Month: September 2019

Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress’ Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process

President Donald Trump.

Last week, I wrote a post explaining why, if Trump used withholding of US aid as leverage to try to force the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, it would be an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse. Quite simply, it would be a case of the president trying to use federal funds for a purpose that had never been authorized by Congress—the only branch of government with the power to authorize federal spending.

Since then, a great deal of relevant evidence has become public, including the transcript of at least part of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the report of the “whistleblower” who played a key role in bringing this issue to public attention, and the report of the intelligence community inspector general  assessing the whistleblower’s complaint. Taken together, this evidence strongly supports the notion that Trump did indeed try to use the aid funds as leverage. If so, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime.

The spending power issue is far from the only problematic aspect of this transaction. Trump may have committed a number of other federal crimes in the process, as well. But it is one that has not—so far—gotten the attention that it deserves.

It is difficult to read the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call without coming to the conclusion that a quid pro quo—aid in exchange for investigation—is the most likely interpretation of what Trump was trying to do. Conservative lawyer and political commentator David French has a good explanation of the reasons why this interpretation makes sense (see here and here):

I haven’t been a litigator since 2015. I haven’t conducted a proper cross-examination since 2014. But if I couldn’t walk a witness, judge, and jury through the transcript of Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and demonstrate that a quid pro quo was more likely than not, then I should just hang up my suit and retire in disgrace…

First, right near the beginning of the call, President Trump signals his displeasure with Ukraine. He notes that while the United States has been “very good” to Ukraine, he “wouldn’t say” that Ukraine has been “reciprocal” to the United States. There’s nothing subtle about this statement. It’s plain that Trump wants something from Ukraine….

In the next paragraph, Zelensky responds with the key ask. He wants more Javelin missiles, an indispensable weapon system in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. It’s an anti-tank missile that helps address the yawning power imbalance between the two countries….

And what is Trump’s response? The next words out of his mouth are, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” He raises Crowdstrike, the firm the DNC used to investigate the Russian election hacks. From context, it seems as if Trump is asking for additional assistance in investigating the 2016 election-interference scandals….

But then, in the following paragraph, Trump continues his ask. He says he is going to ask Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, to call Zelensky, and he asks Zelensky to take the call. Then, Trump says this: “The other thing, 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.” He continues, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me.”

And what is Zelenksy’s response? He pledges that the new Ukrainian prosecutor will be “100 percent” his person and that “he or she will look into the situation.”

The quid pro quo interpretation of this exchange derives further support from the fact that Trump had just put a freeze on the delivery of some $400 million in US aid to Ukraine, and had also made clear to Ukrainian officials that he would not even do a call with President Zelensky, unless the Biden investigation was on the agenda. Trump has since claimed that the aid freeze was put in place out of concern about corruption in the Ukrainian government. But that story is undercut by  the fact that the Trump administration had previously certified that Ukraine had taken sufficient steps to combat corruption to qualify for the aid.

A clever lawyer could parse all these statements and actions in such a way as to put a more innocent spin on them. We do not —so far—have proof of a quid pro quo, beyond reasonable doubt. But, as David French explains, that is by far the most likely explanation.

Some might say there was no real harm here, as Trump did eventually release the aid in September, after members of Congress made inquiries on the subject. But a failed effort to subvert Congress’ spending powers is still constitutionally problematic. Moreover, Trump’s scheme to use the aid may not have failed. It is entirely possible he thought he had succeeded. After all,  the transcript indicates that President Zelensky promised to reopen the investigation in response to Trump’s veiled threats, and it appears that this may yet happen.

The whistleblower’s report also suggests a link between the pressure tactics used on the phone call and the earlier decision to withhold aid payments, though it is not as clear on this point as the transcript of the phone call. And the report of the Inspector general concludes that the whistleblower was “credible” and right to be concerned about the situation, even if it also indicates that there were “indicia of an arguable political bias” in favor of a “rival political candidate,” by the whistleblower.

For reasons indicated in my earlier post, circumventing Congress’ power of the purse is a serious violation of the Constitution, and one that could set a dangerous precedent if Trump manages to get away with it. If the president can use withholding of federal funds as leverage to pressure people to do his bidding in ways not authorized by Congress, that opens the door to numerous potential abuses of power. And this is not an isolated case, but merely the latest of several instances in which the Trump administration has tried to usurp the power of the purse.

At the very least, it’s a legitimate subject for an impeachment inquiry. Both the Founding Fathers and most modern legal scholars believe that impeachment does not require a violation of criminal law, but rather is an appropriate remedy for serious abuses of executive power, particularly those that undermine the integrity of the constitutional system.

Many laypeople, however, understandably assume that the commission of a crime is required by the Impeachment Clause, which states that impeachment can be used to remove a president for the commission of ” treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It turns out, however, that a quid pro quo scheme like the one Trump apparently engaged in does qualify as a federal crime. Specifically, it would be a violation of 18 USC Section 601, which criminalizes “knowingly caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…. any payment or benefit of a program of the United States,… if such employment, position, work, compensation, payment, or benefit is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.” Violators are subject to a fine, a prison sentence of up to one year, or both.

Section 601 pretty clearly covers this quid pro quo scheme. The aid money is  a “payment or benefit of a program of the United States,” one that is “made possible… by an act of Congress” (which appropriated the money). An investigation of the president’s most likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 general election is obviously a “thing of value (including services)” that benefits a candidate or a political party; in this case, Trump and the GOP. At the time Trump made the call, Biden was the leading contender for the Democratic nomination, even though Elizabeth Warren may have caught up to him since then. And, if Trump made the quid pro quo threat at all, he surely did so knowingly and with full awareness of the potential political advantages. Finally, Section 601 criminalizes attempted use of funds as leverage to gain political support, not just successful efforts to do so. Even if Trump’s pressure tactics failed to achieve their goals, he still violated 601.

