The president launched a scathing six-page criticism of the impeachment process in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in which he insists that he has been "deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam."
Moreover, the president writes, "I have been denied ... the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses."
Reality check: He was in fact invited to present evidence and participate in the investigation, but he declined. He was then sent a subpoena for documents, but he defied it.
As for having his own counsel present, he refused to allow it, and ordered his subordinates to ignore requests and subpoenas to cooperate with investigators.
In short, he ignored and defied all efforts in the Congressional inquiry. And now he claims he was "deprived" of basic rights.
Who's defying whom?
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Block Party
Democrats offered a list of witnesses they want to testify at the president's impeachment trial in the Senate, but the Republican leadership immediately rejected the idea.
This quickly brought the question, if he's innocent, as he claims, why is he hiding witnesses who might help prove that?
But they would appear before Congress and under oath, observers point out, and if they fail to tell the truth, they would be subject to punishment.
So the issue becomes this: If the truth would clear the president of wrongdoing, they should testify, but if the truth incriminates him, he would be convicted and removed from office.
Therefore, what is the truth, and why is he preventing witnesses from his own staff from testifying? Unless, of course, the truth would convict him. And that would be reason enough to prevent them from testifying.
This quickly brought the question, if he's innocent, as he claims, why is he hiding witnesses who might help prove that?
But they would appear before Congress and under oath, observers point out, and if they fail to tell the truth, they would be subject to punishment.
So the issue becomes this: If the truth would clear the president of wrongdoing, they should testify, but if the truth incriminates him, he would be convicted and removed from office.
Therefore, what is the truth, and why is he preventing witnesses from his own staff from testifying? Unless, of course, the truth would convict him. And that would be reason enough to prevent them from testifying.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Timing
Speculation is rampant as TV commentators guess how long the Senate will debate the removal of the president.
The House is expected to impeach him this week, and the Senate will take up the issue as the new year begins.
Already, however, Republican leaders of the Senate say they have decided to clear him, and they are working closely with the White Staff on defense.
So much for the Constitutional idea of a fair and impartial trial by an independent legislative body that would hear evidence from both sides before voting.
Granted, a Senate impeachment trial is not the same as a civil or criminal trial in a court of law. But Senate and White House people have been echoing the president's words, like "sham," for many weeks, ignoring facts and evidence and attacking the process instead.
As for the claim that the president is immune from prosecution, that was settled by the Supreme Court years ago, when Bill Clinton faced impeachment. And rather than obey a subpoena to testify before Congress, Clinton appeared voluntarily, thus eliminating the possibility of setting a precedent.
The current president, however, seems determined to have all things his way all the time, and has refused all requests, demands and subpoenas for stuff related to the impeachment inquiry, and has told his subordinates to do the same.
Now it seems the Senate has subordinated itself to the presidency -- not something the framers of the Constitution had in mind in 1789.
Why the House committees did not challenge the presidential defiance in a court of law can only mean they wanted to avoid a delay of many months, if not years, of appeals and legalistic maneuvering.
This, of course, would in turn mean the president would remain in the White House through the summer, the election season, and even to the end of a second term in office -- assuming he be re-elected. And if not, would he leave.
Meanwhile, we're likely to see a sham trial in the Senate, as Republican defenders block any attempt by Democrats to introduce testimony to help convict the president of the impeachment charges and remove him from office.
Instead, the GOP is likely to find ways to attack former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, even as they block Democratic attempts to introduce witnesses in support of the impeachment charges.
The House is expected to impeach him this week, and the Senate will take up the issue as the new year begins.
Already, however, Republican leaders of the Senate say they have decided to clear him, and they are working closely with the White Staff on defense.
So much for the Constitutional idea of a fair and impartial trial by an independent legislative body that would hear evidence from both sides before voting.
Granted, a Senate impeachment trial is not the same as a civil or criminal trial in a court of law. But Senate and White House people have been echoing the president's words, like "sham," for many weeks, ignoring facts and evidence and attacking the process instead.
As for the claim that the president is immune from prosecution, that was settled by the Supreme Court years ago, when Bill Clinton faced impeachment. And rather than obey a subpoena to testify before Congress, Clinton appeared voluntarily, thus eliminating the possibility of setting a precedent.
The current president, however, seems determined to have all things his way all the time, and has refused all requests, demands and subpoenas for stuff related to the impeachment inquiry, and has told his subordinates to do the same.
Now it seems the Senate has subordinated itself to the presidency -- not something the framers of the Constitution had in mind in 1789.
Why the House committees did not challenge the presidential defiance in a court of law can only mean they wanted to avoid a delay of many months, if not years, of appeals and legalistic maneuvering.
