RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Aren't Electable? Talk to Striking GM Autoworkers Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=32808"><span class="small">Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 24 September 2019 13:28

Abcarian writes: "Next to the picket line outside the Flint, Mich., GM assembly plant three days into the strike, American cars were whizzing by, drivers honking like crazy to signal their support."

General Motors employees Bobby Caughel, center left, and Flint resident James Crump shout as they protest with other GM employees, United Auto Workers members and labor supporters outside of the Flint assembly plant on Monday in Flint, Michigan. (photo: Jake May/Flint Journal)
General Motors employees Bobby Caughel, center left, and Flint resident James Crump shout as they protest with other GM employees, United Auto Workers members and labor supporters outside of the Flint assembly plant on Monday in Flint, Michigan. (photo: Jake May/Flint Journal)


Think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Aren't Electable? Talk to Striking GM Autoworkers

By Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times

24 September 19

 

ext to the picket line outside the Flint, Mich., GM assembly plant three days into the strike, American cars were whizzing by, drivers honking like crazy to signal their support.

Every entrance into the massive plant was blocked by strikers, furious that the sacrifices they made a decade ago to keep GM afloat are not being rewarded now that the company is on a healthy financial footing.

“GM, we invested in you,” says a banner hung outside one United Auto Workers local. “Now it’s your turn to invest in us!”

Democrats hoping to woo back blue-collar whites should be paying very close attention to the mood here. The presidential candidates have united behind the strikers, a good sign. President Trump has offered only tepid encouragement.

“I am proud to support the @UAW workers who are standing up to the greed of GM,” Bernie Sanders tweeted Sunday. “Our message to GM is a simple one: End the greed, sit down with the UAW and work out an agreement that treats your workers with the respect and the dignity they deserve.”

Trump, on the other hand, seemed annoyed by the strike: “Here we go again with General Motors and the United Auto Workers. Get together and make a deal!” he tweeted Sunday, hours before the strike began. Later, he told reporters: “The UAW has been very good to me. The members have been very good, from the standpoint of voting.” (It’s always only about him, him, him.)

Forklift operator Eric Szecsodi, a 37-year-old father of two, was walking the picket line in Flint on Wednesday. A lifelong Democrat who voted enthusiastically for Barack Obama in 2008, he defected to Trump in 2016.

Disaffected blue-collar white men like Szecsodi helped Trump eke out a victory in Michigan over Hillary Clinton, whose campaign turned a blind eye to this important state until it was too late to make a difference. Expecting to win by 5 percentage points here, she instead lost by 0.23 points, a mere 10,704 votes.

There was also a damaging lack of enthusiasm on the part of African American voters, who stayed home in droves.

The combination proved fatal to Clinton here and in other industrial states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which were supposed to have provided her a “blue wall” of support. The blue wall was a mirage.

Though the UAW had endorsed Clinton, its president later estimated that close to 28% of his 415,000 members had voted for Trump.

Those workers still blamed Bill Clinton, and by extension, Hillary, for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which despite its good intentions had sabotaged the American working class. They liked that Trump planned to scrap it.

Trump’s vows to keep American manufacturing plants from shipping jobs overseas, his insistence that dying industries like coal mining should and could be revived, were immensely appealing. They took a chance on him.

While the economy has been hopping along during Trump’s administration, things have only gotten worse for GM’s autoworkers. The company has decided to close four major plants, including two in Michigan, as it focuses less on sedans and more on more profitable trucks and SUVs.

If Democrats can’t capitalize on disparities like these, they don’t deserve to win in 2020.

A decade ago, when GM was on the ropes, the union had agreed to cut wages, give up cost-of-living increases and create a two-tier system that allowed the company to hire new workers at much lower pay and benefit levels.

This affected workers like Szecsodi: He was hired in 2005 as a temporary worker, at $23 an hour. Two years later, his pay was reduced to $15 an hour. He has since become permanent, but he is earning only $21.50 an hour, $1.50 per hour less than he did 14 years ago.

Sacrifices like his helped GM turn around; over the last three years, the company has made $35 billion in profits. Now workers are asking for higher wages, better healthcare benefits, greater job security and a path to permanency for all those second-class temps. The company is resisting. Among other things, it wants workers to kick in more for their health insurance — raising the 3% to 4% that workers currently pay to 15% of costs.

