Below is my column in USA Today on the recent statements by various Democratic leaders that they are unlikely to pursue impeachment because they do not have the votes in the Senate to convict. While many members pushed the impeachment angle during the campaign, there was a shift on the issue after the Democrats took office. Almost immediately after the election, senior Democrats changed course and began to dismiss calls for impeachment as “fruitless” and a distraction. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton declared impeachment to be “a useless waste of energy” and asked “Why would we go down the impeachment road when we cannot get it through the Senate?”
I have repeatedly said that I do not see the strong foundation for an impeachment against Trump. However, these comments raise a more fundamental question about how members should approach their duties under Article I irrespective of the President. Members often pull a bait-and-switch with gullible voters, but they should not manufacture a new constitutional standard. If they truly believe that any president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, they have a sworn duty to vote for impeachment.
It seems that Washington Lieutenant Governor Cyrus Habib is so frightened of the notion of citizens having lawfully carried concealed pistols, that he is unable to fulfill his duty as a result.
The Lieutenant Governor ducked out of the annual State of the State address given by Washington Governor Inslee because he felt vulnerable. The House Chamber has galleries open to the public and both state law and House rules allow those having concealed pistol licenses to attend the event. Despite the fact that the governor, representatives, senators, and the nine supreme court justices did not express feeling any danger, and there was no credible threats made against the lieutenant governor, he announced he would not participate unless his fears were allayed by policy change.
Since just about every area in Washington allows permitted concealed carry and open carry of firearms, save for a few narrowly defined exceptions, how is it that Lt. Governor Habib can summon the courage to leave home?
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on a growing mythology building around the nomination of Bill Barr for Attorney General of the United States. One of the most prominent is that Barr was intentionally evasive about releasing any report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Members of both parties have overwhelmingly called for the release of the report. However, Democratic members pushed Barr to promise to release the entire report before he actually reads it.
Barr said repeatedly that he believed that not only the completion of the Special Counsel investigation but the release of the information was in the public interest. Barr was repeating the standard from the regulation, which is precisely what he should do. That standard says that the Attorney General has discretion to conclude that “these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.” What the Democratic senators were demanding would have been an unethical pledge to release a report without knowing its contents. Federal law prevents the disclosure of a myriad of different types of material from Grand jury (or Rule 6(e)) material to classified material to material covered in privacy or confidentiality laws as well as possible privileged material. After pushing him on whether he would act ethically, it was a curious request for a facially unethical and unprofessional pledge. Here is what Barr said:
“I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work . . .For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political or other improper interests influence my decision.”
There is a new report out today that President Donald Trump directed his attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The sources are described as two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter. It is not clear if that means two officials currently involved or previously involved (which would include some of the fired or removed officials like Andrew McCabe or James Comey). Nevertheless, if true, such an allegation could easily be translated into a criminal allegation or article of impeachment. It comes down to the proof. What is clear is that, if the proof is Cohen alone, they have work to do on this one. Cohen is a serial liar and felon. I have written that I agree with the Democrats in calling him to testify and that his testimony could prove useful in giving needed details. However, Cohen is about as credible as a mob torpedo without being thoroughly and completely verified by more credible sources. There are also some gaps in the story as well as obvious defenses.
While the media often (and often correctly) criticizes President Donald Trump for attacking critics personally or making claims without sufficient support, there seems less scrutiny when he or his allies is the target of such attacks. The recent attacks on Sen. Lindsey Graham after MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle suggested on national television that his support for Trump is due to being blackmailed with “something pretty extreme.” Various Republicans denounced the allegation (which was picked up by a Democratic member) as a clear reference to long-standing rumors that Graham is gay (which Graham as denied). They have described the statements are inherently homophobic. The reprehensible statement was soon echoed by others — not only implying that President Trump engages in blackmail but that Graham has sold out to conceal some “extreme” conduct.
Another interview, another controversy. Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani has found himself in another firestorm after telling CNN host Chris Cuomo: “I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign.” The problem is that his client has . . . repeatedly.
This morning I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearing for William Barr for United States Attorney General. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the recent disclosure that the FBI opened an investigation into whether President Donald Trump was working for Russia after his firing of former FBI Director James Comey. In reading the story, it struck me that the emerging picture from early 2017 looks increasingly like a study in cognitive bias. Indeed, it raises a rather intriguing possibility that both sides may feed each other in reaching the wrong conclusions.
It was announced late Monday night that I have been called to testify at the confirmation hearing for William Barr to be the United States Attorney General. I will be called on Wednesday morning at 9:30 am in Room 216 of the Senate Hart Office Building. I will post my testimony on Wednesday morning.
Below is my earlier column on the scheduling of testimony for President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen. The new Democratic majority is right to call Cohen who, while he will not discuss matters under investigation with the Special Counsel, can supply needed details on his allegations on other alleged crimes. While he may bring new details, he will bring little credibility as a proven serial liar. Nonetheless, he joins a long line of disreputable characters called before Congress. They are a necessary cost of oversight in some scandals, but Cohen’s record demands more than the usual degree of corroboration. Any oath that Cohen takes at this point will be viewed as a moment worthy of its own laugh track.
As many on this blog know, I am no fan of trophy hunting. I fail to see why it is impressive or thrilling to shoot a giraffe or elephant with a high-powered rifle. I just do not understand the thrill kill. I feel the same way about shooting grizzly bears, which I have traveled to Alaska to watch in the wild. However, there are many responsible hunters and, while I would not allow hunting grizzly bears, it is lawful in some states. What is not lawful is herding with snowmobiles so some fat cat on a high priced hunting thrill could shoot one. That is what Brian Simpson of Fairbanks, did for Wittrock Outfitters. He is now stripped of his master guide’s license and fined $2,600 in restitution for the killing of two grizzly bears.
Yesterday, Anti-ISIS Kurdish Militia Spokesman Nuri Mahmud issued an official statement countering what the Syrian Democratic Forces coalition describe as falsehoods spread by the Turkish Government to establish a pre-text toward invasion of Kurdish areas of Syria.
Turkey Regards the YPG (People’s Protection Units) of having ties with and providing support to the PKK, which Turkey and the United States consider a Terrorist Organization.
The YPG/YPJ and SDF is in alliance with U.S. Coalition forces to eliminate the ISIS threat in Syria and have in all regards been the foundation for the terrorist organization’s upcoming defeat as a military force in Syria.