As already indicated, I do not think the existence of a quid pro quo can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on currently available evidence. But impeachment is not a criminal trial and does not require that level of proof. The relevant rules of evidence and standards of proof are up to Congress to determine.The latter could reasonably conclude that a preponderance of evidence is proof enough. Removing a dangerous political leader from a position of power is not the same thing as depriving  a person of life, liberty, or even property rights, and does not threaten civil liberties and human rights in the same way as a wrongful criminal conviction does.

Moreover, additional evidence may yet emerge, as Congress investigates. For example, given the administration’s history of untrustworthiness on such matters, it is not clear that we actually have the full transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

Just as impeachment does not require the commission of a crime, so too not every violation of federal criminal law justifies impeachment. For example, few would argue that a president should be impeached if it turns out that he has used marijuana a few times, even though marijuana possession is a federal crime.

In my view, a high proportion of the federal crimes on the books either should not be crimes  at all, cover matters that are best left to the states, or both. But Section 601 is one of those comparatively rare federal criminal laws that actually serve a good purpose: preventing officials from using federal spending as leverage to pressure people into backing a political campaign.

Given the vast number of federal spending programs out there, it is easy to see how such leverage could be misused. Imagine, for instance, an effort to pressure federal contractors into backing the president or influential members of Congress on pain of losing their contracts, or similar pressure directed at recipients of any number of other federal program benefits.

And, obviously, Ukraine is far from the only foreign government that receives US military or economic aid. It would be dangerous to allow presidents to use that aid as leverage in exchange for electoral assistance.

In the long run, I believe we should greatly reduce the number of people (and foreign governments) dependent on federal grants, contracts, and spending programs. But, in the meantime, we should at least prevent presidents from using these programs as leverage to force people to support their campaigns.

As Keith Whittington properly reminds us, impeachment is not mandatory, even in cases where it is constitutionally permitted. It’s ultimately up to the discretion of Congress. And, as a practical matter, impeachment is as much a political action as a legal one. The House is unlikely to impeach  and the Senate even more unlikely to convict, in the absence of broad political support. Partisanship and political calculations are likely to influence Congress’ decision-making at least as much legal and moral considerations—probably more so. It would be naive to imagine otherwise.

Whether there is sufficient political support for impeachment in this case remains to be seen. It is also not yet clear whether impeachment here is a good idea on prudential grounds. But the constitutional issues at stake are important, and the evidence easily damning enough to warrant giving impeachment serious consideration.

 

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2lXXPSL
via IFTTT

Final Collapse Is Inexorable

Final Collapse Is Inexorable

Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

This week central planners pursued their primary mission with steadfast conviction.  They planned.  They prodded.  They prearranged tomorrow to save us from ourselves.  Some also grubbed a little graft for their trouble.

Other central planners took to debasing the dollar to price fix the federal funds rate within a narrow band of tolerance.  What in the world do they think they’re doing?

We know from our own everyday experience that people make choices.  What’s more, these choices do not occur in isolation.  There are a myriad of influences and constraints factoring into the countless choices people make as they go about their day.

One person drives their car to work.  Another takes the train.  While a third walks.  These choices may be individual preferences.  But they’re also subject to other factors – like proximity to work or the train station, the price of gas, the cost of parking, and much, much more.

Perhaps central planners can account for some of these influences and constraints.  But not all of them.  Not even half of them.

People also behave in seemingly unexpected and erratic ways.  They make irrational decisions.  They run on emotion and ego over logic and sound judgement.  Some choose vanity over humility.  Others will cut off the nose to spite the face.

How’s a bureaucrat in Washington or Sacramento supposed to account for all of these unknown and illogical contingencies?

When it comes to credit markets, the planners are especially effective at making an awful mess.  Namely, when they stretch out the currency, and supply the big banks with cheap and plentiful credit, they reward undue risk.  They paper over mistakes.  They also compel financial markets and the overall economy to an ever more perilous state.

Hence, when the credit market breaks, and the planners’ plans don’t compute, collapse and destruction are the consequences.  We’ll have more on this in just a moment – including an update on the latest Fed fabrication.  But first, for purposes of improvement and edification, we offer the following cautionary tale of collapse and destruction…

Death of Tubby

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a suspension bridge that connected Tacoma and the Kitsap Peninsula, spanning the Tacoma Narrows strait of Washington’s Puget Sound.  When it opened to traffic on July 1, 1940, the bridge included the third longest suspension span in the world.  Regrettably, the bridge was doomed long before the first vehicle ever traversed across it.

The original bridge design – a conventional proposal – was scrapped in favor of something cheaper and innovative.  Several years earlier two hotshot engineers, Leon Moisseiff and Frederick Lienhard, published what was thought to be the most important theoretical advancement in bridge engineering for at least a decade.

According to their novel theory of elastic distribution, the stiffness of the main cables would absorb up to one-half of the static wind pressure pushing a suspended structure laterally.  Thus, the energy would then be transmitted to the anchorages and towers.

Using this theory, a set of eight-foot-deep plate girders was selected over the 25-foot-deep trusses initially proposed.  These reduced girders formed a bridge deck that was flimsy and extremely wind sensitive.  Moisseiff and Lienhard had underappreciated horizontal bending under static wind load.

As a result, the bridge’s center span would rise and fall several feet over short intervals under moderate wind conditions.  Construction workers took to calling the bridge “Galloping Gertie.”  Unfortunately, Gertie didn’t gallop for long.

On November 7, 1940, roughly four months after opening, wind induced aeroelastic flutter twisted and collapsed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge into the Puget Sound. 