This, of course, would in turn mean the president would remain in the White House through the summer, the election season, and even to the end of a second term in office -- assuming he be re-elected. And if not, would he leave.
Meanwhile, we're likely to see a sham trial in the Senate, as Republican defenders block any attempt by Democrats to introduce testimony to help convict the president of the impeachment charges and remove him from office.
Instead, the GOP is likely to find ways to attack former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, even as they block Democratic attempts to introduce witnesses in support of the impeachment charges.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Law and the White House
The president is immune from prosecution, goes the song from his lawyers, but several courts have already upheld demands that he comply with subpoenas.
Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases, including one from New York State and two from Congressional committees demanding to see his financial records.
Previous presidents have routinely released their financial statements, but Donald Trump has steadfastly refused.
The issue is not only whether Congress, in its role as legislative watchdog and formulator of new law, has a right to see the documents, but also whether a private corporation must comply with a state grand jury subpoena to supply them to investigators.
In the latter case, a New York State grand jury wants to see them as it investigates potential tax violations, and it has subpoenaed the president's tax preparers for them. The company said it is willing to comply, but the president intervened and challenged the subpoena. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a state legal action is one key to the challenge.
A larger issue, of course, is the president's attitude, as shown in comments like this:
"I'll do what I want."
"I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
"Impeachment shouldn't be allowed."
All of these have drawn an identical response from legislators, prosecutors and academic observers:
"No one is above the law."
Nevertheless, Trump's lawyers continue to insist that the president is immune from prosecution. At least, while he is in office.
The larger issue, then, becomes this: What to do about a president who talks and acts like he really is above the law. And that is what has brought about impeachment proceedings against this president.
He has ignored court orders in the past, or he has appealed them to higher courts, several of which have upheld the rulings. Now the cases will be heard by the highest court in America, and the question becomes this:
Will he also ignore or refuse to comply with an order from the Supreme Court of the United States? Moreover, how can the government enforce the ruling if he does?
Coincidentally, the SCOTUS decision is expected this summer, after a Senate decision on impeachment comes down and just as a re-election campaign goes into high gear.
'Twill be a busy year.
Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases, including one from New York State and two from Congressional committees demanding to see his financial records.
Previous presidents have routinely released their financial statements, but Donald Trump has steadfastly refused.
The issue is not only whether Congress, in its role as legislative watchdog and formulator of new law, has a right to see the documents, but also whether a private corporation must comply with a state grand jury subpoena to supply them to investigators.
In the latter case, a New York State grand jury wants to see them as it investigates potential tax violations, and it has subpoenaed the president's tax preparers for them. The company said it is willing to comply, but the president intervened and challenged the subpoena. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a state legal action is one key to the challenge.
A larger issue, of course, is the president's attitude, as shown in comments like this:
"I'll do what I want."
"I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
"Impeachment shouldn't be allowed."
All of these have drawn an identical response from legislators, prosecutors and academic observers:
"No one is above the law."
Nevertheless, Trump's lawyers continue to insist that the president is immune from prosecution. At least, while he is in office.
The larger issue, then, becomes this: What to do about a president who talks and acts like he really is above the law. And that is what has brought about impeachment proceedings against this president.
He has ignored court orders in the past, or he has appealed them to higher courts, several of which have upheld the rulings. Now the cases will be heard by the highest court in America, and the question becomes this:
Will he also ignore or refuse to comply with an order from the Supreme Court of the United States? Moreover, how can the government enforce the ruling if he does?
Coincidentally, the SCOTUS decision is expected this summer, after a Senate decision on impeachment comes down and just as a re-election campaign goes into high gear.
'Twill be a busy year.
Kangaroo Court
Sen. Mitch McConnell said he and Republicans in the upper house will "work closely" with the White House to "coordinate" defense in the coming impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
So much for the idea that the Senate is an independent body whose responsibility under the Constitution is to decide whether a president should be removed from office.
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment after a 14-hour hearing session on Thursday followed by a 30-minute Friday morning session in which the committee forwarded the issue to the full House for a vote, expected next week.
But already, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, have apparently decided they will not convict the president of the high crimes and misdemeanors detailed in the two articles of impeachment.
Separately, the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was seen entering the White House after returning from Ukraine. That country is the subject of allegations that the president solicited foreign help in the coming election.
Never before has the Senate consulted the White House on how to conduct an impeachment trial of a president. Trump will be the third sitting president to be impeached, and likely will also escape conviction and removal from office, as did Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
A House committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House could vote on the issue.
At the moment, that's the status of the campaign against Trump, but he's not likely to resign, since he has the full support of Republicans, who control the Senate, as well as the cooperation of McConnell in forming a defense.
