|
After Trump's Meltdown Over His Wall, Democrats Cannot Give Any Ground |
 |
|
Wednesday, 12 December 2018 09:18 |
|
Sargent writes: "President Trump, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer clashed Tuesday over funding for the border wall, an explosive Oval Office encounter that ended with Trump declaring he'd be proud to shut down the government to get what he wants."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) walk out of the West Wing after a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House December 11, 2018 in Washington, DC. (photo: Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press)
ALSO SEE: Trump, Pelosi, Schumer Spar in Oval Office Meeting
After Trump's Meltdown Over His Wall, Democrats Cannot Give Any Ground
By Greg Sargent, The Washington Post
12 December 18
 resident Trump just gave us all yet another glimpse of those brilliant negotiating skills he keeps boasting about:
President Trump, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer clashed Tuesday over funding for the border wall, an explosive Oval Office encounter that ended with Trump declaring he’d be proud to shut down the government to get what he wants.
The stunning public spat, during which Schumer accused the president of throwing a “temper tantrum,” ended with no resolution and appeared to increase the chances of a partial government shutdown at the end of next week. …
“I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck,” Trump said, insisting the public doesn’t want criminals and others coming into the country. “I’m going to shut it down for border security.”
Despite voluntarily taking ownership of the shutdown, Trump, needless to say, will just turn right around and blame Democrats for it if it happens. He has made that task much more difficult for himself.
Democrats have offered Trump a choice: Either he accepts $1.6 billion in border security funding as part of a broad government funding bill, or he accepts a “continuing resolution” for the Department of Homeland Security, which would be an extension of funding at last year’s levels, which would give Trump $1.3 billion for border security.
Both of those options would include restrictions on how that money can be spent, meaning it cannot be spent on the type of wall Trump craves. But Trump has demanded $5 billion for the wall in unrestricted funds.
Trump genuinely appears to believe that he’s got the better political hand here. In the meeting, he also said:
“I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. Because the people of this country don’t want criminals, and people that have lots of problems, and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.”
In other words, if Trump shuts down the government to get his wall, the public will side with him.
As it happens, behind the scenes, Republicans are privately going through the results of the midterms, and they’re concluding that Trump’s stances on immigration hurt them more than they previously thought. The Washington Examiner’s David Drucker reports:
Republican operatives in the 2018 trenches, now formulating battle plans for the next election, are backing the suburban Republicans blaming Trump for their ejection from Congress. In reviewing polling and other data, they discovered that the president’s provocative immigration rhetoric was more damaging to the House GOP during the final seven to 10 days than they realized at the time.
Trump hammered on the migrant caravan as he barnstormed red states to stump for Republican Senate candidates in the homestretch while also raising the specter of eliminating birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants. The president’s near-singular focus on those issues repelled Hispanics, independents and soft Republicans, turning a race for House control that leaned Democratic into a late-breaking GOP bloodbath.
Emphasis mine. Now, the politics of shutdown fights can get complicated and unpredictable, and presidents often have the upper hand, given the influence they can wield over the media narrative. But one hopes that if this does turn into a serious and protracted standoff, Democrats will keep in mind that Republicans are privately concluding that Trump’s closing hate message was deeply toxic for them.
In the meeting with Schumer and Pelosi, Trump told a bunch of lies about his wall. He claimed that “tremendous amounts of wall are already being built” (which is false), and repeatedly insisted that building it would stop the “drugs” that are “pouring into our country” (which is also false). Trump has told the lie that we are already building his wall dozens and dozens of times. The same goes for the lie that it will stop drugs from pouring in. On other occasions, Trump has bolstered his call for the wall with many other false claims -- that the “caravan” of asylum seekers is riddled with criminals, or that our immigration laws are lax.
After the meeting, Pelosi told reporters that she was loath to call out Trump’s lies in front of him. She said she was reluctant to say to his face, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
But ultimately, Tuesday’s events really underscore that Democrats must not give any ground in this showdown. Everyone knows Trump’s call for a wall has zero in the way of real policy justification. As I’ve argued, Democrats must use their new House majority to get back into the fight against Trump’s war on facts, and mount a stand on behalf of empiricism and good faith governing. Trump’s display of lies, bad faith and destructive threats cannot be rewarded. Especially coming after a midterm that Republicans themselves say demonstrated the bone deep toxicity of Trump’s xenophobic nationalism, it must be unambiguously repudiated.
 |
|
Trump Suddenly Expresses Deep Concern About Conditions in Nation's Prisons |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 11 December 2018 13:38 |
|
Borowitz writes: "In a sudden departure from his previous views on incarceration, Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he was 'very, very concerned' about conditions in the nation's prisons."
A prisoner. (photo: Getty Images)
Trump Suddenly Expresses Deep Concern About Conditions in Nation's Prisons
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
11 December 18
 The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report." 
 n a sudden departure from his previous views on incarceration, Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he was “very, very concerned” about conditions in the nation’s prisons.
“These are very, very bad places,” Trump told reporters. “These are not places you would want to be.”
Trump criticized the “total lack of amenities” in the country’s federal penitentiaries, calling those prisons “a disgrace.”
“If you are locked up in one of those places, there is no TV in your cell,” he said. “And good luck getting a Diet Coke. You can yell and yell and no one will go get you one. It’s a very sad, very sick situation.”
In addition to blasting the conditions inside the nation’s prisons, Trump also questioned whether “putting someone in jail for one or two felonies serves any purpose.”
“I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately,” he said. “Prison solves nothing.”
|
|
|
FOCUS: We Are Forty-Four Former US Senators. The Senate Must Act to Protect Our Democracy. |
|
|
Tuesday, 11 December 2018 11:53 |
|
Excerpt: "At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time."