Leonard Coatsworth, a Tacoma News Tribune editor, was the last person to drive on the bridge:

“Around me I could hear concrete cracking.  I started back to the car to get the dog, but was thrown before I could reach it.  The car itself began to slide from side to side on the roadway. I decided the bridge was breaking up and my only hope was to get back to shore.

“On hands and knees most of the time, I crawled 500 yards or more to the towers… My breath was coming in gasps; my knees were raw and bleeding, my hands bruised and swollen from gripping the concrete curb… Towards the last, I risked rising to my feet and running a few yards at a time… Safely back at the toll plaza, I saw the bridge in its final collapse and saw my car plunge into the Narrows.”

Alas, Coatsworth’s cocker spaniel – Tubby – perished when Coatsworth’s car plunged into the Puget Sound.  As an aside, the same stormy winds that collapsed Galloping Gertie went on to cause the Armistice Day Blizzard, four days later, that killed 145 people in the Midwest.

Only in the wake of great folly are officials willing to speak with real candor.  Othmar Ammann, a leading bridge designer and member of the Federal Works Agency Commission that investigated the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse, wrote:

“The Tacoma Narrows bridge failure has given us invaluable information… It has shown [that] every new structure [that] projects into new fields of magnitude involves new problems for the solution of which neither theory nor practical experience furnish an adequate guide.  It is then that we must rely largely on judgment and if, as a result, errors, or failures occur, we must accept them as a price for human progress.”

Indeed, the epic collapse and destruction of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge provided invaluable information.  Civil and structural engineering students now learn to incorporate aerodynamics into their designs.  In addition, wind-tunnel testing of designs is now mandatory.

No doubt, the design and construction of a suspension bridge is a complex engineering feat.  Without the accumulated knowledge of successful and failed bridge designs, engineers would continue to rely largely on judgement.  The commissioning of each new bridge would be highly suspect.  Fortunately, past mistakes can be understood and mostly avoided going forward.

Final Collapse is Inexorable

Central bankers like to flatter their profession.  They fancy themselves scientists and engineers.  They aggregate data and display it on colorful charts and graphs.  They devise theories as to how to make the graphs adjust in ways considered favorable.  They overlay arrows on their charts.  And sometimes, to add real scientific credibility, they even use footnotes.

The whole endeavor is absurd.  The economy, remember, is a social system, not a physical system.  What works well at one time may fail at another.  And what fails at one time may succeed at another.  What’s thought to be accumulated knowledge becomes, in effect, a liability.

When Alan Greenspan first executed the “Greenspan put” following the 1987 Black Monday crash, financial markets were well positioned for this centrally coordinated intervention.  Interest rates, after peaking out in 1981, were still high.  The yield on the 10-Year Treasury note was about 9 percent.  There was plenty of room for borrowing costs to fall.

Yet, now, in a world with $17 trillion in negative yielding debt and asset prices – including U.S. Treasuries – bubbled up beyond comprehension, the Fed has fabricated a financial system that’s reliant on extreme central bank intervention to remain solvent.

Over the last two weeks the Fed has pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system through the overnight repo market.  These repo operations are scheduled to continue every business day until October 10, with the option for them to continue longer.  Our guess is that the Fed will continue until something cracks, which may be much sooner than expected…

Stormy winds are blowing across credit markets, twisting and bending them like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.  The Fed, despite its scientific fascia, is relying on judgement.  Guided by gut, it’s doing all it knows how to do; create credit and inject it into financial system.

Greenspan got us into this mess…and there’s no dampening it.  Final collapse is inexorable.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 14:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2muAatu Tyler Durden

Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress’ Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process

President Donald Trump.

Last week, I wrote a post explaining why, if Trump used withholding of US aid as leverage to try to force the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, it would be an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse. Quite simply, it would be a case of the president trying to use federal funds for a purpose that had never been authorized by Congress—the only branch of government with the power to authorize federal spending.

Since then, a great deal of relevant evidence has become public, including the transcript of at least part of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the report of the “whistleblower” who played a key role in bringing this issue to public attention, and the report of the intelligence community inspector general  assessing the whistleblower’s complaint. Taken together, this evidence strongly supports the notion that Trump did indeed try to use the aid funds as leverage. If so, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime.

The spending power issue is far from the only problematic aspect of this transaction. Trump may have committed a number of other federal crimes in the process, as well. But it is one that has not—so far—gotten the attention that it deserves.

It is difficult to read the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call without coming to the conclusion that a quid pro quo—aid in exchange for investigation—is the most likely interpretation of what Trump was trying to do. Conservative lawyer and political commentator David French has a good explanation of the reasons why this interpretation makes sense (see here and here):

I haven’t been a litigator since 2015. I haven’t conducted a proper cross-examination since 2014. But if I couldn’t walk a witness, judge, and jury through the transcript of Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and demonstrate that a quid pro quo was more likely than not, then I should just hang up my suit and retire in disgrace…

First, right near the beginning of the call, President Trump signals his displeasure with Ukraine. He notes that while the United States has been “very good” to Ukraine, he “wouldn’t say” that Ukraine has been “reciprocal” to the United States. There’s nothing subtle about this statement. It’s plain that Trump wants something from Ukraine….

In the next paragraph, Zelensky responds with the key ask. He wants more Javelin missiles, an indispensable weapon system in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. It’s an anti-tank missile that helps address the yawning power imbalance between the two countries….

And what is Trump’s response? The next words out of his mouth are, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” He raises Crowdstrike, the firm the DNC used to investigate the Russian election hacks. From context, it seems as if Trump is asking for additional assistance in investigating the 2016 election-interference scandals….