So much for the idea that the Senate is an independent body whose responsibility under the Constitution is to decide whether a president should be removed from office.
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment after a 14-hour hearing session on Thursday followed by a 30-minute Friday morning session in which the committee forwarded the issue to the full House for a vote, expected next week.
But already, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, have apparently decided they will not convict the president of the high crimes and misdemeanors detailed in the two articles of impeachment.
Separately, the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was seen entering the White House after returning from Ukraine. That country is the subject of allegations that the president solicited foreign help in the coming election.
Never before has the Senate consulted the White House on how to conduct an impeachment trial of a president. Trump will be the third sitting president to be impeached, and likely will also escape conviction and removal from office, as did Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
A House committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House could vote on the issue.
At the moment, that's the status of the campaign against Trump, but he's not likely to resign, since he has the full support of Republicans, who control the Senate, as well as the cooperation of McConnell in forming a defense.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Economy Watch
The Federal Reserve is taking a wait and see stance after raising interest rates three times last year to stave off inflation and stabilize the economy.
This could be related to other signs around the world and in America that the economy may be on the verge of a downturn -- not right now in the midst of the holiday buying season, but sometime in the coming year.
Normally, the Fed raises interest rates when the economy faces a growth rate that is too high, and lowers rates as a way to boost investment and increase growth.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed continuous growth for the past decade, the longest in its history. But whether that can continue, even as other nations edge closer to the brink of recession, is cause for concern among economists in the private sector and likely also at the Fed.
The agency's target rate for healthy and stable GDP growth is about 2 percent yearly, but pressure from the White House for a 3 percent growth rate or higher has been ignored by the Fed, which is fully independent.
All this while the nation is focused on impeachment proceedings in Washington that would, if successful, oust the president from office and prohibit him from ever having any other office of public trust.
Democrats have presented factual information accusing the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and therefore should be impeached and removed from office. Republican supporters, however, dismiss such information -- true or not -- as irrelevant, and instead they attack the process.
Meanwhile, the possibility of an economic downturn looms and may hit the nation in the spring or summer, at the height of the election season, and perhaps even at the same time as a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate.
The House of Representatives is about to approve impeachment articles, and the issue then will go to the Senate for trial. But the Senate is not likely to start that until after the holiday season.
So the nation is facing the possibility of an impeachment trial and an economic downturn at the same time.
Meanwhile, the Fed is always careful in the phrasing of its announcements, lest its warnings of a possible downturn become a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing the very thing it wants to prevent.
That's why many of its statements seem vague to the point of being incomprehensible. Perhaps that's just as well, since its job is to monitor and try to guide the nation's economy, not to control it fully.
This could be related to other signs around the world and in America that the economy may be on the verge of a downturn -- not right now in the midst of the holiday buying season, but sometime in the coming year.
Normally, the Fed raises interest rates when the economy faces a growth rate that is too high, and lowers rates as a way to boost investment and increase growth.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed continuous growth for the past decade, the longest in its history. But whether that can continue, even as other nations edge closer to the brink of recession, is cause for concern among economists in the private sector and likely also at the Fed.
The agency's target rate for healthy and stable GDP growth is about 2 percent yearly, but pressure from the White House for a 3 percent growth rate or higher has been ignored by the Fed, which is fully independent.
All this while the nation is focused on impeachment proceedings in Washington that would, if successful, oust the president from office and prohibit him from ever having any other office of public trust.
Democrats have presented factual information accusing the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and therefore should be impeached and removed from office. Republican supporters, however, dismiss such information -- true or not -- as irrelevant, and instead they attack the process.
Meanwhile, the possibility of an economic downturn looms and may hit the nation in the spring or summer, at the height of the election season, and perhaps even at the same time as a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate.
The House of Representatives is about to approve impeachment articles, and the issue then will go to the Senate for trial. But the Senate is not likely to start that until after the holiday season.
So the nation is facing the possibility of an impeachment trial and an economic downturn at the same time.
Meanwhile, the Fed is always careful in the phrasing of its announcements, lest its warnings of a possible downturn become a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing the very thing it wants to prevent.
That's why many of its statements seem vague to the point of being incomprehensible. Perhaps that's just as well, since its job is to monitor and try to guide the nation's economy, not to control it fully.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Busy News Days
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." -- Frank Church, 1897
The news cycle is now 24 hours, compared to less than half that in the days when print dominated journalism.
At the time, it took that long for a reporter to gather a breaking news story, write it and submit it to an editor, who would then revise and edit it and decide where in the newspaper it would go.
The next step would be for printers to set it in type and make up a page, which would then be formed into a plate for printers to install with other plates onto a press to produce copies of the newspaper.
