The Commentariat -- September 29, 2019
Afternoon Update:
Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post on how Nancy Pelosi is turning to Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff to run the preliminary -- and probably definitive -- "fact-gathering" phase of the impeachment inquiry instead of to the Judiciary Committee, which would normally head such an inquiry. Mrs. McC: There's a piece on how Republicans were so upset with Schiff's opening statement in the Maguire hearing. I heard Schiff's statement in real time & found nothing wrong with it, so I listened again. Trump & his allies are really grasping at straws to demand Schiff's resignation because they didn't like the way he characterized Trump's call to Zelensky. It was accurate.
Kylie Atwood & Evan Perez of CNN: "Former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker plans to appear at his deposition next Thursday in front of three congressional committees, according to a source familiar with his plans. The source would not say if the White House is seeking to use executive privilege to constrict Volker in terms of what he can say or provide. Volker's appearance before the Intelligence, Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs committees was announced just hours before the news broke Friday evening that he had resigned."
Zack Budryk of the Hill: "Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) said Sunday the government 'should be protecting' the whistleblower behind a complaint alleging President Trump pressured Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter.... 'Having laws in place to ensure that folks throughout the government are able to get to the right committees information they think may be wrongdoing is important. There are troubling issues within the whistleblower report but they are allegations and I think that's why we should explore these allegations through hearings,' he added." Mrs. McC: Hurd, a former CIA officer, is retiring from the House.
Jacob Knutson of Axios: "White House senior adviser Stephen Miller claimed on 'Fox News Sunday' that the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump's interactions with Ukraine is a 'deep state operative' who does not deserve to be honored for forwarding a 'partisan hit job.'... Miller has no evidence of who the whistleblower is. He also cited the intelligence community inspector general's finding that the whistleblower displayed 'arguable political bias,' but dismissed the IG's assessment that the complaint was 'credible' -- which has also been backed up by acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire." ~~~
~~~ Zack Budryk of the Hill: "White House policy advisor Stephen Miller sparred with Fox News's Chris Wallace on Sunday over a whistleblower complaint against President Trump that has led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to announce a formal impeachment inquiry last week, saying Trump was the 'real whistleblower.' Miller blasted the complaint, which largely aligns with a White House summary of a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, as a 'little Nancy Drew novel' that 'drips with condemnation, condescension and contempt for the president.... Wallace ... repeatedly pressed Miller on why the president had enlisted his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to get information on former Vice President Joe Biden's son's dealings in Ukraine. 'The president has got the State Department, he's got the CIA, he's got the Pentagon he's got a number of other agencies, why did he use three private lawyers to get information on Biden?' Wallace asked. Miller demurred on that question as well as Wallace's questions on why the White House delayed military aid to Ukraine, citing political corruption, despite the Pentagon certifying steps the nation had taken to address corruption. Wallace eventually called Miller's answers an 'exercise in obfuscation, 'while the White House official shot back, saying there was 'a tone of judgment' in Wallace's questions...."
I don't want to be glib about this matter, but last year, retired former Sen. Judd Gregg wrote a piece in The Hill magazine saying the 3 ways ... to impeach one's self. And the 3rd way was to hire Rudy Giuliani. -- Former Trump advisor Tom Bossert on "This Week" today ~~~
~~~ Chris Francescani of ABC News: "... Donald Trump's first Homeland Security and counterterrorism advisor, who resigned after a year in the office, said on 'This Week With George Stephanopoulos' on Sunday that he is 'deeply disturbed' and 'frustrated' by the 'entire mess' that began in July with Trump's phone call with a young Ukrainian president.... Former Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert, now an ABC News contributor..., described the allegations against Trump as extremely serious. '... it is a bad day and a bad week for this president and this country -- if he is asking for political dirt on an opponent. But it looks to me that the other matter, that's far from proven, was whether he was doing anything to abuse his power and withhold aid, in order to solicit such a thing,' Bossert said.... Bossert was sharply critical of Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was also a guest on the show." ~~~
~~~ So Then. Lucien Bruggeman of ABC News: "Rudy Giuliani ... defended himself Sunday on 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos' from accusations lodged by a former White House official that he has trafficked unfounded theories about foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election.... Giuliani ... [told] Stephanopoulos, 'Tom Bossert doesn't know what he's talking about... I'm not peddling anything.' [Giuliani] also sought to defend his role in pressing Ukrainians to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.... 'This is not about getting Joe Biden in trouble,' Giuliani said. 'This is about proving that Donald Trump was framed by the Democrats.'... Giuliani also sought to undermine a whistleblower complaint.... 'The whistleblower says, "I don't have any direct knowledge, I just heard things,"' Giuliani said. 'I'm not saying [the whistleblower] was false, I'm saying he could have heard it wrong.'" ~~~
~~~ Rishika Dugyala of Politico has a more colorful recounting of Giuliani's "This Week' appearance: "On Sunday -- armed with document after document that he held up to the camera -- ... Donald Trump's personal attorney doubled down on his corruption charges against former Vice President Joe Biden and the connection between the Democratic Party and Ukraine. He also cast doubt on whether he would testify before a House panel.... Giuliani started his attacks on the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. He denied ever courting the theory that Ukrainians hacked the Democratic National Committee and then framed the Russian government. Pivoting, he said there was still 'a load of evidence that Ukrainians created false information for the Obama White House. He also alleged 'the collusion that they claim happened in Russia happened in the Ukraine with Hillary Clinton.'... If Trump hadn't asked Ukraine to investigate Biden in his July 25 phone call, Giuliani said Sunday, 'He would have violated the Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.'... Throughout the interview, Giuliani and host Goerge Stephanopoulos had fiery back-and-forths, disagreeing about media partisanship and the factual accuracy of some of Giuliani's claims." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: So the new "strategy" is to claim that Trump had a Constitutional duty to send his personal lawyer around the world ginning up dirt on his political opponent? That should work.