“We just want fair wages and compensation,” said picket line captain John Hatline, a 45-year GM employee whom I met at GM’s Poletown plant in Hamtramck. He noted that GM Chief Executive Mary Barra earns more than $20 million a year. “Every day, she is earning $11,400 per hour,” he said. “Our highest paid members earn $30. The lowest make $12 to $15. We’ve gone 10 years without a raise.”

Like many of his colleagues, he was a fan of Sanders in 2016.

When Clinton became the nominee, he believes, many of those would-be Sanders voters defected. She was too friendly to Wall Street, too weighed down by the baggage of her husband’s trade policies and the many Clinton scandals.

“They just wanted something new,” said Hatline, who voted for Clinton. “They would have voted for Bernie over Trump.”

I heard echoes of this comment everywhere I stopped. Remember this when the punditocracy alleges that lefty Democratic candidates like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are too radical for the electorate.

Down the road and across the street from the Flint picket line, I pulled into the parking lot of UAW Local 598 and was greeted by a sign: “Foreign made automobiles are not welcome here and may be towed away at the owner’s expense. Buy Union, Buy American.”

These days, it’s impossible to know exactly where some cars are made — was your BMW built in South Carolina? — so I took the sign as a slightly menacing joke. However, I was relieved that my rental car was a Ford Fusion.

The sign put me in mind of Trump’s vow in 2015 that he would never eat another Oreo after Nabisco’s parent company moved a factory to Mexico.

At the same time, shirts and ties from his clothing collection were being manufactured in China, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam.

Perhaps this hypocrisy will haunt Trump in 2020.

Inside Local 598, scores of strikers were sitting at long tables, filling out forms for health insurance, which the union must provide because GM made the unexpectedly aggressive decision to suspend health benefits during the strike. The union’s $750-million-plus strike fund will cover those costs and also pay union members $250 a week — before taxes, as Tiffany Clifton, who works in the Poletown body shop, made a point of telling me.

Local President Ryan Buchalski invited me into his cluttered office with two other union officials. They were reluctant to talk with me on the record about the strike but said they are committed to voting for the Democratic candidate in 2020, whoever that may be.

They remain puzzled by their fellow trade unionists’ support for Trump, an employer infamous for stiffing his own workers.

But they also understand that the way he stokes white racial resentment and defends the working class holds a powerful appeal to men and women who feel marginalized, if not forgotten. Their members want to be seen.

In 2016, only one candidate was looking.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Edward Snowden: 'If I Happen to Fall out of a Window, You Can Be Sure I Was Pushed' Print
Written by   
Tuesday, 24 September 2019 12:33

Excerpt: "Book a suite in a luxury hotel in Moscow, send the room number encrypted to a pre-determined mobile number and then wait for a return message indicating a precise time: Meeting Edward Snowden is pretty much exactly how children imagine the grand game of espionage is played."

Edward Snowden. (photo: Yuriy Chichkov/Der Spiegel)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Yuriy Chichkov/Der Spiegel)


Edward Snowden: 'If I Happen to Fall out of a Window, You Can Be Sure I Was Pushed'

By Martin Knobbe and Jörg Schindler, Der Spiegel

24 September 19


In a DER SPIEGEL interview, whistleblower Edward Snowden talks about how he managed to mislead the most powerful intelligence agency in the world, about his life in Russia and about why the internet must be reinvented.

ook a suite in a luxury hotel in Moscow, send the room number encrypted to a pre-determined mobile number and then wait for a return message indicating a precise time: Meeting Edward Snwoden is pretty much exactly how children imagine the grand game of espionage is played.

But then, on Monday, there he was, standing in our room on the first floor of the Hotel Metropol, as pale and boyish-looking as the was when the world first saw him in June 2013. For the last six years, he has been living in Russian exile. The U.S. has considered him to be an enemy of the state, right up there with Julian Assange, ever since he revealed, with the help of journalists, the full scope of the surveillance system operated by the National Security Agency (NSA). For quite some time, though, he remained silent about how he smuggled the secrets out of the country and what his personal motivations were. 

Now, though, he has written a book about it. It will be published worldwide on September 17 under the title "Permanent Record." Ahead of publication, Snowden spent over two-and-a-half hours patiently responding to questions from DER SPIEGEL.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Snowden, you always said: "I am not the story." But now you've written 432 pages about yourself. Why?