But then, in the following paragraph, Trump continues his ask. He says he is going to ask Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, to call Zelensky, and he asks Zelensky to take the call. Then, Trump says this: “The other thing, 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.” He continues, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me.”

And what is Zelenksy’s response? He pledges that the new Ukrainian prosecutor will be “100 percent” his person and that “he or she will look into the situation.”

The quid pro quo interpretation of this exchange derives further support from the fact that Trump had just put a freeze on the delivery of some $400 million in US aid to Ukraine, and had also made clear to Ukrainian officials that he would not even do a call with President Zelensky, unless the Biden investigation was on the agenda. Trump has since claimed that the aid freeze was put in place out of concern about corruption in the Ukrainian government. But that story is undercut by  the fact that the Trump administration had previously certified that Ukraine had taken sufficient steps to combat corruption to qualify for the aid.

A clever lawyer could parse all these statements and actions in such a way as to put a more innocent spin on them. We do not —so far—have proof of a quid pro quo, beyond reasonable doubt. But, as David French explains, that is by far the most likely explanation.

Some might say there was no real harm here, as Trump did eventually release the aid in September, after members of Congress made inquiries on the subject. But a failed effort to subvert Congress’ spending powers is still constitutionally problematic. Moreover, Trump’s scheme to use the aid may not have failed. It is entirely possible he thought he had succeeded. After all,  the transcript indicates that President Zelensky promised to reopen the investigation in response to Trump’s veiled threats, and it appears that this may yet happen.

The whistleblower’s report also suggests a link between the pressure tactics used on the phone call and the earlier decision to withhold aid payments, though it is not as clear on this point as the transcript of the phone call. And the report of the Inspector general concludes that the whistleblower was “credible” and right to be concerned about the situation, even if it also indicates that there were “indicia of an arguable political bias” in favor of a “rival political candidate,” by the whistleblower.

For reasons indicated in my earlier post, circumventing Congress’ power of the purse is a serious violation of the Constitution, and one that could set a dangerous precedent if Trump manages to get away with it. If the president can use withholding of federal funds as leverage to pressure people to do his bidding in ways not authorized by Congress, that opens the door to numerous potential abuses of power. And this is not an isolated case, but merely the latest of several instances in which the Trump administration has tried to usurp the power of the purse.

At the very least, it’s a legitimate subject for an impeachment inquiry. Both the Founding Fathers and most modern legal scholars believe that impeachment does not require a violation of criminal law, but rather is an appropriate remedy for serious abuses of executive power, particularly those that undermine the integrity of the constitutional system.

Many laypeople, however, understandably assume that the commission of a crime is required by the Impeachment Clause, which states that impeachment can be used to remove a president for the commission of ” treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It turns out, however, that a quid pro quo scheme like the one Trump apparently engaged in does qualify as a federal crime. Specifically, it would be a violation of 18 USC Section 601, which criminalizes “knowingly caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…. any payment or benefit of a program of the United States,… if such employment, position, work, compensation, payment, or benefit is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.” Violators are subject to a fine, a prison sentence of up to one year, or both.

Section 601 pretty clearly covers this quid pro quo scheme. The aid money is  a “payment or benefit of a program of the United States,” one that is “made possible… by an act of Congress” (which appropriated the money). An investigation of the president’s most likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 general election is obviously a “thing of value (including services)” that benefits a candidate or a political party; in this case, Trump and the GOP. At the time Trump made the call, Biden was the leading contender for the Democratic nomination, even though Elizabeth Warren may have caught up to him since then. And, if Trump made the quid pro quo threat at all, he surely did so knowingly and with full awareness of the potential political advantages. Finally, Section 601 criminalizes attempted use of funds as leverage to gain political support, not just successful efforts to do so. Even if Trump’s pressure tactics failed to achieve their goals, he still violated 601.

As already indicated, I do not think the existence of a quid pro quo can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on currently available evidence. But impeachment is not a criminal trial and does not require that level of proof. The relevant rules of evidence and standards of proof are up to Congress to determine.The latter could reasonably conclude that a preponderance of evidence is proof enough. Removing a dangerous political leader from a position of power is not the same thing as depriving  a person of life, liberty, or even property rights, and does not threaten civil liberties and human rights in the same way as a wrongful criminal conviction does.

Moreover, additional evidence may yet emerge, as Congress investigates. For example, given the administration’s history of untrustworthiness on such matters, it is not clear that we actually have the full transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

Just as impeachment does not require the commission of a crime, so too not every violation of federal criminal law justifies impeachment. For example, few would argue that a president should be impeached if it turns out that he has used marijuana a few times, even though marijuana possession is a federal crime.

In my view, a high proportion of the federal crimes on the books either should not be crimes  at all, cover matters that are best left to the states, or both. But Section 601 is one of those comparatively rare federal criminal laws that actually serve a good purpose: preventing officials from using federal spending as leverage to pressure people into backing a political campaign.

Given the vast number of federal spending programs out there, it is easy to see how such leverage could be misused. Imagine, for instance, an effort to pressure federal contractors into backing the president or influential members of Congress on pain of losing their contracts, or similar pressure directed at recipients of any number of other federal program benefits.

And, obviously, Ukraine is far from the only foreign government that receives US military or economic aid. It would be dangerous to allow presidents to use that aid as leverage in exchange for electoral assistance.

In the long run, I believe we should greatly reduce the number of people (and foreign governments) dependent on federal grants, contracts, and spending programs. But, in the meantime, we should at least prevent presidents from using these programs as leverage to force people to support their campaigns.

As Keith Whittington properly reminds us, impeachment is not mandatory, even in cases where it is constitutionally permitted. It’s ultimately up to the discretion of Congress. And, as a practical matter, impeachment is as much a political action as a legal one. The House is unlikely to impeach  and the Senate even more unlikely to convict, in the absence of broad political support. Partisanship and political calculations are likely to influence Congress’ decision-making at least as much legal and moral considerations—probably more so. It would be naive to imagine otherwise.