Sarah Cammarata of Politico: “Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday repeatedly dismissed the whistleblower's complaint against ... Donald Trump as 'all hearsay.' 'This seems to me like a political setup. It's all hearsay. You can't get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay. The whistleblower didn't hear the phone call,' the South Carolina Republican said on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' adding he has 'zero problems' with the president's phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Graham pushed back against host Margaret Brennan's assertion the whistleblower complaint largely matches the White House summary of the call. The evidence laid out in the complaint, she added, is based on information gathered from numerous White House officials. 'This whole thing is a sham ... Who is this whistleblower? What bias do they have? Why did they pick this whistleblower to tell a hearsay story? The transcript does not match the complaint,' Graham said. 'This thing stinks.'" ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Oops! Graham is acknowledging that numerous officials -- "they" -- supported the whistleblower's complaint & "picked" him from among themselves to make the complaint.
Tim Murphy of Mother Jones: "The Post story catches the president explicitly telling the hostile power that attacked his political rival and interfered with the cornerstone of American democracy that is was all totally fine with him. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to wonder what that means for 2020." --s
Jennifer De Pinto, et al., of CBS News: "More than half of Americans [55%] -- and an overwhelming number of Democrats [87%] -- say they approve of the fact that Congress has opened an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. But as the inquiry begins, there is no national consensus on how to assess the president's actions. Partisans have immediately and predictably split: most Democrats call the president's handling of matters with Ukraine illegal, and deserving of impeachment. Most Republicans call his actions proper -- or, even if improper, then still legal -- and feel they're an example of things that past presidents typically did, too."
Dan Friedman of Mother Jones: "Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine exploded into public view this month, with the revelation that Trump pressured the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to work with Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to dig up dirt on ... Joe Biden and information to discredit Mueller's probe.... But the former New York mayor's involvement in Ukraine and other former Soviet bloc countries has been more extensive and even more sketchy than these disclosures indicate." --s ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Friedman covers many of Giuliani's previous ventures & adventures in the old USSR. No wonder he saw nothing wrong with taking a paying gig with at a Kremlin-backed "conference" just as his part in Trump's impeachment scandal hit front pages across the U.S. "Colluding with Russia the entire former Soviet bloc" is what Rudy does for a living.
~~~~~~~~~
"Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes," Ctd.
Joshua Yaffa & Adam Entous of the New Yorker explain why it was vital for Volodymyr Zelensky to please Trump & how Trump & his regime jerked around Zelensky. "The United States is currently the only Western nation that is providing military aid, including sophisticated weaponry, to Ukraine. 'What Zelensky needs to prove to his people, and also to signal to Moscow, is that he has juice with Trump,' a former senior Obama Administration official said. 'For Zelensky, all forms of U.S. support are matters of national life or death....'"
Still a Racist. Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. -- Donald Trump, in a tweet, Saturday ~~~
~~~ Phil McCausland of NBC News: "... Donald Trump blasted six members of the House of Representatives as 'savages' on Saturday morning. 'Savages' began to trend on Twitter following the president's post, which comes amid an impeachment inquiry over his dealings with Ukraine. Some Twitter users pointed out that Trump's latest broadside against Democrats focused on four women of color as well as the two heads of committees helping to lead the impeachment inquiry...."
