Noah Bookbinder at The New York Times writes—The Evidence of Wrongdoing by Trump Is Overwhelming. The witnesses’ testimony on Wednesday was clear and alarming:
The claim that there could not have been serious wrongdoing because military aid to Ukraine was ultimately released and Ukraine did not begin the requested investigations is laughable. The aid was released only after Congress discovered it had been held up and began angrily asking about it and as the scandal was emerging. The reported statements of senior Ukrainian officials also indicate that Ukraine’s government had reluctantly decided to publicly announce these political investigations and was rescued only by this scandal’s public emergence. [...]
Similarly, President Zelensky’s statement that he did not feel pressured by Mr. Trump is hardly a silver bullet, given that he made it while seated next to the president at the United Nations. In fact, the evidence as a whole showed that the pressure worked and that Ukraine’s efforts to avoid getting embroiled in politicized investigations pushed by Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were unsuccessful, and that Russia stands to potentially benefit from the interruption of United States-Ukraine relations (through, for example, a break in security support). Critically, Mr. Zelensky still has not received a White House meeting.
Moira Donegan at The Guardian writes— US news Democrats handled the impeachment hearing like pros. Republicans, less so:
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee faced a nearly impossible task as public hearings in the impeachment inquiry began today: they had to present the multi-character, multi-part story of how the White House and the president’s unofficial associates made American military aid to Ukraine conditioned upon political assistance by the Ukrainian government with Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. They had to do this clearly and convincingly, and they had to do it while managing the theatrics and combating the misinformation issued by Republicans. The odds were stacked against them.
But with the help of procedural interventions in the impeachment inquiry that limited opportunities for Republican grandstanding, and a damning set of facts presented by the diplomat witnesses, Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, Democrats largely succeeded in presenting a clear and morally stark narrative of the President’s actions. By the end of the hearing it was clear that there is little doubt that Donald Trump used his power as president to advance his personal interests in ways that are legally dubious and ethically abhorrent, and that Republicans have little sense of how to defend him.
And then there were the clowns on Foxaganda:
Todd S. Purdum at The Atlantic writes—The Made-for-TV Impeachment:
They’re both silver-haired septuagenarians, Vietnam veterans, Ivy League–educated public servants for Republican and Democratic presidents alike, with reputations for unswerving rectitude. But Robert Mueller and William Taylor could not have made for more different congressional witnesses. On July 24, in the glare of television lights, Mueller, the former special counsel, came across like a statistician, a dry reciter of data. But Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who testified this morning, was a storyteller, the natural-born narrator of a compelling tale. Both witnesses talked about President Donald Trump, but only today’s was made for TV
As a concept, the Capitol Hill hearing may no longer be quite the same riveting spectacle it was in the days of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Clarence Thomas’s contested Supreme Court confirmation, or Bill Clinton’s impeachment—if only because today’s media environment is so fragmented and fractured. But it is still a time-honored ritual—“true history unfolding” as Wolf Blitzer put it on CNN today—and to one degree or another, America stopped to watch.
Purely as a show, it was pretty strong stuff.
In his half day of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee over the summer, Mueller refused to so much as read aloud from his own voluminous report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. By contrast, appearing before the same body today, Taylor repeatedly recited his terse, incredulous text-message exchanges with diplomatic colleagues about Trump’s attempts to condition American military aid to Ukraine on that country’s promise to investigate the family of one of the president’s political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.
At The New Republic Brianne Gorod and Elizabeth Wydra write—The First Magistrate in Foreign Pay. The Founders envisioned impeachment as a potent and necessary means of defeating corruption in the nation’s highest office:
[...] the Framers drafted the Constitution to ensure that “corruption was more effectually guarded against, in the manner this government was constituted, than in any other that had ever been formed.” That’s why the Constitution provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time”—a sign of the Framers’ worry that legislators’ interest in securing future employment might lead them to act at cross-purposes with the public interest. It’s also why—as the activities of President Trump have forcefully reminded us—the Constitution provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
The Founders specifically mandated that the president “shall not receive within [the period during which he was elected to serve as president] any Emolument [other than his fixed compensation] from the United States, or any of the [states].” Indeed, the Constitution’s entire system of checks and balances was aimed, at least in part, at preventing the corruption of our nation’s leaders.
But the Framers also determined that these checks alone were not sufficient. [...]
