Etiquette Coach Recommends Thanksgiving ‘Safe Space’ For Inevitable Political Arguments
As Americans gather for Thanksgiving once again, this year’s feast is bound to include heated debates over impeachment, geopolitics and manifest destiny as we live through one of the most polarizing periods in modern history.
And while Thanksgiving hosts may try to steer the conversation to lighter topics such as football and checking in on the lives of relatives who don’t keep in touch, there may be no way to avoid the giant elephants in the room.
“If somebody comes in and they’re not on the Trump train, so to speak, they get a little bit of an airing,” Alex Triantafilou told the Associated Press. Triantafilou (pronounced tree-aunt-a-FEE-loo), an attorney and chairman of the Hamilton County Republican Party in Ohio, added that it’s “usually in fun.”
But sometimes it goes past fun.
Wright recalls Thanksgivings with offensive comments that strained relations. Mindy Nagel, a physical therapist with liberal views, has unfriended her conservative brother on Facebook over his political posts and said she’ll be “surrounded” by people who disagree with her politically at her in-laws’ Thanksgiving.
“Politics is the elephant in the room,” she said. Her hosts will probably turn off conservative Fox News while she’s there, Nagel said, but there will likely be someone who “tries to stir the pot” by raising Trump and impeachment with her. –AP
Safe spaces, happy families?
What to do when your cousin starts rattling off all the ways that Orange Man Bad™ and you’re a Nazi for supporting him? According to Los Angeles-based etiquette coach Elaine Swann, you should set up a special room with snacks for family members who want to talk politics, and designate a ‘calm’ family member to moderate.
Elaine Swann, a Los Angeles-based etiquette coach, advises hosts to have a plan to deal with polarizing discussions amid “all this talk about impeachment” in the air, along with the aromas of oyster dressing and freshly baked pumpkin pies.
“I do think it’s healthy for people to express themselves and to have those conversations,” said Swann, who will host her family’s Thanksgiving. “My advice is to take a route to allow some sort of platform, but with guidelines.”
One tactic: sequester the debates. She’ll have a room away from the dining table stocked with snacks for people who want to talk politics. She also suggests designating a calm family member as a combination moderator-peacekeeper. –AP
“My preference would be to not have the conversations at Thanksgiving,” said Triantafilou, a former judge. “I’d rather watch football and leave politics behind.”
It is difficult to be optimistic about Hong Kong over the long-term. If you want to call a spade a spade you might even go as far as to say, Hong Kong is doomed. For months hundreds of thousands and at times over a million Hong Kong citizens have taken to the streets to protest several proposed amendments concerning how they are governed. The protesters, predominantly young people, some dressed in black and wearing face masks are often seen dragging metal barriers, linking arms, closing off roads, and surrounding government buildings.
Still, it is bigger than this, civic groups and small businesses have joined in at times with general strikes and school boycotts to “defend Hong Kong.” This started over an amendment that included a mechanism for extraditions to mainland China that triggered fears that Beijing could detain people in Hong Kong and try them on the mainland under China’s more opaque legal system. Mounting opposition has stirred from all corners of society, including business-people, lawyers and activists, who say the bill would undermine Hong Kong’s relative autonomy and independent judicial system.
While you might want to consider the idea Hong Kong has no future as simple doom porn certain social and economic factors are coming together that paint a picture devoid of hope. For the protesters, this has become a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. While Hong Kong is considered a city by most people, it is officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. With over 7.4 million people of various nationalities in a 1,104-square-kilometre territory. it is one of the most densely populated places in the world. For many years the area flourished as a tax haven for the British and European elite. The continued viability of Hong Kong was questionable even before the Brits turned it over to China.
Hong Kong Is Most Likely Doomed
Anyone with a knowledge of how repressive governments work will tell you when you think those in charge have surrendered to the cries of the people victory often turns out to be fleeting. As soon as the people return to simply living their lives, the ugliness they crushed will rematerialize. It may be in a slightly different form but it will reemerge. For the people of Hong Kong, the ugliness is China’s government forcing its will and way of life upon them. Unfortunately, no matter what those of us living in other countries tell themselves, this is not limited to China.
The rise of totalitarianism and Orwellian rule is surging across the globe with governments nibbling away the rights of the individual for the “greater good”. Technology is key in employing tools such as facial recognition and keeping records of our communications. This includes things like China’s social scoring program that rewards and punishes citizens for their behavior. Adding to tensions, the United States Senate unanimously passed the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019”, and the House of Representatives then passed the same bill by a 417 to 1. The Chinese consider this a slap in the face and an assault on their sovereignty.