"A Triumph of Omertà over Patriotism." Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare: Shortly after the Washington Post reported Friday night that "President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries... [WashPo story linked here yesterday], "I received a message from a person directly involved with the FBI's decision to open a counterintelligence and obstruction investigation of President Trump in the immediate aftermath of the firing of FBI Director James Comey. To say this person, who had clearly learned about the matter for the first time from the Post, was angered by the story would be to understate the matter. The message read in relevant part: 'None of us had any idea. Multiple people had opportunity and patriotic reason to tell us. Instead, silence.'... It seems obvious, in the context of these concerns, that information that the president informed Russian officials that he did not care about Russian election interference would have been key to this analysis on the FBI's part -- and, later, on the part of Robert Mueller.... This raises a significant question to me about the completeness of the Mueller's collusion analysis." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: The Mueller team should have asked those who were aware of the content of the conversation among Trump & the Russians, "What-all else did Trump say in his meeting with Lavrov & Kislyak?" Since the Trumpies were cooperating (or coöperating) with Mueller, I think they would have got the goods. If the Mueller team asked & ignored Trump's extended olive branch to the Russians, even worse. I fault Mueller & Co., not the Trumpies. I suspect from the get-go Mueller wanted to go easy on Trump himself because he didn't want to "overturn an election." Indicting hangers-on like Manafort, Smith, Cohen & Flynn was Mueller's way of justifying his job without upsetting the status quo. ~~~
~~~ On the Other Hand.... Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: The Washington Post story "alleges that there is a memorandum summarizing the White House meeting [among Trump, Lavrov & Kislyak].... That May 10 White House meeting was the subject of intense scrutiny by the Mueller probe because it went directly to the question of why Comey was fired. Now the question becomes, if there was a memorandum of that meeting, how is it possible that it was not produced to Mueller?... It's awfully hard to believe that Mueller didn't ask for any readout or memorandum from that meeting.... The notion that Mueller missed this altogether borders on the incredible." It's possible the memo was highly-classified because in the meeting, Trump revealed highly-classified info to the Russians. Tobias Barrington Wolff, who teaches constitutional law at University of Pennsylvania Law School, told Lithwick. Wolff said that "even if the May 10[, 2017,] memorandum was properly classified, 'This emphasizes the point that Mueller's conclusions were based on imperfect information precisely because of White House and Trump misconduct.'" ~~~
~~~ On the Other Hand (I'm running out of hands here)... Mrs. McCrabbie: Lithwick notes that the Mueller report cites an email dated 5/10/17 from "Ciaramella to Kelly, et al..., [as] the only document that seems to have been produced in reference to the May 10 meeting." Really? Trump meets with two top Russians in the Oval Office and there's no formal document memorializing the meeting? That seems like a line of inquiry right there. Lithwick wants to know who hid the memo. Me too. But I'd also like to know if Mueller's agents asked for other transcriptions or recordings of the 5/10/17 meeting -- as well as if they asked principals to elaborate on the Trump-Russians chat.
Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: So Friday night, I wrote this: "Nothing but prying the reins of power from [Trump's] tiny hands will keep him from engaging in more & more 'PERFECT' hijinks." Now I read this: ~~~
~~~ Michael Kranish of the Washington Post: "President Trump, who has alleged that Hunter Biden got the Chinese to put $1.5 billion into an investment fund, said during private remarks this week that he raised the matter with a U.S. executive who has served as his intermediary on trade talks with Beijing. Trump's comments could attract interest in light of the impeachment inquiry underway by House Democrats.... Given Trump's comments, investigators may want to learn whether the president similarly sought information about the Bidens in China. In remarks to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations on Thursday morning, Trump said he discussed Biden's China work with Stephen Schwarzman, the chief executive of the investment company Blackstone. 'I was with the head of Blackstone ... Steve Schwarzman,' Trump said, according to a video of the remarks.... After alleging that Hunter Biden got $1.5 billion from the Chinese, Trump said he asked Schwarzman, 'Steve, is that possible?'... The executive responded: 'Maybe I shouldn't get involved, you know it's very political.'&" (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McC: The most amazing part is that Trump admitted that AFTER he learned he would be impeached for the very same behavior on the very same subject: Hunter Biden. Maybe his hands are so tiny because they're implants: he burned off the originals by repeatedly slapping them down on a hot stove.
Julian Borger of the Guardian: "Three days after his now infamous phone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Donald Trump abruptly fired his director of national intelligence [-- Dan Coats --] in favour of an inexperienced political loyalist. According to a New York Times report, the White House learned within days that the unorthodox call on 25 July with Zelenskiy had raised red flags among intelligence professionals and was likely to trigger an official complaint. That timeline has raised new questions over the timing of the Trump's dismissal by tweet of ... Coats, on 28 July and his insistence that the deputy DNI, Sue Gordon, a career intelligence professional, did not step into the role, even in an acting capacity. Instead, Trump tried to install a Republican congressman, John Ratcliffe, who had minimal national security credentials but had been a fierce defender of the president in Congress. Trump had to drop the nomination after it emerged that Ratcliffe had exaggerated his national security credentials.... Despite the collapse of the Ratcliffe nomination, Gordon was forced out. She was reported to have been holding a meeting on election security on 8 August when Coats interrupted to convince her that she would have to resign." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: I've assumed from the get-go that Coats' firing & Gordon's resignation had something to do with the call to Zelensky. Coats & Gordon can both testify if they're called.