Whether there is sufficient political support for impeachment in this case remains to be seen. It is also not yet clear whether impeachment here is a good idea on prudential grounds. But the constitutional issues at stake are important, and the evidence easily damning enough to warrant giving impeachment serious consideration.

 

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2lXXPSL
via IFTTT

Quid Pro Nope: Ukraine Reportedly Had No Idea About Trump Withholding $400 Million Until Month After Call

Quid Pro Nope: Ukraine Reportedly Had No Idea About Trump Withholding $400 Million Until Month After Call

A key element of the impeachment push against President Trump is the assertion that he withheld nearly $400 million in US military aid to Ukraine before ‘pressuring’ President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. 

While Trump says he stalled the aid to investigate whether the new administration was just as corrupt as the last one, Democrats and their MSM lapdogs have been making the case that the aid and the request to investigate Biden are linked. 

Not true, according to the New York Times’ Kenneth Vogel in a Wednesday tweet that went virtually unnoticed (but not by the WSJ‘s indefatigable Kim Strassel). 

Responding to a tweet by MSNBC‘s Rick Tyler in which he questions why the $400 million wasn’t “the top priority of the call,” Vogel explains: “The Ukrainians weren’t made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call.“

To recap – in 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden openly bragged about getting Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Victor Shokin, fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees. According to Shokin, “I was forced out because I was leading a wide-range corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was a member of the board of directors.”

Then, Ukrainian actor Volodymyr Zelensky won the country’s 2019 election, assuming office on May 20 – and promising to fight corruption. 

On July 25, Trump and Zelensky conducted a phone call at the center of a CIA operative’s ‘whistleblower’ complaint based on second and third-hand information, alleging that Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in a quid pro quo arrangement. Under pressure, Trump released both a transcript of the call which revealed no such thing. 

According to Trump, his administration withheld the nearly $400 million in aid ($250 million in Pentagon aid and $141 million in State Department funds for an actual total of $391 million) while they reviewed the programs. In May, the Pentagon officially certified that it had seen enough anti-corruption progress in Ukraine  to justify releasing the Congressionally approved aid, according to the Associated Press.

In a May 23 letter to Congress, defense undersecretary for policy, John Rood, said that the Pentagon had made a thorough assessment of Ukraine’s anti-corruption policies and other reforms – writing “On behalf of the secretary of defense, and in coordination with the secretary of state, I have certified that the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption” (via the Washington Post).

Still, the funds weren’t released by the Trump White House until September.

On Wednesday, Zelensky and Trump held a press conference at the United Nations where the Ukrainian president said “Nobody pushed me.” 

So while House Democrats have launched an official impeachment inquiry based around a quid pro quo and the withholding of funds, the truth of the matter – per the Times‘ Kenneth Vogel, is that Ukraine had no idea the funding was an issue until weeks after the phone call in question.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 14:00

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2mES64y Tyler Durden

Galloway: “Markets Are Emerging From A Psychotic Break With Reality”

Galloway: “Markets Are Emerging From A Psychotic Break With Reality”

Authored by Scott Galloway via ProfGalloway.com,

Malcolm Gladwell writes about a fascinating episode in history.

Neville Chamberlain’s first plane ride was a trip to meet Adolf Hitler. The British Prime Minister was taken by Hitler’s charisma. He believed the German leader when he promised not to invade Czechoslovakia. After his triumphant return from Germany, Chamberlain took the non-aggression pact Hitler had signed and waved it from his window at 10 Downing Street. Five months later, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. The people who understood Hitler, who got it right, never met him. 

George W. Bush, after meeting with Putin, said, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy — I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Our intelligence officials, who never got to hang with Vlad, had to rely on his actions instead of his soul. They were less convinced. 

The boards of Theranos and WeWork included former and future Secretaries of Defense, Supreme Allied Commanders, and billionaire CEOs of iconic firms. These individuals can assess geopolitical markers, troop movements, and business trends better than anybody on the planet, maybe in history. But put a young woman from Stanford in a black turtleneck, or a guy with great hair, in the same room, and these global leaders couldn’t recognize blatant fraud. 

According to CNBC, this week the We board fired CEO Adam Neumann. No, the board didn’t fire him. The media, academics, and math fired him. The board enabled him and either was a co-conspirator in the fraud, or they were just idiots. Who did they replace him with? Art Minson, co-president and CFO, and Sebastian Gunningham, vice chair of the board. Their first act? Art and Sebastian announced they’re selling the $60 million Gulfstream 650 that they had bought/approved.

The board appointed two of their own to fix the problem of their own making. This lack of self-awareness as a governing body is evidence that We’s coworking spaces have kombucha, and the board room has MDMA. Art is the Ruth Madoff of the unicorn class. She either knew what was going on, or she’s an idiot. I’m hoping CNBC will report Ruth Madoff has been appointed managing partner for SoftBank’s Vision Fund 3. 

Perhaps they are being advised by JPM, who told the board the valuation range on the IPO was $40-60 billion, or Goldman, who valued it at $60-90 billion. Goldman has been aggressively pitching me to manage my money for the last five years. They invited me to the premiere of Solo: A Star Wars Story, which is definitely worth 1 percent a year on my assets. So, as my new wealth managers, would Goldman have piled me into We stock if, on the IPO, they were able to get in at the low-low valuation of $47 billion? Is Goldman more focused on the short-term underwriting fees ($130 million) vs. serving as a fiduciary for their wealth management clients? Or are they just idiots? I’ve been trolling the worst after-hours lounges in Jersey City to track down CEO David Solomon / DJ D-Sol to find out. Mr. Solomon is an awful DJ, and a worse fiduciary. 