Circling back to Hong Kong, a big problem is that as the protests turn violent it gives China justification to lower the hammer and crush those standing against it. This, of course, would be done “for the greater good.” The narrative that the protesters are destroying businesses, companies, shopping malls, subway stations, and the economy is difficult to dispute. The decline in tourist stands as a testimony this has effected Hong Kong’s hard-earned reputation as a safe international business center.
It is logical to think that China has been busy gathering information on its enemies in Hong Kong and even if protests subside China will be slow to forget what they have done. This means Hong Kong is living under a cloud and most likely China will work hard in coning years to diminish its future by always putting other areas first, call it discrimination if you like. In a study, the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies asked 707 individuals by phone in late September if they would leave the city because of the turmoil. More than 42% answered yes, this is up from 34% last December. Almost a quarter of these respondents claim they have started plans to leave which includes things like getting out of housing leases, selling their homes and cars, and packing up their possessions.
The political chaos was the most significant element triggering a desire to move. The two largest factors being “too much political dispute or social cleavage” (27.9%) and “no democracy in Hong Kong” (21.5%). Adding to the desire to flee was the fact about 20% of the respondents had no confidence that China or Hong Kong would address overcrowded living conditions. Unfortunately, it is generally those with the best education and most money that have the option to actuality leave. This increases the possibility that the area will suffer financially over the long run as capital and wealth take flight to areas with better prospects.
Chinese Troops Have Assembled Near By
It has been suggested that some of the most extreme violence could be coming from Chinese agents whose goal is to elevate tension to the point where China has no choice but to send in troops to restore order. Beijing has warned for months that Hong Kong’s insubordination will no longer be tolerated. Even a video, complete with dramatic aggressive music was published by the state-owned tabloid Global Times, it showed “The People’s Armed Police assembling in Shenzhen, a city bordering Hong Kong.”The video highlights the idea China is ready to move in. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall, at some point things will most likely get ugly very fast.
The claims the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China’s economy would pay a terrible price for a brutal assault may be overdone. We should remember the protesters have been painted as violent thugs going forth every day to harm the economy and other Hongkongers. The big question is whether China moving in and hammering the protesters into submission will trigger a war. If so, such a war has the potential to go global with a great number of nations weighing in. Still, how could you come to the wayward territory’s defense? It is both far away and impossible to defend. For Trump and America to draw a line in the sand and not carrying through would be most embarrassing indeed.
Here’s How Much Taxes Will You Pay Under President “…”
With the chasm between the world’s rich and poor wider than ever before, the topic of wealth redistribution and income inequality…
… is understandably at the forefront of not just the 2020 presidential campaign but is daily cooler talk across America if not the world. Furthermore, in a stunning turn of events, on Sunday we reported that none other than Fed president Kashkari recently came out with a “jaw-dropping” policy proposal, seeking to add wealth redistribution to the Fed’s official mandates , which only made it clear that the Minneapolis Fed president is unaware that redistributing wealth is precisely why the Fed was created in 1913 and why over the past 10 years the rich have gotten richer than ever before as the middle class has shrank to banana republic levels.
Confirming that fears about wealth redistribution are indeed real, and not just the emotional side-effect of highly charged political theater, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is now spearheading an initiative for a new global tax system for consumer-facing businesses: the WSJ reported that the OECD is scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday in Paris “to discuss a proposal that would set a standard tax rate for a company’s global operations and allow individual governments to tax profits above that based on sales accounted for by each country.”
In short, officials at the very highest levels are now coordinating the formation of a global taxation system, one which will affect not only corporations but also very wealthy individuals, whose ability to arbitrage (read flee) highly taxed jurisdiction and redomicile in tax havens such as Monaco has long been seen as a hurdle to any truly punitive tax redistribution initiatives.
Yet while the world is gradually seeking to impose a uniform system, all eyes will be on the US, especially after November 2020 when America’s next president will either be Donald Trump for another 4 years, or one of his far more progressive challengers.
So instead of debating the pros and cons of any one given tax platform – there are plenty of other venues that do that every day – here is a chart comparing what total tax rate any given US president will impose on US taxpayers, broken out by income group. Clearly where there is the greatest variation is in the treatment of the Top 1% – traditionally the group that has paid the bulk of US income tax and especially the “Forbes 400.”
And, courtesy of Deutsche Bank, here are a few bonus taxation charts:
In the days of yore, there were kings. Everybody could agree to hate the king because he was rich and well-fed, when most of his minions were not.
Then, a more effective system was invented: democracy. Its originators had in mind a system whereby the populace could choose their leader from amongst themselves – thereby gaining a leader who understood them and represented them.
