Mutually Assured Destruction: Unable To Block Witnesses, The GOP Moves To “Plan B”

In my recent Washington Post column, I stated that the Bolton leak accomplished its obvious design to throw the White House defense into disarray and to secure the votes for witnesses. However, I noted that the success could come at a price through ” a mutually assured destruction option: allow both sides to lay waste to each other and leave it to the public to pick through the ruins.” That appears to be the “Plan B” being discussed by Republicans in a game of chicken over witnesses.

According to Fox, after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., privately said he wasn’t sure there were enough Republican votes to block more witnesses, a plan is being floated that a package of witnesses would be put forward to include both Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff. Another plan would have President Donald Trump invoke privilege over all the current and former Administration officials. That plan would have the worst optics but President Trump does not appear worried about the optics.

In other words, this is about to get quite sporty in the Senate and, as my column discusses today in the Hill, it all could end up in the court of John Roberts.

337 thoughts on “Mutually Assured Destruction: Unable To Block Witnesses, The GOP Moves To “Plan B””

  1. Jonathan, please connect with George Webb; he is an extremely knowledgeable independent journalist exposing the “Deep State Cabal” one day at a time on you tube!

    Keep up the great work defending the Constitution of the United States of America for “we the people”,

    Paul Wilkie
    734.550.6763
    wipaulmar3@aol.com

  2. Shokin and Olly can claim anything they want but the indisputable fact is that the US, including a now GOP congressman on duty as an FBI advisor on corruption stationed there in 2015, the EU, the IMF (all concerned benefactors and providers of substantial loans) and the majority of the Ukrainian Parliament all thought he was a bro nothing sleaze on the take and wanted him gone. VP Biden’s job was to execute that policy.

    1. VP Biden’s job was to execute that policy.

      Biden has definitely executed….his future, his campaign, his son (what’s left of him), his reputation, and the DNC in general

      so yeah, you’re right there…. electric chair electrocuted but of course you enjoy those so feel free to jump into the water and grab a hot wire. it will be a change from Paines Prarie and you wrestling black water moccasins

    2. 🤣 You and snatch keep saying things in dispute are indisputable. Add in shill and we get 3 chimpanzees; hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, but only as it relates to all things Democrats.

  3. Ukrainian ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin has demanded that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) open criminal proceedings against former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden for illegal influence on him as the prosecutor general of Ukraine.

    “I ask you to register a criminal offense against me in the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations by a U.S. citizen, Joseph Biden, which happened on the territory of Ukraine and abroad, namely, interference with the activities of a law enforcement officer, the responsibility for which is provided for in Part 2 of Article 343 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code. Immediately start a pretrial investigation and give written instructions to SBI investigators,” Shokin said in a statement to the acting SBI director delivered by Shokin’s lawyers.

    Shokin said he agreed to resign as prosecutor general of Ukraine due to Biden pressure.

    “During the last months of 2015 and the first of 2016, Joseph Biden, using his official position, personally paid official visits to Ukraine several times with the aim of holding negotiations with the state leaders on my removal from my post. As a result, he curtailed an objective investigation criminal proceedings on the facts of unlawful activities of persons associated with the company Burisma Holdings Limited (Cyprus), including the son of the specified high-ranking official,” Shokin said.

    Shokin said Biden demanded that he be fired in exchange for the unhindered provision of Ukraine with a U.S. state guarantee in the amount of $1 billion.

    Shokin said Biden’s actions can be considered as pressure according to the scientific and legal conclusion of the International Law Association of April 18, 2017, provided by Doctor of Law, Professor [Oleksandr] Merezhko, currently Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

    Facts about Biden’s illegal influence against Shokin are confirmed by the results of an independent international journalistic investigation, named “UkraineGate,” conducted and published by the French Internet publication Les-Crises.fr.
    https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/638150.html?fbclid=IwAR3xwXOyNwBJrw8DKRrnluvZogmvnV4RuW2JNWvvmsOgvDjBEiTCuhkCnFw

      1. I don’t believe we have an extradition treaty with Ukraine. Of course he would follow the liberal logic and voluntarily show up to defend himself.

  4. Dersh’s point was that even if he delayed aid with the intention of pressuring an investigation into the Bidens, so long as he believed it was in the US’ national interests to do so, than it was PER SE NOT CORRUPT
    _____________________________________________
    What Dersh and Trump believe is a lousy gauge of what is not corrupt.

    It was per se corrupt to suggest to Zelensky that he should help smear the Bidens.

    During the 2016 election both clinton and trump were investigated. On three occasions the FBI revealed to the public that Clinton was the subject of criminal investigation , but not once did it mention that trump was being investigated. Can you tell me which of those was a legitimate investigation and which was a political smear job?

    There is nothing at all wrong with trump encouraging a legitimate investigation by legitimate law enforcement of influence peddling. But no one is really talking about that what they are talking about is using the powers of the state to smear people’s reputation in public.
    This country has become so corrupt that nobody seems to see the difference between a smear and a investigation.

    1. “It was per se corrupt to suggest to Zelensky that he should help smear the Bidens.”

      Anon, your problem is that you do not know or care about the truth. Once again you are lying. The rest of your response wasn’t truthful either but we all expect that by now.

      1. your problem is that you do not know or care about the truth.
        ________________________________________________
        The truth is that it was “per se corrupt” to ask Zelensky to help him smear a political opponent.
        Zelensky took the high road and disregarded Trump’s corrupt suggestion and said that he would appoint an honest prosecutor that would look into all corruption.

        What you appear to not comprehend is that there is nothing wrong with investigating. However it is corrupt to gratuitously announce that somebody is the subject of criminal investigation where the purpose of the announcement is to harm the person’s reputation. In other words, there was nothing corrupt about investigating trump before the 2016 election because it did no harm to his reputation because it remained confidential. OTOH, the repeated announcements of the investigation of Hillary Clinton was corrupt because it served no purpose other than harming her reputation.

        1. Anon, Trump did the right thing and you are lying through your teeth.

          You don’t know the law, so stop pretending.

          Re the investigations: That phony material on Trump was in the MSM almost every day along maginfied by falsehoods from anonymous people. Clinton actually broke the law and if she were Flynn she would never see the light of day. You suffer from the ICNBW syndrome linked to a narciscistic personality disorder. Get help.

  5. Mr. Kurtz,
    I noticed that Natacha spent the first paragraph slamming Ivanka’s appearance, then, in the following paragraph, says that judging women by their appearance is misogynistic. 😄😃😂🤣

  6. OT: In case anyone is interested in the coronavirus that likely leaped from bats. I know the NIH is working on one but perhaps Hong Kong has it. If so I wonder when they started working on it.