Danielle Allen at The Washington Post writes—Giuliani wants ‘fair play’? Fine, let’s talk about fairness:
Trump has a long history of manufacturing conspiracy theories to undermine the integrity of the electoral system. He was a lead purveyor of the birther conspiracy directed at candidate Barack Obama, a lie that directly affected polling numbers. It was one thing for him to do this as a private citizen, relying only on the resources of his purported fortune to peddle lies and misinformation. It is quite another as president for Trump to direct the vast powers of his office to the project of activating conspiracy theories and Potemkin investigations directed at his political opponents.
How do we know he was doing this and not conducting a meritorious investigation? For a meritorious effort to root out corruption in other governments, he had no need for a shadow foreign policy team. His own State Department was already hard at work on this subject, and perfectly well equipped to fight corruption wherever a serious case for that fight might be made. The fact that he sent his personal lawyer to work on these matters instead is itself a powerful signal that the president was not engaged in the work of statesmanship for which he has the State Department, and a very supportive secretary of state, standing at the ready.
Yes, this impeachment investigation is about fairness. That’s exactly what it’s about. It is fundamentally about whether Trump has defended American fair play, in accord with his presidential oath to execute the laws faithfully. Or has he undermined American fair play?
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—Nunes and Kent tell us everything we need to know about impeachment:
The contrast between Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, told us everything we needed to know about the impeachment hearings into President Trump that went public on Wednesday.
Nunes, the ranking Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, wanted to make everything about party. Kent, a civil servant for decades, wanted to make everything about country. [...]
In insisting that integrity will eventually win, Trump’s critics point back to the Watergate hearings in 1973 and 1974 as turning the tide against Richard M. Nixon. “It was the open hearings that changed the American public’s mind, that then changed elected Republicans’ minds,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) observed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” shortly before Wednesday’s session began.
Well, yes. But we were a far more open-minded and less partisan country back then. There were many more moderate and liberal Republicans, as well as more openness to the other side’s views — and no Fox News and no right-wing talk-radio empire.
John Nichols at The Nation writes—Impeachment Hearing Republicans Confirm There Is No Defense for Donald Trump:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent was asked, “Is pressuring Ukraine to conduct what I believe you’ve called political investigations a part of US foreign policy to promote the rule of law?” Kent replied, “It is not.”
Then came the essential question: “Is it in the national interests of the United States?”
“In my opinion,” said Kent, “it is not.”
This was devastating testimony, which affirmed the damning evidence of presidential wrongdoing that led to the impeachment inquiry.
Osita Nwannevu at The New Republic writes—Why Wouldn’t Michael Bloomberg Run for President? Political pundits misunderstand what motivates the former New York mayor:
Since it was reported last week that he would file paperwork to possibly run for president, Michael Bloomberg has been the most feverishly discussed candidate in the Democratic primary, as he likely intended. But much of that discussion has been negative. The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart argued that Bloomberg had been “seduced by his past political success” into making a run that, by encroaching “onto Buttigieg’s moderate turf,” would be counterproductive for his policy goals. FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich noted Bloomberg’s inauspicious early numbers in primary polls—his support among Democrats ranges from 4 to 6 percent—writing that “there’s a long way to go before Bloomberg is a factor in this race.” The headline of a CNN piece by Cristina Alesci and Harry Enten captured the consensus: “Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate data guy, is ignoring the data.”
In their bafflement, these analysts have settled on a set of reasonable questions. Why would Bloomberg mount a doomed run that might damage his reputation, instead of supporting Buttigieg or Joe Biden? Wouldn’t moderates be better off if Bloomberg donated to those candidates or put his money behind voter registration and mobilization efforts? What, exactly does he hope to accomplish? There’s a single answer to all of these queries, and it’s a simple one: Michael Bloomberg is exploring a run for the presidency because Michael Bloomberg would like to be president.
The editorial board of The New York Times states—In Meeting Erdogan, Trump Courts Another Tyrant. What exactly did the United States get for the Turkish leader’s White House visit?
At the joint White House news conference Wednesday, Mr. Erdogan showed little reciprocity for Mr. Trump’s bonhomie, making no pretense of taking seriously Mr. Trump’s famously fatuous Oct. 9 letter (“Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool. I will call you later.”). And hearing Mr. Trump say “I’m a big fan of the president” did not prevent Mr. Erdogan from raising pet peeves against the United States, including the vote in the House of Representatives to recognize the killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as “genocide,” or the refusal of the United State so far to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a rival Mr. Erdogan holds responsible for a failed coup in 2016.