In short order, those amongst the populace who wished to rule found a way to game the new system in a way that would allow them to, in effect, be kings, but to do so from behind the scenes, whilst retaining the illusion of democracy.
The formula is to create two opposing political parties. Each is led by someone who’s presented as being a “representative of the people.”
You then present the two parties as having opposing views on governance. It matters little what the differences are. In fact, you can have the differences be as obscure and arbitrary as, say, gay rights or abortion, and they will work as well as any other differences. What matters is that your two parties object to each other strenuously on the declared issues, working the electorate into a lather.
Once you have each group hating the other group “on principle,” you’re home free. At that point, you’ve successfully completed the distraction. The electorate now believe that, whatever the trumped-up issues are, they’re critical to the ethical governance of the country.
Most importantly, the electorate actually believe that their future well-being depends on the outcome of the next election – that it will decide whether their own view on the issues will prevail.
In a dictatorship, the leaders try to convince the people to support the dictatorship by claiming that more than 90% of the people voted for the dictator. But this is primitive thinking. It results in the same focused anti-leader sentiment that plagued the kings.
Far better to have the people fail to recognise who their actual rulers are and focus on the candidates, who are mere bit players and are changed as needed.
And, in a country where the illusion of democracy has become refined, the rulers come to understand that elections should not result in an overwhelming victory for one party or the other. Quite the opposite. If it can be arranged effectively, the best election is one that results in a 51% to 49% split.
This ensures that the 49% will not lose hope – that they’ll be both frustrated and angry at their near-miss, and redouble their efforts in the next election in order to have a win. And the 51% will wipe their collective brow in relief at having won, but will fear losing their slim advantage next time around.
Both parties must remain both hopeful and fearful. Keep them focused on each other – hating each other – and they’ll never figure out that you control both candidates like marionettes. The focus should never be on you, the real ruling class.
It’s also quite important to switch winners often. The ball should bounce back and forth from one party to the other frequently, allowing each winning party to dump the other party’s actual accomplishments when they take over.
However, just as important, the new winning party does not rescind the more oppressive accomplishments of the previous party. In this way, it becomes possible for the only long-term accomplishments to be the growing power of the government over the population, not advances for the populace.
And of course, this, by definition, means that the real rulers, the perennial group of individuals who control those who are elected – continually expand their power and wealth at the expense of the electorate.
But what of the candidates themselves? Do they recognise that they’re mere foot soldiers in the game?
Ideally, no. At any given time in any society, there are sufficient people whose egos exceed their abilities. Such individuals are ideal as candidates, as they tend to love the limelight, but will easily cave to the desires of those who made their candidacy possible. No candidate at the higher levels ever attains office without owing his soul to his backers. That ensures that, in spite of their public bravado, they remain controllable by their masters.
What’s extraordinary in this picture is that it’s possible for the populace to figure out the scam and yet, still believe that they live in a democratic system in which their vote may decide the future of the country.
Increasingly, particularly in Europe and North America, the citizenry are becoming aware that the Deep State collectively rule the countries. They understand that this largely invisible group of people are the true rulers, yet they vainly imagine that somehow the puppet leaders that they elect have the power to effect a solution.
In the UK, the electorate imagine that Boris Johnson will actually take them out of the European Union.
Instead, he delivers a Brexit deal that’s a reheated version of the Theresa May Brexit deal, which is not Brexit at all, but a perverse form of remain.
The Brexit debate is mere window dressing for democracy, whilst the Deep State carries on, according to its plan – the unelected EU government rules the UK.
In America, Donald Trump tweets in the morning that he will take US troops out of Syria. No doubt, as an individual, this is what he hopes he’ll be allowed to do.
But he’s immediately castigated by the media. He’s given his marching orders from the Deep State that, once again, he’s to do as he’s told. By the next day, Mister Trump announces a reversal of his decision.
There will be no end to the Middle East war for the US. It’s far too profitable. The discussion is mere window dressing for democracy, whilst the Deep State carries on, according to its plan.
Time after time, regardless of how adamant the marionettes are that they’ll follow the will of the people and save the day, in every case, the people’s hopes are dashed and the national policy reverts to business as usual.
In every case, the true leaders create the problems, cash in on them, then present the government as the solution to the problems, then cash in again.
In every case, the electorate pick up the tab and, rather than rebel, vainly hope that the next election will provide them with a group of marionettes who will actually deliver them from evil.
What’s astonishing is not that the Deep State lives only for its own ends, but that the populace recognise that it exists and still imagine that change from the status quo is possible.
Voting is not intended to count. It’s meant to be the pacifier that’s inserted into the public mouth periodically, when the public become grumpy that they must submit to kings.