    China coronavirus: Hong Kong researchers have already developed vaccine but need time to test it, expert reveals
    HKU’s Professor Yuen Kwok-yung says his team is working on vaccine, having isolated virus from the city’s first imported case
    Scientists in mainland China and the United States are also racing to produce a vaccine for the deadly new coronavirus

    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3047956/china-coronavirus-hong-kong-researchers-have

    1. you can be sure they prolly sequenced it for sure, most of the grunt work on DNA sequencing actually happens in China labs, like for all the test kits and stuff. They surely passed it to the NIH-CDC

      who knows if a safe and efficacious vaccine has been developed; but yeah they are reporting that a vaccine is being developed in the PRC media now too

      SCMP is usually pretty credible, I’ll be checking in on it again today several times, thanks

  7. Question nobody is really asking about all of this.
    What happens if the Democrats and Deep State get their wish?
    Do they think the tens of millions Trump voters are just going to accept their vote thrown out?
    I say burn it all down and salt the fields if they remove him.
    I utterly DESPISE the Democrats now
    lets talk about the consequences for once because nobody seems to realize this country has become a powderkeg and they are trying to light the fuse. And for what? because they lost an election?

    The Democratic party is a toxic cancer to this country. They rigged their own primary and nobody seemed to care. Because they are a cult.

    1. Regarding Above:

      This illustrates how Trumpers get a bad name. One can see this commenter is beside themselves with rage. And they’re no doubt mean and stupid! It gives you a good idea why MAGA hats are considered on par with KKK hoods in terms of head apparel.

      Imagine being a Republican moderate getting hate mail from ghouls like this. It gives you an idea how Trump actually rules; crazies like this intimidate opponents by sending unhinged letters.

      1. Seth:

        Explain how a MAGA hat is on a par with the KKK, who murdered black people, and terrorized them. The KKK judged people based on the color of their skin (sound familiar? The original identity politics.)

        Anon said the Democrats rigged their primary. Donna Brazile’s information, and subsequent revelations, bears this out. Agree or disagree, but how, exactly, is that similar to killing black people?

        Anon said Republicans are furious because Democrats want their votes thrown out. How, exactly, is that similar to killing black people?

        “burn it all down and salt the fields” is a figure of speech like go to the mattresses.

        “The Democrat Party is a toxic cancer to this country.” This was his conclusion after stating that they are trying to throw out the election results of 2016. He said they rigged their own primary and are a cult. I can understand why you, as a Democrat, would disagree. But in what way, exactly, is complaining bitterly about the shenanigans of the DNC in any way comparable to murdering black people?

        False equivalency, and an excuse to physically harm Republicans for wearing political clothing. I highly doubt you would similarly justify assaulting people who wear Democrat clothing. That’s how you can be sure you are wrong, if it would not be OK if the other side did it. On the contrary, Democrats routinely walk around wearing the images of mass murderers like Stalin and Mao, without worrying at all for their safety. That’s because there is no national trend of Republicans beating people up for wearing political statements they vehemently disagree with, even when they bear the images of people who actually did kill millions…and they claim to want to copy them here in the US.

        1. Karen, if MAGA hats were seen as only headwear they wouldn’t be controversial. But they are! In the public mind MAGA hats distinguish angry Whites trying to halt demographic changes.

          1. angry Whites trying to halt demographic changes.

            Close down the Democratic Party vote farm.

            FIFY

            1. MSU staffers openly engaging in felonious criminal conspiracy on the tax payer dime, wow

              talk about “obstruction of justice!”

            2. TIA:

              As much as I detest academia’s turn Leftward, this could be read to mean reducing anxiety (since it’s paired with the word “confusion”) as well as actual apprehending criminals. While I think it was intended to be vague, I’ll give this lawyer the benefit of the doubt.

          2. wait a second. what’s wrong with trying to halt demographic changes?

            If the Native Americans would have tried a little harder then many a tribe might have survived.

            if the Rohyngas out of Myanmar or the Uighurs in China have a right to be scared about ethnic oppression. why not any other people? why not mine? or seth i might ask,. why not OURS?

            you see, conquest is real, democgraphic annexation is real, and it can happen by many ways.

            there is NOTHING immoral about white people wanting to secure their own existence as a group which is inherently immora. nothing at all.

            1. what’s wrong with trying to halt demographic changes?

              It’s inconvenient to the Democratic Party.

              1. exactly so we very quickly get to the root of all this diversity stuff. it’s actually to get middle american folks to abandon their own natural affinity groups and surrender to social engineering

                i have been observing for decades how diversity and multiculturalism actually operate in exactly a counter-intuitive fashion to suppress the naturally occurring diversity which arises out of organic social life, in favor of a contrived potempkin diversity that mostly revolves around data management consisting of counting heads and self declared skin colors and organizing all that on spreadsheets in HR departments and their ugly cousins in admissions.

                it’s fake and phony!

          3. Seth, The media has shown repeated mages of people being attacked as they were wearing a MAGA hat.
            There was no hate group, no gang of toughs, in fact it seems to be the other way around.
            Yes, one can say “Well, by wearing it, they they were asking for trouble.”
            Try that on a rape victim.

            https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/361721-woman-who-stole-maga-hat-for-viral-video-rant-charged-with
            https://www.newsweek.com/criminal-acts-trump-maga-hats-1357179
            lawenforcementtoday.com/attacks-trump-supporters-maga-hats/

          4. The person under the MAGA hat is peacefully doing his own business. There is no problem until a violent leftist acts like an animal. No one bothered the leftist but like a dictator the leftist wants to tell everyone else what to do.

      2. “Imagine” being one of four constitutional scholars who suggests that the House impeachment case is flawed, and getting hate mail.

    2. Question Trumpsters or Republicans haven’t considered: What happens to this county and our Constitution if Trump gets away with:

      1. Getting into the White House by cheating with the help of a hostile foreign power, despite losing the popular vote;

      2. Trying to do it a second time by leveraging foreign aid to an ally in desperate need of the assistance to fight off the hostile foreign power identified in #1 supra, then lying about it, trying to “out” the whistleblower who brought the matter to light, refusing to cooperate with investigation, demanding that witnesses with direct knowledge not testify, refusing to produce documents, hiding transcripts of telephone conversations in a secure server set up for the most-secret military and diplomatic secrets

      3. Refusing to comply with Congressional and Special Prosecutor investigations by claiming absolute power to do as he pleases with literally no support in law, by the Constitution or any other authority, then preventing the American people and Senators from hearing witness testimony from those with direct personal knowledge because Trump and Republicans know the truth and can’t spin it away with lies and disingenuous arguments by Dershowitz, et al.. So, they block witnesses and documents.