The Yogababble Index®

The brand era manufactured the notion that inanimate objects could take on animate characteristics. Objects and companies could be personified — likable, young, cool, patriotic. Corporate comms execs began to scale the charisma and vision of the founder. Overpromise and underdeliver has become a means for access to cheap capital (“We’ll have a million autonomous Teslas on the road within 12 months”). You could fake it till you make it. The lines between charm, vision, bullsh*t, and fraud have become so narrow as to be one line.

The MDMA of capitalism is the corporate communications exec. According to LinkedIn, there are more corporate comms personnel working for Bezos at Amazon (969) than journalists working for Bezos at the Washington Post (798). When firms are still searching for a viable business model, the temptation to go full yogababble gets stronger, as the truth (numbers, business model, EBITDA) needs concealer. When I show up at MSNBC, they put some crazy foundation syrup in a plastic bottle attached to a hose, ask everyone to stand back, and spray my head as if the makeup artist were the last line of defense against reactor 2 at Chernobyl. 

So, we looked at the S-1 language of a bunch of tech firms and made a qualitative assessment of the level of bullsh*t. Then we looked at their performance one year post-IPO. We believe there is an inverse correlation that may be a forward-looking indicator for a firm’s share performance. 

Yogababble scale 1-10: 
1/10: I’m a professor of marketing who likes dogs.
5/10: I’m the Big Dawg.
10/10: I am a spirit Dawg that unlocks self-actualization.

Zoom

Mission: “To make video communications frictionless.”

This is accurate. Zoom is a video communications company. It offers less friction, as demonstrated by a higher NPS score (62) than Webex (6).

Bullsh*t rating: 1/10

Stock return 6 months post-IPO: +122%

Spotify

Mission: “To unlock the potential of human creativity by giving a million creative artists the opportunity to live off their art and billions of fans the opportunity to enjoy and be inspired by these creators.”

OK, sort of. Hard to see how Celine Dion is unlocking human creativity.

Bullsh*t rating: 5/10

Stock return 1 year post-IPO: +9%

Peloton

Mission: “On the most basic level, Peloton sells happiness.”

Nope, similar to Chuck Norris, Christie Brinkley, and Tony Little, you sell exercise equipment.

Bullsh*t Rating: 9/10

Stock return 1 day post-IPO: –11%

The chart below summarizes our research.

The markets appear to be emerging from a psychotic break from reality. The ugly process of repricing risk has begun. The market’s reaction to Uber and Lyft was the Monday morning sunrise ending a young Robert Downey Jr. Miami weekend binge. The shelving of the We and Endeavor IPOs was the market preemptively taking keys away, arresting the bender before it starts. 

Adam Neuman’s real innovation, so far, is cooking a drug that appears to have no hangover or side effects. WeChrist shat in the punch bowl. People in hazmat suits showed up, gave him $700 million, and asked him to leave — they’ll take it from here and try to clean up his mess. Mr. Neuman wasn’t fired, he was liberated. The con artist formerly known as Adam is leaving with more money ($700 million) than the firm is currently worth.

I can relate to the mix of hubris, success, and Christ complex that leads you to believe your business efforts deserve a vision worthy of your genius – if not to distract you and your investors from the reality of how hard it is to build an entity that takes in more money than it spends, while growing.

When the board, CEO, and bankers transfer the vicious hangover to retail investors, the distraction becomes malfeasance.

My new firm, Section4, was going to “Restore the Middle Class.” My colleagues rolled their eyes so hard I wondered if they’d been coached by my 12-year-old son. Then we were “NSFW Business Media” or “Streaming MBA.” We’re trying to figure it out. Next week, I’ll tell my board we’ve assembled a group of talented people, are producing short-form video and podcasts, and hope to educate and inform. We’ll go from there. 

I’ve come to the realization that we’re not bringing joy to the universe. We are not Chipotle.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 13:30

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2mFfmPJ Tyler Durden

“Dumba$$ F**king White-Men”-Hating NYTimes Editor Has Left Board

“Dumba$$ F**king White-Men”-Hating NYTimes Editor Has Left Board

The tech journalist who joined the New York Times’ editorial board last year despite her history of anti-white tweets complaining about how she hates “dumba** f**king white people’ has recently left the position, CNN’s Oliver Darcy reports.

According to Darcy, Sarah Jeong left the NYT editorial board in August. She’s now a “contracted contributor” for NYT Opinion.

In a statement emailed to CNN, Jeong took credit for her decision to quit and said she’ll now be able to “go back to reporting and writing long features while still being involved with NYT Opinion section on tech issues.” The decision was hard, Jeong said, “because of the many wonderful colleagues I would have to leave behind, but I made the change so I can work on what I want to work on in the immediate moment.”

Sarah Jeong

Though we imagine the controversy over her tweets – sent several years before she joined the Grey Lady – probably overshadowed her joining the editorial board back in August 2018, CNN’s sources claim her departure is tied to a more recent controversy.

This past week, during a twitter row over the NYT’s decision to identify the Ukraine ‘whistleblower’ as a CIA officer, Jeong tweeted a comment that was reportedly interpreted by many of her colleagues as a call to unsubscribe.

After another twitter user tweeted that cancelling NYT subscriptions simply hurts hard-working journalists, Jeong chimed in with a correction.

“You’re wrong,” Jeong responded. “NYT does pay attention to subscriber cancellations. It’s one of the metrics for ‘outrage’ that they take to distinguish between ‘real’ outrage and superficial outrage. What subscribers say can back up dissenting views inside the paper about what it should do and be.”