* * *
Democracy offers a false sense of hope that things will change for the better. In all likelihood, the public will vote itself more and more “free stuff” until it causes an economic crisis. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation. That’s precisely bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new video. It explains what exactly is happening and how you can protect yourself. Click here to watch it now.
In “Message To Tehran” Iraqi Protesters Torch Another Iranian Consulate
The month of protest mayhem has continued in Iraq, on Wednesday once again escalating into attacks on Iranian and pro-Iranian bases and sites, especially in the restive southern provinces, where Tehran’s proxies in Iraq are considered strongest.
Reuters reports, “Iraqi protesters stormed and set fire to the Iranian consulate in the southern city of Najaf on Wednesday, police and civil defense sources said.”
Consular staff had reportedly evacuated as mobs of angry demonstrators gathered prior to the incident, which involved Iraqis storming the compound and breaching the gates. Amass blaze then erupted from within during the evening hours as social media videos quickly put online show.
It marks the second such mob attack on an Iranian diplomatic compound in under a month, after the Iranian consulate in the southern Shia holy city of Karbala came under attack and was torched on Nov. 3.
Iraq remains a sectarian powder keg waiting to erupt further, given anti-corruption protests have quickly turned to target neighboring Iran’s influence.
Humanitarian monitors have counted hundreds dead among the protests which have raged for over a month, with most international media citing over 300 killed and many thousands wounded.
Iran-backed Iraqi Shia militias have reportedly been increasingly involved in assisting security forces in putting down the popular unrest which has swept the country – by some accounts even deploying snipers.
This has increased fears that the even larger, but on the whole much more peaceful ongoing protests in nearby Lebanon could also soon become armed and sectarian just in Iraq.
Iranian consulate in Najaf burning overnight Wednesday, via Reuters.
Kurdistan-24 journalist Barzan Sadiq described the consular attacks this month as a “Bright message to Tehran and its proxies in Iraq.”
A recent article in the Financial Times, “Abenomics provides a lesson for the rich world“, mentioned that the experiment started by prime minister Shinzo Abe in the early 2010s should serve as an important warning for rich countries. Unfortunately, the article’s “lessons” were rather disappointing. These were mainly that the central bank can do a lot more than the ECB and the Fed are doing, and that Japan is not doing so badly. I disagree.
The failure of Abenomics has been phenomenal. The balance sheet of the central bank of Japan has ballooned to more than 100% of the country’s GDP, the central bank owns almost 70% of the country’s ETFs and is one of the top 10 shareholders in the majority of the largest companies of the Nikkei index. Government debt to GDP has swelled to 236%, and despite the record-low cost of debt, the government spends almost 22% of the budget on interest expenses. All of this to achieve what?
None of the results that were expected from the massive monetary experiment, inventively called QQE (quantitative and qualitative easing) have been achieved, even remotely. Growth is expected to be one of the weakest in the world in 2020, according to the IMF, and the country has consistently missed both its inflation and economic growth targets, while the balance sheet of the central banks and the country’s debt soared.
Real wages have been stagnant for years, and economic activity continues to be as poor as it was in the previous two decades of constant stimulus.
The main lessons that global economies should learn from Japan are the following:
No country can offset the problem of demographics and productivity with higher debt and money printing. It simply kicks the can further but leaves the economy weaker and in permanent stagnation.
The technology and productivity challenges cannot be solved incentivizing malinvestment and government spending. It is a massive constant transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, which makes high productivity sectors stall and crony and obsolete sectors remain zombified.
Doing the same with different names will not generate a different outcome. Calling the same policy something different will not make citizens get excited about the economy.
The wrong diagnosis will lead to worsening outcomes. When the government is surrounded by economists that tell them that the problem of the economy is that there are too many savings, the government will decide to raise taxes and create a larger problem attacking consumption. With private debt at 221% of GDP. Japan has many issues, none of them being a “savings glut”.
If you abandon structural reforms, the results will be worse. The QQE program was based on three “arrows”: monetary policy, government spending, and structural reforms. Guess which arrow they forgot to implement? Exactly. Structural reforms never happened, and when they did, they came in the form of higher taxes and more interventionism, the opposite of what the economy needed.
The biggest lesson from Japan is not that the central bank can buy equities and keep kicking the can further. The biggest lesson from Japan is that monetary and fiscal policy is not designed to kickstart the economy and improve growth or productivity but to perpetuate the imbalances created by excessive government intervention and transfer wealth from salaries and savings to the government and the indebted crony sectors.
The lesson from Japan is that no government can make two plus two equal twenty-two, but they can prolong budget imbalances for much longer than logic would dictate.