Sunset at the U.S. Capitol. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
We Are Forty-Four Former US Senators. The Senate Must Act to Protect Our Democracy.
By 44 Former U.S. Senators, The Washington Post
11 December 18
 ear Senate colleagues,
As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.
We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and the House’s commencement of investigations of the president and his administration. The likely convergence of these two events will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and global power confrontations continue to threaten our security, economy and geopolitical stability.
It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.
We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.
During our service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies. We all took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Whatever united or divided us, we did not veer from our unwavering and shared commitment to placing our country, democracy and national interest above all else.
At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time.
Regardless of party affiliation, ideological leanings or geography, as former members of this great body, we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest.
Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), Max Cleland (D-Ga.), William Cohen (R-Maine), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.), John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), David Durenberger (R-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Wyche Fowler (D-Ga.), Bob Graham (D-Fla.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Gary Hart (D-Colo.), Bennett Johnston (D-La.), Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), David Pryor (D-Ark.), Don Riegle (D-Mich.), Chuck Robb (D-Va.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), John W. Warner (R-Va.), Lowell Weicker (I-Conn.), Tim Wirth (D-Colo.)
|
|
Could Trump Go to Prison Once He's Out of Office? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48249"><span class="small">Ryan Bort, Rolling Stone</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 11 December 2018 09:26 |
|
Bort writes: "On Friday evening, both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and prosecutors for the Southern District of New York filed memos offering sentence recommendations for Michael Cohen, President Trump's embattled former attorney who has been a focal point for investigations spanning both offices."
Donald Trump. (photo: Jabin Botsford/Getty Images)
Could Trump Go to Prison Once He's Out of Office?
By Ryan Bort, Rolling Stone
11 December 18
Filings made Friday by the special counsel’s office and the Southern District of New York could spell trouble for a civilian Trump
 n Friday evening, both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and prosecutors for the Southern District of New York filed memos offering sentence recommendations for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s embattled former attorney who has been a focal point for investigations spanning both offices. The memos were pretty damning for Cohen’s former boss. Mueller wrote that Trump told Cohen to reach out to the Russian government in late 2015, and that he pursued a lucrative real estate deal that would have likely required the cooperation of the Kremlin well into the 2016 campaign. The SDNY wrote that Trump directed Cohen to commit felony campaign finance violations prior to the 2016 election. Trump didn’t seem to think any of this was that big of a deal. “Totally clears the President,” he tweeted shortly after the filings were made. “Thank you!”
On Monday morning, Trump continued to claim he did nothing wrong while also raising the possibility that the president of the United States doesn’t know how to spell “smoking.”
The “simple private transaction” to which the president is referring is a hush money payment of $130,000 given to porn star Stormy Daniels, with whom Trump allegedly had an affair. The payment was made by Cohen through a shell company, and, given that it came in October 2016, was almost certainly made to prevent news of the alleged affair from influencing the election. A separate payment was made in August to acquire the rights to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal’s story about her alleged affair with Trump. Prosecutors have argued that because Cohen was involved in campaign matters, the payments — which the SDNY wrote on Friday were made with “the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election” — constituted campaign contributions. “Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments,” the filing read. “In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.”
“Individual-1” is, of course, Donald Trump, and directing Cohen to make the illegal payments to Daniels and McDougal for the purposes of influencing the election would indeed constitute a felony, regardless of how inconvenient this may be for the president. This goes without mentioning a host of other unknown crimes investigators could be attempting to tie to the president. Contrary to Trump’s tweets Monday morning, these investigators prying into the president’s various pre-election dealings are not “Dems.” As George Conway, the attorney and husband of Trump counsel Kellyanne Conway, pointed out on Twitter, “the criminal campaign-finance violations were found by professional line prosecutors in a Republican-controlled United States Department of Justice.” Conway added that “it looks like a pretty good case.”
The strength of this case has led to renewed calls for Trump’s impeachment. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday that if it is proven that Trump directed Cohen to commit the campaign finance violations in question, it “would be impeachable” and that “even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office.” Though Democrats will take over the House of Representatives in January, a majority of Senate Republicans would need to sign off on removing the president from office, which isn’t likely to happen minus one hell of a “smocking gun.”
But what happens if Trump is voted out of office in 2020?
The Justice Department has a longstanding policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, meaning Trump is more or less safe, for now. The filings released Friday have made real the possibility that Trump could be in serious trouble as soon as he leaves office. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) raised the issue Sunday on Face The Nation. “My takeaway is that there is a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office the Justice Department may indict him,” he said. “He may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time. We have been discussing the issue of pardons the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people. The real pardon question may come down the road as the next president may have to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”
Schiff, whom Trump referred to as “Adam Schitt” on Twitter last month, is the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and has already announced that congressional Democrats plan to investigate the Trump administration in regard to a number of issues.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who on Friday testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, suggested what Schiff said outright during an event at New York’s 92nd Street Y. When asked what would happen to someone who did what the SDNY alleged Trump did if they weren’t president, Comey said that “that person would be in serious jeopardy” of being indicted. “The government wouldn’t make that sponsoring allegation if they weren’t seriously contemplating going forward with criminal charges,” Comey explained.
As the New York Times pointed out last week, the statute of limitations for Trump’s alleged crime (or crimes) is likely to run out in 2022, which means he’ll probably be in the clear if he leaves office in 2025 rather than 2021. When voters go to the polls in two years, then, they may not only be voting to remove Trump from the White House, but to put him into prison.
|
|
he subtext of the most recent filings by prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office and the Southern District of New York (SDNY) indicates that they strongly suspect collusion between Donald Trump and Russian players acting under the direction of Vladimir Putin, at a bare minimum.