      4. Unilaterally ordering the assassination of a foreign military leader on foreign soil, and then lying about the reason, resulting in a foreseeable retaliation bombing that caused traumatic brain injuries to 50 members of our military, plus the downing of a commercial aircraft, resulting in the deaths of more than 200 innocent people. Adding insult to injury, the Dotard dismissed the service members’ TBI as mere “headaches”. TBI is a serious injury to the brain, the effects of which will last a lifetime, and will likely be disabling.

      5. Sending out Giuliani as a de-facto Secretary of State, with the mission to gin up lies about the former Vice President and his family from foreign countries depending on US foreign aid, but only after Biden was shown as beating Trump in the polls.

      Trump is the biggest toxic cancer this country has ever seen, driven by malignant narcissism, vindictiveness and arrogance. Trump’s “victory” was the result of cheating, and every day his fat ass occupies our White House compounds the wrong done to the American people. He is the puppet of polluters, the financial services industries and medical insurers, rolling back regulations with a sweep of a Sharpie. Air, water and soil pollution causes death and illness. De-regulating the financial services industries will result in personal bankruptcies and financial hardship. He constantly lies. especially about what he claims are his “achievements”. America “lost the election” in 2016, and Republicans are doing everything possible to make sure it happens again: supporting Trump, despite the fact that each of them knows he violated the law, gerrymandering, voter suppression, poll watchers, purging voter rolls, and making it as difficult as possible for people to vote.

      Yes, America is a powder keg. Trump is the cause. He is the laughingstock of the rest of the world, but it’s not funny.

      1. 1- 3. the “help” of the RUssians was applied to both sides in a forked attack not on either candidate but our election system as such and you Democrat partisans have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker and continue to do the Russian propaganda job for them by perpetuating a lie that the election was invalid

        learn about the electoral college, you are deliberately uninformed

        4- Sulemani’s terrorist mischief was his fault, not the US fault, his surgical elimination was a clear and clearly effective cautionary message to the Iranian leadership to halt their mischief or at least contain it. the follow on consequences are on the Iranians not the US. you apprently are cheering for the mullahs. funny position for an apparent feminist but nobody ever said you guys were smart.

        5. Giuliani: presidents use private envoys regularly. go learn about history. nothign new there.

        6– you are obsessed with Trump and your blatant disregard for every argument that counters your nonsense is proof positive along with your boring and repetitious slanders of him, that you are a totally dishonest person pretending to engage in dialogue.

        if there were any nuggets of truth that you say, you are in the habit of burying them under a heap of manure

    3. The Democrats could care less about USA, only about the power to push progressive, illogical, unreasonable, all lacking common sense policies onto the not-so silent voters supporting the constitution.
      They are DEFINITELY a toxic cancer. If they lite the fuse we MUST let the bomb go off directly into their bunkers.

  8. Good chance that the Republicants will “block witnesses”. Who ever heard of a trial without witnesses?

    1. Give me a break, they had 17 witnesses in the House where the Constitution compels them to do ALL the required investigation to prove their case.

  9. The Joe Biden-John Kerry Slush Fund Connection

    What remains unclear at this time is whether or not any of that money was personally paid out to John Kerry and his stepson, Christopher Heinz. Ukrainian and American authorities are unable to confirm all of the recipients of payments that came directly from the Biden Kerry Slush Fund. While it is true that John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, was a partner at Rosemont Seneca, only Devon Archer and Hunter Biden sat on Burisma’s board. Moreover Heinz expressed some conflict of interest concerns about Biden and Archer joining the Burisma Board to the State Department. Obviously this was because Hunter’s father was not only Vice President of the United States at the time, but he was also the Obama Administration’s point man on the Ukraine. Heinz’s concerns caused him to stay away from Burisma and reject a position on their board.

    There remains much to be sorted out, but the optics here are not good at all for Archer, the Biden family, and the Heinz-Kerry family. The Biden Kerry Slush Fund must be investigated. There are too many potentially corrupt conflicts of interest here that involve massive sums of money.

  10. Hunter Biden’s Testimony Could Raise Questions About Ivanka And Jared

    A number of Republicans actually don’t want to call the younger Biden. They’re worried about the circus atmosphere that might present — and they’d rather have the issue linger as a useful weapon. Acceding to Hunter as a witness would call the Republicans’ bluff.

    Having Joe Biden’s son testify would illuminate the Bidens’ irrelevance to the issue of whether the president held up congressionally appropriated military assistance for Ukraine until the Ukrainian president announced — not necessarily conducted, just announced — a government investigation into the Bidens’ role. An appearance by Hunter before Senate questioners now could also go some distance toward removing him as an issue in the general election, should his father be the Democratic nominee. In fact, Hunter could be the star witness as to why a president’s (or vice president’s) offspring should stay out of any business that might have something to do with their parents’ job.

    Edited from: “Why Havng Hunter Biden Testify Would Be Bad For Trump”

    This evening’s New York Times

    1. In what way, exactly, is Hunter Biden irrelevant?

      Trump is being impeached because the theory is that he abused his authority to try to get another country to “dig up dirt” on his political rival. Who do Democrats think he is, Hillary Clinton?

      If there was a legitimate reason to investigate Joe Biden, then what Democrats have done is impeach a president in order to obstruct a lawful investigation into allegations of corruption, fraud, and criminal activity on the part of their presidential candidate…after they spent 3 years investigating Trump as a candidate and president.

      This looks bad. Real bad.

      If Trump had engaged in similar activity for any of his children, bragging about a quid pro quo, and any of them had no work relevant experience, drug history, but they were being paid multiples of top executives, there would be mass riots. Every mainstream media source would be parroting the same talking points, using the same phrases. There would be women’s marches (which, let’s face it, are just Democrat rallies marketed to women). Rachel Maddow would be hyperventilating into a paper bag. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi would be impeaching Trump forever. OK, fine, they’ll do that anyway.

      There was a legitimate reason to investigate Joe Biden.

      I do not believe Trump impeachment is the venue to either investigate or try Joe Biden. Democrat witnesses have already confirmed there was inappropriate activity, and that would warrant an investigation in a just world. But this isn’t a just world. This is the Democrat’s world. The law does not apply to them. Neither does the Constitution, as they have laid the claim that the President does not set foreign policy. If proof is required that Trump’s minor request for cooperation from Ukraine, made without any untoward pressure or strong arming, was lawful, then I suppose they need Hunter Biden et al to lay this out.