The true lesson from Japan is that central planners will continue to prefer to gradually nationalize the economy before even considering a moderate reduction in government size and control of the economy. The result will be almost no growth, poor productivity, and rising discontent, but the bureaucratic machine will be safe.
California DMV Rakes In $50 Million Per Year Selling Personal Information
The California DMV has been selling the personal information of registered drivers to the tune of $50 million per year, according to a DMV document obtained by Motherboard.
In a previous investigation, Motherboard found DMVs in other states have been selling non-optional information drivers must provide in order to obtain a license, such as names, physical addresses and car registration information.
And while California didn’t disclose exactly who they’re selling to, other states were making a handy profit from customers which include data broker LexisNexis, Experian, private investigators and others.
In a public record acts request, Motherboard asked the California DMV for the total dollar amounts paid by commercial requesters of data for the past six years. The responsive document shows the total revenue in financial year 2013/14 as $41,562,735, before steadily climbing to $52,048,236 in the financial year 2017/18. –Motherboard
The California DMV told Motherboard that requestors may include insurance companies, vehicle manufacturers and prospective employers.
When asked if the DMV relied on this revenue, public information officer Marty Greenstein wrote that the revenue is applied to highway and public safety “including availability of insurance, risk assessment, vehicle safety recalls, traffic studies, emissions research, background checks, and for pre- and existing employment purposes.”
“The DMV takes its obligation to protect personal information very seriously. Information is only released pursuant to legislative direction, and the DMV continues to review its release practices to ensure information is only released to authorized persons/entities and only for authorized purposes. The DMV also audits requesters to ensure proper audit logs are maintained and that employees are trained in the protection of DMV information and anyone having access to this information sign a security document,” he added.
So, who exactly is California selling drivers’ non-optional information to?
Democratic representatives should think twice before they vote to impeach President Trump.
I thought I had said all I was going to say on “Ukrainegate” in my article “Make the Truth Irrelevant.” Then I read a column on the Internet by Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan whose very title: “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense” (WSJ, 11/21/19) bespeaks its idiocy. Unfortunately, it also represents a lot of what’s being peddled by the mainstream media.
How would Noonan or anyone else outside Trump’s circle know whether he does or does not have a defense when the rules of the only body that has pursued the case against him preclude him from offering a defense? In the House impeachment hearings, Trump’s defenders cannot call their own witnesses, cannot confront the whistleblower whose complaint launched the case, cannot challenge hearsay evidence and have it excluded, and cannot probe the motives or possibly illegal behavior of his accusers.
Noonan further embarrasses herself with the following: “As to the impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear?” She reveals her own ignorance of the law and facts of this particular case, and complete lack of decency or sense of fair play, rendering such a judgment after hearing only one side of the case.
Noonan has prompted this analysis of possibilities concerning Trump’s defense in a Senate trial. It assumes that standard American judicial rules, procedures, and principles will be in force during the trial.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am an inactive member of the California Bar Association and have never practiced law.
The best case for a defense attorney is one in which the attorney can say: Assume what the prosecution is saying is true, my client has not broken the law or committed a crime. During his phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump asked for investigations of three matters, but he did not explicitly link receipt of US aid that had been held up to Zelensky conducting those investigations. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that he had either explicitly asked for that quid pro quo or that Zelensky could reasonably infer he was asking for such a quid pro quo. Trump’s first line of defense would be to challenge the ubiquitous characterization—at least among Democrats and the media―of such a link as a crime.
According to the transcript of the call, Trump asked Zelensky to look into the company Crowdstrike, which has been the only entity allowed to examine the DNC servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russians. In a related query, he eluded to possible Ukrainian involvement in initiating the Russiagate fiasco. Later in the phone call, he said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
Assume for argument’s sake that Trump was holding up aid to get Zelensky to investigate Crowdstrike, possible initiation of Russiagate, and the Bidens. Nobody is calling the first two requests illegal because investigations would not directly redound to Trump’s political benefit (but might well redound to his accusers’ political detriment, see below). Only the third request, if receipt of aid was conditioned on compliance, has been termed illegal, because it could harm Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden, and presumably benefit Trump.
What if the subject of that third request was not Biden and son, but rather some nonpolitical but prominent US figure and son, the investigation of whom would yield no political benefit to Trump? The president would have a strong argument that there was a prima facie (literally translated as “at first face” or “at first appearance”) case of corruption against the nonpolitical figure and his son. He could assert that he had a duty as the chief executive of the laws of the US to launch a US investigation, and to press—because so much of the alleged corruption happened in Ukraine and involved Ukrainian citizens, companies, government bodies, and other entities—the Ukrainian president to launch an investigation. The US and Ukraine have a treaty, Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters ratified by the Senate in 2000 and signed by Bill Clinton. Trump could argue that under that treaty he would be well within his powers to ask for such an investigation. He could cite a letter Clinton sent to the Senate recommending passage of the treaty, which lists a number of ways assistance can be rendered, with a final catch-all for “any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state.”