Jeoong insisted to CNN that the comment wasn’t intended as a call to unsubscribe. However, she expressed to CNN that she was tired of being cited as a reason for readers to resist the urge to cancel their subscriptions:  “I’m just weary of having my name and my work invoked as a reason to not boycott. A lot of people have done and continue to do great work at the Times. But if a reader has real, good-faith objections to certain editorial decisions, the fact that the paper has done great work doesn’t negate those objections.”

We imagine her former employer greatly appreciated that comment.

Between the multiple controversies, clearly, somebody wasn’t ‘paper trained’:


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2nrsZ5p Tyler Durden

Martin Armstrong: The First Clean Air Act Was In 535AD

Martin Armstrong: The First Clean Air Act Was In 535AD

Authored by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

To me, all this propaganda that humans are responsible for climate change implies that somehow the climate is static and would not be changing but for human activity. This may make great headlines and inspire youth to create strikes and march upon the institutions of capitalism demanding their closure. However, any unbiased review of history reveals a shocking fact – the climate has ALWAYS changed and it too has been a force incorporated in the Economic Confidence Model.

Civilization has always expanded during warming periods and collapsed during global cooling. Simply correlating historical weather and disease reveals a very solid relationship. When there are global cooling periods, this is when disease rises and the worst plagues take place. When it turns cold, crops fail and malnutrition takes place weakening people’s immune systems leaving them more susceptible to plagues.

This global warming seems to have risen to a religion and it is being used by the Communists/Socialists to kill the Industrial Revolution and redistribute the wealth. Raising all the taxes in the world is ONLY pure PUNISHMENT – there is no program to reverse climate change – no fantastic machine. Anyone who was really a scientist just has to look at the historic data on temperature and you will discover that civilization thrives when it gets warm, and it contracts when it gets cold. But above all else, it has ALWAYS changed.

In 61AD, Seneca the Younger (c. 4BC– 65AD) the philosopher, statesman, and adviser to Emperor Nero who ordered him to commit suicide, wrote about the pollution in Rome.

“No sooner had I left behind the oppressive atmosphere of the city [Rome] and that reek of smoking cookers which pour out, along with clouds of ashes, all the poisonous fumes they’ve accumulated in their interiors whenever they’re started up, than I noticed the change in my condition.”

Pollution has had its cycles as well but this entire Global Warming nonsense implies that it has ONLY been post-Industrial Revolution that threatens the planet and we will all die in 12 years according to AOC, our latest entertainer in Congress. Low and behold, pollution became so bad that the capital city of the Roman Empire, Constantinople, that the Emperor Justinian I (527-565AD) even enacted the first known Clean Air Act.

In 535AD, then Emperor Justinian I proclaimed the importance of clean air as a birthright. 

“By the law of nature these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea.”

There has always been pollution. When there are forest fires started by lightning, they put off CO2. Volcanoes put out CO2. Plants and trees need CO2 to survive. This is simply a divine mechanism of how the earth functions.

The entire climate change issue has become a covert means in this final confrontation between the left and the right. This is the very issue that will destroy the Western Society for it has been elevated to such heights and governments love it for all they see is more power and money. The activists behind the curtain are simply Marxists who are determined to make communism work one more time.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 12:30

Tags
Environment

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2lQtCVs Tyler Durden

Congress Greenlights Sale Of F-35 Fleet To Poland; Warsaw Officials Seek Lower Price

Congress Greenlights Sale Of F-35 Fleet To Poland; Warsaw Officials Seek Lower Price

Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak celebrated in a public statement on Friday Congressional approval of the sale of 32 new F-35 fighter jets to Poland. “The US Congress has approved selling 32 new fifth-generation F-35 jets to Poland,” Blaszczak wrote on Twitter.

“This is one of the last steps prior to signing the contract, but this is not the end of our work yet. We will be conducting negotiations firmly in order to secure the best price,” the minister added.

Via The Aviationist 

The initial contract is worth $6.5 billion, however Poland has said it will begin negotiations to bring the price tag significantly lower, perhaps closer to what Belgium recently paid for the same number of F-35s — just over $4 billion.

The package includes 33 Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofans, as well as advanced communications, navigation, and logistics systems.

The deal, which has brought the scrutiny and condemnation of Moscow, comes amid a massive $48.5 billion Polish defense overhaul to greatly modernize the east European nation’s defenses, which currently is heavily stocked with ageing Soviet-era Su-22 and MiG-29 fighters.

Last year, President Trump slammed NATO members – demanding that they increase their defense spending targets to at least the 2% of GDP they previously committed to. 

During his push, Trump held up Poland as a shining example of a country which has met its 2% goal, and has complimented its conservative President Andrze Duda who has repeatedly locked horns with EU leaders over various issues – most relating to mass migration and rule of law related problems. 

The now fully approved F-35 sale comes also as efforts to establish a ‘Fort Trump’ US military base in Poland are underway, and after Trump and Duda finalized an agreement this week to send 1000 additional American troops to the large US allied country bordering Russia. 


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 12:01

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2lQbCKS Tyler Durden

Is This How GOP Will Answer Pelosi’s Pre-Planned, Lawfare-Assisted Impeachment Plan?

Is This How GOP Will Answer Pelosi’s Pre-Planned, Lawfare-Assisted Impeachment Plan?

Authored by ‘sundance’ via TheConservativeTreehouse.com,

Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks…

Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {Go Deep} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now.  The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it.  Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive.  This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

Speaker Pelosi and Douglas Letter

Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House.  That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection.  Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the institution of the DOJ who worked diligently to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations.

Speaker Pelosi has authorized the House committees to work together under the umbrella of an “official impeachment inquiry.”  The House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together leading this process.

From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles.  Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a corruption angle; Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an obstruction angle.