Edward Snowden: Because I think it's more important than ever to explain systems of mass surveillance and mass manipulation to the public. And I can't explain how these systems came to be without explaining my role in helping to build them.

DER SPIEGEL: Wasn't it just as important four or even six years ago?

Snowden: Four years ago, Barack Obama was president. Four years ago, Boris Johnson wasn't around and the AfD (Germany's right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany) was still kind of a joke. But now in 2019, no one is laughing. When you look around the world, when you look at the rising factionalization of society, when you see this new wave of authoritarianism sweeping over many countries: Everywhere political classes and commercial classes are realizing they can use technology to influence the world on a new scale that was not previously available. We are seeing our systems coming under attack.

DER SPIEGEL: What systems?

Snowden: The political system, the legal system, the social system. And we have the proclivity to think that if we get rid of the people we don't like, the problem is solved. We go: "Oh, it's Donald Trump. Oh, it's Boris Johnson. Oh, it's the Russians" But Donald Trump is not the problem. Donald Trump is the product of the problem.

DER SPIEGEL: A system failure.

Snowden: Yes. And that's why I'm writing this book now.

DER SPIEGEL: You write that you wanted to tell the truth. What was the biggest lie people told about you?

Snowden: Oh, God, there's a zillion of those. The biggest was

DER SPIEGEL:
 that you are a Russian spy?

Snowden: Not even that one, but that it was my plan to end up in Russia. Even the NSA admits that Russia wasn't my intended destination. But people repeat it because it's guilt by association. It's part of this typical warfare, that is going on at the moment. The facts don't matter. What you know is less important than what you feel. It's corrosive to democracy. Increasingly we cannot agree about things. If you can't even acknowledge what is happening, how can you have a discussion about why it is happening?

DER SPIEGEL: While writing, did you discover any truths about yourself that you didn't like?

Snowden: The most unflattering thing is to realize just how naïve and credulous I was and how that could make me into a tool of systems that would use my skills for an act of global harm. The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better."

DER SPIEGEL: Was that your motivation when you entered the world of espionage?

Snowden: Entering the world of espionage sounds so grand. I just saw an enormous landscape of opportunities because the government in its post-9/11 spending blitz was desperate to hire anybody who had high-level technical skills and a clearance. And I happened to have both. It was weird to be just a kid and be brought into CIA headquarters, put in charge of the entire Washington metropolitan area's network.

DER SPIEGEL: Was it not also fascinating to be able to invade pretty much everybody's life via state-sponsored hacking?

Snowden: You have to remember, in the beginning I didn't even know mass surveillance was a thing because I worked for the CIA, which is a human intelligence organization. But when I was sent back to NSA headquarters and my very last position to directly work with a tool of mass surveillance, there was a guy who was supposed to be teaching me. And sometimes he would spin around in his chair, showing me nudes of whatever target's wife he's looking at. And he's like: "Bonus!"

DER SPIEGEL: Was there a turning point for you?

Snowden: No, it happened over years. But I remember one specific moment: In my last position I was an infrastructure analyst. There are basically two forms of mass surveillance analysts at the NSA. There are persona analysts, all they do is read people's Facebook traffic, their chats, their messaging. Infrastructure analysts are frequently used for counterhacking. We're trying to see what others have done to us, without having names or numbers. Instead of tracking people, you're tracking devices.

DER SPIEGEL: Like a public computer?

Snowden: We would, for instance, track a computer in a library and turn on the camera to actually watch the users. And you would record it and store the video file away in case it ends up being interesting later. We've got a ton of like up-nose pictures from Iraqi cybercafés. So somehow I came across a recording of this guy who was an engineer somewhere in Southeast Asia and had been applying for a job in some university that was suspected of being related to a nuclear program or a cyberattack. I don't even remember because there's always some justification. And this man had his child on his lap, which was innocently banging on the keyboard.

DER SPIEGEL: That's when you had a prick of conscience?

Snowden: I knew that I was using tools of mass surveillance. But it had been all very abstract. And suddenly you actually see a person looking at you through the screen. They don't know they're looking at you, of course. But you realize that, as people are reading, we are reading them. And these systems had gotten this far without anyone knowing. It took forever for me to develop a sense of skepticism. But once it began bit by bit, it sort of continued to develop because you're more aware. You're looking more for contradictions in what your employers tell you and what they actually do.

DER SPIEGEL: You became seriously ill and fell into depression. Have you ever had suicidal thoughts?