If Trump then explicitly tied US financial and military assistance meant for Ukraine to President Zelensky initiating that investigation against the nonpolitical father and son, no one would bat an eye. In fact, many would commend Trump for applying that leverage. US foreign aid has often had explicit provisions about reducing corruption as a condition of the recipient country receiving the aid. A US president informally linking the two would be a nonevent.
It only became an event because the figures to be investigated were Joe and Hunter Biden. Here the proper question for Trump to ask is: So what? Yes, Trump might benefit politically from such an investigation, prosecutors and politicians often benefit politically from prosecutions, but does that exempt the Bidens from investigation of what are at least prima facie instances of possible corruption? Implicit in the Democrats’ case against Trump is the placement of the Bidens above the laws that would apply to anyone else (except perhaps other favored political figures).
If the prosecution in the Trump impeachment trial wants to contest that characterization and conclusion, then Trump’s defense should insist on calling father and son as witnesses to explain and be cross-examined. How does Hunter’s dealings with Burisma not make out prima facie corruption? How does Joe’s insistence that the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma be fired, and his threat to put a hold on foreign aid to Ukraine not make out prima facie corruption? Hunter, Joe, and their defenders can explain why there should have been no Ukranian investigation, and why Trump should not have used all the leverage he had, including putting a hold on aid—just as Joe Biden threatened to do (and bragged about in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations) to get the prosecutor fired—to prompt Ukraine to launch such an investigation.
If what Trump did is a crime, so too is what Joe Biden did. However, because Biden publicly bragged about what he did, proving Biden’s criminal culpability would be far easier than proving Trump’s.
It may be news to Peggy Noonan, but unlike in the House proceedings, in the Senate Trump will be able to avail himself of two bulwarks of the American legal system: the Sixth Amendment and the hearsay exclusion. The Sixth Amendment protects defendants’ rights, “to be confronted with the witnesses against him;” and “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.”
The hearsay exclusion bars “testimony in court of a statement made out of the court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.” Mutyambizi v. State, 33 Md.App. 55, 363 A.2d 511, 518. Hearsay is “evidence not proceeding from from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he heard others say. That which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The very nature of the evidence shows its weakness, and it is admitted only in specified cases from necessity.”Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979, West Publishing Co. The 6th Amendment and the hearsay exclusion are related, they both embody fundamental fairness by recognizing a defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.
While Adam Schiff was able to keep the whistleblower whose memorandum initiated the House’s impeachment investigation from testifying, such protection would not be available in the Senate trial. Trump has the right to confront his accusers. There are allegations that Schiff and members of his staff conferred with the whistleblower before the memorandum was publicly disclosed. Trump’s defense team could argue that Schiff, by conferring with the whistleblower and leading the House impeachment investigation, was also an accuser within the meaning of the 6th Amendment. If that argument prevailed, Schiff would have to testify and be cross-examined. Who knows where that might lead.
Trump would also have the 6th Amendment right to call friendly witnesses, not just to dispute the particulars of his alleged criminal conduct, but to challenge the credibility of adverse witnesses. Again, who knows where that might lead.
Trump would also contest the whistleblower’s testimony, and the testimony from many of the witnesses who appeared in the House proceedings, as hearsay. There is no doubt that the testimony is hearsay, so it would have to be admitted under one of the hearsay exclusion’s exceptions, which would be problematic. Even if it was admitted, the witnesses would be subject to cross-examination, and that didn’t always go so well for Schiff and company in the House. Noonan cited Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s testimony concerning the alleged quid pro quothat, “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret.” She said his testimony “was kind of the whole ballgame.” Watch Republican Representative Mike Turner’s shred that testimony.
Perhaps Noonan didn’t see that video.
The one item of evidence that’s clearly admissible is the transcript of Trump’s call with President Zelensky. The authors of that transcript would be available to testify as to its authenticity, which means it fits within a hearsay exception. It’s also conceivable that Zelensky, Trump, or both could testify as to the subject matter, tenor, and tone of their conversation.