How many articles of impeachment are finally assembled is unknown, but it is possible to see the background construct as described above.  Unlike historic examples of committee impeachment assembly, and in combination with the lack of an initiation vote, Pelosi’s earlier House Rule changes now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article assembly process.  The minority will have no voice.  This is quite a design.

(Pelosi rule permitting depositions without minority notification)

Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of committee.  Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee.  Then the articles must come before a full house vote.  The current two-week recess is the period where Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for the upcoming vote.  Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote.

It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines.  Once Pelosi achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached.

Back to this two-week break.  While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts.

There are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats which President Trump won in 2016; Pelosi is giving those members an opportunity to make their impeachment case to their constituents now, but failure to support the effort is likely not optional for all except a few of the most tenuously vulnerable.  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn will assemble enough votes for impeachment.

While those house members are explaining to their constituents, back in DC the committee work on the articles will collate.  On Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.

(Source Link)

Notice that with the rule changes the minority will not be participating in these depositions.  The republicans will likely have no idea what is happening therein.

As Chad Pergram notes:

“The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself.” (more)

Chairman Nadler (Judiciary) almost certainly already has his Obstruction articles assembled using prior testimony, depositions and relying heavily on the Mueller report.

However, Chairmen Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the Corruption articles based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document production.  Hence, the depositions during the break.

The Democrats are going to act fast.  Remember, by design Speaker Pelosi has this set up so that Republicans don’t even participate in the impeachment process.  There are no republicans participating in the assembly of the articles of impeachment.  Stunningly, and as an outcome of those earlier rule changes, there is no minority voice in this process.

When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of Impeachment will have already been assembled: [House Calendar Link]

Speaker Pelosi has to give the media some reference point to say the republicans were included in the process, so she will likely have mid to late October destined for the committee chairs to have committee debate on their pre-assembled articles.  This will give the impression of minority participation, but it will be for optics only.

Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies.  The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame.  This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein.

There will likely be more articles other than just “obstruction of justice” (Muh Rusia) and “corruption of office” (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible.  Emoluments may also play a role.

The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on them.

The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption agenda.   Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to celebrate the impeachment of President Trump.

Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment.  We can be certain the date will be filled with maximum drama and made-for-tv effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.

[Chad Pergram] As always, it’s about math. The current House breakdown is 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans, and one independent: Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. To pass anything in the House, 218 yeas are needed.

That means Democrats can only lose 17 votes from their side and still have enough to pass an article of impeachment. Amash has endorsed impeachment, so let’s say the magic number is actually 16. If the president is to be impeached, that means Democrats could have 15 of their own voting for articles of impeachment while representing a district which Trump carried in 2016.

A House floor vote to impeach the President is kind of like an indictment, codified in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the House votes to impeach, Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution sends the article(s) to the Senate for a trial presided over by Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts. (Note Roberts’ proper title. This is one of the reasons the Chief Justice is “of the United States,” and not just the “Supreme Court.”)  (more from Chad Pergram)

The same people who will stand jaw-agape as this House Impeachment process is happening are the same people who denied it was likely when CTH originally showed the rule changes, road-map, and impeachment schedule in January.

Now…. having said all that, perhaps… just perhaps…. Bill Barr is well aware of the Machiavellian scheme constructed and executed by Nancy Pelosi.

Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why the IG Horowitz report has been delayed….  As in, hold it back until Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings fire their impeachment cannons.

Maybe…

It seems awful Trusty plan-like for me; but it’s possible.

Perhaps the ultimate counter to protect and defend the office of the presidency from this pre-planned, Lawfare assisted, impeachment effort… is to wait until the Democrats are going to launch their tactical impeachment nukes,… and then fire for effect with the declassification documents etc.!

Hey, I’m trying to provide an optimistic ending here.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 11:30

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2oagDil Tyler Durden

Iran Slams US “Hostage-Taking” In New York As FM Zarif Barred From Hospital Visit

Iran Slams US “Hostage-Taking” In New York As FM Zarif Barred From Hospital Visit

Not for the first time, the United States has greatly restricted Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s ability to travel in New York while attending United Nations events. Whereas previously he was confined to an area of only a few blocks surrounding the UN headquarters, security is reportedly now not even letting him visit a hospital located just outside the UN building on US orders.

Zarif at the end of this week had been trying to visit a longtime friend battling Cancer at the nearby hospital, but as CNN reported Friday:

The US has denied permission for Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to visit a colleague receiving treatment in a New York City hospital. But it would have been allowed if Iran released a US citizen held in detention, a US administration official tells CNN Friday.

The Iranian Foreign Minister is under tight US travel restrictions while in New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly.

Iranian FM Javad Zarif in New York, via NPR.

Iran is livid, with state media describing the ultimatum related to US restrictions on its top diplomat’s movements as tantamount to “hostage taking”. Other publications also confirmed the exchange between the US official and the Iranians.

“Foreign Minister Zarif would like to visit a colleague who is in the hospital receiving world-class care,” said a State Department spokesperson. “We have relayed to the Iranian mission that the travel request will be granted if Iran releases a US citizen,” the spokesperson added.

International law regarding UN assembly and other meetings requires that diplomatic envoys of all UN member nations be given appropriate access to all UN grounds, but it appears the US is restricting Zarif’s movements as much as possible according to the letter of the law. 

A deeply agitated Zarif was briefly caught on film being blocked from exiting his limited designated area on UN grounds by a security officer this week. 

In late July the US Treasury brought unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian top diplomat as part of the administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign. This after Zarif reportedly rebuffed a secret meeting request for face to face dialogue with Trump in the Oval Office. 


Tyler Durden

Sat, 09/28/2019 – 11:00

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2lRQGDi Tyler Durden