      Personally, I think that what’s already come out as facts, which I have gone over before, is sufficient. But Hunter Biden is absolutely relevant, whether he testifies or not. Any claims otherwise are hypocritical and purely partisan. It is obvious they would not think so if it involved a Trump.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you need to state the inconvenient facts, David.

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – so, cite them

                1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – He who asserts it, must cite it. I am sure your idol, Weart, has at least one citation in his opus magnum.

                2. David – so you CAN’T dispute my list of reasons why an investigation into Joe Biden was warranted. Or you would have.

                  He’s a Democrat so the law does not apply. Is that it? He can wheel and deal with impunity.

                  Banana Republic.

                  1. Nonsense, Karen.

                    “…so you CAN’T dispute my list of reasons why an investigation into Joe Biden was warranted. Or you would have.”

                    Perhaps he doesn’t wish to spend any time on it. No one has to respond to your comments and/or questions. It doesn’t mean anything when someone doesn’t respond.

            2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-one weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, do you know what an Anti-SLAPP motion is? You end up with a trial without witnesses if you win.

          1. “you need to state the inconvenient facts, David.”

            The number one fact is that David’s facility ran out of Depends.

            1. Allan – to be fair to David, I think he is living off-campus of WSU, but using their facilities for food, entertainment, recreation, etc. The Depends are on him. He should carry extras.

        2. David Benson – you have skipped over the relevant facts as to why an investigation into the Bidens was warranted. You can’t pretend otherwise, and your coy little statements, always without supporting facts, links, or documentation, does nothing about it.

          1. OK, Karen, we’ll try once more to explain things to you, since Fox won’t. This impeachment is about whether Donald Trump: 1. withheld military aid for Ukraine appropriated by a bipartisan vote, at a time when Ukraine was in hot war with Russia and desperately needed the aid; (Yes, he did). 2. whether it is a violation of the law to withhold aid appropriated by Congress (Yes, it is); 3. whether the reason for withholding the aid matters in terms of whether the law was broken. (No, it doesn’t); 4. whether Trump’s reason for withholding the aid was that he wanted Ukraine to announce it was investigating the Bidens (Yes, that was the reason); 5, did Trump only become interested in investigating corruption in Ukraine AFTER polls showed Joe Biden beating him (Yes); 6. did Trump only release the aid after the whistleblower turned him in (Yes, that is what happened). 7. Have Republicans and Trump tried to out and intimidate the whistleblower, despite the fact that he is shielded from retaliation by federal law? (Yes). 8. HAS ANYTHING REPORTED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER BEEN PROVEN FALSE? (No).

            As to obstruction: 1. Did Trump command witnesses not to cooperate with the House investigations into the Ukraine matter? (Yes he did); 2. Did Trump command agencies not to produce documents requested by the House investigation? (Yes, he did); 3. Did Trump claim Executive Privilege allows him to block witnesses and documents in a Congressional investigation? (yes); 4. Did the SCOTUS hold, in U.S. v. Nixon, that there is no such thing as blanket immunity from prosecution and blanket privilege as to every witness and document related to a POTUS under investigation? (Yes, it did). 5. Does Executive Privilege or any other kind of privilege shield witnesses and evidence from disclosure when criminal conduct is involved? (No, it doesn’t).

            As to the Bidens: 1. was Hunter already investigated and found to have committed no crimes? (Yes). 2. Regardless of Hunter Biden’s foibles, is there any evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong? (No). 3. Is it reasonable to conclude that harping about Hunter Biden and his troubles, and trying to smear his father by implication is motivated by anything other than malign motives and politics (No. Iowa Senator Joni Ernst admitted, on camera, that she hoped Iowa voters would turn against Joe Biden because of publicity over this flap).

            These are the relevant facts. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with Trump committing crimes. He will continue to violate the law, shred the Constitution and embarrass America unless Congress does something to stop him.

            1. the whistleblower’s report was made in bad faith and it was hearsay upon hearsay. it’s questionable that it is protected by the statute whatsoever

              moreover, the Constitution is a deeper law than that, and if the POTUS does not have the right to confront his accuser, than NONE OF US DO

              1. Kurtz, the WBs allegation have been corroborated by multiple 1st person witnesses to the phone call.

                The hearing is not a criminal proceeding and the House is accusing the President, not the WB.

                Lastly, Trump doesn’t have the guts to confront anyone nor do his attorney’want him too. He’ll perjury himself.

                1. Kurtz, the WBs allegation have been corroborated by multiple 1st person witnesses to the phone call.

                  Simply repeating nonsense does not render it true. Your handlers at Media Matters need to suggest better strategies.

                2. Lastly, Trump doesn’t have the guts to confront anyone nor do his attorney’want him too.

                  Would you cooperate with an investigation into your alleged crimes by allowing a search without warrants, by answering questions without an attorney present, by waiving a right to confront your accuser, by waiving your right to call witnesses? Then, when the prosecution’s case was rejected due to lack of evidence, would you feel compelled to cooperate when the prosecutors are forced to comply with the rule of law?

                3. Assuming that Vindman was one of four NSC staffers who listened in on the Trump-Zelensky calls, who are the “multiple” first hand witnesses listening in who have come forward?

                  1. Vindman, Morrison, and Pence advisor Williams all testified before the House under oath and none disputed the facts alleged. The transcript, which we would not have seen without the WB , also corroborates the alleged facts.

                    1. Vindman, Morrison, and Pence advisor Williams all testified before the House under oath and none disputed the facts alleged.

                      None of them offered anything but hearsay.

                      The transcript, which we would not have seen without the WB , also corroborates the alleged facts.

                      When you’ve learned the distinction between facts and spin, get back to us.

                    2. bythebook – the witnesses testified to the truth of the Trump transcript, not the WB fan-fic.

                    3. With the execption of Vindman, who listened in on the call, none of those mentioned were “first hand witnesses” .
                      Also, the whistle blower himself was not a first hand witness.
                      Morrison perhaps had some first hand knowledge about Vindman’s trustworthiness, as well as Fiona Hill having those same reservations about Vindman.
                      ( Morrison referred to Ms. Hill’s doubts about Vindman; I don’t know if Hill herself addressed this in testimony).

                    4. In his infinite ignorance, absurd doesn’t even know those witnesses were all 1st person observers of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. The WB report is available on line and accurately describes that phone call as corroborated by those witnesses and by the transcript.

      1. Karen, impeachment observers might remark, with some irony, that Republicans are hypocrites for pinning nepotism on the Bidens when Jared and Ivanka are Senior White House Advisers.
        Kushner was in contact with the current Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia before the latter pulled a power play to place himself next in line to the throne.