There was no evidence that the meeting had been “wonderful and productive,” as Mr. Trump proclaimed, beyond talk of a $100 billion trade deal yet to be negotiated. Mr. Trump conceded that Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defense system, which would provide a sophisticated Russian weapon for a major NATO ally, was a “very serious challenge,” one that evidently was left unresolved.
On the Syrian-Kurdish front, Mr. Trump once again celebrated the cease-fire that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence negotiated with Mr. Erdogan last month as a “tremendous” breakthrough, purportedly ending what he described as a centuries-old conflict. He again overlooked the reality that his own withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria had triggered the Turkish offensive, and that it truly settled nothing there except that America’s influence is diminished.
Matt Stieb at New York magazine writes—Trump Does Erdogan’s Post-Invasion PR for Him in Joint Press Conference:
During his press conference with Turkish President Recep Erdogan, President Trump said that he had an open door policy for all world leaders, regardless of where they might fall on the political spectrum: “Anybody that wants to come in, dictators, that’s okay.” But his Wednesday meeting with the Turkish leader shows again that Trump is particularly comfortable around authoritarian figures, and enjoys putting them at ease as well. Like his posture around Vladimir Putin in July 2018 — when the president said he didn’t “see any reason” why Russia would have interfered in the 2016 election — Trump appeased his anti-democratic guest throughout their meeting in the White House East Room.
“I’m a big fan of the president,” Trump said of Erdogan, adding that the two have been “very good friends” almost from “day one.” Trump called him “a friend” one more time and added that Erdogan is “a hell of a leader.” [...]
Rather than stand up to the Turkish president for his October assault on Kurdish allies in northwestern Syria, Trump cozied up to Erdogan’s ideal vision for the region. Trump praised the Turkish-Kurdish ceasefire that is “moving forward at a very rapid clip,” despite evidence that the Turkish army has repeatedly violated the agreement, and criticism that the deal requires Turkey to give no concessions. (He also said that Erdogan maintains a “great relationship with the Kurds,” which is a standard take for the uninformed president.)
Kiki Monifa at The Progressive writes—The Reality of Everyday Racism. For many black people, the most surprising thing about racism is that anyone is surprised it:
“Why is everyone so shocked by the racial incident at Buffalo Wild Wings?” asked Dahleen Glanton, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. “This sort of thing happens every day.”
Iagree. As a 62-year-old black woman who grew up in the south, I can remember the signs explicitly stating “Whites only” or “No coloreds.”
Now, in 2019, I live in Oakland, California, a liberal progressive community, and I travel extensively in the United States.
In my opinion, the “signs” are still there. They are no longer openly posted, but in any public place they are still apparent.
A North Carolina drinking fountain in April, 1938. Signs explicitly stating “Whites only” or “No coloreds” are no longer openly posted, but in any public place they are still apparent.
It may be a glaring look by an employee or a customer. It may be me being invisible in a line and seeing a white person who arrived after me being waited on first. It may be witnessing white folks recoil in an elevator when a black man walks in. It may be witnessing white folks literally cross the street to avoid walking by a black person.
It happens every day, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Bill Fletcher Jr. at In These Times writes—Labor Needs To Embrace Social Justice Unionism. A successful rank-and-file strategy must look beyond the workplace:
Proponents of the “rank-and-file strategy” (RFS) emphasize the need to lay the foundations of a revitalized labor movement through rank-and-file workers—as opposed to union staff or leadership. As Laura Gabby notes, this idea has a long history: In the 1970s, for instance, thousands of leftists (myself included) of both working-class origin and otherwise entered the workforce to build a real working-class Left and rebuild organized labor.
Though this rank-and-file emphasis is more of an orientation than a full strategy, it is good in that it encourages people on the Left to engage as rank and filers—to enter into the working class as coworkers rather than staff. The idea is not, as Andrew Dobbyn argues, elitist; instead, it suggests fellow workers have something to teach, rather than simply being vessels for knowledge from leftists.
But the current discussion has certain important blind spots. First, the mostly white socialists discussing the RFS often fail to recognize that leftist formations composed mostly or entirely of people of color have historically been instrumental in developing and leading efforts to retool the labor movement. The direction and character of these formations has frequently differed from that of white-led formations.