~~~ SNL should have added Sen. Lindsey Graham to their cavalcade of Trump phone buddies. David Smith of the Guardian: "The New York Post's PageSix reported that Graham was overheard on a [commercial airlines] flight coordinating talking points with the White House. 'We're told that the South Carolina pol was on a JetBlue flight ... and was chatting loudly with "Jared" -- presumably White House adviser Jared Kushner -- before takeoff,' it said. 'It was a "full-blown, loud conversation' according to an airborne spy. 'His phone rang and he answered, "Hey, Jared!" He was ... saying he's going to be on Face the Nation on Sunday. He said, "Listen -- this is what I'm going to lay out,"' we're told.' The report added that Graham was overheard saying: "This is Kavanaugh on steroids! This is hearsay -- and this person has bias."'" The New York Post story is here. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: You mean Jared was at the office? He & Ivanka usually go on vacation when Trump gets in big trouble.
Ivan Nechepurenko of the New York Times (Sept. 27): "Amid the uproar over President Trump's call to the leader of Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Friday that it hoped the contents of Mr. Trump's phone conversations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would not be made public -- a disclosure that would likely generate far more attention.... Kremlin spokesman Dmitri S. Peskov was asked if he worried about the confidentiality of the American president's contacts with Mr. Putin. 'We would like to hope that we would not see such situations in our bilateral relations, which already have plenty of quite serious problems,' he said in a conference call with reporters. He emphasized that accounts of phone conversations between leaders were classified." Here's NBC News' Sept. 27 story. Mrs. McC: Sorry, I thought I linked this or another report covering Peskov's comments earlier, but I see I didn't.
... Mrs. McCrabbie: I'm sure Putin isn't the only world leader who isn't going to want to chat with Trump after this. Apparently Zelensky spent Friday apologizing to European leaders for comments he made about them to Trump in the July 25 call. But the Gang of Eight needs access to real transcripts or recordings of all the conversations Trump had with foreign heads-of-state, and if any portions of those conversations incriminate Trump in any regard, the public has a right to know what he said & in what context.
Marcy Wheeler: "Bill Barr continues to excel at placing carefully worded self-exonerations in the press. Consider this AP story, purportedly telling how helpless little Billy Barr has been put in an uncomfortable situation because Trump treats him the same way he does Rudy Giuliani, as his personal lawyer.... Much of the [AP] story describes Barr as the passive object things happen to, not as the agent of his own circumstances. The AP describes him finding himself in a political firestorm and coming under scrutiny rather than acting in scandalous ways that merit such scrutiny.... The money quote ... is from someone identifiably close enough to Barr to know he was 'surprised and angry' but who claims not to be authorized to speak 'publicly.'... It does not matter at all whether Bill Barr was surprised to hear the President roping him into framing his opponent's son (though we should not believe he was surprised until the Attorney General says that publicly himself, preferably under oath).... What matters is whether Barr learned he was named in the transcript before the DOJ made the decision there was no crime there. What matters is whether Barr knew he was implicated before making the decision not to recuse in advance of a prosecutorial decision made while lacking all the facts. What matters is whether Barr knew he was named in the transcript before getting an OLC opinion justifying withholding the complaint." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: AND let's give Michael Balsamo of the AP today's Annals of "Journalism" prize.
Dana Bash & Pamela Brown of CNN: Donald Trump and some of his aides are all upset that acting chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney "did not have a strategy for defending and explaining the contents of those documents as soon as they were publicly released.... The sources say Mulvaney is taking the heat for that.... The frustration over a lack of a response plan poured over into a series of meetings at the White House Friday between the President and top aides, including his personal counsel and White House lawyers, to figure out a strategy moving forward." Mrs. McC: My strategy would have been to hand Trump a Sharpie & a neatly-typed resignation letter on presidential* letterhead with some characteristic misspellings, weird capitalization & lots of exclamation points!!!!
Rich Schapiro of NBC News: "... several legal experts who used to work with[, Rudy Giuliani,] the former U.S. attorney-turned New York City mayor-turned chief ... Donald Trump defender told NBC News they believe his conduct likely broke the law. 'This is certainly not the Giuliani that I know,' said Jeffrey Harris, who worked as Giuliani's top assistant when he was at the Justice Department.... 'I think the Giuliani that I know would prosecute the Giuliani of today.' Harris and the other former Justice Department lawyers said they believe Giuliani has potentially exposed himself to a range of offenses - from breaking federal election laws to bribery to extortion -- through his efforts to assist the Ukrainians in probing Joe Biden.... NBC News reached out to seven former colleagues of Giuliani's. Of the six who offered comments on or off the record, none defended him."