The transcript contains no explicit mention of a quid pro quo.Both Trump and Zelensky deny a quid pro quo. If the hearsay presented in the House and the whistleblower’s hearsay are barred in the Senate, it would severely weaken the prosecution’s case. It may be news to Peggy Noonan, but the prosecution has the burden of proof (although it’s unclear if the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard would apply). Without the hearsay, the prosecution won’t have much in the way of proof, and there is evidence that arguably tends to exonerate Trump. Supporting the two presidents’ assertions of no quid pro quo, Zelensky has not initiated an investigation of the Bidens, and Trump did eventually release the aid to Ukraine, although he may have been prompted to do so by the House, which was set to override his hold and release the aid.
In a conventional criminal case, the defendant can attack the integrity, impartiality, and conduct of the prosecution. If Trump is allowed to do so, he would have two strong lines of attack. Noonan approves of “the sober testimony from respectable diplomats,” who made it “clear in a new and public way that pretty much everyone around the president has been forced for three years to work around his poor judgment and unpredictability in order to do their jobs.” Whether that’s true or not, what is such testimony even doing in an impeachment investigation? Trump’s managerial style, and more importantly, his publicly expressed skepticism concerning some of the policies championed by “respectable diplomats” cannot be considered “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4, US Constitution). Trump could object to such testimony on grounds of relevancy and argue that his accusers were trying to criminalize differences in policy and perceived shortcomings in his personal style.
Trump’s other line of attack would be to illuminate the Democrats’ many questionable ties to Ukraine, and argue that the real aim of their impeachment effort is to prevent him from possibly exposing and jeopardizing those ties.
Ostensibly, Ukraine is a minefield for Democrats. In 2014, the US sponsored a coup against Ukraine’s duly elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who had aligned the country with Russia rather than the EU. That coup has not worked out well for the US. Russia quickly annexed Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine, and has aided a eastern Ukrainian separatist movement that favors Russia and bitterly resents the coup.
The puppet Ukraine government has been a corrupt money pit for Western aid, loans, and loan guarantees, featuring, among many questionable characters, a coterie that reveres Nazi Germany and the role it played in World War II. The Ukrainian government is a loser, but it’s our loser and Trump has doubled down on Obama’s failure, backing monetary aid and weapons shipments to the beleaguered nation.
Russiagate was launched by Ukrainian officials who disseminated rumors in 2016 that Trump was in league with Russia and later, openly questioned his suitability for the presidency. The DNC dispatched a contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, to Ukraine to search for compromising material on Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman. In other words, the Democrats sought information from a foreign power to influence the 2016 election, precisely what they groundlessly accuse Trump of doing.
The reason the Democrats have repeated “quid pro quo”over and over is because that’s the one narrow point they can focus on without their Ukrainian shenanigans blowing up in their faces. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike and the possible Ukrainian initiation of the fruitless Russiagate investigation in his call with Zelensky. As the above-cited SLL article makes clear, those are two issues the Democrats definitely want to avoid, and they’re trying mightily to separate the issue of the supposed quid pro quofrom the linked issue of Biden father and son’s possible corruption. The Trump defense team should pound the table on the Democrats’ odiferous involvement with Ukraine.
Impeachment is always a political process. Ultimately, legal considerations will be secondary to politics. However, the Democrats’ political strategy appears as flawed as their legal tactics. Assuming the House votes for impeachment, the case moves from the forum they controlled to the Senate, which the Republicans control. Never underestimate the cowardice of Republican politicians, but they cannot afford to roll on this one, given Trump’s popularity within the party’s rank and file. House Republicans voted unanimously against the impeachment proceedings. Any Republican voting in favor would have risked almost certain defeat in the next election. Republican Senators perceived as not giving Trump a fair trail, or who vote to convict, will suffer political backlash, especially those Senators up for reelection in the next election.
At the very least, Trump should be able to exercise all the rights afforded defendants in criminal trails. I have suggested ways he can avail himself of those rights, and he can hire attorneys who are far smarter and more experienced than I am. His team can mount a strong defense. Although the mainstream media will be solidly against him, and their commentary will undoubtedly be biased and tendentious, there will be wall-to-wall television coverage and thousands of YouTube videos, so people can see for themselves what transpires.
Those optics—to use a beloved Washington and media word—could well bolster support for Trump and hurt the Democrats. The Republicans may want to drag his trial out as long as possible. If his defense is effective and the Senate votes not to convict, the Democrats will have given him the last word as the House impeachment hearings fade from memory. He will have a golden campaign issue to rally his base and the Democrats will be even more discredited than they were after the Mueller report (with everyone but there own rabid base).
Trump’s defenders have a solid defense if they’re given a fair chance to present it in a forum governed by the standard precepts of American law. If Peggy Noonan’s column represents what the Wall Street Journal considers informed thought and commentary, I’m glad I cancelled my subscription long ago.
