicted and removed from office?
Stay tuned as the national drama continues.
Pressing Issues
For all the talk about the press being "the enemy of the people," only three news outlets are regularly attacked by the president: CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Fox, on the other hand, is regularly praised, but all of that praise goes to commentators who are avid supporters of the president, and not to the few news anchors who are what can only be called journalists, neutral in their presentations.
Never mentioned are the three major TV networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- as well as other major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Atlanta Constitution, the Miami Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, plus the independent news services like the Associated Press and others that have their own staff of reporters covering politics and government. These latter provide neutral coverage because they serve a wide variety of geopolitical areas.
Also never mentioned is the BBC, which provides news coverage to the world. Neither is the CBC mentioned, even though it serves all of Canada and many of America's northernmost states. And don't forget the cable news operations sponsored by friendly nations such as France and Germany, whose news programs are readily available to Americans.
But according to the president and his supporters, all news operations lie, as if they all get together to plan and coordinate their news operations before broadcast.
As if they had time for that in a 24-hour news cycle.
Also not mentioned is the fact that the BBC has a long history of being neutral in its news coverage, even critical of the British government.
But according to the Trumpistas, the only true facts (as opposed to false facts) come from the president himself. All the others dispense "fake news" as part of a "witch hunt" and a "hoax."
As if the only reliable source of information is the president himself, who is always right about everything in every detail all the time.
Or so he claims.
Fox, on the other hand, is regularly praised, but all of that praise goes to commentators who are avid supporters of the president, and not to the few news anchors who are what can only be called journalists, neutral in their presentations.
Never mentioned are the three major TV networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- as well as other major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Atlanta Constitution, the Miami Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, plus the independent news services like the Associated Press and others that have their own staff of reporters covering politics and government. These latter provide neutral coverage because they serve a wide variety of geopolitical areas.
Also never mentioned is the BBC, which provides news coverage to the world. Neither is the CBC mentioned, even though it serves all of Canada and many of America's northernmost states. And don't forget the cable news operations sponsored by friendly nations such as France and Germany, whose news programs are readily available to Americans.
But according to the president and his supporters, all news operations lie, as if they all get together to plan and coordinate their news operations before broadcast.
As if they had time for that in a 24-hour news cycle.
Also not mentioned is the fact that the BBC has a long history of being neutral in its news coverage, even critical of the British government.
But according to the Trumpistas, the only true facts (as opposed to false facts) come from the president himself. All the others dispense "fake news" as part of a "witch hunt" and a "hoax."
As if the only reliable source of information is the president himself, who is always right about everything in every detail all the time.
Or so he claims.
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Presidential Pique
Much as he wants to, the president cannot control the press. Nevertheless, he tries.
Banning reporters from rallies doesn't work. Several times he has refused press credentials that give reporters access to designated press facilities at public rallies. But journalists are first and foremost members of the public, so any reporters "banned" from the press gallery simply enter the main auditorium with everyone else.
The latest target of the presidential pique is Bloomberg News, on the pretext of biased coverage because the owner, Michael Bloomberg, is now a candidate.
The company said it will not publish investigative pieces on Bloomberg or any other Democratic candidate, but will write on President Trump.
Whether that constitutes bias is a valid question, since candidate Bloomberg is not the Democratic nominee and a full opponent of the current president. For that matter, Trump is not yet the official nominee for re-election.
As for bias against journalists, the president in the past has banned the New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, the Des Moines Register as well as several individuals with CNN and other media outlets from contacts with the White House.
Not that it made any difference. Journalists can either enter rally auditoriums with the general public or watch the event on television, including CSPAN, the nonprofit set of networks that send out government and political events commercial free and without comment.
Separately today, the House Intelligence Committee released its report on the impeachment inquiry, spelling out how, when and where the president went beyond constitutional guidelines in performing the duties of his office.
More to the point, the report lists some of the ways he may be guilty of violating the constitutional ban on "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Specifically, the report details evidence that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help him get re-elected, and then tried to stop Congress from investigating the allegations.
Also today, a federal appeals court ordered that the president's financial documents must be provided to Congress by the bank holding them.
The case will very likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Banning reporters from rallies doesn't work. Several times he has refused press credentials that give reporters access to designated press facilities at public rallies. But journalists are first and foremost members of the public, so any reporters "banned" from the press gallery simply enter the main auditorium with everyone else.
The latest target of the presidential pique is Bloomberg News, on the pretext of biased coverage because the owner, Michael Bloomberg, is now a candidate.
The company said it will not publish investigative pieces on Bloomberg or any other Democratic candidate, but will write on President Trump.
Whether that constitutes bias is a valid question, since candidate Bloomberg is not the Democratic nominee and a full opponent of the current president. For that matter, Trump is not yet the official nominee for re-election.
As for bias against journalists, the president in the past has banned the New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, the Des Moines Register as well as several individuals with CNN and other media outlets from contacts with the White House.
Not that it made any difference. Journalists can either enter rally auditoriums with the general public or watch the event on television, including CSPAN, the nonprofit set of networks that send out government and political events commercial free and without comment.
Separately today, the House Intelligence Committee released its report on the impeachment inquiry, spelling out how, when and where the president went beyond constitutional guidelines in performing the duties of his office.
More to the point, the report lists some of the ways he may be guilty of violating the constitutional ban on "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Specifically, the report details evidence that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help him get re-elected, and then tried to stop Congress from investigating the allegations.
Also today, a federal appeals court ordered that the president's financial documents must be provided to Congress by the bank holding them.
The case will very likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Circular Stalling
Hypocrisy gains power when morality sleeps.
Here's how to avoid congressional questions. For an example, we translated the talk from political palaver to plain speaking.
Complaint: The process is bad because we're not part of it.
Response: Okay, you're invited. Come be part of the process.
Complaint: The process isn't fair. We won't go.
Response: Here's a subpoena. You have to come.
Complaint: Your subpoena's not fair. We won't go.
Response: You said you would if we asked. We did, but you refused. Then we issued a subpoena, and you still refused.
Complaint: Because you didn't ask me if you could issue a subpoena. That's not fair.
Response: You claim you've got nothing to hide. Why, then, won't you answer our questions?
Complaint: Because you're not supposed to ask. It's not fair. You shouldn't be allowed to ask.
Response: Whose permission do we need to ask how to do our job?
Complaint: Mine. You need to ask me how to do your job and whether it's okay to ask me questions.
Response: And why is that, please?
Complaint: Because I said so, that's why.
If all of the above sounds childish, that's because it is. Even high level politicians can be guilty of childish behavior.
Here's how to avoid congressional questions. For an example, we translated the talk from political palaver to plain speaking.
Complaint: The process is bad because we're not part of it.
Response: Okay, you're invited. Come be part of the process.
Complaint: The process isn't fair. We won't go.
Response: Here's a subpoena. You have to come.
Complaint: Your subpoena's not fair. We won't go.
Response: You said you would if we asked. We did, but you refused. Then we issued a subpoena, and you still refused.
Complaint: Because you didn't ask me if you could issue a subpoena. That's not fair.
Response: You claim you've got nothing to hide. Why, then, won't you answer our questions?
Complaint: Because you're not supposed to ask. It's not fair. You shouldn't be allowed to ask.
Response: Whose permission do we need to ask how to do our job?
Complaint: Mine. You need to ask me how to do your job and whether it's okay to ask me questions.
Response: And why is that, please?
Complaint: Because I said so, that's why.
If all of the above sounds childish, that's because it is. Even high level politicians can be guilty of childish behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)