Colby Itkowitz of the Washington Post: Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nevada) "supports an 'oversight process' to determine whether President Trump broke the law when he asked a foreign leader to look into a political opponent's activities. Just don't call it an impeachment inquiry.... [Amodei] used language during a phone call with reporters on Friday night that suggested he supported the Democrats' investigation into Trump.... But after news outlets began reporting that Amodei was the first House Republican to side with Democrats on opening an impeachment inquiry, Amodei and his staff pushed back -- hard. Sure, they argued, the congressman wanted to find out what occurred between Trump and the Ukrainian president. But that's not the same as wanting the House to begin impeachment proceedings.... For Republicans in Congress, it underscores the delicacy of this moment as they balance their allegiance to Trump with their constitutional duties." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Amodei has a point. Republicans and, for that matter, Democrats, should be given the wiggle room to say they support "oversight," or however they want to word it, but not impeachment. That's the only way to get members of Congress on the fence eventually to jump to the impeachment side. The lede in this report by Kate Sullivan of CNN gets it right: "Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei said Friday he supports the process playing out in the formal impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, but said he does not support impeaching the President."
BUT THE EMAILS! Greg Miller, et al., of the Washington Post: "The Trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed the 2016 election, current and former officials said. As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators -- a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.... State Department officials vigorously denied there was any political motivation behind their actions, and said that the reviews of retroactively classified emails were conducted by career bureaucrats who did not know the names of the subjects being investigated. In virtually all of the cases, potentially sensitive information, now recategorized as' classified,' was sent to Clinton's unsecure inbox."
Caitlin Emma of Politico: "... Donald Trump has signed a short-term spending bill that averts a government shutdown and extends current funding levels and programs through Nov. 21, according to a White House spokesperson. The continuing resolution, H.R. 4378 (116), buys more time for bicameral negotiations on a dozen fiscal 2020 spending bills that would provide updated funding levels for 15 federal departments and dozens of smaller federal agencies. Current federal funding runs out at midnight Monday."
Mark Stern of Slate: "Thomas Homan, the Trump administration's acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from January 2017 to June 2018, helped to transform the agency into an arm of Donald Trump's nativist agenda.... On Thursday, asked to answer for his agency's conduct and policies in a congressional hearing, he responded with a meltdown that perfectly captured a lawless organization's rejection of any rules or authority that might limit its power.... The most indelible moment arrived when Homan's time expired -- and he refused to stop speaking. [Rep. Pramila] Jayapal[, chair of the subcommittee,] attempted to gavel him down, but he continued to insult her.... Earlier this month, Homan engaged in a similar performance, attempting to shout down Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after his time expired. Like Jayapal, Ocasio-Cortez had to gavel him down.... It was hard to miss the symbolism of Homan training his rage and condescension on two women of color.... He is a man who is used to wielding power against people who look like Jayapal and Ocasio-Cortez." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: There are millions of very nice white guys in this country. But I'm sorry, just to be on the safe side, I don't think I'd put any of them in charge of anything having to do with immigration unless they had remarkable records of helping "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
Josh Gerstein of Politico: "A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's effort to expand use of a process that fast-tracks undocumented immigrants for deportation without the involvement of immigration courts. The 'expedited removal' procedure has previously been used to quickly send recent border-crossers back to Mexico, with policies limiting its use to individuals apprehended within 100 miles of the U.S. border and who are determined to have crossed into the U.S. illegally in the past two weeks. However, in July, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced plans to eliminate those constraints, allowing use of the fast-track process for any immigrant suspected of being in the U.S. illegally for less than two years. In a 126-page ruling issued just before midnight Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson halted the policy shift, declaring that the Trump administration's decision-making process leading to the change appeare to have violated federal law. She said the decision seemed arbitrary and faulted officials for failing to carry out a formal notice-and-comment practice required for major changes to federal rules."
Beyond the Beltway
New Jersey. Joe Brandt of NJ.com: "The former New Jersey police chief caught on recordings making hateful remarks against African Americans once shared his thoughts about the 2016 election ... [after slamming the head of] a black suspect [into a doorjamb]. 'I' telling you, you know what, Donald Trump is the last hope for white people, cause Hillary will give it to all the minorities to get a vote,' former Bordentown Township Chief Frank Nucera said, according to a transcript displayed at trial.... Nucera' federal trial on charges of hate crime assault and lying to the FBI entered its third day Wednesday with more testimony from the police K-9 sergeant who made dozens of recordings of his former chief. Sgt. Nathan Roohr is federal prosecutors' star witness in their case against Nucera, who resigned as Bordentown Township chief in Feb. 2017 when he learned the FBI was investigating him.... 'Frank Nucera lunged his hand forward, grabbed [Timothy] Stroye, the side of his head like a basketball, and slammed it into the metal doorjamb as he entered the doorway,' Roohr [testified]. The comments about Trump came later...." Via the Washington Post.