Snowden: No! This is important for the record. I am not now, nor have I ever been suicidal. I have a philosophical objection to the idea of suicide, and if I happen to fall out of a window, you can be sure I was pushed.

DER SPIEGEL: When you started gathering the information which would later be known as the Snowden files, you were working in Hawaii for the "Office of Information Sharing." Sounds like a joke.

Snowden: I was the sole employee of this office. I ended up in that chair by accident. After my health scare, I was trying to take it easy, rebuild my relationship, repairing all of that stuff. It gave me the mandate to have access to everything. And by sheer chance, I was collocated between a major Windows systems engineering team. They knew I had experience as a systems administrator and engineer. And they're like: Oh, you can help us out on the side. So I had just ridiculous access. It was incredible access. The NSA never realized how good I would be in that job of sharing information.

DER SPIEGEL: That was in an underground office, right?

Snowden: Yes, it was that in "the tunnel." There is this long road that cuts through the centre of Oahu. And there's just this little parking lot that turns off to the left before a massive air base, which is a closed NSA facility. And from the parking lot you go through a long tunnel into a hill, on which pineapples grow.

DER SPIEGEL: How did you smuggle the files out of this complex?

Snowden: There's a limit to what details I can go into because I might one day be in court. Not that it really matters because if I'm ever inside a courtroom, I'll spend the rest of my life in prison.

DER SPIEGEL: You write that you sometimes smuggled SD memory cards inside a Rubik's cube.

Snowden: The most important part of the Rubik's cube was actually not as a concealment device, but a distraction device. I had to get things out of that building many times. I really gave Rubik's cubes to everyone in my office as gifts and guards saw me coming and going with this Rubik's cube all the time. So I was the Rubik's cube guy. And when I came out of the tunnel with my contraband and saw one of the bored guards, I sometimes tossed the cube to him. He's like, "Oh, man, I had one of these things when I was a kid, but you know, I could never solve it. So I just pulled the stickers off." That was exactly what I had done -- but for different reasons.

DER SPIEGEL: You even put the SD cards into your mouth.

Snowden: When you're doing this for the first time, you're just going down the hallway and trying not to shake. And then, as you do it more times, you realize that it works. You realize that a metal detector won't detect an SD card because it has less metal in it than the brackets on your jeans.

DER SPIEGEL: You've read indictments against former whistleblowers to learn from their mistakes. What did you discover?

Snowden: It was to try to determine where the points of maximum danger were, where arrests are made, where and how searches are executed. I thought it was going to be man traps, where they can just lock you in there or at the exit of the tunnel. Then one night, I'm actually driving out of the parking lot, and there's an NSA police vehicle behind me. So I'm just like: Oh my God, drive carefully! But they were just leaving for the end of their day and didn't bother me.

DER SPIEGEL: How did you cope with the prospect of being treated like a traitor?

Snowden: You have to have a confidence that you're doing what you're doing for the right reasons. It's not enough to believe in something. If you actually want things to change, you have to be able to take a risk.

DER SPIEGEL: What did you do on your last day in Hawaii before you fled to Hong Kong to meet with journalists?

Snowden: It was basically all business and sadness and trying to come to terms with how not to make a mistake. Writing a note for Lindsay ...

DER SPIEGEL: ... who was your girlfriend at the time, and is now your wife. What kind of note?

Snowden: Just to say that I have to go away for work because I couldn't tell her what I was doing.

DER SPIEGEL: Why couldn't you?

Snowden: If I had told this to Lindsay, or to my family, and they didn't immediately call the FBI, the government could say they were a member of a conspiracy according to U.S. laws.

DER SPIEGEL: You never told Lindsay about your doubts and thoughts so that she could understand a bit more about what was going on with you?

Snowden: I think she could see a change in my mood. But I had to be careful. If you love someone, you don't tell them things that could put them in prison.

DER SPIEGEL: Are you expecting to return to your home country at some day?

Snowden: It seems more and more likely that someday I will be able to go back. You don't see the same allegations against me in 2019 that you did in 2013. All the claims about this tremendous harm to national security have fallen away. At the same time, the public benefits of what happened in 2013 have become more and more clear.

DER SPIEGEL: You describe your arrival in Moscow as a walk in the park. You say you refused to cooperate with the Russian intelligence agency FSB and they let you go. That sounds implausible to us.