The papers were then loaded onto trucks for delivery to distributors, who carried them to stores and homes.
The deadline for reporters was typically 9:30 p.m. for a morning newspaper, and the production process lasted until the papers were delivered to homes by 7 a.m.
However, then came radio, television and finally computers, which now enable consumers to watch news events live or to read about them within minutes as reporters write their stories on portable computers and post them immediately on the internet.
So while unions lament the loss of jobs for typesetters, printers and others in the formerly labor intensive production process, there has been a greater surge of jobs in newsrooms for reporters and writers.
In addition, there are many more journalism jobs for reporters, writers, editors and production personnel at radio, television, computer and internet operations.
Result: Consumers get more news in greater detail, faster and sooner with less effort. At the same time, newspapers have adapted to the changes, forming new relationships with broadcast facilities as well as setting up their own computer systems for consumers to get information via the internet.
In short, people are better served by the new technology, giving them more and better news and information sooner.
The downside is that politicians and corporate marketers have also learned how to use the new technology to transmit their messages, enabling them to bypass journalists.
At one time, people would say you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper. That was at a time when some print media were neutral and objective, and some were not.
The same is true today, and that includes television and internet outlets. And because of the greater volume of information available, the responsibility to judge reliability of news sources is far greater for readers, TV watchers and internet cruisers. At the same time, journalists have a greater obligation for increased competence to meet the higher responsibility borne by consumers.
However, the highest responsibility remains with the people who read newspapers, watch television and cruise the internet.
You still can't believe everything you read, leaving editors and reporters with more responsibility than ever to be truthful.
But the tradition of printing truth in this day of constant attacks on "fake news media" lives on, it's just as strong now as it was in the 19th Century.
That was when eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon asked her father whether Santa Claus really existed. His response was, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so."
And as the New York City newspaper editorial writer Frank Church put it in his reply, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
Too many people, Church wrote, "have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age."
We remain in a skeptical age, when cynicism over the doings of senior politicians is the inevitable result of their hypocrisy. Yet it remains the duty of journalists to continue to print truth despite the barrage of insults hurled at them.
May it ever be so. Freedom and democracy depend on it.
The news cycle is now 24 hours, compared to less than half that in the days when print dominated journalism.
At the time, it took that long for a reporter to gather a breaking news story, write it and submit it to an editor, who would then revise and edit it and decide where in the newspaper it would go.
The next step would be for printers to set it in type and make up a page, which would then be formed into a plate for printers to install with other plates onto a press to produce copies of the newspaper.
The papers were then loaded onto trucks for delivery to distributors, who carried them to stores and homes.
The deadline for reporters was typically 9:30 p.m. for a morning newspaper, and the production process lasted until the papers were delivered to homes by 7 a.m.
However, then came radio, television and finally computers, which now enable consumers to watch news events live or to read about them within minutes as reporters write their stories on portable computers and post them immediately on the internet.
So while unions lament the loss of jobs for typesetters, printers and others in the formerly labor intensive production process, there has been a greater surge of jobs in newsrooms for reporters and writers.
In addition, there are many more journalism jobs for reporters, writers, editors and production personnel at radio, television, computer and internet operations.
Result: Consumers get more news in greater detail, faster and sooner with less effort. At the same time, newspapers have adapted to the changes, forming new relationships with broadcast facilities as well as setting up their own computer systems for consumers to get information via the internet.
In short, people are better served by the new technology, giving them more and better news and information sooner.
The downside is that politicians and corporate marketers have also learned how to use the new technology to transmit their messages, enabling them to bypass journalists.
At one time, people would say you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper. That was at a time when some print media were neutral and objective, and some were not.
The same is true today, and that includes television and internet outlets. And because of the greater volume of information available, the responsibility to judge reliability of news sources is far greater for readers, TV watchers and internet cruisers. At the same time, journalists have a greater obligation for increased competence to meet the higher responsibility borne by consumers.
However, the highest responsibility remains with the people who read newspapers, watch television and cruise the internet.
You still can't believe everything you read, leaving editors and reporters with more responsibility than ever to be truthful.
But the tradition of printing truth in this day of constant attacks on "fake news media" lives on, it's just as strong now as it was in the 19th Century.
That was when eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon asked her father whether Santa Claus really existed. His response was, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so."
And as the New York City newspaper editorial writer Frank Church put it in his reply, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
Too many people, Church wrote, "have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age."
We remain in a skeptical age, when cynicism over the doings of senior politicians is the inevitable result of their hypocrisy. Yet it remains the duty of journalists to continue to print truth despite the barrage of insults hurled at them.
May it ever be so. Freedom and democracy depend on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)