Way Beyond
Hong Kong/China. Eileen Ng of the AP: "Protesters and police clashed in Hong Kong for a second straight day on Sunday, throwing the city's business and shopping belt into chaos and sparking fears of more ugly scenes leading up to China's National Day this week. Riot police repeatedly fired blue liquid -- used to identify protesters -- from a water cannon truck and multiple volleys of tear gas after demonstrators hurled Molotov cocktails at officers and targeted the government office complex. It was a repeat of Saturday's clashes and part of a familiar cycle since pro-democracy protests began in early June. The protests were sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill and have since snowballed into an anti-China movement."
U.K. Michael Savage of the Guardian/Observer: "The UK's most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson's financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal rexit. John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson's acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock. Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister's own party." ~~~
~~~ Ivana Kottasová of CNN: "British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been referred to a police watchdog over his alleged relationship with an American businesswoman when he was mayor of London. On Friday, the Greater London Authority (GLA) said in a statement that it has asked the Independent Office for Police Conduct to assess whether it is necessary to investigate Johnson for the criminal offense of misconduct in public office. 'Allegations have been brought to the attention of the Monitoring Officer that Boris Johnson maintained a friendship with Jennifer Arcuri and as a result of that friendship allowed Ms Arcuri to participate in trade missions and receive sponsorship monies in circumstances when she and her companies could not have expected otherwise to receive those benefits,' the monitoring office of the GLA said in a statement." Mrs. McC: Yeah, and if you squint hard enough, Arcuri even looks like Stormy Daniels. ~~~
~~~ Johnson Threatens Top Judges. James Randerson of Politico: "Top judges should be subjected to U.S.-style 'accountability' Boris Johnson suggested following the decision by the U.K.'s Supreme Court to quash his decision to suspend parliament. The U.K.'s highest court ruled unanimously on Tuesday that the prime minister's decision to prorogue parliament was 'unlawful' leading to MPs being recalled the following day. In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Johnson insisted that he respected the court's judgment 'very humbly and very sincerely.' But he suggested there would be 'consequences' following the judges decision to intervene in such a highly political question." ~~~
~~~ Jacopo Barigazzi & David Herszenhorn of Politico: "Seen from Brussels, the U.K. is a failed state -- at least at the moment. The EU and its 27 remaining member states& have all but lost faith in the British political system to deliver clarity on Brexit any time soon, according to interviews with officials and diplomats. That has left most in Brussels expecting that the October 31 deadline will need to be extended, but still bracing for the chance of a no-deal catastrophe. And even if disaster is avoided, the EU27 are wondering if another postponement will serve any useful purpose. The unprecedented U.K. Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally shut down parliament injected further confusion into what was already a bewildering and highly unpredictable situation. And it confirmed the sense among many in Brussels that the political situation in the U.K. has only grown more dysfunctional since Johnson took over as prime minister. His combative rhetoric in recent days -- repeating talk of 'surrender' and dismissing an MP's account of death threats she'd received as 'humbug' -- and the backlash against it has only added to the sense of uncontrolled chaos in London."
Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
Lindsey Graham is among the “second handers’ who sniff that evidence against his lord and master, King Trumpy is hearsay and therefore useless in an impeachment process. Au contraire, Mr. Works for Me but not for Thee.
Harkening back to when impeaching a Democrat for lying about a blowjob (which, correct me if I’m way off here, is not quite the same as treason) was all the rage, it might behoove good ol’ Lindsey to recall that he voted to impeach Bill Clinton primarily ON second hand hearsay evidence. Do the name Linda (Illegal Tape Recordings) Tripp ring a bell?
https://qz.com/1718281/linda-tripp-tapes-show-hearsay-usable-in-presidential-impeachment/amp/
Another country heard from. A big one.
In the wake of Fatty releasing a (sort of) transcript of a private conversation with another head of state (which makes the guy look like an ass kissing clown) in order to try to save his fat ass from impeachment, another of head of state sends him a message. “I want you to do me a favor. Or else.”
Vladimir Putin, realizing, if he didn’t already know it, what a feckless, unstable, quarter smart asshole Trump is, reminds him not to release any of their conversations (and I bet there’s some beauts) or else: pee-pee tape, bank statements, recordings of treasonous promises, and likely lots more.
Fatty probably started this part-time job thinking he was smarter and cagier than anyone else. He found out that he’s a middling checkers player in a room full of Boris Spasskys with a bunch of Bobby Fischers waiting in the wings.
@Akhilleus writes: "He found out that he’s a middling checkers player in a room full of Boris Spasskys with a bunch of Bobby Fischers waiting in the wings." Surely you don't mean that. Trump thinks he's Magnus Carlsen. Article II Man is intellectually & emotionally stuck in time -- November 8 or 9, 2016, and nothing -- certainly not impeachment by a girl -- is going to disabuse him of that idea. He has no idea he isn't king of the world. Just yesterday we found out that the whole impeachment thing is Mulvaney's fault for failing to strategize. A few days before, even as Americans were getting a first look at proof of the whistleblower's allegations, he boasted in public that he was going after Hunter Biden's China adventures.
For me, the best part of the SNL cold open was don jr and eric. Everything trump does is projection.