… it appears the president was confident enough that a collapse in trade talks won’t drag stocks too far down, and moments after futures reopened at 6pm, the White House said that Trump had signed the Hong Kong bill backing pro-democracy protesters, defying China and making sure that every trader’s Thanksgiving holiday was just ruined.
In a late Wednesday statement from the White House, Trump said that:
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong. They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity for all.
Needless to say, no differences will be “settled amicably” and now China will have no choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating Trump’s effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing.
The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers, requires annual reviews of Hong Kong’s special trade status under American law – and sanctions against any officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city’s autonomy. The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP.
While many members of Congress in both parties have voiced strong support for protesters demanding more autonomy for the city, Trump had stayed largely silent, even as the demonstrations have been met by rising police violence.
Until now.
In the days leading up to Trump’s signature, China’s foreign ministry had urged Trump to prevent the legislation from becoming law, warning the Americans not to underestimate China’s determination to defend its “sovereignty, security and development interests.”
“If the U.S. insists on going down this wrong path, China will take strong countermeasures,” said China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a briefing Thursday in Beijing. On Monday, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned the U.S. ambassador, Terry Branstad to express “strong opposition” to what the country’s government considers American interference in the protests, including the legislation, according to statement.
The new U.S. law comes just as Washington and Beijing showed signs of working toward “phase-one” of deal to ease the trade war. Trump would like the agreement finished in order to ease economic uncertainty for his re-election campaign in 2020, and has floated the possibility of signing the deal in a farm state as an acknowledgment of the constituency that’s borne the brunt of retaliatory Chinese tariffs.
Last week China’s Vice Premier and chief trade negotiator Liu He said before a speech at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Beijing, that he was “cautiously optimistic” about reaching the phase one accord. He will now have no choice but to amend his statement.
In anticipation of a stern Chinese rebuke, US equity futures tumbled, wiping out most of the previous day’s gains…
… while the yuan slumped over 100 pips in kneejerk response.
Still, the generally modest pullback – the S&P was below 2,900 when Trump announced the Phase 1 deal on Oct 11 – suggests that despite Trump’s signature, markets expect a Chinese deal to still come through. That may be an aggressive and overly “hopeful” assumption, especially now that China now longer has a carte blanche to do whatever it wants in Hong Kong, especially in the aftermath of this weekend’s landslide victory for pro-Democracy candidates.
Iran Says Over 700 Banks Were Torched In Vast Protest ‘Conspiracy’
After early in the week Iran’s top elite Guard commander gave a fiery ‘victory’ speech declaring the mainstay of anti-government protests which gripped major cities across Iran since Nov. 15 had been quelled, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has followed up with denouncing the unrest as a “very dangerous conspiracy”.
This as according to Reuters Iranian authorities “reported about 731 banks and 140 government sites had been torched in the disturbances.”
Given the over week-long and government ordered total internet shutdown which had ensued, this claim can’t be independently verified. However, during the opening days of widespread unrest which had been triggered by a sudden fuel price hike by as much as 300% in some places when government subsidies were slashed, initial videos posted online showed dramatic scenes of banks and gas stations being torched.
“A deep, vast and very dangerous conspiracy that a lot of money had been spent on… was destroyed by the people,” Khamenei said while addressing members of the paramilitary Basij force. The Basij were among the elite security forces which spearheaded the crackdown against protests.
Over the past days sizable pro-government demonstrations have largely supplanted the anti-government unrest, which state media has touted as proof the “conspiracy” against the Islamic Republic has failed.
On Monday Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Gen. Hossein Salami blamed the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel for fueling the unrest as part of continued covert war against Iran. “If you cross our red lines, we will destroy you,” he threatened.
ISNA via AP: Protesters burned a gas station in protest over raised fuel prices in Tehran on Nov. 17, 2019.
And it was Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli who gave the total alleged figure of 731 banks and 140 government sites being set on fire during the protests.
He also claimed that 50 bases used by police and security forces were attacked along with about 70 gas stations burned, according to the official IRNA news agency.
Burned bank in Tehran, via Reuters.
Few details or locations were given to support this claim, but it is part of the government’s continued attempt to paint a US and Israeli “hidden hand” as driving the popular anger.
Ayatollah Khamenei had previously labeled the protests as driven by “thugs” who were playing into the hands of Iran’s enemies.
It should be noted that Washington did early on voice support to the protests, sparked initially by the economic crisis in the sanctions-wracked country. The death toll climbed to an estimated 200 dead as protesters clashed with police.
Last week Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had issued an unusual call for Iranian protesters to send the United States videos and photos and other evidence “documenting the regime’s crackdown” on protesters. It’s unclear the extent to which Iranian activists and protesters have heeded his call.