Snowden: I think what explains the fact that the Russian government didn't hang me upside down my ankles and beat me with a shock prod until secrets came out was because everyone in the world was paying attention to it. And they didn't know what to do. They just didn't know how to handle it. I think their answer was: "Let's wait and see."

DER SPIEGEL: Do you have Russian friends?

Snowden: I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life with basically the English-speaking community. I'm the president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. And, you know, I'm an indoor cat. It doesn't matter where I am -- Moscow, Berlin, New York -- as long as I have a screen to look into.

DER SPIEGEL: So there is no outside life?

Snowden: Of course there is. I'm meeting friends in town and I'm going out to eat for dinner. I'm walking around in the park with Lindsay. I ride the metro. I ride cabs. And I'm regularly condemning the Russian government's human rights record and their refusal of free and fair elections. But I am not taking selfies in front of the Kremlin, because the U.S. government would use that to attack me and discredit all of the work that I do.

DER SPIEGEL: The whistleblower for WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, suffered through a long prison sentence and is back in prison right now. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, was imprisoned and is waiting to be extradited to the U.S. Are you next?

Snowden: I hope not. But look, if I had wanted to live a safe life, I would still be sitting in Hawaii in paradise with the woman I love collecting a huge paycheck to do almost no work. But what makes a life? It's not just who we think we are, it's the choices we make. If I can't return home to my country, I will at least know that I made it better. And no matter what happens, that's something I can live with.

DER SPIEGEL: Western authorities accuse the Russian government on a regular basis of being one of the biggest disrupters in the digital world. Are they right?

Snowden: Russia is responsible for a lot of negative activity in the world, you can say that right and fairly. Did Russia interfere with elections? Almost certainly. But do the United States interfere in elections? Of course. They've been doing it for the last 50 years. Any country bigger than Iceland is going to interfere in every crucial election, and they're going to deny it every time, because this is what intelligence services do. This is explicitly why covert operations and influence divisions are created, and their purpose as an instrument of national power is to ask: How can we influence the world in a direction that improves our standing relative to all the other countries?

DER SPIEGEL: Are you demanding the abolishment of intelligence services?

Snowden: I think one of the biggest problems in the world of intelligence is the refusal to separate covert action, propaganda and influence from intelligence. We need intelligence. Intelligence reduces the likelihood of war. The problem is when these services become an institution of their own that is not responsive to the desires of lawmakers, policymakers and the public, but in fact is shaping it and directing it. They will always say: Look, if you know this or that, people will die. But it's almost never true.

DER SPIEGEL: What's the solution?

Snowden: We have to stop bulk collection. If you're watching everyone in the world all of the time just in case they become dangerous, that's really problematic, because it changes the character of society.

DER SPIEGEL: Is the internet broken?

Snowden: Oh, no. It works all too well -- but for the wrong people.

DER SPIEGEL: Is it possible to reinvent the internet, as internet pioneer Tim Berners-Lee has suggested?

Snowden: I respect Tim Berners-Lee greatly. He is pushing for a re-decentralization of the internet. The idea is that we can make an internet that is more individually owned without having to be incredibly difficult to maintain and administer.

DER SPIEGEL: How might that work?

Snowden: What do we have today? We have Facebook, Google, big datacenters all over the world, and these guys are remotely administering the computers. You send your requests out to Google. When you are looking for the right way, you ask Google Maps. Google processes the request and sends the results back to you. It's the same with voice recognition, Siri, Alexa and the rest. But today, phones are enormously more capable than they used to be. Requests are increasingly solvable without relying on the cloud. And as that happens, we can start to move all of these capabilities back to the edges because, after all, why does Google need to know where you're going? They don't need to know that for a maps application to function, even though they claim they do.

DER SPIEGEL: But people seem to be content with using Facebook, Google Maps and Siri?

Snowden: Look at the phone on this table. Could you tell me what it is doing while the screen is off?

DER SPIEGEL: Not really.

Snowden: Well, I can tell you with some authority that this phone is communicating hundreds or thousands of times every minute. It's contacting an ad network, analyzing your behavior, tracking your location and so on. The central problem is that it's happening invisibly. Let's assume you could simply poke an icon and all the hidden activity would stop, would you do that?

DER SPIEGEL: Of course.

Snowden: But right now, that is not an option that is made available to us. They just say: Scroll down this window, click "I agree," and your life is getting better. And if nobody else will challenge this, I'm going to do it my goddamn self, because the primary thing right now is the visibility of this predation.