        Putting Hunter Biden on the stand could provoke mainstream media to feature stories concerning Jared and Ivanka. Stories qestioning how they both wound up as Senior Advisors. It could become an annoying What About flipped on Donald Trump.

        1. Peter – Jared and Ivanka are volunteers and can be Senior Advisors, without pay, to the President, who is donating his pay check. I listened to Jared today, he has been working for free for 4 years, how about you. 😉

            1. According to “A Very Stable Genius” by Phil Rucker and Carol Leonning, Jared and Ivanka saw their “senior advisor” roles as a means of self-promotion and making contacts with important people, all to help promote the Trump brand. Ivanka constantly makes a fool of herself by showing up at international meetings and pretending to be anything other than a Barbie doll. There is footage of people walking away from her while she is speaking. Jared is trying to finagle a deal in Jerusalem that allows Israel to keep territory it is wrongfully occupying on the West Bank in exchange for allowing Palestinians to claim a capital on the outskirts of Jerusalem and to have exclusive rights to land, but the areas are not contiguous due to illegal Israeli settlements, so a system of bridges would need to be built for access. That was rejected outright by the Palestinians. How about this: Israelis pull out of the areas they are occupying illegally, as a show of good faith? Not going to happen.

              1. “Ivanka constantly makes a fool of herself by showing up at international meetings and pretending to be anything other than a Barbie doll”

                this is the misogynistic statement of a self-professed woman who pretends to be something other than a hater

                ten to one odds she’s jealous of her good looks. we know the type

                and we’ve noticed that feminist ranks are full of them!

                Ivanka’s graceful, accomplished, and intelligent, and well received, for the record.

                1. Ivanka has rubber (silicone) boobs, bleached hair with black roots always showing, and tries to cover up her brown eyes with green contacts. She is a Barbie doll.

                  Wanna know what’s misogynistic? Judging women on their appearance and dismissing criticism by one woman of another as based on jealousy. Anyone who criticizes a shallow, unaccomplished, bottle blondie with rubber boobs must be fat, ugly and a “hater”. She makes American women appear shallow and dumb, like she is.

                  She is NOT well-received. I know Fox probably doesn’t show the footage of that meeting where she showed up and tried to join a circle of women economists who turned their backs on her and walked away. NO ONE other than Fox News considers her to be a person of any merit or substance.

                  1. natch your comment with the screeching harridan style talk about rubber boobs has confirmed for all to see, precisely what i suggested.

                    also if you think “Fox news” is a lone outpost of contrary opinion, against a whole world of united dislike, then you are fooling yourself, but we can see that’s your habit, so, whatever

                  2. Ivanka has rubber (silicone) boobs, bleached hair with black roots always showing, and tries to cover up her brown eyes with green contacts. She is a Barbie doll.

                    Here we have more fantasy from you. What’s the over-under on the number of decutitus ulcers on Natacha’s buttcheeks?

                    1. Natasha, no doubt absurd and Kurtz are complete studs with body fat ratios close to their IQ.

                  3. Natch, a lonely feminist, who hates the woman who bleaches her hair

                    and yet, 70% of American women color their hair

                    https://www.byrdie.com/hair-color-history

                    very judgmental!

                    i am always surprised by how those who reject traditional standards of good and evil, are themselves, so often the most judgmental and puritanical, but only according to their own new fangled morays, often standards far less sensical than the older ones they replace!

                  4. “Ivanka has rubber (silicone) boobs, bleached hair with black roots always showing, and tries to cover up her brown eyes with green contacts. She is a Barbie doll.”
                    ****************
                    Jealousy is a lousy human trait.

                    1. Not to mention, I suppose, she has it on good authority that Ivanka beats her husband and skewers innocent babies when in her cups.

                      When she adorns herself in her green contact lenses, I’m sure she transforms into a green-eyed devil, hence the skewering. I should know these things–my eyes are green ase well–so I understand the need to transform into a lycanthrope when I get bored with the billions of dollars I control.

              2. about the Israeli deal. People need to wake up to reality.

                Please understand what i heard Kissinger say in an interview years ago: the 1947 borders of Israel are not tenable. The nation has a barbell shape and the “West Bank” nearly disects Israel itself. Israel is VERY NARROW at its midsection.

                HOW NARROW? LESS THAN 10 MILES FROM NETANYA TO WEST BANK TOWN TUKARIM.
                dont believe me? look it up.

                Oh just the other night some creep and Don Lemon were on making fun of Trumpers for not knowing anything about maps. Well, apparently they do, and you dont!

                now how do you seriously expect the Israelis are going to let that be the status quo or foolishly pull out of their defensive posture in the West Bank?

                I can think of a lot of bad things to say about Israel but “FOOLS” is not one of them!

                The world actually STARTING with the Palestinians should be willing to help Israel redraw that border so they are in a firmer defensive posture vis a vis the surrounding potentially hostile powers. The Palestinians could actually benefit greatly from some realism and flexibility.

                Unfortunately a lot of smart Palestinians have departed, permanently, including to the US. I have some Palestinian friends who don’t like Israel but they apparently don’t much like the Palestinian leadership either! And for very good reasons.

                Jared actually made a good stab at this. As expected, it has been rebuffed.

                1. Kurtz, look at the topography map from a military vantage point while looking at the population center of Israel and Ben Gurion Airport.

            2. Making America Great again is in everyone’s interests. At least in every American’s interests. They’re Americans. Stop hating on people because they’re successful!

              So maybe it’s not so bad to have realistic business people in leadership positions.

      2. Trump is being impeached because the theory is that he abused his authority to try to get another country to “dig up dirt” on his political rival.

        Karen,
        That has to be the one allegation in all of this impeachment farce that is pure fabrication. There is overwhelming evidence that the president had legitimate concerns the US taxpayer funded aid would end up supporting corruption in Ukraine. Zelensky ran on an anti-corruption platform. If an equally unqualified son of an influential Republican politician was on the board of Burisma, there would be bipartisan support for Trump’s impeachment if he told Zelensky the aid would flow if he fired the prosecutor investigating that company. But given this is a Republican president and the Biden’s inserted themselves into the Ukrainian corruption picture, Democrats find it an impeachable offense for the president to “take care” of our taxpayer aid. This is signature Democrat projection; what they allege is exactly what they are doing.

        1. OK, Olly: there are legal and appropriate means to obtain the cooperation of an ally to investigate corruption, using diplomats, the DOJ and the FBI. Violating federal law forbidding withholding of foreign aid is not among the means to do this. That was just a lie made up after Trump got caught.

          Who are you to judge what “qualifications” Hunter Biden has to sit on Burisma’s Board? You don’t have to be a petrogeologist to sit on a board of directors for an oil company. There are any number of wives of politicians who sit on boards, but who aren’t directly involved in the day to day operations of the company involved. The EU and all of America’s allies wanted the crooked Ukrainian prosecutor removed. That is not subject to dispute, and there is no comparison between that scenario and Trump’s attempted leverage of aid to Ukraine at a time when it was desperately needed.

          If you believe Trump is right, then get Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton on the stand, instead of blocking evidence and then claiming “victory”.

          1. sure bring them up there with hunter, joe, schiff, the whistleblower Eric Chiaramella, John Brennan his handler, and the Vindman brothers, and every other coup plotter.

            let’s see if they exercise their Fifth amendment privilege to block evidence of their breaching assorted statutes concerning classified information, for starters

            it’s about time those laws grow some teeth

          2. all you need to sit on a board is the ability to say YES and NO when the guy whose votes put you there says so.

            just like those politicians wives.

            it seems the owner of Burisma felt he could count on Hunter for being a yes man!

            A dubious accomplishment but perhaps that was worth nearly a million dollars

            They met in Monaco, wow, Cool place for a corporate meeting! oh the lives of the rich and famous

              1. but he also went fishing in Norway with the owner! that counts for something

                ah the life of the jet set

                hey i heard he settled that paternity suit. bet that one cost him!

          3. Violating federal law forbidding withholding of foreign aid is not among the means to do this.

            Explain why the House did not charge President Trump with that crime?

            Who are you to judge what “qualifications” Hunter Biden has to sit on Burisma’s Board?

            I am an American citizen who’s tax dollars are used to provide aid to foreign governments. I elected a President that has consistently stated he would fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure our taxpayers are not providing aid to corrupt foreign governments and holding other countries to their stated commitments.

            The EU and all of America’s allies wanted the crooked Ukrainian prosecutor removed. That is not subject to dispute

            Clearly it is subject to dispute. Prove a thorough investigation has been conducted. Who conducted that investigation?

            The House claimed they had overwhelming evidence to impeach. Guess what, they made the decision to let their impeachment articles stand on the evidence they had and then they convinced a majority in the House to pass the articles of impeachment on that evidence. The fact they went to trial without sufficient evidence is not a surprise. Schiff parodied the reason to open the impeachment inquiry and it’s only fitting he would bring a parody of a case to the Senate. He should be tarred and feathered and run out of the Senate chambers on a rail.

            If the Senate doesn’t sh!tcan this impeachment tomorrow and they approve calling additional witnesses, they will have enabled the House Democrats to do more damage to our institutions of government than any foreign enemy in our history.

      3. If there was a legitimate reason to investigate Joe Biden, then what Democrats have done is impeach a president in order to obstruct a lawful investigation into allegations of corruption
        ______________________________________________
        A “lawful investigation” would be one conducted under the authority of US law enforcement (e.g. FBI, DOJ, SEC).
        The public would not be informed of the investigation until and unless there was an indictment. If no crime was found it would not be revealed to the public. What trump proposed was not a “lawful investigation”.

        A “lawful investigation” is one conducted confidentially to protect evidence and reputations. Confidentiality in investigations is important to ensure that evidence is not destroyed or tampered with and that witnesses are not influenced by public scrutiny. Confidential investigations are the corner stone of due process.
        What Trump insinuated in the Zelensky phone call is not a lawful investigation it was an unlawful political smear job.
        It violated the right to due process of the accused and the nation .

        Fortunately for Mr Trump, Zelensky declined to get involved in that type skulduggery. Zelensky assured Trump that a new prosecutor would take an honest look at all corruption.

      4. As if facts register with Karen. She’s ignored the facts on impeachment hearing – most the eighties here have, and it shows in the ignorant falsehoods and incomplete talking points – and she is ignoring the facts on Joe Biden’s actions in the Ukraine which had the full support of our SD, the EU, the IMF, and the Ukrainian parliament. A now sitting GOP congressman who was FBI in the Ukraine at the time has verified that Shokin was corrupt and had to go. None of these could care any less about Hunter Biden, they cared about policy which VP Biden was enforcing. Karen has been told all this before and like most facts, chooses to ignore what doesn’t fit her distorted world view.

        1. “As if facts register with Karen.”

          The FBI altered an email from the CIA to reverse its meaning, hiding the fact that Carter Page was working with the CIA and not, in fact, spying for Russia.

          I have outlined the conflict of interests. You are ignoring that the Democrats’ own witnesses confirmed Biden’s actions as inappropriate and questionable. Therefore an investigation is justified.

          You claim that, without an investigation, we should just proclaim Joe Biden’s actions justified, because it suits you politically.

          It’s not me for whom facts don’t matter, and that’s a bad thing.

          1. Karen ignores the obvious holes in her allegations against Joe Biden like she ignores the evidence against Trump and then pretends her warped view is not political. That’s all it is.

            She then misrepresents what was said by Democrats at the time and witnesses before the House as alleging “conflicts of interest”, leaving out the “appearance” part, while GOP appointees and career SD officials testified under oath and with emphasis on the fact that VP Biden in the Ukraine was advancing US policy.

            It is a FACT that she can’t refute that US, EU, INF, and Ukrainian policy was to fire Shokin, and that his corruption has been verified recently by a sitting GOP congressman named Fitzgerald who was an FBI advisor to the Ukrainians on corruption during the time in question.

            It is also a FACT she can’t refute that the following respected news sources did investigative reporting on the question of what VP Biden was doing in the Ukraine and all confirmed he was doing the US and allies business there, unlike Trump: the WSJ, WaPo, Bloomberg News, the NYTs.

            If Karen was thoughtful and honest shed recognize that to investigate someone there should first be an actual accusation of misconduct based on a specific act, not just an allegation of an appearance of conflict of interest – if that’s all we needed Ivanka and Jared would be 1st in line. She would also agree that the President should be the last one doing it, and especially by jacking up foreign leaders, and especially when the one he is after is also coincidentally the primary threat to his political future. How dumb do you have to pretend to be to say you buy that?

        2. in the beginning of this event i said one word:

          DEMUR

          let me explain that. it does not mean disputing the facts, it means disputing the law

          i don’t agree with the interpretation of the alleged facts, but arguendo, i can accept them and say:

          the allegations if taken in a light most favorable to the article of impeachment,

          are insufficient to remove the POTUS. they are in a word, a trifle.

          so the facts are not really an issue. the interpretation of the facts and their legal relevance differs.

          Even the Trump haters on NPR get this now. you’re behind the curve.

  11. Dershowitz Claims..

    Quid Pro Quo Was In ‘Public Interest’

    In accordance with impeachment protocol, senators wrote their queries on small cards, which were read aloud by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who presided over the trial. In their responses, Mr. Trump’s lawyers offered their most expansive defense of the president to date, effectively arguing that a president cannot be removed from office for demanding political favors if he believes his re-election is in the national interest.

    “Every public official I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” said Alan M. Dershowitz, the celebrity defense lawyer and constitutional scholar who is part of the Mr. Trump’s legal team. “Mostly, you’re right.”

    “If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he said.

    Edited from: “Republicans Move To Block Impeachment Witnesses, Driving Towrd Acquittal”

    This Evening’s New York Times
    ………………………………………………………………

    The argument Dershowitz makes here seems questionable. ‘A president can demand Quid Pro Quos if he feels reelection is in the public interest’..?? That reasoning sounds open to abuse.

    It would be interesting to get Professor Turley’s input on this.

              1. Not at all Peter. Anonymous the Stupid is an idiot and doesn’t say anything of value. You on the other hand say a lot but it means little. We have gone down this route many times before and you walk away when you are spoon fed the truth and realize you can’t answer fact with spin. I can’t help it if the NYTimes and Washington Post spin the news all the time and use anonymous sources that are wrong. Look at how many times they have been wrong regarding Trump and look at the number of times a lightbulb lit up in your head where you said they are wrong. That is the problem. You accept everything they say and then when they are proven wrong with fact you remember the errors you learned and you delete the fact that they have been proven wrong.

          1. I just read a tweet where Alan Dershowitz said regarding Q and A the media “willfully distorted my answers” …With regard to the particular statement in question Dershowitz said “I said nothing like that”. [go to his Twitter feed]

            The NYTImes lied on purpose as did other media outlets. Peter, you accept their lies without ever questioning them while you are ever willing to repeat those lies in order to promote your ideology. That makes you a liar.

            Look for a detailed response by Dershowitz. I know you won’t but perhaps others, that might believe what you say, might actually search for the truth and recognize the indecency of many of your comments.

        1. “Alan, show us what you’re talking about.”

          Peter, I note in two separate responses Karen summarized what Dershowitz was saying. That also answers what was wrong with the NYTimes piece. You walked away from that portion of her response. Is it any wonder I stopped providing you with proof and addresses of my citations? You live in the dark.

    1. WaPo Editorial Responds To Deshowitz

      If Republicans acquit Mr. Trump on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, they will be saying that presidents are entitled to use their official powers to force foreign governments to investigate any U.S. citizen they choose to target — even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Mr. Trump could induce Russia or Saudi Arabia or China to spy on Mr. Biden, or on any other of the many people subject to his offensive tweets. In exchange for any embarrassing information, the president might offer official favors, such as arms sales or a trade deal or the lifting of sanctions. Do Republicans really wish to ratify such presidential authority? Will they not object if the next Democratic president resorts to it?

      Edited from: “Republicans Damaging New Line Of Defense”

      This evening’s Washington Post

      1. Peter – we have a treaty (which has been posted here several times) that allows this. The President is supposed to look for $400 hammers, etc. even if they are in other countries. In this case, it may have been in the Ukraine.

      2. Seth:

        “If Republicans acquit Mr. Trump on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s arguments, they will be saying that presidents are entitled to use their official powers to force foreign governments to investigate any U.S. citizen they choose to target ”

        What a complete and total lack of journalistic integrity. Mr Dershowitz did not say that President Trump abused power, or forced Ukraine to do anything. In fact, quite the opposite. He remarked that working in the interest of reelection was normal for politicians. It also does not harm the country. Doing a good job as President helps the country, and helps reelection efforts. But this journalist is pretending that Trump is an arms dealer. Hmmmm, trying to twist the aid to Ukraine that helped them fight Russia into something ominous. What a crock. These activists will do anything, even weaken the entire country in the face of enemies abroad, for political gain. What are these lies going to do to Ukrainian/US relations? Is sacrificing that to make up more baloney about Trump worth it?

        The way the papers, and Democrats, have twisted Dershowitz’s words without regard to the truth is stunning.

    2. Seth – you have materially misrepresented what Mr Dershowitz said. He did not say that Trump engaged in an untoward or strong arm quid pro quo with Ukraine. You’ve been told repeatedly that Ukraine was unaware of any quid pro quo.

      Transcripts have come out of their very cordial conversations, including one in which Trump discussed meeting with Zelensky in Europe. It was put off due to the hurricane.

      Mr Dershowitz addressed the claim that a president can never act in a manner that benefited him. That’s absurd. A president will almost always have reelection in mind. Having a strong economy helps America, and benefits his reelection efforts. Helping the country, and making a strong case for reelection, are not mutually exclusive.

      Do you expect us to believe that Pelosi does not act in such a manner that takes her own, or other elections, in mind? Most of what she says are sound bites for campaigns.

      A quid pro quo doing one thing contingent on another party doing another. For instance, a country might have to show efforts to fight terrorism to get American aid. Or they might have to safeguard supplies to keep them from being commandeered. The type of quid pro quo Democrats have accused Trump of is an abuse of power. Like, make up stories about the Democrats or we’ll bomb you.

      It never happened. You can see from all the transcripts that the conversations were cordial. Zelensky affirmed there was no pressure. The ambassadors confirmed Ukraine knew nothing about it.

      This is a trial for a crime that the evidence proved he didn’t commit. Now they’re trying to get witnesses to say he thought out it, considered it, or whatever. But he didn’t do it. It has also been shown that an investigation was warranted into the Bidens.

      Boy, the Democrats sure can dish out interminable investigations, but they can’t take a single, justified one into their presidential candidate. How long until voters notice the disparity? It doesn’t appear to trouble you. Guess it’s fine because it benefits your party.

      1. Karen S – you wrong Nancy Pelosi, butter would not melt in her mouth. She would never do anything that was self-serving, she is a “good Catholic girl” don’t cha know.

        1. She doesn’t hate anyone, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise…as she proceeds to outline all the ways in which she hates Donald Trump.

    3. “If the president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he said.
      ________________________________________________
      Even Alan Dershowitz thinks trump is guilty and as a result of that erroneous belief is trying to justify corruption as being OK.

      1. “Even Alan Dershowitz thinks trump is guilty ”

        When Turley comes out with the winning stupid remarks this remark by Anon has to at least make it into the top 10.

      2. that comment makes no sense. Dersh’s point was that even if he delayed aid with the intention of pressuring an investigation into the Bidens, so long as he believed it was in the US’ national interests to do so, than it was PER SE NOT CORRUPT

        and if not criminal and not corrupt, what do you have? nothing, at best a trifle.

        precisely comparable to Obama delaying aid to see if the Egyptian regime was amenable to the US; precisely comparable to Obama telling Medveyedev that he would have “more flexibility after the election.’

        Both which probably WERE in Obama’s interests, narrowly, and YET were ALSO in the US interests, at the time when the choices were made.

    1. Let them review his work but it has been over 2 months which is more than enough to review him many times. So far nothing of significance was found. Next time Anonymous the Stupid check the date of your reporting.

      Additionally it is not John Solomon’s words that are so devastating to those on the left rather it is the documents he has uncovered that prove many on the left are lying. Solomon had nothing to do with the creation of those documents that come from various sources and more than one country.

      You are a real idiot.

    2. Solomon was part of the Guliani team tasked to stir up dirt on Joe Biden in the Ukraine. An email he sent Parnas asking him to check details on a “story” he was about to file is public. Google it and read it. Parnas also places him at a meeting at the DC Trump hotel with him, DeGenova, Toensing, and Giuliani. The 2 lawyers are working for indicted oligarch Firtash and got disgraced prosecutor Shokin to write his accusatory letter aimed at Biden. Remember, GOP congressman Fitzpatrick was FBI in the Ukraine at the time and confirms Shokin was a corrupt do nothing official and it was US policy – not Biden policy – that he had to. The EU, IMF, and UkrainiAn parliament all agreed.

      1. Solomon is an award winning journalist who has worked for multiple news organizations including the Washington Post. Like Dershowitz when he told the truth revealing lies of the left the left went after him with a vengence and tried to slime him everywhere they could.

        Most recently they called his reporting on the Ukraine false and they have created all sorts of slime. Call it the mini Steele Dossier against Solomon. Noteworthy is that they prompted an investigation into Solomon by the Hill. That was over 2 months ago and perhaps a lot longer but nothing of significance was found.

        The real problem for the left is NOT what Solomon has written rather it is the documents that have been gathered together to prove what liars many of the left have become. From those documents one can glean what the story is and that story won’t be much different from that of Solomon because his reporting is basically reporting what those documents say along with his interviews that are public as are many of the individuals that have been openly filmed on the subject. Anon likes to leave out the pertinent documents and statements hoping his slime will sufficiently satisfy his need to prove himself right.

        All the rhetoric above from Anon is cra.p or otherrwise dishonest. Anon is a merchant of slime.

  12. OT: For all those limited to the big print headlines of the NYTImes this seems to be missing at least from my email feed.

    —–
    PROMISE KEPT: President Trump signs USMCA—NAFTA is gone!

    President Trump made history today, signing the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and keeping his signature promise to end the NAFTA era.

    President Trump: For decades, Washington kept letting you down

    Repairing broken trade deals was a key agenda item that separated then-candidate Donald J. Trump from his political opponents. Washington pundits and “experts” were skeptical, as always: Both Republican and Democrat politicians for years had been promising voters that they’d scrap NAFTA for a stronger deal.

    But President Trump is anything but a conventional, career politician.

    “Everybody said that this was a deal that could not be done. Too complicated, too big—couldn’t be done,” the President said today from the South Lawn of the White House. “We got it done.”

    USMCA’s improvements over NAFTA are significant. The new agreement “is the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved,” President Trump says. Here is just a sampling of the biggest changes:
    Broad economic benefits. USMCA is estimated to create nearly 600,000 American jobs—and generate up to $235 billion in economic activity.

    Better protection for workers. It has the strongest, most advanced, and most comprehensive labor protections of any American trade agreement in history.

    Support for our farmers. The agreement is a massive win for American farmers and ranchers, vastly improving access to Canadian and Mexican markets. U.S. agricultural exports are expected to increase by $2.2 billion under the deal.

    A boost for American manufacturers. The U.S. auto industry alone expects to create up to 76,000 new jobs and spur $34 billion in new investments.

    Modernized terms. Unlike NAFTA, USMCA has protections for American intellectual property, a first-of-its-kind chapter on digital trade, and provisions to crack down on unfair currency practices.
    “Two decades of politicians ran for office vowing to replace the NAFTA,” the President added. “Yet once elected, they never even tried. They never even gave it a shot. They sold out. But I’m not like those other politicians . . . I keep my promises and I’m fighting for the American worker.”

        1. Excerpt from the NY Times article posted by Seth:

          Excerpt:

          WHAT CHANGES DID DEMOCRATS GET?

          Democrats complained that the deal that Trump’s team originally negotiated with Canada and Mexico shared a defect with the treaty it was supposed to improve upon: It would be hard to enforce. In talks with Trump’s top trade official, Robert Lighthizer, the Democrats managed to strike language that would have allowed countries or companies to avoid sanctions simply by refusing to take part in dispute-settlement panels.

          They also insisted on closing loopholes that would have made it hard to enforce provisions that protect workers from intimidation and violence. They also managed to establish a committee that will monitor Mexico’s labor reforms.

          The Democrats also won a significant concession from the administration on drug prices. Gone is what Democrats considered a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry: A provision that offered expensive biologic drugs — which are made from living cells — 10 years of protection from cheaper knockoff competition.

          WHAT COULD USMCA MEAN FOR THE U.S. ECONOMY?

          Probably not much. Trade is a relatively small part of the U.S. economy. And trade with Mexico and Canada is smaller still. In an analysis done last year, the independent International Trade Commission calculated that USMCA would add 0.35% or $68 billion, to economic growth and generate 176,000 jobs over six years — mere blips in a $22 trillion economy with 152 million nonfarm jobs.

      1. Despite the way the NYTimes portrays the deal it is a big thing. I note it wasn’t on the front page and placed in the business section yet much less important stories on trade make it to the front page. That lets me know why a lot of its readers know very little. I note the same with my email feed that sent out nothing on the USMCA.

        1. Alan, it was on the front page this morning. The better papers keep updating all day long. Though you may not be aware of that.

          1. Peter, Where was it on the front page? Was it referring to an article in the Business section or did they have a real article on the front page? If they did maybe tomorrow I will see it in my mail feed. They must be slow on their updates because it isn’t even on the front page on the net.

      2. Seth said: “Alan, we dont even know where your story came from”

        It’s a little game that Allan likes to play.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, we don’t even have a name for you to differentiate you from others so you should be the last to complain. Peter thinks that those posting anonymously are jerks. He is right on that point.

  13. Plan B ? They never had a plan A. Trump’s lawyers knew he made the “perfect call” so the only plan was…BUT…BUT…BUT….Biden.

Leave a Reply