Looks like that Nobel Prize is off the table for our would be dictator,
unless there's one for "Most Unfit President Evah." And no
Oscar or Emmy, 'cause he ain't acting--this is him in all his glory.
And he lost out on that 3rd grade spelling bee when he wrote
'liddle Adam Schiff' in one of his famous tweets and was called out
by the failing NY Times. He didn't get it. "I used colons and the
failing NY Times left them out." Is this ' now called a colon?
Or was he referring to the other meaning of colon, which would
be him and his lackeys, a-holes one and all.
So I see that Clinton's emails have become Benghazi 2.0, the Official Distraction Mechanism of #Ukrainegate.
The MSM repeats ad naseum that relitigating Individual I's porn star pay offs will just turn the electorate against the Dems because they're sick of endless investigations.
I can't wait til all the political pundits filet the Republicans for resuscitating the Clinton email bullsit. I won't hold my breath. And BTW, if Republicans really want to keep repeating "private emails" for the next few weeks/months, the Democrats have two very clear targets to tar and feather on that topic: Javanka.
The Amodei comment is stunning in and of itself. A Republican in favor of...OVERSIGHT?!? Since when? Up to now they’ve been content to let the Orange Menace get away with anything and everything from collusion with an antagonistic foreign power, to shredding the Constitution. So, a Republican stating that they’re in favor of oversight of the little king is a little like hearing a prelate at the 17th C Vatican say, out loud, that perhaps that Galileo fellow had a point.
Now if Obama were still in the White House, Moscow Mitch and rest the traitors would eat, drink, sleep, and dream oversight. They’d want to know what color socks he had on. And why. And get transcripts of his conversations with anyone he said hello to on a White House tour. If one morning he put his pants on right leg first instead of the other way around, six congressional committees would be convened before his fly was all the way up. And seven more before he had his jacket on. But Trump’s multiple instances of treasonous double dealing and incessant illegal pocket lining at taxpayer expense are “nothingburgers”.
Glad to see the Homan exchange with Jayapal here––I was going to bring this up yesterday but got waylaid. I had watched him exercise his arrogant bullying in a previous hearing and was stunned at his performance. His anger and frustration is, frankly, terrifying. A perfect Trumpy turd to truckle his stuff.
So now that the can of worms has been exposed and their contents will be strewn hither and yon we should brace ourselves for weeks of revelatory hearings that will hasten the ousting of the man who thought he could run the ship like he ran his crooked businesses. This is what we hope will happen–––this is what we need to happen.
Though I detest these overlong (perpetual) campaign seasons, they do allow me to write things like this at any time of any year:
"Boy, do I, 'your favorite president' (huffpost.com), have a deal for you!
You can have all the guns you want. You can control women’s reproductive decisions. I'll pretend your rejection of gays, bisexuals and transgenders is a matter of religious freedom. I'll wink at your delusion that white people are naturally superior to those who are not. I'll assure you that climate change is not real, that our addiction to fossil fuels harms nothing at all. And, along with you, I’ll ignore the strong evidence that massive application of pesticides and other chemicals to our food crops poses a growing threat to the environment and public health.
I'll do all that and more. I'll tell you that the news you don’t want to hear is fake, that any voice objecting to our attacks on traditional allies or accepted science is evidence of the Deep State conspiring against you. At every turn, I'll confirm your deepest fears of change.
All I want is your support when I explode our national debt in order to lower taxes on the rich, or when I privatize public property and dirty your air and water for the benefit of the few. I'll ask you to look the other way when I strip workers of their ability to organize, or when I cozy up to dictators and invite other countries to help in my reelection. That’s not asking much.
And if democracy suffers a little along the way, does that really matter? What counts is winning, and if a little voter suppression, some selective gerrymandering and another dose or two of Russian propaganda disguised as news is what it takes to win, that’s not too great a price to pay, is it, for all you’re getting in return?
Who wouldn’t jump at a deal like that?"
Haven't yet heard if the paper will print this LTTE or not.
One of my sons thought it sarcastic.
Ken, I thank you and confess to sharing this most excellent offering.
You have to give Republicans credit. They never stop flogging a dead horse. According to the WashPo, they've tasked people on our dime to go over "millions" of emails sent to Clinton. When is some enterprising member of the House going to propose a bill that Hillary's grave must have "BUT THE EMAILS!!!!" carved into the headstone?
Meanwhile, why aren't we hearing about the major, comprehensive investigations of Trump's discussing sensitive matters on his iPhone with the Chinese standing outside the White House training their listening devices on the conversations OR Trump's bevy of staff combing thru top secret stuff without security clearances and finally his just handing out clearances to risky friends & relatives OR Trump's treasonous calls with foreign leaders OR, OR, OR? What about it, Mikey? Aren't the matters you should be investigating related to the "clear & present danger" who sets his fat ass in the Oval every day he cares to go to "work"?
@P.D. Pepe: Couldn't agree with you more about Homan. (And why do these oinkers so often look like actual pigs?) But wingers think Hogan is just great. As Stern points out in his post, "The first wave of coverage of Homan’s outburst Thursday came from right-wing media, praising his defiance." In other words, people of color (especially women of color) don't deserve respect, & putting them "in their place" is praiseworthy.
Bea,
Indeed. Have already set myself the task of developing a Scandalomenter that will measure the extent, depth and seriousness of various scandals, real and alleged, for purposes of comparison.
I see it as a scientific, educational tool for application in casual discussions with friends and enemies, and certainly in newsrooms given to both-siderism that need a little corrective.
Once I have it out of the lab and in full-scale production, it oughta sell like hotcakes, don't you think?
And since my only goal is making money, I'm working on two models, one with an inversted scale to appeal more directly to the I'd-rather-not-know party.
@Bea regarding comment reply Sept 27th (via David Graham piece):
@Procopius: Biden's efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to tamp down corruption in Ukraine was part of an international effort. And, as David Graham of the Atlantic wrote the other day, "In effect, Biden’s pressure to install a tougher prosecutor [in Ukraine] probably made it more likely, not less, that Burisma [-- the Ukrainian natural-gas company that installed Hunter Biden on its board --] would be in the cross hairs. But since then, the Ukrainian government has not produced any evidence of wrongdoing by Burisma, and the current prosecutor general said in May there was none."
I don't know at what federal level conflict of interest oversight kicks in (probably below the VP paygrade), but I would have thought it prudent that if Hunter Biden was on the board of a company being investigated for corruption by the Ukraine prosecutor (also corrupt/ineffectual) that Biden would have recused himself of this duty to spearhead the arms-contingent anti-corruption effort. Even if there was evidence that there was no corruption by Burisma or Hunter, the fact that that possibility was even out there and previously investigated should have made someone ask whether Joe Biden was the best representative. How was Biden's insistence on the ouster of Shokin not a potential conflict of interest?
Questions: Was Obama aware of Hunter Biden's involvement? Why did he allow Biden and not just Kerry and the Ambassador to Ukraine as the point persons for the arms negotiation?
My fear is that this impeachment thing is going to blow up in our faces because of lack of oversight on potential conflict of interest. This prior inaction is inviting a hornets nest of conspiracy theories to emerge now.
Regarding Schiff's characterization of the Trump phone call: I think that was inappropriate. There were more impartial ways to describe the implications of the call. Schiff has managed to punch all of the GOP alarm buttons, and characterize himself as a partisan when he should be striving to be a impartial arbiter of a congressional investigation.
Charlie Foxtrot!
@Periscope. You're right; Joe Biden should have begged off the task of trying to enforce reform on Ukraine, especially since at the time he was still thinking about running for president. Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, who had been a partner in an investment firm with Hunter, actually broke up the firm because he saw the pitfalls of working with Burisma or any Ukrainian company, and he warned Hunter not to get involved. So, yes, Kerry could have done the job with no conflict of interest that I'm aware of.
In addition, according to the WashPo, "Inside the vice president’s office, there was discussion about whether Hunter’s position on the board would be perceived as a conflict of interest, according to several former aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity.... One former adviser was concerned enough to mention it to the vice president, according to an adviser, but the conversation was brief, and other aides said they didn’t want — or see a need — to raise the issue." So Biden had to be at least tangentially aware of the pitfalls of getting involved in muscling Ukraine to reform.
Still, I stand by David Graham's point that Joe Biden's demands of Ukraine made it more -- rather than less -- likely that Ukrainian officials would investigate Burisma for corruption. David Cameron, the conservative/Conservative former PM of Great Britain, said today that Biden's efforts in 2015 were in line with the U.K.'s efforts to clean up Ukraine.
As for Schiff, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no problem whatsoever in his opening remarks. And when you contrast them with what the Ass in the White House says almost every day, criticism of Schiff's remarks -- which amounted to an accurate characterization of the Trump-Zelensky phone call -- is laughable. I don't think Schiff showed a failure to be "impartial"; I think he -- like anybody who read the memcon on the conversation -- had to be shocked by Trump's repeated asks for what Trump himself called "a favor." Schiff, rather than citing every single instance, simply riffed that Trump referenced the same Biden ask at least seven times in the phone call. That's a valid point. If Biden's muscling Ukraine to actually reform was unethical, as you say, then Trump's muscling Ukraine to be more corrupt was a long way past unethical & downright corrupt.
You're equating not-corrupt (Biden) with corrupt (Trump).
Well, we know von Clownstick is corrupt, that's a given and a proven every day. How do you know Biden is not corrupt?
I'm trying to listen to all who have facts, and I am not sure they are all in just yet. My hope is that Schiff doesn't put all of the eggs in this one basket and lose sight of following the money laundering and the tax returns.