DER SPIEGEL: What was the hardest moment for you in the last six years?

Snowden: Leaving Lindsay. Because that's the real crime that I'm guilty of. I am probably the worst boyfriend in the history of the United States.

DER SPIEGEL: As a former spy, you know how to disinform and to disrupt. Why should we believe anything you write in your book?

Snowden: You shouldn't. It was a very difficult book to write, and I think I have been overly honest. In fact, the lesson you should be taking from it is: Question me, doubt me, be skeptical. But then be skeptical as well of the people who are actually in charge.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Snowden, thank you very much for this interview.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Nancy Pelosi's Failure to Launch Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51686"><span class="small">Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 24 September 2019 10:52

Goldberg writes: "Pelosi's calculated timidity on impeachment is emboldening Trump, demoralizing progressives, and failing the country."

Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Erin Schaff/NYT)
Nancy Pelosi. (photo: Erin Schaff/NYT)


Nancy Pelosi's Failure to Launch

By Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times

24 September 19


The House speaker’s hesitation on impeachment empowers a lawless president.

lizabeth Warren on Friday evening sent out a series of tweets that, in addition to calling out Donald Trump for his criminality, rebuked Congress for enabling him. “After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment,” wrote Warren. “By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in U.S. elections. Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.”

Warren was not impolitic enough to refer directly to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, but the implicit criticism was clear. It was also well deserved. Pelosi’s calculated timidity on impeachment is emboldening Trump, demoralizing progressives, and failing the country.

The House speaker is a master legislator, and by all accounts incomparable at corralling votes. But right now, Democrats need a brawler willing to use every tool at her disposal to stop America’s descent into autocracy, and Pelosi has so far refused to rise to the occasion. As Representative Jared Huffman tweeted, “We are verging on tragic fecklessness.”

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
If Whistleblower Is Right, Trump May Have Committed Extortion and Bribery Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46833"><span class="small">Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Tuesday, 24 September 2019 08:31

McQuade writes: "If the latest allegations about President Donald Trump's conversations with the leader of Ukraine are true, his conduct may constitute a garden-variety public corruption crime: extortion and bribery."

If Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, so desires, he has the ability to seriously damage Trump's presidency with a few choice disclosures. (photo: Alexey Vitvitsky/Sputnik/AP)
If Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, so desires, he has the ability to seriously damage Trump's presidency with a few choice disclosures. (photo: Alexey Vitvitsky/Sputnik/AP)


If Whistleblower Is Right, Trump May Have Committed Extortion and Bribery

By Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast

24 September 19


The president supposedly dangled millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Kiev investigating Joe Biden. That looks a lot like old-fashioned corruption.

f the latest allegations about President Donald Trump’s conversations with the leader of Ukraine are true, his conduct may constitute a garden-variety public corruption crime: extortion and bribery.

The Washington Post has reported that the subject of an intelligence community whistleblower’s complaint relates to a “promise” made by Trump in a conversation with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. Further reporting indicates that the conversation amounted to a threat to withhold $250 million in military aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky investigates the family of Joe Biden, who is of course running to unseat Trump in 2020.

And The Wall Street Journal has reported that during a single phone call in July, Trump made “about eight” demands for Zelensky to work with his lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, to investigate Biden, though Trump did not mention the aid during the call. The Post reported that while there was no explicit quid pro quo during the call, that conversation is part of a broader set of facts included in the whistleblower complaint. According to the Post, a “Ukrainian official this year said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden or his son, Hunter Biden.”

The facts here still need to be fleshed out, but the gist is easy enough to understand. Trump allegedly has demanded that Ukraine launch an investigation into Biden if it wants to receive the military aid that has already been promised. If true, this conduct would be a classic abuse of power that is considered criminal when committed by a public official.

The federal bribery statute makes it a crime for a public official to demand anything of value in exchange for performing an official act. A statute known as the Hobbs Act defines extortion as obtaining property from another, with his consent, under color of official right. “Property” is defined to mean anything of value, tangible or intangible. The essence of both crimes is a demand by a public official to obtain something for himself to which he is not entitled in exchange for performing an official act of his office.

