Skip to content

Month: January 2020

The Trump team made a bad first impression

A new book by Pulitzer-winning reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, “A Very Stable Genius,” hit the bestseller lists this week. It reports a scene in which President Trump participated in a documentary about the U.S. Constitution in which various well-known people were asked to read their favorite part. Trump chose the opening of Article II, which delineates the power of the president.

According to Rucker and Leonnig’s account, Trump had a great deal of trouble reading it and got testy, blaming everyone but himself for the problem. At one point he said, “It’s very hard to do because of the language here, it’s very hard to get through that whole thing without a stumble. It’s like a different language, right?”

This is the opening of Article II:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

I’m not surprised Trump thought the Constitution was in a foreign language. But I didn’t expect that his lawyers would think so too. You can’t come to any different conclusion after the opening of Tuesday’s impeachment trial.

Perhaps Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forgot to tell Trump’s defense team that Senate rules allowed Democrats to offer amendments to the proposed trial rules, but that’s doubtful. They may not have realized that House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff and his team would show up fully prepared to begin laying out their case within those proposed amendments.

The Trump team mainly got up and sputtered about fairness and process and otherwise whined and complained about the House Democrats. They fulfilled their principal duty, which was to provide Fox News with digestible clips of them passing on familiar lies, such as the tiresome falsehood that House Republicans had been shut out of depositions and that the president wasn’t allowed to participate in the House hearings.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone is either a very dishonest lawyer or he has some kind of memory problem:

Until yesterday, Cipollone was something of a mystery. Most people hadn’t heard him speak but having been a partner in a big law firm and a long-time Washington figure in Catholic activist circles, I think it was assumed he was a serious person. Tuesday’s long day put an end to that assumption. He was testy and snide though most of it, and failed to offer any cogent legal arguments.

Many of us had thought his incomprehensible screeds like the one above must have been personally dictated by the president. But after watching Cipollone for 11 hours, it’s clear that he is personally very much on Trump’s wavelength in a way that goes beyond the zealous representation of a good lawyer. Let’s just say that he’s got a second career on talk radio or Fox News ahead of him if he wants it.

Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, was exactly as one might have expected. He was bombastic and flamboyant, just as he’s often been in his career as a right-wing media star and legal representative for the Christian right. He managed to have the single most embarrassing moment of the entire day when he took to the podium to rave about House manager Val Demings’ supposed claims of “lawyer lawsuits.” Sekulow declared:

And by the way — lawyer lawsuits? Lawyer lawsuits? We’re talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members — the managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits? The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits. It’s disrespecting the Constitution of the United States to even say that in this Chamber — lawyer lawsuits. It’s a dangerous moment for America when an impeachment of a president of the United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits. The Constitution allows it, if necessary. The Constitution demands it, if necessary.

The problem is that Demings never said anything about “lawyer lawsuits” and nobody knew what in the world Sekulow was ranting about. Demings had said that “FOIA lawsuits filed by third parties cannot serve as a credible alternative to congressional oversight.”

In true Trumpian fashion, the White House actually doubled down on their error:

Asked WH Leg Affairs Director Eric Ueland what Jay Sekulow meant by “lawyer lawsuits,” and whether he may have misheard a phrase. Ueland did not answer and walked away.

No, the transcript does not say that. The video of Demings’ comments is clear. In any case, no one has been able to explain Sekulow’s unhinged reaction to “lawyer lawsuits” or “FOIA lawsuits.” It was surreal.

The Trump team showed up with the intention of doing nothing but complain about Democratic amendments. Unfortunately for them, the House managers outmaneuvered them.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had dropped a big bomb late Monday. First he said he would follow the Clinton impeachment procedures of opening statements, then questions from senators, and then an up-or-down vote on whether to consider calling witnesses or new evidence. He also planned to give each side 24 hours to make their case — but unlike the Clinton trial in which they could take as many days as necessary, he wanted them to complete their cases in two 12-hour days each. Instead of allowing the evidence from the House impeachment hearings to be automatically entered into evidence he wanted that to be considered after the trial was completed as well.

It was a daft proposal and on Tuesday McConnell amended these rules slightly at the last minute, allowing three days for each side at trial and entering the existing evidence into the record automatically. (The news went forth that “moderate” Sen. Susan Collins and some other Republicans demanded the change but you can’t help but suspect that McConnell and Collins cooked this together in advance to make her look good.)

McConnell is still insisting on leaving the question of witnesses until the end of the trial which makes no sense in a case where the president has stonewalled the whole process. That’s what led Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to offer 11 different amendments asking for witnesses and documents to McConnell’s resolution, a process that ended up taking 11 hours, with arguments on both sides.

Starting the day not knowing if they were going to have time to make their case or have their evidence put into the record, the Democratic managers decided not to make long legal or constitutional arguments. They instead used the time allotted by the Senate rules for amendments to put on their case, show their evidence and argue that the witnesses and documents the White House refuses to provide prove that it’s engaged in a cover-up.

They were extremely well prepared, with each manager handling different aspects of the case with exhibits and well thought-out arguments for each one. The Trump team’s members were like kids claiming that the dog ate their homework. They obviously thought the day would to be a political sparring match and instead found themselves deep in the evidence without much to rebut it, except Trump’s Twitter feed and Sean Hannity’s talking points.

Nonetheless, the Senate voted down every amendment on party-line votes, as expected. The fix was in from the start. But if this trial is a competition for the hearts and minds of the American people, the Trump team lost the first round. And you only get one chance to make a first impression.

My Salon column reprinted with permission

The Breathtaking Naïveté of the New York Times

Related image

First and foremost, may Glenn Greenwald and his family be safe. Obviously, the charges are, to coin a phrase, trumped up by Bolsonaro’s Brazilian Reich, designed to punish and silence an effective gadfly.

The Times does a pretty good job defending Greenwald. But this brief passage jumped out:

When Mr. Bolsonaro was elected president in 2018, Reporters Without Borders called him “a serious threat to press freedom and democracy in Brazil.”

President Trump may not have made a dent in press freedoms in the United States — its traditions and institutions are too strong for that

Wow. They really don’t get it.

The elimination of White House Press Conferences. Trump’s manipulation of the simplistic “objectivity” standards of modern journalism to require coverage of his lies as if they were merely another point of view. The revoking of press passes for critical reporters. The flooding of social media with disinformation and lies. The verbal and physical threats against critics. And so on, and so on, and so on…

No. Journalism is in a very precarious position. Let’s see what happens to American press freedoms if a tv station gets their hands on a complete Trump tax return. Or if indisputable documentary evidence gets leaked that some of Trump’s personal behavior goes further than “merely” cheating on his wife or snickering with child molesters at a party. Or if Trump’s poll numbers go south this summer. Or if there is a truly serious extended international crisis caused by his gross incompetence.

Wow. The Times really doesn’t get it.

Trump’s prevent defense

“‘How can we possibly vote to remove the president without all the evidence we’re voting not to see?’ is a hell of an argument,” Princeton professor of history Kevin Kruse tweeted Tuesday evening after over seven hours of Senate debate on impeachment rules.

Not that evidence matters to lawyers defending Donald J. Trump. Much of the first day of his Senate impeachment trial they spent lying, disinforming, and propagandizing for the single C-SPAN camera Senate Republicans allowed in the chamber. Moving opinion among Senate members was not their goal. They were playing to an audience of Trump, the reality show star performing daily as President of the United States.

Many among the Republicans’ falsehoods exist largely as Trumpworld zombie lies. Republicans weren’t allowed to attend depositions of impeachment witnesses. GOP members of the three relevant committees were there posing questions. (As Trump says, read the transcript.) The president had no opportunity to make any defense in the House. In fact, White House counsel Pat Cipollone refused an invitation to participate; Trump’s top lieutenants refused to testify. There were plenty of others.

Nevertheless, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and personal Trump attorney Jay Sekulow know Trump wants to hear them sing a medley of his Greatest Hits. At the end of one speech, an almost embarrassed Sekulow asked, “Where is that whistleblower?” before quickly turning from the podium and walking off.

Team Trump offered more criticism of Democrats than defense of their client. Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, they argued repeatedly. The New York Times reminds readers that while still in private practice, William Barr argued in a 19-page memo that obstruction of justice laws do not apply to presidents. Even to ones who misuse their power to impede investigations into themselves. Now attorney general, Barr wrote, “The fact that President is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the President is not the judge in his own cause.” Yet on Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys argued he could ignore subpoenas from a House impeachment inquiry he deemed illegitimate.

For their part, Democrats presented a more coherent case. They used debates over amendments to impeachment rules to showcase damning facts already in evidence. They cited sworn testimony from witnesses already on record to argue for subpoenaing administration officials with direct knowledge of the president’s actions. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted the differences in preparation were evident by comparing the tabletops of the House impeachment managers (left above) and the White House team (right above).

Comparing the two teams, prominent Trump critic George Conway tweeted, “It’s like the New York Yankees versus the Bad News Bears.”

As if to make Conway’s case for him, Jay Sekulow launched into a tirade worthy of Roseanne Roseannadanna after a presentation by Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) got Sekulow’s dander up, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake writes:

“And by the way — lawyer lawsuits?” Sekulow began. “Lawyer lawsuits? We’re talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members — the managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits? The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits. It’s disrespecting the Constitution of the United States to even say that in this chamber — lawyer lawsuits.”

Sekulow apparently misheard Demings’s reference to “FOIA lawsuits.” Naturally, the White House refused to issue a “Never mind.” Aaron Blake continues:

What’s even more remarkable about the flap is that the White House actually stood by Sekulow’s allegation. Asked about the remark by reporters later in the night, White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland reportedly walked away, only to return a while later — apparently after checking? — and suggest that Sekulow had not erred.

“When you read the transcript, it says ‘lawyer lawsuit,’ ” he said

Which transcript that is the White House didn’t say, Blake adds, because “the Federal Document Clearing House transcript includes no references to ‘lawyer lawsuits’ besides Sekulow’s.”

In the end, the Republicans held firm and refused to consider hearing witnesses until after both sides have presented their cases. House manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) insisted, “A vote to delay is a vote to deny…When they say ‘when,’ they mean never.”

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 3rd Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide election mechanics guide at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

What’s With Andrew Peek?

Very strange:

It’s still not clear why President Trump’s third National Security Council director for Russia and Eurasia was escorted out of the White House by security last week.

But what is clear is that it’s a really big deal.

NSC director for Russia and Eurasia Andrew Peek was put on administrative leave last week amid an unspecified security-related investigation.

Steven Pifer, a former NSC for Russia and Eurasia, told TPM that he could not recall any previous instance in which an NSC director had been escorted off the premises.

“If it has, it’s very unusual,” Pifer said. “It suggests that there’s a security issue that could affect his clearance.”

A former deputy assistant secretary of state for the bureau of near eastern affairs, Peek had reportedly been under investigation for unspecified allegations before taking the position in November 2019.

Peek followed two NSC officials before him over the past 12 months who were caught up in the impeachment of President Trump.

This would be a very, very big deal in any half-way honest…

A White House security blankee

Awww. How sweet. Trump gave his little flunkies a special job for the Senate trial so they can be there to help him through his trying time. They aren’t participating directly but rather are “working behind the scenes” (if you know what I mean.) Maybe they can come over and give him some foot rubs and tell him what a big, strong, president he is when he gets back from Davos.

The White House announced Monday that President Trump has appointed several Republican members of the House to serve as member of his impeachment team ahead of the Senate trial set to begin this week.

In a statement Monday evening it was announced that Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Mike Johnson (R-La.), Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Jim Jordan (R-N.C.), Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) and Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) would join Trump’s impeachment team.

The statement added that the lawmakers “have provided guidance to the White House team, which was prohibited from participating in the proceedings concocted by Democrats in the House of Representatives” throughout the House proceedings and would continue to do so in the Senate.

Actually, Trump refused to participate and refused the House invitation to present his case to the Judiciary Committee. But now they are lying and saying it wasn’t allowed and they don’t seem to be pleased with House Republican defense of his interests even though they tried their hardest. Collins and Jordan squealed and cried and yelled themselves hoarse but I guess Trump ‘s team was unsatisfied.

If I were Jordan and Collins I think my feelings might be hurt.

Warren plans to look in the rearview mirror. Big time.

I have been yearning for one of the candidates to propose this. I think it’s vital:

Elizabeth Warren says she’ll create a federal task force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration if she’s elected president.

The Massachusetts senator on Tuesday released a plan that her campaign says will “restore integrity and competence” to government after President Donald Trump. She said that an independent task force would operate within the Justice Department and hold the previous administration’s officials “accountable for illegal activity.”

Warren also plans to ask for the resignations of all Trump political appointees and void any federal contracts that “arose as the result of corruption.”

“The next president will need to have the energy, expertise, and vision to safeguard our country, rebuild the government swiftly, and make fundamental changes so that it works for the American people,” Warren wrote in an online post unveiling the proposal.

It’s time to play the blame-game. Letting these Republican miscreants off the hook from Nixon on is what brought us here.

Every Democrat must be asked if they will sign on to this pledge. Otherwise, I truly fear that Trump’s criminal and unethical behavior will be the new GOP baseline. Every time we let this stuff go in the past that’s exactly what happened.

Reputational Hara-Kiri on the Trump team

The opening statements were astonishing. Adam Schiff laid out the case for impeachment. Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone whined and lied. I’m not exaggerating.

It’s the Kavanaugh strategy. Democrats make a logical and compelling case. The Republicans answer with incoherent, feral, hostility that pleases Trump and intimidates everyone else.

I hope the Democrats just keep plugging. I don’t know if it will work but it’s our best hope for hanging on to some sort of reality.

Some random highlights:

I didn’t expect much but I didn’t think the Trump team would be this Trumpy in the well of the Senate in front of the whole country. They are, apparently, only concerned with giving Fox News some clips for their in-house propagandists to wank to for the cult. They are clearly completely unconcerned with the seriousness of the procedure or even their own reputations.

These lawyers are committing professional hara kiri for Donald Trump.

And they don’t have to face voters.

The House managers dispatch Trump’s legal primal scream

Some highlights of the House response to the Trump team’s contentions:

“President Trump maintains that the Senate cannot remove him even if the House proves every claim in the Articles of impeachment. That is a chilling assertion. It is also dead wrong.”

“The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances. That President Trump believes otherwise, and insists he is free to engage in such conduct again, only highlights the continuing threat he poses to the Nation if allowed to remain in office.”

“The calls transcript shows, first and foremost, that he solicited a foreign power to announce two politically motivated investigations that would benefit him personally. It also indicates that he linked these investigations to the release of military assistance: on the call, he responded to President Zelensky’s inquiries about U.S. military support by pressing him to ‘do us a favor though’ and pursue President Trump’s desired political investigations … “that word [corruption] appears nowhere in the record of the call, despite the urging of his national security staff.”

“The President also asserts that Article I does not state an impeachable offense. In his view, the American people are powerless to remove a President for corruptly using his Office to cheat in the next election by soliciting and coercing a foreign power to sabotage a rival and spread conspiracy theories helpful to the President. This is the argument of a monarch, with no basis in the Constitution. He is the Framers’ worst nightmare come to life.”

Obstruction of congress:

“No President or other official in the history of the Republic has ever ordered others to defy an impeachment subpoena; Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all allowed their most senior advisors to give testimony to Congressional investigators nor has any President or other official himself defied such a subpoena — except for President Nixon, who, like President Trump, faced an article of impeachment for Obstruction of Congress.”

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post summarized its main points:

The House dismisses the White House’s five baseless arguments :

First, the impeachment inquiry was properly authorized and Congressional subpoenas do not require a vote of the full House.

Second, President Trump’s blanket and categorical defiance of the House stemmed from his unilateral decision not to “participate” in the impeachment investigation, not from any legal assertion.

Third, President Trump never actually asserted executive privilege, a limited doctrine that has never been accepted as a basis for defying impeachment subpoenas. . . .

Fourth, the President’s invocation of “absolute immunity” fails because this fictional doctrine has been rejected by every court to consider it in similar circumstances; President Trump extended it far beyond any understanding by prior Presidents; and it offers no explanation for his across-the-board refusal to turn over every single document subpoenaed.

Finally, the President’s lawyers have argued in court that it is constitutionally forbidden for the House to seek judicial enforcement of its subpoenas, even as they now argue in the Senate that the House is required to seek such enforcement.

The brief effortlessly disposes of the president’s arguments because they are not actual arguments. The president’s lawyers offer a set of talking points that require one to suspend logic, decline to read both the Constitution and the documents Trump relies upon, and to ignore the Senate’s obligation to conduct a fair trial. Trump’s lawyers are providing an excuse, not a legal or factual basis for acquittal.

Experts like Neal Katyal have described the House brief as “brilliant”. The Trump briefs are described as “garbage.” They are not legal briefs they are primal screams designed to please Trump’s base and keep their Senate lackey in line.