Peter Shapiro presents one example in his Jacobin article, “On the Clock and Off,” drawing on his work with the League of Revolutionary Struggle. He writes about the Mexican immigrant women who emerged as rank-and-file leaders in the 1985–87 frozen food strike in Watsonville, Calif. They were not part of their union’s progressive reform caucus, the Teamsters for a Democratic Union, nor would they have been considered part of any conventional “militant minority”—which is why, Shapiro writes, “some strike supporters on the Left viewed them skeptically.” But these women established their own informal infrastructure, bound together through the solidarity of not just working together but the shared experience of racial and gender oppression, and propelled the strike to victory.
At Other Words, Jim Hightower writes—You’re Paying Big Oil to Pollute:
The one thing you never want to hear your dentist say is “oops!” It’s also alarming to hear from a former U.S. senator — 25 years after he passed a temporary oil subsidy for Big Oil.
With world petroleum prices low at the time, Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) pushed through a special break in 1995, temporarily exempting the giants from paying federal royalty fees for the publicly owned crude they take from the Gulf of Mexico. The idea was to give a brief reprieve on royalties to encourage oil corporations to drill here.
But — oops! — our lawmakers made a costly slip up: They forgot to specify that the exemption was temporary. Once market prices recovered, the corporations were supposed to resume payments to us taxpayers. “It was never the intent that everybody would get a free ride forever,” says one official.
Sure enough, market prices recovered by 2006. Yet the oil barons simply thumbed their nose at the public saying, “Tough luck, suckers!” Since there’s no limit written into the law, they’ve kept sucking up all the public oil they can — without paying a dime in royalties.
This is no petty thievery. Chevron, Shell, Exxon, BP, and even China’s state-run oil corporation are among the giants that have taken at least $18 billion from our nation’s treasury so far.
Karen Narefsky at Jacobin writes—All of a Sudden, Housing Is on the Agenda:
[...] So why is housing a presidential campaign issue in 2020, when it barely merited a mention in the aftermath of the housing crisis? Conventional wisdom makes housing a tricky issue for a national campaign: unlike health care, for which the needs and desires of voters look relatively similar across the country, the housing needs of working people in rural areas, postindustrial cities, gentrifying urban cores, and sprawling suburbs look very different. A homeowner in foreclosure and a cost-burdened renter may both be victims of the housing market writ large, but there hasn’t been a coherent framework that places both of them in the same context and identifies corporate landlords and government disinvestment as the root causes.
Much of the work of creating this framework has been done by national coalitions who have built alliances among grassroots housing groups in the last ten years, and who have started to develop relationships with candidates and policy platforms to bring housing to the debate stage. These coalitions largely emerged following the 2009 collapse of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which had a long history of organizing around housing issues and connecting them to larger economic concerns, including targeting predatory lenders and absentee landlords. ACORN also mobilized thousands of poor and working-class homeowners and renters across the country to participate in electoral politics — had they still been around in 2016, their organizing might have helped Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump.
But although the national umbrella no longer exists, most of the state and local member organizations still do, and they, along with other progressive organizations, have formed a series of post-ACORN coalitions that are emphasizing the importance of rent control, social housing, eviction and foreclosure prevention, and fair housing enforcement. [...]
Gabrielle Hetland at The Guardian writes—Many wanted Morales out. But what happened in Bolivia was a military coup:
On Sunday, the head of Bolivia’s military called on Evo Morales to resign from the presidency. Minutes later, Morales was on a plane to Cochabamba where he did just that. These facts leave little doubt that what happened in Bolivia this weekend was a military coup, the first such event in Latin America since the 2009 military coup against the Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. (The 2012 and 2016 impeachments of Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo and Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff are widely viewed as “parliamentary coups”.)
The mainstream press has bent over backwards, and tied itself in more than a few tangled knots, to avoid drawing this conclusion. The Wall Street Journal celebrates Morales’ ouster as “a democratic breakout”. The New York Times is characteristically more circumspect, hemming and hawing about how “the forced ouster of an elected leader is by definition a setback for democracy” but might also “help Bolivia restore its wounded democracy”. This head-spinning rhetoric does not prevent the New York Times from swiftly dismissing left-of-center politicians’ “predictable” claims that what happened was a coup.