When I served as U.S. Attorney in Detroit, I supervised the prosecution of the city’s former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and some of his associates in a public corruption scheme that included extortion. Kilpatrick was convicted of using his office as mayor to extort municipal contractors by demanding that they include his friend Bobby Ferguson in public contracts and share with Ferguson a portion of the revenue. If contractors wanted the multi-million dollar public works contracts, they were required to pay off the mayor’s friend. Ferguson’s share of these contracts totaled $83 million. These types of schemes are sometimes referred to as “pay-to-play.”

Here, if the reporting is correct, Trump may be similarly committing bribery and extortion by using the power of his office to demand a thing of value, dirt on Biden, in exchange for an official act, the provision of $250 million in military aid. This is precisely the kind of old-fashioned corruption scheme that the bribery and extortion statutes were designed to punish.

Instead of requiring 400 pages of factual recitations and legal analysis as the Mueller investigation did, a summary of these corruption allegations would be fairly simple: Trump used the power of his office to threaten to withhold a benefit in exchange for a thing of value in violation of federal law. The nature of the purported extortion—using his position as president to make demands of a foreign leader to help him win an election—only makes it more egregious.

While we have all learned that the Department of Justice takes the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted, bribery is specifically included in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. It is the type of abuse of power that the framers envisioned when they included in the Constitution a remedy to remove the president from office when he commits high crimes or misdemeanors. By enacting the bribery and extortion statutes, Congress has proclaimed that this type of conduct is not behavior that we should tolerate in public officials generally. We should no more tolerate this abuse of power when the president does it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Seven Freshman Democrats: These Allegations Are a Threat to All We Have Sworn to Protect Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51685"><span class="small">Gil Cisneros, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Elaine Luria, Mikie Sherrill, Elissa Slotkin and Abigail Spanberger, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Tuesday, 24 September 2019 08:30

Excerpt: "This flagrant disregard for the law cannot stand."

Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is one of several freshmen congressional Democrats who called for an inquiry into President Trump's interaction with his Ukrainian counterpart. (photo: Michael Brochstein/Zuma Press)
Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is one of several freshmen congressional Democrats who called for an inquiry into President Trump's interaction with his Ukrainian counterpart. (photo: Michael Brochstein/Zuma Press)


ALSO SEE: Trump Ordered Ukraine Aid Freeze Days Before Demanding Probe of Bidens

Seven Freshman Democrats: These Allegations Are a Threat to All We Have Sworn to Protect

By Gil Cisneros, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Elaine Luria, Mikie Sherrill, Elissa Slotkin and Abigail Spanberger, The Washington Post

24 September 19


Reps. Gil Cisneros of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia are all freshman Democrats.

ur lives have been defined by national service. We are not career politicians. We are veterans of the military and of the nation’s defense and intelligence agencies. Our service is rooted in the defense of our country on the front lines of national security.

We have devoted our lives to the service and security of our country, and throughout our careers, we have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States many times over. Now, we join as a unified group to uphold that oath as we enter uncharted waters and face unprecedented allegations against President Trump.

The president of the United States may have used his position to pressure a foreign country into investigating a political opponent, and he sought to use U.S. taxpayer dollars as leverage to do it. He allegedly sought to use the very security assistance dollars appropriated by Congress to create stability in the world, to help root out corruption and to protect our national security interests, for his own personal gain. These allegations are stunning, both in the national security threat they pose and the potential corruption they represent. We also know that on Sept. 9, the inspector general for the intelligence community notified Congress of a “credible” and “urgent” whistleblower complaint related to national security and potentially involving these allegations. Despite federal law requiring the disclosure of this complaint to Congress, the administration has blocked its release to Congress.

This flagrant disregard for the law cannot stand. To uphold and defend our Constitution, Congress must determine whether the president was indeed willing to use his power and withhold security assistance funds to persuade a foreign country to assist him in an upcoming election.

If these allegations are true, we believe these actions represent an impeachable offense. We do not arrive at this conclusion lightly, and we call on our colleagues in Congress to consider the use of all congressional authorities available to us, including the power of “inherent contempt” and impeachment hearings, to address these new allegations, find the truth and protect our national security.

As members of Congress, we have prioritized delivering for our constituents — remaining steadfast in our focus on health care, infrastructure, economic policy and our communities’ priorities. Yet everything we do harks back to our oaths to defend the country. These new allegations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect. We must preserve the checks and balances envisioned by the Founders and restore the trust of the American people in our government. And that is what we intend to do.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 Next > End >>

Page 749 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN