40 Burst results for "Donald Trump"
Fresh "Donald Trump" from WBZ Midday News
"And Sonny. Some patchy clouds. 65 each day Monday looks rainy. More in the forecast coming up right now it is 70 If you're in Gloucester, and we saw 75 in Marshfield on the South Shore, Boston again at 74. The red Zone. Boston entered it last night, and this morning in Boston school kids entered the classroom, not the entire student population. The city has staggered its hybrid learning model in waves. It began today with the highest need students in the ideas for them to learn in person for two days a week remotely the other three. But the wave of Corona virus is now washing over 23 Massachusetts communities, escalating them into the high risk red zone for Corona virus transmission. Avon is now on that list, joining Boston, Chelsea Everett Lawrence, just to name a few. The communities in the red category are not allowed to move into step two of Phase three in Governor Baker's reopening plan that transition starting next Monday. The USDA is requiring boxes of surplus food for the needy from the federal government did come with a letter from President Donald Trump claiming credit for that program. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has a problem with that, as we hear from W. B. C's Karen Regal. The letter is written in President Trump's voice and claims President Trump prioritize sending nutritious food from farmers to families in need across America. That's not true, says Mayor Marty Walsh. President done very little for food help here in Boston. The resiliency find house with with fed over my state fed 3.5 million meals have been given out one area that they help the sun and we've had to beg for it is an extension to allow us to.
Laptop, USB drives stolen from elections warehouse in Philadelphia's East Falls section
"Police are investigating a burglary at an election board warehouse in East Falls. A laptop and encrypted USB drives were stolen Tuesday night Y W. City Hall bureau chief Pat Lobe reports. Officials are trying to reassure voters it won't affect the presidential elections. City commissioners issued a statement saying the stolen laptop did not have any election material on it and is not able to program files for voting machines. They added, has security features to prevent unauthorized access, and the user account has been disabled. They did not disclose what is on the USB drive, saying they were unable to provide further detail since it's an ongoing police investigation, Mayor Kenny says he committed the police resources necessary to find the perpetrators and enhance security at the warehouse. Both he and the commissioner's insists this hasn't compromised the November 3rd election. A burglary appears to have been carried out about the time that President Donald Trump during a debate with Democratic nominee Joe Biden was casting doubt on the city's election, saying bad things happen in Philadelphia. Commissioners denounced the criticism, and some voters at the city's satellite election offices said it motivated them to vote early.
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on The Gee and Ursula Show
"Been guilty in my husband's and guilty about that too sometime. Are we getting out of here? We gotta guess, Lieutenant hard. Oh, Running for Pierce County Sheriff joins us next generously Dave Ross on Seattle's morning new President Donald Trump on Democratic challenger Joe Biden met on the debate stage Tuesday night in Ohio. We asked for one word answers on how you would describe the debate nauseated, dystopian, lamentable, infuriating, embarrassing, frustrating bad. At least we saw it face to face. At least people weren't hiding behind their keyboards. And you saw the president have to defend his view. And you No, but I have to defend his view. I thought it actually constructive you can see just how ugly this looks if Twitter were acted out on a state streaming live.
Trump to far-right extremists: 'Stand back and stand by'
"The white supremacist group the proud boys which supports Donald Trump took to social media to celebrate his stand by comment during Tuesday's debate Cassie Miller with the Southern Poverty Law Center ain't turned into a meme that's been going around on their social media accounts they've put stand by on T. shirts that they're already selling trump tried to walk that back Wednesday I don't know proud boys are but whoever they are they have to stand down but former FBI director James Comey says trump is throwing gasoline on a fire it creates a dangerous place for all of us not just people of color but for every community in America even Republican senator Susan Collins as the president was wrong not to denounce the group that was sent Jackie Quinn Washington
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on Tony Katz Today
"Holy damn! That's never happened to me before. Tony Cats, Tony Cats today 833 got Tony 8334688669 Briana Keeler, who looks like the poster child for white privilege, telling T W Shannon cochair of black voices for Trump what's actually facing the African American. Community. Stacy Washington joins us Right now she's known a Stacy on the right on serious exam. You can catch a podcast as well, and she is also the co chair of black voices. For Trump. And I only assume states that you often hear her filling in on this very show right here that when you saw your compatriot T w being told what faces the black community in America, I assume and put a smile on your face. Smile on my face my C T W Shannon out swinging a sword with the liberals. So Yeah, I kind of laughed a little bit. But it's not funny in the sense that she asked him a question, and then she wouldn't let him answer so she didn't want him an answer because she realized as talking She wasn't like what he had to say. It was similar to what we saw the debate with President Trump and Wallace constantly interrupting him, and we fit on television when you go on competing media that DNC You know, they're They're public relations arm. They don't let you talk. They'll let you finish your thought. Because they know if you finish a pot there, listeners and viewers are going to have your minds blown because We've actually thought through what we believe they have not So Yeah, I love him telling the truth. I wish she would just shut up and let him make a sentence. You know? Well, I I I thought that was only for trump that we told to shut up and let people make a sentence. And I did want him in that debate to shut up and let Biden speak because I feel that when you let Biden speak, you had a lot more ammunition to work with. But let's now go through this debate and this proud boys conversation, which unfortunately is the only thing we're taking from the debate. I think the idea of packing the courts is a much stronger conversation and how Joe Biden won't answer that question. I think this foot flopping on the green new deal in the divisions he creates within the Progressive Party is a big one. I think that there's a conversation to be had about health care policy and where the Republicans have been on it. I think it's a conversation that we've had for a long time. But this proud boys conversation is step one. And you have talked and More than once and for more thin this year about the idea that when you're black, and you're conservative people will tell you that you're not really black. And when you take a look, you take a listen to this proud boys denunciation or the inability to denounce white supremacy. It's a two parter for you. The very conversation of Do you feel that white supremacy is the thing confronting black Americans? And what is your take on what you saw from Chris Wallace, Joe Biden and Donald Trump on this subject during the debate. Okay? First of all. Ow. That's a big one. I laid it all out. I hope I know, I know. I know. Thank you. I appreciate the kind it was set up, but here's the deal. First of all, this is a distraction, a deflection tactic that has been used against him since he walked down the escalator if he likes to refer to it the beginning of his campaign. Immediately, David Duke said. I will vote for press for a candidate trap and immediately, Donald Trump said wife supremacists K K K. I doubt if you remember the video. There's actually 20 separate incidences of him, saying I without I repudiate. I did now, I that this These are not my people. I don't want their votes I beat or not things that I thought out. I don't know this man. He said it in every possible way. 20 times on record having said it, Tony. So That is, the question becomes Okay, So then why are they still asking him if he denounced it? Why do they still ask? It's simple strategy. Once you use the singular rise your target. You freeze them in a position that is beneficial to you in the position of benefits levels because they are speaking, the black vote and the vote of sympathetic who feel that voting for the Democrats is a way of proving that they themselves are not racist. They don't know any other way to do it, living their lives. Being productive, saying hello to someone If they say hello back, you know, hiring someone based on their merits instead of quotas or because you think the black cushion deserve the job or the wife deserves the job. It's pissing people based on Eric. These are things that regular people do that are examples of them not being racist. They don't have to try. They just lived their lives Integrity, a liberal's fetal because of indoctrination in school that they have to go the extra mile. And that's why they're voting for the Democrats voting against their own interests, voting against the low taxes of low regulation that actually drive our economy, so When you talk about what happened on Thursday, it was simply the continuation of a narrative that President Trump is supported by white supremacists. That's 63 Million people who voted for him are also either white supremacist themselves or supporters by Simply, you know, not not speaking out against it so silent supporters, and that's all that was. The proof is out there. I watched four video compilation just this morning of the president, denouncing white supremacists and explaining the comments that there were good people on both sides and Charlotte Bill. Not good people on both sides of the protests that happened that day. Good people on both sides of the argument that monuments should remain or monument should be removed. Those they're just regular people in the town who want either wants the statue to stay or want the statue to be removed, he said. There are good people on both sides of that. Arguments. The protests had bad people on a couple of side. He was not talking about that that has been debunked even by mainstream media. People have admitted that he didn't say that so. What we saw at the debate. I would have preferred that President Trump let Joe Biden have more space to actually put his own foot in his mouth. I think we'll see a different strategy in the next debate. A regardless of the debate. The issues remain the same. You're voting for a party? Not really a person. You don't have to like the person who's at the head of a party. I have a life President Trump, but you don't have to like him to understand that he's actually standing in between you and black lives matter and antifa. He's been between you and Joe Biden minutes. Fortunate dollar tax standing between you and our foreign policy enemies, jobs being offshored and returned to the higher tax..
Trump to far-right extremists: 'Stand back and stand by'
"White supremacist group the proud boys which supports Donald Trump took to social media to celebrate his stand by comment during Tuesday's debate Cassie Miller with the Southern Poverty Law Center ain't turned into a meme that's been going around on their social media accounts they've put stand by on T. shirts that they're already selling trump tried to walk that back Wednesday I don't know proud boys are but whoever they are they have to stand down but former FBI director James Comey says trump is throwing gasoline on a fire it creates a dangerous place for all of us not just people of color but for every community in America even Republican senator Susan Collins as the president was wrong not to denounce the group that
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on Steve Scaffidi
"We're not safe in Biden's America, but we're living in Trump's America now and 200,000 Americans have died from the virus that he lied about simple shirt is Donald Trump failed to protect America. Now he's trying to scare America. Mr Trump. I want to talk about fear. You know, People are afraid they're going to get covert trade. They're going to get sick and die. And that is no small part because of you. Joe Biden will protect the American people putting our safety above all else. I want to safe America. Safe from covert safe from crime and ludie safe from racially motivated violence. I promise you this way will do better. There's not a single thing beyond our capacity. We decide to do it together. I'm Joe Biden candidate for president. And I approve this message. Pay for Biden for president now, Morva Steve's graffiti show on del You too. J real quick. We're gonna last caller and they've got a couple text questions, Bob. Real quick from Del Phil, What is your question?.
Trump to far-right extremists: 'Stand back and stand by'
"The white supremacist group the proud boys which supports Donald Trump took to social media to celebrate his stand by comment during Tuesday's debate Cassie Miller with the Southern Poverty Law Center ain't turned into a meme that's been going around on their social media accounts they've put stand by on T. shirts that they're already selling trump tried to walk that back Wednesday I don't know proud boys are but whoever they are they have to stand down but former FBI director James Comey says trump is throwing gasoline on a fire it creates a dangerous place for all of us not just people of color but for every community in America even Republican senator Susan Collins as the president was wrong not to denounce the group that was sent Jackie Quinn Washington
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on The Vegas Take
"Okay, So now we know you don't agree with how I was perfectly well, now it's your time to let me talk. Okay? I spoke okay, I said. I said one sentence. Please stop in. Corrupting me. You just said that. You know Joe Biden. I was interrupting a first and a bunch of times anybody any reasonable human Being? That is not completely biased would tell you and Steve, I'll ask you since your stone line. Any reasonable human being would tell you, Donald Trump was doing absolutely the majority of the interrupting people on the steely. It was 128 interruptions about 90, but him 128. He had the record. Yeah. May I interject something very, very important. Sure. Parole. You listen. Something positive. I'd like to say especially for the African American wants something nice. A little only just make it quick. Yes, sir. Black and White can be all right. Don't fight. Let's have some peace in the light like solid. Thank you, Steve Politic. I appreciate that, Steve. Thank you for calling Right cost 2575396. The bottom line is Donald Trump. This was what they were planning to do. Ah. And then there are sources within the Donald Trump administration that air saying they were trying to get him to stutter. They were trying to, you know, get underneath the skin, and the interruptions were Not Prerequisite. I guess What they were trying to do is they were trying to get him to admit specific things like it took six different times to fight. And actually, Chris will also the part of this when Joe Biden refused to say whether he would pack the court or not also $3.5 million that Hunter Biden was given with charisma. Also, there's a couple of different policy things that Trump really pressed him on. Also, law and order, and you could call every single one of those, you know, maybe six or seven interruptions in those particular questions. What they wanted to do was press him on the things that CNN and MSNBC and CBS and ABC and all the reporters that talk to Joe Biden never ask him he want Donald Trump want to do that on a national platform? Any accomplished? Okay, So according to our poll, by the way, 65% of people believe that Donald Trump lost The debate, but I don't want to get into the expanse hole. 390,000 people were pulled and 69% say Donald Trump won a Telemundo poll done which is obviously the Spanish channel 66% did to Donald Trump once you're not going to talk about your famed Rasmussen poll because you always bring that I've taken a look at it, okay. Just checking 7022575396 is the number to call. If you want to be a part of the show, let's go to Nick. Nick is next on the Vegas. Take Nick. What's going on? There was a German respect. You guys a lot appreciate that. Here's my thing, Man. I listen to guys all the time. It seems like she's just turning like Trump bashing show. Um and you know, I get it. He's not the best speaker Early. Paul says nothing to do with him being the best speaker Nick, make no mistake about it. We've just had over 200,000 people that have died from the Corona virus. We recently had our worst quarter and economic history. He's gone after POWs. He's gone after illegal immigrants, sir. That's not being the best speaker. You know who wasn't the best speaker George W. Bush. But one thing George W. Bush didn't do was attacked our men and women in uniform. He didn't do that. Okay. He didn't go after women based on looks so, Nick, With all due respect, make no mistake about it. This isn't about him not being a good speaker. That would be completely different. Joe Biden might not be the best speaker. He's got a stuttering issue. That's not his fault. This has to do with Donald Trump's words, the things he says it hurts people, Dick. That's what this has to do with. And I'm not going to sit here in this seat and be Mr Nice guy. I'm always going to give you my opinion, Nick. And if you want to listen to another show that is completely one sided. That just might go after Democrats that just might go after one side, then this isn't the chauffeur you because JD gives his opinions and I give my opinions and if you don't like my opinions too bad if you want to listen to another show. That is just completely one sided. That doesn't give both sides then then find going home. So he's saying that he thinks that the show is one sided. But let me ask you this new priest on the line. No, he's not always not so because we got to go up. We're up against the Heartbreakers. Here's what I'm gonna do. So we're talking about Donald Trump, and we're talking about the proud boys were talking about Donald Trump's comments that he made About stand back and stand by. I told you those comments were dangerous. I gave you at least a few examples. Why, including a neo Nazi From the daily Stormer. And we're asking, Does it matter? Doesn't matter what Donald Trump said. Does it matter? To you if Donald Trump Does not clarify or not. There are a lot of Republicans that think you should clarify, and there are others within the Trump administration say they shouldn't give us a call. What do you think? 2575396 again? That number 7022575396 B back and listen to the Texas Corners Bible Church every Saturday night at 11 P.m. and Sunday Night at 10 P.m. on news, talk 7 20 K D. W N. If you missed Brian Kilmeade, you missed 40. Some 1000 apprehended Probably another three or 4000 came in and what California has gone to medical law. Where does this and I'll tell you where it ends, totally undermining our country, bankrupting our states and our federal government destroying our democracy. I'm worried about my Children. My grandchildren and everyone watching, but I understand the Democrats. Their actions by the Democrats in Washington are no less than treason. They're selling at our country, and this is why I was one of the few Republicans that stood with the president and said, and tariffs are always the last resort, but there are powerful tour. And by the way, that was damn pact with the lieutenant governor. He's a fine talk show host. He owns the Texas the Houston station, Iran. I was very nice of them a Republican in Texas who understands this issue better than almost anybody, and we've never seen numbers like this and we don't have any financing for accommodations. I just saw Elizabeth Warren's tweet. She's been she's condemning. Ah, the conditions for the illegals but not doing anything to stop them from coming or providing insured by money for them, But if they're condemning him really disposed by the border Patrol supposed to pull money out of their pocket. And pay for this and get bunk beds in there and maybe get a little maybe get Jim James Taylor. He did such a great job in France after their attack, baby, James Taylor can play at the Rio Grande Valley sector. Cut 27 This guy Jerry Robinette, Hey, is a former San Antonio ice agent. He knows what's happening there. Cut 27. It has gotten it has overwhelmed. Our resource is our capabilities. It's like what's next thing the agency officers along the border there drinking out of a fire hose right now, they're barely keeping up with their responsibilities. You have a lot of resource is air being dedicated to address with what you're seeing today. Uh, my biggest concern is at what sacrifice what else? What is it that we're not doing that we should be doing because of all the attention and all the resource is being diverted to deal with this influx. And now you have California saying, Hey, illegals free healthcare! Put $98 Million aside for you. Not enough by the way, and they evidently I don't know this for sure. I heard this..
Has Scott Morrison spent too much?
"Me. If you've already heard me mention this but one of my favorite quotes during the covid crosses a pdf the guardian. This is the British lift wing newspaper. Now, this was the heart of the coronavirus crisis. It would have been light much quote just as there are no atheists on a sinking ship, there are no free marketeers during a pandemic. Now, the author of that apt quote Jonathan Freedland, he was referring to the audio logical revolution within the British conservative. Party. Now, according to Freedland Boris Johnson's his have defied four decades of thatcherism small-state free-market, thinking I to spend staggering amounts of money and then subsidizing the wages of workers. Could the same thing be said about Australia's Liberal Party they're the party of Howard and Costello now embraces big-spending high deficit government interventionism. And is a permanent state of affairs poor kilis editor at large of the Australian US pipe and Judas Brit is emeritus professor of politics at Latrobe University poll judy welcome back to the show. Hristo Paul, you've written to calms about this subject in the past week, summarize your faces. Will Martha is that all parties and all governments have to respond to the times in which they find themselves on display in Australia. Now we face an extraordinary economic crisis and the response reveals the nature of Scott Morrison, his prime minister and the Mars and government. So Morrison, not responding as Liberal Party progressive or is it Liberal Party conservative? He doesn't see himself in those terms his responses pragmatic selects able and practical. He's not inhibited by former policy and audio logical icons of the Liberal Party. Say What we say is the government has abandoned the long-term syllabus aspirations. It's A. Big Spending government it's a government government intervention focused on Keynesian demand management. It does however on the Liberal Party tradition of tax cuts will see next week. So it's prepared to regulate or deregulate according to the situation according to what's required. So to sum up say that Morrison wants to be defined by results and outcomes not philosophical principle. Okay. You mentioned the tax cuts leaving that aside traditional liberal governments are about balancing the books Paul, how much an as do you think aries in the Liberal Party about in the parliament and outside about these handouts to preserve jobs and livelihoods? Are. I. Don't think there's much on these at all OPTIMA and Tom. and. A couple of reasons for this if there is to be on, he's He's will come through the down the track, but essentially what's happening here is to govern is following the Orthodoxy or what you might call the new Orthodoxy in terms of meeting the financial and economic crisis. So roller response is sort of radical. It's also conventional. The official family is working together very closely. The Treasury the Reserve Bank, what the government is doing is essentially supported by private-sector economists. It's in law and with Patrick amended by the VCD and the IMF not the cabinet is very nodded, the Prime Minister and the treasurer are working very closely together so far the results look good. I think the Overwhelming sentiment on the back benches. Support, the government strategy in the hope that this gives individual employees, the chance of actually being reelected and my will give the government the chance of being reelected. So the reinvention of Australian liberalism is on full display with this budget judith break you agree with Paul Kelly about the the audio logical significance of these changes but actually think the government had much choice in that sense I do think we can see something audio logical preferences in a couple of the policies poor mentioned the tax cuts they've chosen tax cuts over for example, committing to a permanent increase in new act now co Job Seca. They've also, for example, if we look at the way, they wanted to stimulate the housing market. They've gone for giving money to individual owners rather than, for example, embarking on a social housing project. So I think in some of the means, we can still see some of the ideological preferences of the Patty. One of the things I've wondered when I've been watching the events unfold. If Labor had won the last election was in government with the Liberals have supported the same levels of spending or would they have if you like stayed in the sort of ideological bunker bean and attacked the blow out of the deficit? I mean, it's a hypothetical. In some ways I think we've been very lucky that it's been the liberals and the coalition in government because they can sense being able to Ghana much more support. I, think than I have been able to do for the same levels of spending but isn't cameras response to the COVID crosses more consistent with other Western governments during the pandemic Judy. Yes that's what I think. I had much option but the question is if the coalition of being opposition, would they have supported a Labor government going? You've written a lot about this have many many decades about when orthodoxies or overturned. It's usually bipartisan is that you'll since if the coalition cypher argument's sake wherein opposition I would have gone along with this big spending interventionism. Look are essentially agree with what Judy's said about this I think in a sense we're. Fortunate, if you liked that the coalition's in government because it's taken all the big spending decisions. and. Lay has been prepared to go along with back. In fact, it's argued that there should be even more spending. So in that sense, we've had a broad degree of thought-out ship within the economic framework. It is hot the typical of course to tron speculate about what would have happened if alive had been in office doing this but I do think that the coalition in opposition would have been tempted to make caught a lot of criticisms and to suggest that the spending had gone too far. There's a big difference for party thing in government managing across and being an opposition. Cape with this theme of a political realignment among center right parties around the Western world. If you think about Donald Trump in two thousand sixteen, he tapped into widespread anxieties. America's rust belt. What can class constituencies? Boris Johnson showed last December, he resonated with traditional British Library voters in the Midlands and northern England. Judy. Do you think that Morrison in a wise doing the same thing here in Australia? Now, I think they're very different sorts of crises. I mean the pandemic is an external. Crisis, it's not being caused by politics in any way it's not back nationalism versus globalism or any of those things, and so I don't agree with that. I agree with what Paul was saying earlier that Morrison's shown himself to be pragmatic and quick footed in this and I think we're lucky for that. But I I don't think that this lines up with bricks and with trump's appeal to the rest spilled poor Kelly. Well I think conservatism is changing if you look at. America Britain Australia and there's not a dopey getting very significant changes into servitude. Thought. Different changes argued very strongly that there are very substantial differences between Donald Trump and Scott Morrison. I think people who argue that. Morrison is a pilot version of DONALD TRUMP MAUREEN DOWD in the New York Times by the way, but go on. I think. I think turned him mentally misunderstand the situation I. Think the change in conservatism is very dramatic in the United States. If you'd like because we've got the transition from Ronald, Reagan who a generation ago was the great conservative champion, and now we have Donald Trump, who if you lock is a populist conservative? And that transformation is simply enormous install ending content I mean trump violates all the virtues of conservatism in terms of restraint prudence disciplined respect. Regard for the political system, he thrives on division. So he likes all the traditional conservative norms, and then when looks at his policies. Well he's sabotage the global trading system. He's an arch protectionist. He's engaged in this trade war with China he's appraised dictators and suspicious about. So I guess one of the Fundamental Christians here is the extent to which trump is an aberration. And the extent to which post trump American concert is we'll have to try and create a new position cognisant of the damage that trump has done to the traditional Republican Party
A lesson from Trump's taxes: An underfunded IRS is outmatched
"And so part of the reason that president trump has been able to pace a little taxes at least according to the Times is because his businesses have lost so much money they've lost more than a billion dollars and he. Has, used the carry forward provisions among other things to reduce his tax bill for years and years. You know when you have business losses, it's like you have like money in the tax bank that you can use to pay less taxes in the future. Now, originally back in nineteen eighteen when carry-forward I started if you lost money one year, you could use that loss to reduce your taxes for next year but only for that one year and then a while later Congress said you know what you can carry over losses. For two years then Congress extended it further to fifteen years and eventually congress said you can spread your losses out. You can carry losses forward for as long as you want forever President Trump signed the bill that made that change into law in two thousand, eighteen and Isaac says there are good reasons to have this provision in the tax code it can be helpful for struggling businesses. So on the one hand, you kind of don't want your tax system to bankrupt a viable business just because it has a bad year. Right. So that's one. So it's useful but also but but depending on, you know how clever you are about your investments and how you go about booking what counts as a loss. There's lots of room to kind of gain with creative accounting. It is it is wildly open to abuse. So carry-forward is sometimes a reasonable useful thing and sometimes something that people and businesses abuse to pay less taxes than they should, and there are people at the irs whose job it is to figure out for every tax return that uses this provision you know which is this reasonable or is this abuse but as it says, the funding that pays for the IRS to enforce carry forward rules and the rest of the tax code, it has been cut for years it's been. A pretty substantial. block of the Republican Party in Congress has lined up behind the idea of really depriving the irs of teeth especially, the enforcement arm that that goes after. The rich and just like think about how expensive it can be to audit the taxes of the ultra rich fridge people do not have simple straightforward tax returns. They have a ton of paperwork fancy lawyers in. So look at the story we read The New York Times about the president's taxes right and and it was a picture that they have to assemble by looking at hundreds of different tax returns for hundreds of different entities. Now imagine having to do that for every even for one in ten rich people in the United States right Obviously, it can't be done. Except there's one congressional committee that specifically looks into the super-rich but only in some cases but but. One of those cases use the case of president trump. There was this one paragraph in the time story I mean there were a lot of paragraphs in the time story and a lot of it was interesting but there was one paragraph in particular that really I wanted to understand better. So the paragraph was related to this seventy three million dollar tax refund that Donald Trump apparently got in two thousand and ten and that he and the government are still fighting over. Okay. I'm going to read this paragraph it says quote refunds require. Blah. Blah Blah in opinion of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation Blah Blah Blah and tax law requires the committee to weigh in on all refunds larger than two. Million dollars to individuals. So what this paragraph is saying is there is a committee in Congress that has to give an opinion every single time the irs is about to send some rich person, a multimillion dollar tax refund as I read this and I thought like why you know what is going on you have questions. So I called Dave Norton he's a corporate lawyer who used to work at this committee, the Joint Committee on taxation, and he told me this is not a normal kind of congressional committee. You know it doesn't right laws. It doesn't hold hearings where lawmakers ask questions that are really more like comments and the joint committee staff is. A non-partisan expert staff of economists. Lawyers. Accountants. So it's like it's like Congress's. Team of tax nerds. That is a good way to put it. Exactly, right mostly the nurse on this committee figure out what different changes to the tax code would mean for the government and for the economy, you know how different potential tax tweaks would work. But a few of them go into work everyday and review giant tax refunds that the IRS is about to send out it's it's interesting because it's so one by one right you don't think of Congress as doing. Anything on like we'RE GONNA get every big tax refund that goes out in America. But that is what they're doing here and I agree it is It is pretty unusual. It might be unique in terms of something that the Congress would get involved with Congress got involved with this back in the nineteen twenties basically because they didn't trust the person who was overseeing the IRS, the Treasury Secretary Andrew Melon. Melon was one of the richest men in America. Also, one of the biggest tax payers in America had all these business interests that he held onto he was treasury secretary, and so congress was like wait you're the boss of the IRS and you owe all these taxes and you have investments and all these businesses that the IRS is supposed to be taxing that seems very shady. You know we want to make sure that you're not just having the irs and you and your pals massive tax refunds. So what we congress are going to do is we're going to pass a law that requires this Joint Committee to review big refunds. Congress basically said tax nerds keep an eye on these rich guys in the refunds, and so here we are almost one hundred years later and the tax nerds. They are still keeping an eye on these guys, and that's why in two thousand eleven trump's refund made its way to this committee. Apparently, the committee reviews hundreds of these refunds a year. So it's you know. Sort of, but there are a couple of things in this case in the case of Donald Trump's giant refund that are unusual. One unusual thing is typically the committee reviews the refunds before they get sent out to tax payers make sense. Yeah. It would think you would think but there is this special corner of the law and it actually applies to sort of the twin Sarah of what you were talking about earlier in the show the twin of the carry forward provision right where you can carry forward losses. The twin is Keri back. Here's how Carrie backwards if you lose money in the year, you're filing your taxes for now instead of carrying those losses forward as you do in carry forward, you can look back to. The past, you can say, look a few years ago. I was making tons of money I was on the apprentice and I paid tons of taxes, and so what I WANNA do is I want to carry my losses from the present back into the past and I want you to give me a refund for all of those taxes I paid a few years ago. Right so that is what president trump in fact was doing in this case when he got this giant seventy-three, million dollar refund and the special provision of the law that applies here is actually something they call a quickie refund and so innocent. Cute little seventy-three, million dollar tax refund and what happens with a quickie refund is the IRS. Okay. We will send you the refund before we've done a thorough evaluation of your claim and you have to promise that. If we ultimately decide that your claim for this refund, not you're going to give us back the money. So that's what happened here. That is thing number one that was unusual to quickey refined I seventy three million dollars. Yes. Okay. So thing number two that is unusual is just how long it has taken to figure out whether the refund was legit. You know whether the president in fact qualified for the refund under the law so Typically. The Joint Committee Clears Clears Refund reviews. In about three weeks maybe a little bit more than three weeks in a kind of standard run of the mill case they've says that some really complicated cases might take a few months to figure out but the president's case is still unresolved and it went to the committee nine years ago years they've says, he never saw anything take anywhere near that long when he worked at the Committee I never saw years Adam okay. So a case that went on for years would be very unusual in your experience. That's fair. Say yes and you know it makes sense that once Donald Trump becomes president trump the case would become exceptional and more complicated and take longer but this was already going on for years before that happened and so it's not entirely clear why it's taking so long. So Okay we've been through what's going on with the president's case, and also where does this weird committee review come from The one last thing I wanted to ask Dave was does it even makes sense to have a special Congressional Committee Review You know individual tax refunds you sort of worked on both sides you you were describing working for clients whose refunds are held up by the committee you've worked on the committee holding up People's refunds as you study them. Do you feel like it's useful? I do think just from a from a revenue perspective the taxpayer gets huge bang for the buck out of the C. T. Refund review process it costs almost nothing to run. It's you know as I said, just a few people and they can be counted upon to spot millions and millions and millions of dollars of potential mistakes. The spotting thing. Hey, look this is this million here million there at this shouldn't be going out for this this this reason
Comey defends FBI Russia probe from GOP criticism
"Director James Comey and Richmond federal prosecutor appeared on Capitol Hill today as Republican lawmakers look into the origins. Of the 2016. Russia probe With the election just weeks away, former FBI director James Comey with a new warning know that a nation that does not have America's best interests at heart Wants to re elect Donald Trump. Let that sink in. Let it guide how you think about the way we are to conduct ourselves going forward. Comey was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee defending the bureau's investigation into President Trump and his 2016 campaigns, Ties to Russia and as the liquid Terry ABC NEWS Washington For the
Political Experts Analyze First Presidential Debate In Cleveland
"Chaos in Cleveland is what it was called poor grades from a pair of valley political experts for the first presidential debate stand. Barnes calls the debate awful, and he was critical of the president on style points horribly combative, horribly interrupting horribly off topic. Katya are political expert Mike O'Neal says he's never seen anything remotely like this. Among his takeaways. Donald Trump first declined to say he would accept the results of the election. No American presidential candidate has ever said that the second presidential debate set for October 15th in
First presidential debate: Key moments and takeaways
"He won't ever look, unite and say that's what he wants to do. Take it away. I want to give numbers healthcare at a much lower price. Because I know how he doesn't know how to fix tea is never offered to do it Extent you like Waas. A lot of that there was name calling there was arguing the moderator had a really tough time keeping control of it all. One San Diego man was watching it last night. He was observing as someone who coached a candidate for president in a debate buried to Goto. Hey, Good morning is Madonna and yes, it is so you can Nice to get a chicken. Well, thank you, sir. You are a coach for Jimmy Carter Back in the 1976 debate against incumbent Gerald Ford. You've seen many debates. You've been part of them. Was this a debate last night or a disaster or both? Well, you're right about that. I've been watching these debates since 1960 participating in some, and the first is a citizen. And now I'm back to being a citizen. So six years of experience, so I thought last night was sort of Ah, Forgive me for tipping my hat here, but as a citizen, I thought it was a gentleman versus the bully. San And most important, I was very disappointed in my own friend Chris Wallace, the moderator, who seemed somehow to not be able to keep control of the debate. But that begs this question, though. You know when you're when you're talking about two. I mean, these are two brawlers. Let's face it both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Are really good street fighting kind of guys in a political fashion. How is any moderator going to keep control over those two particular men? Well, that's their job. The moderator's job keep control. And as I said last night, I thought you had the since I've been watching it for 60 years. I thought you had a bully versus a gentleman. But I am back to being a citizen now so I can understand why President Trump took the tone and the demeanor he did, and I thought that Biden I had a couple of chances. Ah, throw a punch or two, but he didn't do that. He stayed back. And in that regard, I think you could say that President Trump helped his base. Particularly when he talked about white supremacists. And when he was didn't help us with our fire fires here in California, But Ah Ah, you're right. Ah, Donna, it would be a tough job for any moderate So let's talk about and you said Trump did well for his base. Let's talk about whether this particular debate would change anybody's mind at this point. If you're voting if you're a Biden guy, or if you're a trump guy, did any of what you heard last night matter or change your mind? Oh, no, not if you'd already made up your mind. Although there does we do have this concert containing concern about the fair election, which President Trump keeps trying to sew. But apart from that, you know, the president did tell his white supremacist voters to stand by and he didn't help is on the On the fires. So, ah, Susan out here in California. I was not impressed with President Trump. And on the other hand, I wish I had wished that Biden had thrown a few more punches when he had a
Portland sheriff disputes Trump's claim he supports president
"President trump, you have two minutes wise. Should Americans trust you over your opponent to deal with right crime bill nine, hundred and ninety four where you call them superpredators African. Americans the Super Predators and they've never forgotten that they've never forgotten. Also it's his two minutes. You did that and they call you Super Predator and I'm letting people out of jail. Now that you have treated the African American population community, you have treated the black community about as bed is anybody in this country that's president trump and Joe Biden sparring last night in Cleveland perhaps, the Congress moment of the evening when president trump was an interrupting almost everything Joe Biden said fact checkers have noted trump lied when he accused by calling black-americans superpredators. Actually. First. Lady Hillary Clinton who used that phrase in nineteen ninety four not Joe Biden still with US Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill and Kristen Clark is now joining. She's the president and Executive Director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under law, Kristen, let's begin with you start off with your reaction to what they said here we just were discussing president trump refusing to condemn white supremacists when pushed on at several times and on what he is saying here. Was a deeply disturbing moment last night in many respects. That question will you condemn white supremacy was a softball It was would have been very easy for president trump to disavow white supremacy in crystal clear terms. You think about the tragedies that the American nation has lived through in recent time the. Murder of nine peaceful. At the. Baptist. Church. In Charleston South Carolina the murderers of eleven worshippers at the tree of life synagogue in Pittsburgh the murders of over twenty people in El Paso Texas the murder of heather higher in Charlottesville. Virginia these horrendous incidents all fueled by a white supremacist violence. Are Easy for any. reasonable. Minded. American to condemn much less the leader of our country and we know that the FBI director has identified white supremacy as one of the greatest threats that we face in our nation today. So I'm deeply disturbed and. I think about how history will reflect on this moment and Yesterday. Was a dark day for our country. I think about one, thousand, nine, hundred, fifteen when Woodrow Wilson screened birth of a nation inside the White House and over a century later, that is a moment. That stands out. For for any ordinary, American as a white. House that embraced unnecessarily white supremacist rhetoric and and essentially that's what we saw yesterday. We know that the proud boys are rejoicing today we know that they have taken this moment to breathe life into their movement. They are boasting about how last night has helped to. Energize their base and help them to recruit new members, and so this is a moment that poses a real and grave threat to black and Brown people in particular in our country who are often the victims of racial violence. and. Kristen. Clark this repeated emphasis the president throughout the debate last night and obviously in statements previously about the dangers of the left and then t for and he kept referring to Portland at one point claiming completely. Complete lie that the Sheriff of Portland had just that day endorsed him. But then Mike Reese who is the sheriff of the county which Portland is immediately tweeted out I have never supported Donald Trump and never will, and yet she brazenly claims that had the support of the sheriff a Portland,
A Look At The First Presidential Debate Of 2020
"Let's start today's program in the United States then which last night witnessed a chaotic and bitter presidential debate between President Donald Trump and his Democratic challenger Joe Biden here's a selection of an use the term loosely highlights. I am urging my people I. Hope it's going to be a fair election of it's a fair election and what I am a hundred percent on board. But of I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can't go along with that and I'll. Come accommodation does that mean? People to take. A fraudulent election is people aren't equipped to handle it number one, number two, they cheat. They cheat hey, they found ballots wastepaper basket three days ago they all had the name trump on them if we would have listened to you, the country would have been left wide open millions of people would have died not two, hundred, thousand and one person is too much. It's China's fault. It should have never happened. They stopped it from going in, but it was China's for. But if you look at what we've? Done. I. Closed It, and you said he's xenophobic racist and xenophobic Dr out she said President trump saved thousands of lives. Many of you are Democrat governor said, president trump did a phenomenal job. We worked with the governor a really go take a look. There's a deal. The fact is everything he said so far is simply a lie I'm not here to call out his lies everybody knows he's a liar but you I WanNa make sure what it lasts. It lasts. Hi I. You agreed with Bernie Sanders on a plan how both? The. Aesthetic you have. Have you do this month? Your administration directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory. I ended it because it's racist. It was a radical, a revolution that was taking place in our military in our schools all over the place and you know it and so does everybody else. Racial sensitivity training to view a certain person, you had no status in life. It was sort of a reversal and really they were teaching people to hate our country and I'm not GonNa do that I'm not going to allow that to happen but. Just, as the rallies to left, would you? Listen, who is on your list Joe Just. The flavor of last night's heated presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Well, let's get more on this now with motorcycles US election correspondent. Thomas Lewis, and our news editor Chris show WHO's here in London Thomas. Let Me Cross to you first of all. Some up if you can what did you make that it was not exactly a particularly edifying spectacle I think it's safe to say, no, it wasn't Tom and it didn't really feel like a debate at all. There is in the sort of you know history of these debates as a sort of sacred toned the stages these candidates president take that when after debated finished, you're watching the US knees anchors who are trying to pick up the coverage afterwards, and they all seemed absolutely stunned and lost for words and kind of shocked by the kind of visceral experience. The the debate is offered them I think Joe Biden obviously seem much more prepared but Donald. Trump's goal. In the whole thing, I think was to fluster him to put him on the back foot to try and reignite this narrative that he's campaigners tried on largely failed to stick to Joe Biden that he's too old. He's doddery. He isn't really fit to lead the nation particularly in a time of crisis Joe Biden for sure had the set pieces if you like of the debate but a lot of the marine lost in the fog of the war of the shouting match and I think for the moderator Chris Wallace for someone who really is considered as one of the best in the business to also have been kind of sat there in silence. For. Large parts of it not quite knowing what to do really did speak in lots of ways to just how extraordinary presidential debate this really was Christiana. You were watching on this side of the you watch the whole thing I. Don't think you probably went into it with a great deal of expectation, but it's safe to say you would. Have to be disappointed by the standard of what you saw. Tom I've watched many debates over the years in the US and you know to Thomas Point there I've I've never quite seen anything like that in the US. The the irony in some ways is that US debates. Political debates kind of jumping off with Thomas said tend to be rather stilted affairs What's interesting for me in part before we talk about the actual substance is that typically that's because of the rules you know often it's very stilted in saying you know this candidate, you have two minutes thirty second rebuttal to the next one one minute rebuttal to you. Now we move. Onto the next topic, this one was an open debate there was always after each question there two minutes for each candidate's is start with that didn't work very well already to begin with because there was a lot of interruptions. But then after that, it was sort of this free for all that very quickly descended into a shouting match essentially between the two candidates the other Issue for me or I think. The. That's that's worth. Pointing out is. I do think that one could say donald trump will feel like he pulled off a rather good performance. This is the persona that he has cultivated over the last three and a half years when it comes to his style as well as the ideas that he has put forward, this is who he is and I think he will feel that he had energized even those supporters that he has to come out I don't think he's won any new supporters with what he's done, but he's energized his own base and by as Thomas said, really sort of. Failing to let by Biden in really to make any strong points because of the constant interruptions. Biden didn't make a very strong mark. I would argue and so that that works in some ways if you want to speak purely political calculations that works to trumps favorite because people are going to be left frankly just depressed with the political process as a result of that the big. Well, we'll come to you rather autistic said was the substance. I didn't detect creative air in a moment but I just wonder on that point about trump he seemed to be I don't know this sort of a twitter feed made flesh. It was just a series of spiky pronouncements angry it was delivered in the style we've come to associate with him on that platform Were there any actual substantive communications that will have registered or was it just about him preview once again he can shout louder. Know the worst some substantive points that that were made and a couple of them played in in those clips that I thought were were quite interesting and highlighted the two different ideologies. One was on the pandemic and the Corona virus you heard Donald Trump talked there as he often does putting all the blame on putting all the blame on China for the coronavirus coming in he also there were a number of exchanges where it was very clear that for Donald Trump it's time for. People to open up again, it's time for the country to open up. He bragged about the fact that he had many people at his rallies. For example, at his political rallies. He felt that was a good thing and he sort of Josh Joe. Biden for you know not being able to get people to his rallies and there was this very poignant moment in that way where the quote was along the lines of trump saying people want to open up and Biden responded. quickly, people want to be safe and so that was a very clear moment in terms of the ideology of the two. I think that will strike people and the second one was on race, which you also heard there there are some very strong moments that again highlighted the sharp differences between the two when it comes to race and protests and the violence that is happening in the US right. Now, there was the bizarre moment you heard there about racial sensitivity training. WHERE DONALD TRUMP DONALD TRUMP rather very depressingly. I would say really double down on this idea that racial sensitivity training is somehow leading to a radical revolution in the United States in education he also refused to openly condemn white supremacist groups. There was this moment where he was asked to condemn the proud boys a white supremacist group and he did not So there were there were moments there that we're really quite depressing. He focused his attention than on Joe Biden saying. You, refuse to speak about law and order I. Think Joe Biden tried to answer that maybe Thomas can speak to this as well. It was interesting how he tried to answer the law and order question I wonder if that is something that you know might lose him some supporters on the left because he was trying to be quite defensive of the polices result of that. So Donald Trump really use his own strategy, what he wanted to do to effect in his world. Let me bring you in. Then on I guess looking from Joe Biden's pointed viewed along with Christie's rated the. was rather difficult for him to. Seize control of the narrative given trump's behavior sort of in the room. What did you make of his performance and would there be any areas that he may find he landed any blows I think Donald Trump's goal was purely to fluster Joe Biden and to throw him off his. Uncertain moments it worked. There were other moments when Joe Biden was alive to speak that you know if they do want to characterize him someone who is a little bit of don't reason quite fully grasp of himself for the facts then Joe Biden did show that he is an accomplished speaker. He had some ideas that were quite forward-looking Donald trump had none of those things and he. was questioned at at certain points asking well, what are your plans and there were really no answers. All Donald Trump wanted to do was as you put earlier Tom to shout the loudest because Donald Trump. Now, to win this election, he readings debate either bring big swathes of voters to his cause which I think last night's performance by him is unlikely to do he also therefore if he Can't that might try and do he didn't twenty sixteen and not is to keep people home to stop people effectively to make the atmosphere. So angry and Sophie Brier the people feel so disenchanted with the electoral process that they just don't vote at tall that was successful for him to a certain degree in two thousand sixteen, I think if the polls are correct and the polling arguably. Is more accurate is more detailed is more specific this time around than it was last time. Then I think that it would take a huge number of people to stay home for Donald Trump to sneak victory in the Electoral College. There were some reports after the debate last night that Joe Biden's team that some sources close to his campaign suggesting that maybe Joe Biden wouldn't take part. In the next two debates, if those debates are going to be like we saw last night because really heat does arguably have the most to lose here given his lead is so large at the moment I'm for Donald Trump. This isn't about sort of setting out to vision for America. This is about just sort of keeping and clinging onto power in the angriest way he possibly can, and I think as Chris mentioned I think that was if that's what the goal was that was pretty successful for him. Last night I think that Joe? Biden? Obviously prepared well, obviously prepared in detail but just a lot of those. A lot of those ideas set pieces that he had brought to the debate stage just weren't really allowed to shine through given just had extrordinary. The climate was on stage last night. It's always great to me. Thanks for being with us, tell us in Chris both the Monaco's. Team looking ahead to November Thomas and here in London Chris China here
"Shut up, man": Biden and Trump make personal jabs during debate
"Much chaos, interruptions, personal attacks and insults. That's what one outspoken Chinese newspaper editors said. Of last night's presidential debate, and Australian counterparts said it was swamped by the rancor engulfing America. First debate pitting Republican President Donald Trump against Democratic challenger Joe Biden was noisy. After the interruptions and jabs candidates gave their closing statements. President Trump on Election fraud You have an unsolicited They're sending millions of ballots all over the country. There's fraud. They found him in creeks. They found some with the name Trump just happen to have the name Trump just the other day in a wastepaper basket. They're being sent all over the place. They sent two and a Democrat area. They sent out 1000 ballots. Everybody got two ballots. Trump also refused to condemn white supremacists who have supported him, telling one such group known as Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.
The potential impact of the first debate on the presidential race
"I have moderated several debates, You know, statewide debates here in Virginia in my media career. I've Crept a lot of different candidates for debates. I've sat through a bunch of them watched a bunch of Monte ve never have I seen anything like what we witnessed last night. I I thought it was pretty embarrassing for the for the country. And Ah, I'm not sure exactly how to dissect this. Ah, but I don't think it was good for America. Hey, for America for Americans and probably made us look bad in the eyes of Other countries and people around the world who were watching. I thought it was pretty pretty bad, Dr. Bob Holsworth says, watched his fair share of debates and has been a moderator on a number of occasions. So, Dr Ellsworth, I appreciate you Joining us this morning. What's your first reaction after that nine minutes last night? Well, you know, it's pretty similar. John. I've moderated as you have, You know, a number of gubernatorial senatorial debates, some that were pretty tense in my life. I've never seen anything like this before. It just really was not at the level that one needs to On one has the right to expect from a presidential debate. And so then the question becomes down the road, You know? What does this mean? Politically? And you know, I have to say that my sense is that if you think the president is behind Nothing happened last night. Um, helped him out Not to say that Joe Biden was particularly good. Um, but at the same time, I think this raises the question of anybody's gonna watch the next two debates. And I'm just wondering what happened to the audience after 15 minutes or 30 minutes of that last night. Um, how many people like us plowed through it all? Hey, you think people turned away or do you think it was like a bar brawl where you've got your back up against the wall, and you just stand there and can't believe what's unfolding in front of your face? Yeah, Yeah, I think that you know, either one could have could have happened, but I think it was in some ways. Um Ah, turn off. I think that it was not something where you know, usually after a debate, What happens is that we'd be talking this morning about the different positions. People took on the issues who won on this issue or who won on that issue, But but that's not what people are going to be talking about. They go all going to be talking about the tone of the instability of it all. The fact that you know, the moderator lost whole early on. Never got it back that the whole thing went off the rails so quickly. That's what that's what's going to be memorable about this debate. You know. Typically, we look at the kind of a moment in the debate a moment that you know may have an impact all the way down the road, and there may have been a couple of those moments last night, but buying large What is going to be the story about this was the embarrassment in disgrace that this debate eventually concluded with You. What did you think of Chris Wallace as the moderator? I mean, clearly you got you got Donald Trump being hyper aggressive and I thought of noxious. Look, I've never said that. I I think Donald Trump is a jerk. I don't think I'd want to work for him. I voted for him. I'm still going to vote for him. But I think he's a jerk. And I thought Joe Biden came office. Not totally with it and himself pretty offensive, saying shut up, calling him a clown. I mean, you know he was much He was willing to jump in there and scrap, too. But I thought Chris Wallace made a point of Personally debating with Trump and asking loaded questions towards Trump that I'm trying to be objective here. Maybe you push back on me. I just don't think he asked the same loaded questions to Biden. Well, I think he no. Remember a time. She said. You know the president trying to get him to calm down a little bit. You know, you're gonna like the next question. Then I gotta ask Joe Biden. I'm gonna go ask question that's favourable towards you. I look, I think Chris Wallace overall is pretty darn good interviewer. I thought he was going to do a much better job, and he did. Um, I think he was probably in some ways surprised by what had happened and just couldn't get this thing. I'm back on the rails whatsoever. And, you know, you know, there's a question about you blame Chris Wallace. Do you blame Donald Trump? Do you blame? You know both participants? Um, but at the end of the day, um, you know, I thought this had the potential to be the best debate. The cost of Chris Wallace because of his capacity to ask program questions and it didn't happen. Um it's just got off the rails and never got back on. And, you know, at the end of the night, I just thought that it was a um, you know, I thought I remember. I told you yesterday, I told you the end of the end of the debate. Chris Wallace might be the winner before. That was a bad prediction. Ah. Because you know, no one's calling him a shining star of this whole thing. I'm not sure that that's his fault. I do think he framed. Some of the questions in a very Negative way the vulnerability for Donald Trump. I think at the end of today, and all the analysis is going to be Donald Trump didn't announce white supremacy as if he has this obligation to do that, again and again and again, to be the moment they're going to try to. You know, the Trump campaign will try to deal with that today, but the end of it, I think I think here's a situation that would ban for the president. You know, Certainly they wanted to prevent Joe Biden during this sort of doddering senile, not with its kind, and I think at the end of the day, this made probably more questions about Trump's personality. Then you know Biden's capacity there and at the end, if you see these polls that show that Trump's doing very well overall, particularly with doing better with men and with Biden, but not doing well with women. That was not a women friendly. Ah sort of debate performance by the president last. I don't think you added anything. There and you wind up with people who even prepped him like Chris Christie saying. Well, he was a little too hot. We can't or, um, say it was a missed opportunity. And you got you and you're gonna have a number of these Republicans running in Senate races. Um, any or in states like Maine in Colorado and Iowa, who were unhappy with that performance last night that you know
LeBron James And The Miami Heat, Together Again At The NBA Finals
"The NBA finals tip off Wednesday night it's the Los Angeles Lakers against the Miami Heat the Lakers would superstars Lebron James Anthony Davis took down the Denver Nuggets in the Western Conference finals clinching their thirty second NBA finals appearance. As for the heat they beat the Boston Celtics and he team President Pat. Riley won four championships as Lakers coach in the nineteen eighties before also winning one as heat coach in two thousand six, you can tune into game one from inside the Orlando bubble with no fans of course, at nine PM Eastern Time six Pacific on C..
Debate-watchers say Biden won first debate
"An instant poll by CNN after the debate awards the night to Biden, who won the debate tonight, Joe Biden hands down 60% of debate watchers say Joe Biden won the debate, 28% say Donald Trump won the debate, CNN's David Chalian says Democrats and independents comprise a greater percentage of their watch group than Republicans. CBS Battleground Tracker Poll also gives Biden the wind but by much more narrow margin 80% of viewers from both parties called negative. Just 17% think it was
Trump, Biden Clash in Contentious First Debate
"I'm Anthony Davis. Law By angry interruptions and bitter. NHS The first debates between President Donald, trump, and Joe. Biden erupted in contentious exchanges last night over the coronavirus pandemic job losses and how the Supreme Court will shape the future of the nation's healthcare. Fitting for an ugly campaign, the two men frequently talked over each other with trump interrupting nearly shouting. So often that bind an eventually snapped at him, will you shut up man? The fact is that everything he said so far is simply ally Biden said I'm not here to call out his lies everybody knows he's Eliah trump and Biden arrived in Cleveland hoping the debates would energize basis of support even as they competed for the slim slice of undecided voters who could decide the election the vitriol exploded into the open when binding attacked trump's handling of the pandemic saying the president waited and waited to act when the virus reached American shores and still doesn't have a plan. The pandemic were in plain sight with the candidates elected and
Biden: "I am the Democratic Party right now"
"Moment that Democrats Seized upon is when the president was invited to explicitly condemn white supremacists. What do you want to call him? Give me a name. Give me problems like San right, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what Somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left Because this is not a right problem is a levy. I direct. This is a private boys is a far right group in its members celebrated online. Stand back and stand by the new slogan. Now that we're done, we're done, Sir. Admirers described Donald Trump's performances gladiatorial on his base has always loved his destructive energy. He wanted to go socialist. My party is a socialist. Now I am and they're going to dominate you, Joe, you know that I am the Democratic Party right now. But his political problem in this campaign is being retaining the support of voters who backed him four years ago but did so holding their noses. Many of them suburban women who find his behavior abhorrent.
Analyzing The NY Times Trump Tax Return Story (In Depth)
"The president's taxes long concealed records show trump's chronic losses and years of tax avoidance. I'M GONNA go through this story with you in an extremely detailed way I'm going to give you an overview. Tell you what's in the article was not in the article, and then we'll go through it in a an extremely detailed ways that you can get an idea of Some lessons that you can learn and apply to your own life, and I'll talk to you about what's behind the scenes so that you can feel much more competent when discussing this or really any other kind of of article this article in the New York Times is going to read I. Guess I should say, obviously, it's GONNA re differently depending on the political back on that you come. But it's going to be read very differently based upon whether you have any knowledge or familiarity with tax code in general how taxes work in the United States how business works etc or if you don't and. For that reason, it's really fascinating to look at People's responses to this article because the responses dramatically depending on. I guess somebody's exposure to it. So I, let me give you Joshua's summary of the article begin with Lead The New York Times Obtained Donald Trump tax information extending over more than two decades revealing struggling properties vast right offs an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due in short the New York Times of tained evidently all of trump's tax returns over the last fifteen years or so including returns from the business organizations that he is involved in. They've evidently analyzed those returns and they basically wanted to make a few basic statements number one. There was no evidence of malfeasance uncovered with regard to Russia or other kinds of of basic Allegations that have been been being made the basic arguments that they that they tried to advance in this article or number one that president trump has lost lots and lots of money over the years and I think that's the probably when the authors were riding trying to say, what do we talk about? They were basically trying to say, well, let's prove that. President trump is not a very good businessman because he's lost lots of money that would be number one with regard to potential areas of misdeeds. They talk extensively about a few basic things. Number one is the use of business losses across the organization including a seventy something million dollar tax deduction that had been claimed for and filed for from A. Number of years ago, talking to that number a little in a little bit consulting fees and also deductions whether deductions are are valid or not. Now I think for the anti-trump crowd. Unfortunately, there's no smoking gun in the taxes and this is hard hard to overstate how important this story is in political terms have been many political consultants who for many years been saying well, if we could just get a hold of the tax returns, then we could prove all of these things about president. Trump's crookedness and all the things that he's done wrong and then we'll. We'll be able to make that case as a slam dunk case that does not seem to be the case or at least if that is the case, the New York Times did not choose to profile anything in this initial story as a financial planner story and I said, Yep okay. That makes sense. Yup that makes sense. No surprise there. Yup. That sense that makes sense. That's make sense. Explain all the details of how. How that is but I don't see this is not a bombshell story for a financial planner and so I think that was that's one thing that's worth pointing out most of the techniques and and things discussed here is exactly what I would understand. In fact, much of what I teach radical personal finance. When I teach tax planning, the techniques are just simply a little bit grander in scale than what a lot of people do but there's not really any fundamental difference that I can see from what president trump has. been doing over the years versus what I teach people to do to save on their taxes. So let's begin and I'm going to give you a detailed analysis and I'm doing this just. So you can think about my brain of how I read articles like this I I'm I'm not I don't have a political horse in the race. I'm not trying to make go on where the other, but it is really interesting to read an article like this and think about the challenge of writing it I'm not. I'm not an anti, New York Times Guy I'm not a Pro New York Times guy probably read and and respect newspapers much more than I do many other many other forms of of news and I think that the Arctic the authors of this of this story. Russ boot Suzanne Craig Mike MacIntyre is the story of their lives right where they've been working hard to get it just right and you see that carefulness in the writing, but we'll still analyze A. Little bit of the land is a little bit of the details along the way through as well. So we begin with a with the lead. Donald J, trump paid seven hundred and fifty dollars in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency in his first year in the White House he paid another seven hundred fifty dollars. He had paid no income taxes at all in ten of the previous fifteen years largely because he reported losing much more money than he made. As the president wages reelection campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing his finances are under stress beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt are coming do that he has personally guaranteed also hanging over him as a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of the seventy two point nine, million dollar tax refund that he claimed and received after declaring huge losses, an adverse ruling could cost him more than one hundred, million dollars. Now in that lead, we see these these themes that I've talked about and I just I give you my reactions to what it says here most of this is designed to have a good news hook, which is true, and that's what a new newspaper should do. It's pretty amazing that somebody who is renowned and purported to be a billionaire would only pay seven hundred fifty dollars in income taxes and to the average person. Who doesn't understand taxes that will sound like a shocking reality. A shocking number
"donald trump" Discussed on The Sean Hannity Show
"We look at what was going on and we were talking about those kids who were killed. The people were killed. During this year this year, I'm referring to the American Public Gifty, the idea that all this chaos and all these Democrats city areas going on right now they know that the Democrats are at fault. They know the key to this surviving is American institution right now is to keep Donald Trump is in office, and that's why they're trying to lie now that trump is responsible. What that Portland Mayor Did a couple of days ago we held that ridiculous conference. He was talking to himself because antiques plan black lives matter they hate him and the city doesn't get along with him and he's trying to blame trump and they woke up with a bonfire last night. The bottom line is Donald. Trump is going to win this election and the Democrats going to be out again, combining for another four years. Sergeant your take on all of this. You're absolutely right. You. You you. You find very few opportunities to to agree with Leo to Real, and that's my man. But. The bottom line is look this. This is that is right. I mean we. Look I just saw poll along the way eight in ten. Americans. Say That we're we're divided as a nation. You're right when you got you got the these these liberals on the left that a youth this radicalized audiology to divide us as a nation. Of course, we're going to be, of course, that's GonNa be the the. or every time you turn on the news, they're gonNA, continue to talk about that and look at what's happening in Portland I think if if anyone has a complaint about anything that happens in Portland, there should be the readiness that lived there. These people are being run out of their own city by mom. Mom, I mean. You're. GonNa have shootings, industries you're can have people being attacked business can't operate under that. Another type of pressure and law enforcement officers can't even do their job. So I shall we gotta come up with a solution. We gotta get back and control over the system that has that has been turned upside down. Let me tell you some. Sergeant Sixty three days before an election only because as don lemon says, well, the Poles are. Now this is this this lack of safety insecurity in law and order showing up in the polls and focus groups. So. Let's let's let's have an election year conversion and all of a sudden we're going to act like we didn't say all of those things about defunding the police and praising as Comma did the LAPD cuts or Joe saying police become the enemy and of course, he'd reallocate funds away from police absolutely look at the impact..
"donald trump" Discussed on Worst Year Ever
"If only President Obama would put America First. Well this president is all about making America safe again it no president ever accept Donald Trump ever acted faster so those are fun fun and good fun. Good in great interesting that Powerfully erotic powerfully erotic quotes from the powerfully erotic Jesse watters Complaining ABOUT OBAMA IMPORTING Bola Socialism to America. So this is a bit frustrating. I would say Compared to their reaction now to an actual disaster. That's way worse than what they were talking about again. Very few cases in America during the OPOLE outbreak that we're taking care of variously response reading a headline the US cases. Now top nine hundred and fifty. Oh good twice what I said in the right up California good number panicking officials. Anyone not finished because there's so many more than we know we just don't know because we don't have testing yeah just a quick This is a quick quote from Mr Obama after the fact when it was taken care of and sort of the message that he put forth was actually finding good in the twenty first century. We cannot build moats around our countries. There are no drawbridges to be pulled up. We shouldn't try some worried about bringing the disease to our shores that we had to But then he commented that we had to make the decisions based on fear but on science. You recall October three weeks in which all too often we heard science being ignored in cessation. Just it's just very nice to hear a president listen to science and and like Obama. Well I'm here Netflix. No insane nope Obama anyway. The person that was most upset about a bullet during his period as Robert alluded to was Donald J trump. I think it's it can get a little tiresome. There's a tweet for everything and that's because there's a tweet for everything every single every single every single thing. It's like this whole experience. There were having was written by somebody to drive us. Mad Every single thing in Donald Trump's case for this potato specific instance. There are a hundred tweets for this metered about this so much because again he was so obsessed with Jonathan exactly. So I'm just constant tweets. I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent. Obama just appointed in a bowl czar with zero experience in the medical area and disease control a total joke. I wonder who he referred to today about that President Obama has a major meeting on the NYC bowl outbreak with people flying in from all over the country but decided to play golf. He literally did that yesterday. He's needs to relax. You need to go to the club and shake some hands and relax with his Gulf There's just one more tweet from Donald Trump. Because I think it's perfectly. I forgot to read it quote. Ebola has been confirmed. Nyc with officials frantically trying to find all of the people and things he had contact with Obama's fault a total incompetent We we don't need to read more of them. There are and I'm not exaggerating hundred tweets about this exaggerating so Just a little compare contrast on how an actual like competent administration with a scientifically literate considerate president deals with the situation and what the media does and the reaction and now he for that depressing comparisons. We gotta take a quick break. Yes things that we do for these products that unlike the trump administration.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Susan Susan Hennessy. Welcome to Rubicon. Thanks for having me. So we're at a bit of a disadvantage in that. We're recording this episode on Thursday but the key vote on whether we're going to have anything anything like a fair trial in the Senate for Donald Trump's impeachment won't happen until Friday and we may not even know how that vote is going to shake out until it actually happens so for the purposes of this conversation I wanNA focus for the most part on the proposition. Trump and his lawyers have put forth and how Republicans in particular Picula have reacted to it because it bottom Republicans seem prepared to accept it whether there are witnesses or not at eventually. The story ends without sixty seven votes to remove Donald Trump from office. How would you characterize the proposition that that? They're preparing themselves to affirm mm-hmm so nobody ever wants to be considered naive in this town. And so I say this with with a risk of being proven wrong in pretty rapid order. I'm still just refuse to believe that the Senate would actually be willing to not even call John in Bolton as a witness because that would be an expression that impeachment is not a genuine constitutional remedy. It's not a real check on executive give power it's just a raw measurement of how many members of the president's own party sit in the Senate and I think what we're seeing play out right now. I'm is the terrible terrible choice. The Republican senators have created for themselves because on one hand they want to be perceived as you undertaking. A legitimate should image investigation a legitimate trial. Even though they know full well that they intend to quit the president at the end of this and and of course I think something like seventy five percent of Americans say `I I they believe that additional witnesses should be called. I'm but the senators have a really big problem because John Bolton has come out and he's said I have a story to tell and it's really bad and it shatters a lot of the implausible deniability that you've been clinging to an. I'm going to tell that story eventually. I'm gonNA tell it in a book. I'm going to tell it in an interview. This this story is coming out and so what Republican Senators have to decide is do they want to be confronted with that story under oath and then have to actually cast a vote wrote not a furrowed brow in a Senate hallway. Not a disapproving tweet about being gravely concerned but an up or down. Vote on the question of whether or not this is acceptable. Whether or not this tolerable and I think if we get down to it and the balance of fears between between Senate Republicans of being perceived perceived as a not undertaking legitimate investigation versus the consequence of undertakings illegitimate investigation. I think that's the anguish that we're seeing. I'm playing out right now I continue to think I too hope that there will be four senators who realized that this is just not not that this that this impeachment trial simply would not be perceived as legitimate by the American public. If John Bolton doesn't come to testify but for the purposes of this recording. I think that we have to you know we're in the dark for the next twenty four hours As to how this is actually going to play out and by the time people listen to this. That question will be answered one way or another Either we're going to be in a world where John Bolton is going to testify or we're going to be in one where this is all gonna and we're going to figure out what his stories later. I just think that whichever happens. There's one more vote after after that. which is a a a quitter convict and even today? I think I count enough. Republican senators who have essentially said. Even if what Bolton's book is purported to to claim is true. I'm we're just not going to convict trump and so if we just Liba ahead to the assumption that he's acquitted what do you interpret Republicans to be saying by having acquitted him. Does that make sense. Yeah I interpret Republicans to be saying that it is tolerable. Acceptable for the president of the United States is to use the powers of his office to extort a foreign leader into becoming an opposition researcher for his political campaign. I I would say that these senators senators are voting to say that it is acceptable to have a president and in this really goes sort of the core argument. We loud in this book but a president in who does not view the interests of the office of the presidency as in any way distinct from the interests of the occupant that those are completely completely merged in political interest in financial interests. And and this really goes to the heart of trump's vision of the presidency this sense that the purpose of the presidency she is to serve the president and it serves the public only coincidentally or when convenient or as an afterthought and that isn't a question of you've expanding the edges of executive power the ordinary sort of areas in which we're used to debating limits of presidential power it it goes to the very core and it says that the president can use the these really astonishingly Empowering Authority ordeal that the constitution vests in him. I'm for his own purposes and not on behalf of the country and and if that is true and if the Senate is willing to tolerate hollering that that has long term structural ramifications across lots of different axes and and the Senate may may try to sort of kid themselves by saying. Oh No. We're making a very narrow vote about the nature of this form of an impeachable offense or that form. But but this is a blunt instrument you're either impeaching and removing the president has an or you aren't and so they really are fooling themselves if they don't think that the ultimate statements that they're making is. This is acceptable acceptable and they are accepting. I'm glad you brought up John Bolton for this reason because you're a you could in theory imagine a situation in which for plus Republican senators not enough to convict him but enough to say. There's a real problem here get together and say look like we're not going to there's no reason to To to draw this proceeding indefinitely but we acknowledge something terrible happened here and so we're interested in is in. What can we do as legislators power to say okay? We're not going to remove him from office office but we are going to take some steps to make sure that this doesn't become the norm at least in our Party and censoring him. Yo ramping ramping. Up a regular oversight activities and that's just not in the cart. Nobody's even discussing that as an option Which is why I feel like take the emergence of Bolton and and and what we believe we know he is in his book is so revelatory Is like most trump scandal seem to follow this pattern where he and all of the principals deny whatever their alleged to have done outright. Then say it didn't it didn't happen but if it did happen it wouldn't be so bad and then finally I did it and it was awesome and to me what striking about the role. The boat revelations have played is how how quickly they moved us from step two to step three where where Republicans and trump's lawyers have been kinda stuck saying could pro quos normal but even here Democrats Kratz haven't proved that trump ever explicitly linked Ukraine aid to Sham Biden investigations. Bolton's you know book the details of what's in Bolton's book book come out and he says that's bullshit and actually trump did exactly that almost overnight. We we get to trump and everyone around him kinda claiming dictatorial power to cheat in his own election which leaves no space for any kind of intermediate remedy. Does that make sense. I think it does look. I think what has been happening. Is You know the idea that there were there were senators who And you know in good faith were looking at the the record produced by the House and they saw this evidence and some of it was somewhat troubling. And Gosh Gosh it really does look like the president did one investigations into his political opponent. Joe Biden and his son or at least the announcement of those investigations. And Gosh. It really does look like the President United States frozen military aid to Ukraine and then lied about it in an head why he did it from Congress but shucks. I just don't know how we could possibly tie those. It's two things together. which by the way what people like? Kurt Volker attempted to testify to a while. We knew there was this one bad thing happening knew there. Was this other bad thing happening. But you're telling me see these two bad things were actually about the same thing or it's a whole game has been this completely implausible story. That's how these two things were not connected. And here's John Bolton coming forward and saying they're connected and I can testify to what the president actually said putting both of these things in the exact same sentence and what that does is it pops sort of implausible deniability that we've seen so many actors operating an in bad faith and we should acknowledge that they're pretending right it's not that they actually. They're actually stunned by this new revelation. They're pretending because they know that they eventually are going to vote to quit. The president of the United States and so the problem is is that that now requires a pivot right. You can't just say well. Of course it would be incredibly disturbing if the president tied military aid to abusive investigations nations. Something that Lindsey Graham and many others actually said at the outset of the revelations of this scandal you know but we're not going to call a witness before for the Senate who is who is a person who's imposition actually. Tie those two things together. You can't make that argument plausibly. And so instead you have to move into this really astonishing initiative constitutional argument and and really that is the heart of the argument. The heart of the argument is that the president of the United States is allowed to use the powers of his office for any purpose. He'd like so long as he can articulate at least some rationale for why it was in fact on behalf of the public interest even if there's also a corrupt motive present present and it doesn't matter how how implausible or contradicted by the documentary record. That sort of that rationale of why he was doing on behalf of the public might be so long as you can say something and really what we're talking about here is is a completely unconstrained unconstrained executive an executive that does not need to in fear impeachment and removal and the exercise of his office so long as he knows that the Senate is controlled by members. I have his own party so in researching on making the presidency. Were you struck by any historical examples of the presidency. Changing alarming ways but in ways. That didn't didn't ever stick in hindsight we can kind of say. We dodged a bullet entered. Johnson is probably the best example of this so Johnson actually is impeach although not removed. She's the first president to be impeached. And he's sort of trumpy figure right he's He's a demagogue. He've he allies. He you you know. He insults his political opponents. He's actually one of the articles of impeachment is. It's for the way he speaks and sort of his language. I'm in search for for being a little bit like a like a trump rally actually was one of the articles of impeachment and of course for ignoring the log knowing the constraints of the law ignoring ignoring the The legislature as a CO equal branch. And he's impeached. And it's kind of a blip People talk about Johnson now but but just as a negative example for rape kind of president that you don't WanNa be and so you know.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Hey Rubicon fans. It's Brian if you're listening to this then hopefully already know that we've just launched a new weekly newsletter here at crooked media. It's called big tent. I write it and my goal is to walk with you through the big debates unfolding among Democrats in real time from the campaign trail to the Senate floor to the most productive venues twitter. And I want to do that because the issues we argue about and how we work them out. We'll both shape the future of the progressive movement we share and probably also help determine whether Donald trump gets a second terminate. The first edition just came out on Friday January thirty first. But you can subscribe today at crooked dot com slash big tent I'm really psyched about this. I hope you sign up and encourage people you know to sign up to China.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"It's complicated because in ordinary trial. You're completely right that the prosecutor would say and you will hear evidence that one thing. The prosecutor can't do in a trial title because it's not lawful is to say in the opening statement in front of the grand jury the witnesses already said thus and such and so therefore the guy is guilty because you can't in ordinary trial refer to evidence that was gathered outside of the trial. The whole principle of due process of law is that the evidence has to be brought to bear right there in front of the jury. So that's not what happens in ordinary trial at all the prosecutors here. The house managers had no choice but to do that because they may not have a chance to call any witnesses but they did have more leeway than an ordinary prosecutor would because they can refer freely to all of the evidence that was gathered in front of the House House which you could not do it in a criminal trial. The Way I think about all this is that there are signals the Senate can and has in the past provided to indicate to the public. I guess that the trial outcome ref would reflect impartial. Justice like one is through. Consensus is if if senators agree on the trial rules. One hundred zero like they did in the in the Clinton case. That's a pretty strong indication that the Senate believes it's equipped to to render judgment fairly and another. would be like the completeness of the record you know if the question is has it received or sought all the information it needs to make decisions about guilt. Answer's yes that's a pretty strong indication that the public whether they're happy with the outcome or not should treated treated as legitimate. Yeah you're right and I know what you're saying which is completely true and correct raises a really fascinating question to me which is is given that the Republicans in the Senate no they ninety nine percent likelihood have the votes to vote not to remove Donald Trump from office purpose and given that they could get the legitimacy you're describing by having farrow and agreed upon procedure and then listening to the witnesses and then voting. Why aren't they doing it? I mean that really is a hard question and I don't mean to ask that in some. You know purely rhetorical by saying. Why aren't they doing that? I'm trying to force them into doing it. I'm actually asking a genuine question. What is it that they're so concerned about? I mean if John Bolton testifies and says his worst do we. I really think that that's GONNA move enough senators to change the outcome to get us to a two thirds majority necessary to remove Donald Trump. I would be stunned if that were the case. Yes so I mean. Imagine the worst thing that John Bolton can say yes I went into Donald trump and I told him. This violates national security and it's an impeachable offense and he said to me I don't care you know I wanna get reelected Ima- imagine that that was the testimony. Do we really believe that would get us. Two thirds majority of centers. I kind of don't and so I don't don't really understand at a deep level. Why the Senate majority is taking the risk of the whole trial being seen as illegitimate? Unless you think that the the answer is that they are so committed to the idea that the whole process is illegitimate. They're so committed to Donald Trump's narrative. The whole impeachment is as he keeps on saying a hoax. Folks you know fake that they think there's nothing wrong with doing it their way as a hoax and as a fake and then they'll just say yeah well they did a hoax. We did a hoax. I do think that Jr on a cer- like working on a on a completely different plane that there is something important about trying to get Congress to win in this basic question of whether these people have to testify whether these documents have to be produced in an impeachment that's in part about obstruction of Congress that that whether it has any bearing on how the senators ultimately vote or if senators enters ultimately vote to acquit on charges. Anyway I if this process ends with the obstruction both having been You know Attempted and then be having been successful and see he gets acquitted. Anyway that's just a roadmap for future presidents to engage in wholesale cover-ups like this and I mean maybe that's Maybe that's a kind of argument that that the house managers should be making about. Why testimony is important even though there's already enough to convict But that's one thing that's actually worried me about how what's going to happen if they get to the end of all this they Vote not to hear any more witnesses see anymore documents and then quit and then I have you know in a in a trial that was about obstructing congress in part. That's a great point and I'm also worried about that. You know one thing that I have been saying. All along about the obstruction of Congress articles of impeachment is the reason you know that it was appropriate to impeach the president as if Congress starts impeachment inquiry in the present. stonewalls says. I'M NOT GONNA cooperate in the end. The only remedy left that saves us from a presidency. That's completely above. The law is impeachment. Like that's the only thing you can do if you're the house right you say you're gonNA impeach and and the President says I won't cooperate you know you can't go to the courts and compel it not realistically and frankly it's entirely possible that the courts would've said not our problem impeachment is your soul power. Not Ours is an all you can do is to impeach under those circumstances and if you know the president is then nevertheless. LS Not removed from office. It does send that message as you say that the president can just get away with it. And that's very worrisome. For the basic structure basic structure of our government. Some future presence might not want to be impeached and I will say that. The second article of impeachment was unnecessary from the president's perspective. Active he could have fought the individual witnesses one at a time without announcing in that grand way that he did that he wouldn't cooperate in any way and if he had done that he would have escaped that second article of impeachment. So you know that was I would call that an unforced error. I actually think he was an unforced error that should be attributed it at least in parts of the White House counsel who wrote that letter and signed that letter and who is now defending the president so apparently the president doesn't think it was an error because he's relying on the same guy right now to defend him. That's a separate question. Like why is that. Okay but bottom line there is a serious serious danger that if president think they can get away with two stonewalling that the congress congressional power to impeach will just eroded to nothing. Let's let's wind down on on that point because I think think it's right to say this will be the first time the Senate has used it so power to try impeachment to conceal rather than consider evidence period. Right I think so. Oh Yeah I mean. I can't think of any prior example. Where they're where they're not trying to get witnesses not trying to get more information so just taking it as a given that impeachment supporters and Democrats and you know hopefully a growing list of people as time goes on Talk about it that way and try to leave an asterisk next to this trial l.. What will the consequences for the impeachment? Power be going forward or can we even say anything about that before the next election. We'll as you say. The election is hugely significant and we will interpret events in light of that election after the fact even if there's no good hard scientific reason to think they ought to be so. If trump is not removed from office as seems probable and is then reelected right we end the judgement of history will be boy. Impeachment has completely lost the Umph that historically had you know the idea that you know bill. Clinton's legacy was seriously tainted anted by impeachment. The idea that Richard Nixon resigned rather than being a running the risk of being impeached not just removed but but impeach that will look like a a very faint relic of a of a lost time if on the other hand trump is not convicted and then loses in the election even if he would have lost the election anyway. You know people will say well you see. Impeachment is vindicated. Maybe you weren't able to remove the president from office but the taint of impeachment was so significant that it had an impact on the presidential election. And we'LL WANNA tell ourselves that story because we want to legitimate our existing institutions creaky old constitution. You know two hundred and twenty five plus plus years old and there's a way in which you know no other country in the world still runs its affairs in this way since we enacted our Constitution. France has been through five reboots right Francis on what they call their fifth republic. That's their five point. Oh their version. Five point oh of their constitution at a time that we're still stuck doc with basically the same thing although with you know at the reconstruction amendments added in but when it comes to impeach him. We've got the exact same creaky thing we've already had always had and it's possible that it just doesn't work anymore and that's something that's painful but we need to confront that reality. I want to offer you a close on on a happier. Thought of you have on for for listeners. Or if if there's any sort of optimistic side to how you you see these events playing out well there is. There is because right right now whether you and I are speaking. We're we're in the middle of events and I think you know it's appropriate for us to be honest. I think you've been and I'm trying to be also about the genuine threat to structure of our institutions that exists but we are not speaking right now at a point where those institutions are destroyed. You know the president of United States took actions agency that to my mind at least are clearly at the core of what the framers thought should be impeachable and he was impeached. So in that sense offense. The institution is working correctly as we speak. The institution is working correctly in that impeachment occurred. The trial may insert raised illegitimate the non-removal of the president. If that's what happens in certain ways be a legitimate. They're all these problems they're real. We've been talking about them but it remains possible still that our democratic institutions will be robust enough to save us. You Know Donald Trump could lose the next election and then we will be able to tell ourselves with some credibility we got through it. You know our long national nightmare there will then in some way over. We shouldn't be naive about it. Even if that happens we should go back and look at what we can do better but that is still a possible outcome..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"The GAO report that you mentioned earlier. You know this finding finding that yeah the military hold violated the law All of that in a political sense is giving an enormous amount of momentum and I think you know whether it'll break the damn on Senate Republicans holding trump accountable. I mean I still people are pretty pessimistic. But the pressure is just like Ruben. Ratcheted up and ratcheted up. I think way more than had none of this come out in the interim from the time that the articles were voted on and then if they had been transmitted right away I think in the space that was created by Polisi holding them back and the amount of shoes that have dropped in the meantime have you know. Put the pressure on you know just made it feel more urgent and I think for the trump administration must make them feel incredibly really nervous. Because I don't think they know when the next shoe will drop. I think they know what shoes could drop because they know exactly what happened. But they don't know when they'll drop in like for example today Robert Hyde who's this Republican who's running running for Congress in Connecticut who was the one who was texting with I love Parnasse about possibly serving Marie Ivanovich in Ukraine. And you know whether or not they were like contemplating depleting a hit on her as it sounds like but that they've both denied sense His house was raided today by the FBI. So like who knows knows what's coming next is is how I see it i. I'm really glad you put it that way. Because you're scoop underscored to me exactly why. The trump administration obstructed congress in the first place in by Republicans particularly the Senate have done have signaled that the desire many of them have to keep as much new information from coming to light as possible but also I think illustrated a lesser disgust. Piece piece of the wisdom of Nancy Pelosi's decision to hang onto the articles for a few weeks Like we we tended to discuss that tactic through the lens of weather. It would force Mitch McConnell till admit defeat in some way or or or whether Senate Republicans individually would come out and say you know I'm I'm GonNa Not Vote for any motion. That doesn't allow us to call witnesses. And so you know now that the trial is getting underway and you know sure ince's of that sort have been made You see a lot of You Know Post Game Analysis of this decision. The policies gambit failed in some sense. But I think that's totally wrong right In part because this this flood of information that's coming out is is so unsettling that it seems like like it will make it very difficult for fifty one republicans to vote to shutdown new factfinding But also so because Pelosi kind of created as window right like that irrespective of what Republicans were going to do with their votes or how they were going to allow the trial to be structured assured the there was just this opening she created for people with information to to come forward right like. There's a strong indication that the Republicans in the Senate are leaning towards not allowing witnesses not allow documents To to come to light so in this limited period that Pelosi created stuff has started to come out Do you see. Do you see it that way or did you see it when you were reporting out your story that this was like an effect of of her having created some sense of uncertainty about when the trial would be allowed to start. I definitely didn't see it when I was reporting my story. I was sort of head down and you know oblivious because it's the holidays I'd his own I don't I'm not can't get in her head so I don't know how much I mean. She certainly didn't know in to some extent what was coming down the pike. I mean in terms of my own reporting I can see. That's for sure the partners I mean left parts had certainly indicated before that I believe if I'm remembering correctly like I'm GonNa Talk to Congress and I'm GONNA turn stuff. He might have already turned some of his documents over. So I think that and everybody's aware that this documentary evidence is out there So it I mean. In retrospect it seems like it was you know a wise move move on her part Trying to think there was something else you said but I'm now Oh I was thinking about how you said about Mitch McConnell and the Republicans like at this point they basically have to you know. New evidence has come forward and it now when they if they don't call witnesses and if they don't subpoenaed documents you know it'll look like they're not acting upon you know new evidence that's come forward that you really need you know. Oh you should be required to investigate and it reminded me you know on the one hand you think. Well they now have to do that like how could they their backs up against the wall but it reminded me as you're you're talking of the cavenaugh hearings and you know new. Witnesses came forward. And you know there was all this pressure to open up the FBI investigation. And they did did the sham process and call today so it's certainly not beneath them to do so do the question. What's the political cost? I I guess of doing it right right. The I mean the the Parnasse case. I'm I'm glad you mentioned it. I think it's like the most irrefutable refutable testament to the withholding the article strategy. Like he didn't his lawyer produce these incredible documents to the impeachment. Investigators and I think they like literally within hours of the House. Vote to refer the articles of impeachment to the Senate so like barely in time to be included in the factual record. And I wasn't aware that that your article had also gotten looped into the same factual records. So it you know the there. There is a quantifiable amount of information. That just was not known and to the impeachment investigators after they voted to impeach trump that became known to them before the trial began. And I think that makes it like fairly irrefutable refutable that the strategy strengthened the case itself completely apart from the question of how Republicans will vote destructor the trial or whether they'll allow allow any of this new information to affect their strong inclination to acquit trump. Did Gao finding. Today I mean I would put it in the same category gory it. It makes it really uncomfortable for the Republicans know violating the impoundment contract was not part of the you know was not an article of impeachment mint. But you now have this independent body saying the trump administration violated the law in connection to this story and you see already today today. Republicans sort of saying well the GAO's not that independent. which is you know? If that's your argument gets a losing argument And or you see them avoiding reporters they. Don't I want to comment on it. It's too it's too awkward And so the I will say from the time that the that the House voted on the articles to to where we are a day right now it is different information environment and it's a different a different political environment. I think for Senate Republicans that were already feeling a little bit uncomfortable up with just like cleaning their hands and making this go away as fast as they could. Yeah I think it was earlier today. Chuck Schumer tweeted something to the effect or said something to the effect of like you know. God Forbid Republicans. You know try to see all this information Render judgment against trump one way or another based on the incomplete record and then after they've already cast their votes to cover up whatever equipped trump the the whole truth comes out and not only have they voted for the cover it but the cover up fails retroactively and I'm watching. At least the Republican publican leadership grapple with this essential question. Like they must be aware now like it's like I think that they probably thought once the House House had voted to impeach trump that they would have a lot more control over the information environment Then they did when the house was running the show and the last two or three weeks have proven that they really don't right like there are still they're still foy they're still leakers. They're still witnesses. There's court cases that are ongoing and And these bombshells will continue to drop like in in the middle of the trial after the trial and so they are actually weighing this basic question. It's not cover up or no cover up it's it's Should we let all this information. Come out at once in the trial and then rip off the band aid and be done with it or let let it all Kinda dribble out slowly after we've already communicated with our votes our intention to to not let the public see this stuff. Yeah I'm two things I think they have to continue to obstruct because on you know I the information that's coming out is so damning and I can only imagine the information information that's being most closely protected like the Blair Duffy emails or whatever. The State Department e mails show are even worse. Like that's why we haven't haven't seen them And that's why you know the witnesses that haven't been allowed to testify Mulvaney. Blair Duffy John Bolton you know they have the worst stories to tell and so I can't imagine they take all right. Actually you know just that we can control. It will let everything come forward because it's You know it's like president. The president shooting someone Fifth Avenue. Like it's all GonNa be right there for us to see I think the other thing. That's a little tricky maybe for Democrats. It's not tricky but on the one hand there is plenty of evidence to explain what happened. between trump and Ukraine. And and you know him soliciting foreign interference in the election on that phone. Call the ties between asking for that investigation to Joe Biden and holding the military aid. The evidence is there that said. Is there more evidence out there absolutely so I think there's like this. Tricky thing that Republicans are also playing on where it's like. Well if you don't have the complete clete picture how on Earth Are you impeaching him. If there's all this stuff that still remains out there then you didn't do due diligence and so both things can be true. You can both have enough. Evidence is to move forward and there can also be plenty of evidence that still being obstructed and I think some of the allegations that Parnasse has raised just raise completely new questions like up until now the physical safety and the circumstances of Maria von riches being removed from Ukraine weren't part of the story really and as the FBI raid today shows the that's a new avenue investing of Investigation that cannot be you know just ignored or forgotten like we. I think the American public has a right to know Whether she was being threatened and back whom and where did it stop. How high up did it go? So a couple thoughts on that one is the this talking with the Republicans really have taken to about how this information coming to light just underscores that the house didn't do a very thorough job in its impeachment. Went totally allies. The point that trump has been impeached for obstructing the inquiry. Right like there's a reason. The House's factual record is incomplete complete and it's almost entirely because donald trump refused to cooperate with the inquiry. And so now he's they're going to have to vote on that article of impeachment and you the logic of what they're saying is that basically they're going to they're going to neuter their own institution and its power to compel executive branch disclosure of information. And I'm not sure for the trial will allow the impeachment managers to confront Senate Republicans with that contradiction that internal contradiction. And I'm curious to see like how how individual Republicans Republicans as a whole grapple with it The second thing is that I you know the the environment is uncertain enough that the White House is preparing for defections or at least is claiming to be preparing for defections on the question of witnesses and documents and trump himself after kind of pretending for awhile to want a fair trial. Trial now says that he might claim executive privilege if witnesses appear normally fights over that are resolved by AH accommodation between Congress and the executive branch or by courts..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"I have been directed by the House of Representatives to inform the Senate. The House has passed h read seven nine eight a resolution appointing and authorizing managers but the impeachment trial of Don. John John from he has been held accountable. He has been impeached. He's been impeached forever. They can never erase that. There's conventional wisdom in Washington. That goes like this. Nancy Pelosi delayed the start of Donald Trump's impeachment trial for several weeks to four Senate Republicans. Not to rig it. And since it's Mitch. McConnell didn't agree to hear from witnesses or subpoenaed documents that means she lost but the conventional wisdom is wrong. She one to see why imagine policy referred the articles of impeachment right after the House passed them. McConnell could have buried the trial in the Christmas holiday or convenient right after the New Year Senate. Republicans have dismissed the charges or acquitted trump based on the bad faith argument that the house didn't hear from firsthand witnesses. All of whom of course trump ordered not to testify testify instead Pelosi created uncertainty. There'd be no trial until we know whether Republicans plan to engage in a cover-up or not what and that left every Republican senator hounded by a simple question would they allow witnesses or would they block them. McConnell didn't quote quote Unquote Cave but it sure seems like his members did Maine Senator. Susan Collins told reporters on Friday that she's working with a small group of fellow all over Republicans on ensuring witnesses in the trial. I can't imagine that only two witnesses that our democratic colleagues would WANNA call would would be called. Sally should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"I am <Speech_Male> not going to depart from <Speech_Male> from <Speech_Male> what past people in <Speech_Male> the <SpeakerChange> Don. <Speech_Female> I just don't know the answer <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> to the problem <Speech_Female> for Roberts <Speech_Female> on the precedent question <Silence> is that their presence <Speech_Female> both ways <Speech_Female> right there really. Isn't <Speech_Female> anything binding politically <Speech_Female> binding legally <Speech_Female> or or so <Speech_Female> forth on him. That <Speech_Female> two point two <Speech_Female> so <Speech_Female> one question is whether <Speech_Female> he's <Speech_Female> still in sometimes <Speech_Female> we think he does. <Speech_Female> I mean most recently <Speech_Female> gave some speech and he said look <Speech_Female> the <Speech_Female> courts not <Speech_Female> partisan and we should <Speech_Female> think about the court in partisan <Speech_Female> terms. Well <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> sometimes <Speech_Female> cheese <Speech_Female> we infer <Speech_Female> partisanship and <Speech_Female> and policy <Speech_Female> agendas from the <Speech_Female> chiefs behavior and sometimes <Speech_Female> yeah <Speech_Female> the <Speech_Female> affordable care act vote. <Speech_Female> He clearly seemed <Speech_Female> care about building. A broad <Speech_Female> coalition <SpeakerChange> and <Speech_Female> not being the <Speech_Female> the institution <Speech_Female> that upset <SpeakerChange> the <Speech_Female> the the policy <Speech_Female> status quo. <Speech_Female> So which <Speech_Female> John Roberts is going to <Speech_Female> show up at that <Speech_Female> trial <Speech_Female> could depend as <Speech_Female> you said on the <Speech_Female> the impact of particular <Speech_Female> rulings at a <Speech_Female> time. <Speech_Female> tie-breaking vote of his <Speech_Female> would have <Speech_Female> could be <Speech_Female> doesn't WanNa make himself the story <Speech_Female> but it could <Speech_Female> be. He sees an opportunity <Speech_Female> to plant. Elliot <Speech_Female> straight down the line <Speech_Female> which <Speech_Female> you know. <Speech_Female> Sometimes <Speech_Female> he's got a record of <Speech_Female> having done that so <Speech_Female> I <Speech_Female> think that's why it's difficult <Speech_Female> to game out. <Speech_Female> How the chief? We'll we'll <Speech_Female> see his <SpeakerChange> role <Speech_Male> in these particular <Speech_Male> instances so <Speech_Male> Do you have <Speech_Male> any closing insights <Speech_Male> that you'd like <Speech_Male> Rubicon listeners. <Speech_Male> To hear before <Speech_Male> a <Speech_Male> cut you loose and <Speech_Male> we await the <Speech_Male> start <SpeakerChange> of this trial <Speech_Female> in the coming days. Well <Speech_Female> it just think <Speech_Female> it. I guess <Speech_Female> I'd leave with two <Speech_Female> thoughts. The <Speech_Female> point that there are a <Speech_Female> lot of procedural hypotheticals <Speech_Female> that that <Speech_Female> could happen <Speech_Female> but <Speech_Female> politically. <Speech_Female> It's in the hands <Speech_Female> of a simple majority <Speech_Female> the Senate and <Speech_Female> I think to some degree. <Speech_Female> We're just <Speech_Female> not used <Speech_Female> to seeing majorities <Speech_Female> the Senate <Speech_Female> partisan majorities <Speech_Female> in <SpeakerChange> the Senate. <Speech_Female> Having to take responsibility <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> for the votes <Speech_Female> they cast because typically <Speech_Female> they duck behind <Speech_Female> super majorities. <Speech_Female> We could do it good. <Speech_Female> It's the other <Speech_Female> party's fault. <Speech_Female> Well <Speech_Female> we'll know who <Speech_Female> to hold accountable <Speech_Female> here this time <Speech_Female> which is somewhat rare <Speech_Female> in the Senate not <Speech_Female> least because they don't do <Speech_Female> anything in the fitted <Speech_Female> anymore <Speech_Female> so for US <Speech_Female> Congress <Speech_Female> watchers. <Speech_Female> Who've Kinda decry <Speech_Female> the fact that the <Speech_Female> Senate is the <Speech_Female> senators don't seem to want <Speech_Female> to be there or <Speech_Female> no one wants to run for I <Speech_Female> know wants to be there <Speech_Music_Female> This <Speech_Music_Female> sort of <SpeakerChange> the spotlight <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> is on them. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> And <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> that's it for this week <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> by next week. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Maybe even before <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> you've listened to this mm-hmm <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> we hope to <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> know what Nancy <SpeakerChange> Pelosi <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> chose to do with the <Speech_Music_Male> articles of impeachment. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Send them to <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the Senate <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> keep them on her desk. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Hold them <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> all the house. Subpoenas John <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Bolton incision <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> will <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> determine when the trial <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> begins and thus <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> what next <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> week's episode will be about. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> This <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> show is produced by crooked <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> media <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> it's written and hosted by me <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Brian. Boiler <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Steven Hoffman <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> is our editor and producer. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> If you <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> enjoyed this episode <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> please subscribe rate <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and review US <SpeakerChange> wherever you <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> get your podcasts <Music>
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"The story story of the impeachment as as we sit in it will conceptually it makes the this question for the Senate trial of weather? And when Howard whether to call witnesses it removes it from this. Realm of abstraction to there's John Bolton right and he's ready to go and this isn't this longer hypothetical but that at least so so long as McConnell leader has fifty one votes behind him to think he can defer the question of calling witnesses is then even with a live John Bolton Sam I'm here I'm ready. SPINNEY IT undercuts right. The ability of Pelosi try to use that as leverage keeping. Yeah Mine. She's still holding onto the article. And I mean maybe this is a question posed a constitutional lawyer or whatever but having said you know in his statement. I've weighed The competing you know commands on me. And and I if if I have a subpoena from the Senate Command from the White House to defy. I'm going to honor the subpoena having said that if if House Democrats now want to go to court uh-huh and say to a judge. Tell him to testify in the House. I mean they're gonNA have a very strong argument. It it would it. Would it would Extend You you know. Trump's agony about not getting this acquittal. Vote quickly and seems to me like you would maximize the chances that you actually get John. Bolton's testimony because otherwise you're kind of leaving up to fifty one republicans to decide whether anyone else will testify right. Yeah absolutely but I don't get the sense sense that there's a house democratic appetite for re-opening What Nancy Pelosi Democrats soda with impeachment. Last last month I don't like again we're in the well of legally constitutionally politically may be possible but I don't see the appetite on the Democrat side ride for reopening their investigation which in essence is what that would do although certainly in legal terms. I thought the idea that an individual's the the one to decide which is the hell subpoenas. Seems like Topsy Turvy. Bolton is you know say what you will about him and he's a controversial guy but he he's. He's a smart lawyer. Earlier he presumably would have some argument to make that that things are different in the house and the Senate. I don't know I just. I agree with you that the appetite is there air in the house to do more enquiring more of the impeachment inquiry. I just don't totally understand why. Yeah I I think it's a bit of a well. Let's let's put it this way again. Expect Pelosi to prolong it by keeping the articles. But I do think she. She still has a commitment to her her majority makers those Democrats in swing districts with whom without whom she cannot keep majority in twenty twenty twenty. I think there's implicitly if not explicitly a commitment to them to say look. We're GONNA stay focused on the issues that are gonna get you reelected and reopening the impeachment investigation investigation or really the investigation. Generally just it doesn't seem to be on the top of their list of priorities. Now perhaps that changes but I I don't get the sense that that's where they're headed. Okay so eventually the trial will begin. We think and it's shaping up to pit Republicans who want to conceal and seal information has already come out against Democrats who kind of want it all to come out and you know Mitch. McConnell hasn't even really been shy about saying that he's not a partial jury. He he wants to get this in and out of the Senate's quickly possible. He claims he's gathered fifty one votes to begin the trial but put off questions about witnesses and documents for future votes. So what does the resolution of the standoff look like from a procedural point of view Is going to be one vote in the future on whether to shut. Shut down the fact finding purpose of the trial or will be a series of votes how our viewers at home supposed to interpret what they're watching on. TV relative to this question of new information. So here's what we know and what we we don't know so. There is a set of Senate impeachment rules on the books and that McConnell has committed to the following because he can set aside whether or not he could get rid of them. But he's GonNa follow this set of inherited Rules now those are pretty bare bones. Own Own they tell us things about motions and who has rights. Procedure writes in appeals. And the the things the oaths people take but it doesn't have doesn't flush out of trial so meaning being. It doesn't tell us how long the managers have how long the presence lawyers have to defend what are the order in which we take particularly different types of motions. So this is what McConnell has been saying. I have fifty one votes for a set of procedures to elaborate the at least the opening sequence of events in the trial and of course. That's what the Democrats have tried to narrow in on which say let's make this a fair trial Let's hear from witnesses. who were blocked in the house and so forth? So what does McConnell have in mind here for this open resolution well I it would be a resolution that would have to be approved by a majority as he said. I I have fifty one. He has said what's fair is fair. Let's use that opening resolution from the Clinton impeachment trial twenty years ago and let's use it. Roughly he said for this impeachment trial so devils in the details here we can pull up an open. The first resolution that was the supplemental amount of rules for Clinton in one thousand nine and we can know what they said but the question is are they going to follow that to a T.. So a certain number of days and hours for each side to present and then this is what they voted on and nineteen ninety nine. There will be a motion to dismiss and then also on that original agreement emotion. Shall we call witnesses in the abstract. Basically so that's that in essence seems to be what McConnell connel's saying I have fifty one votes for but we don't know for sure but but it matters right. Is there a motion to dismiss locked in right and and will there be any republicans who are willing to vote with the Democrats not to dismiss the trial right which will be within a week or two probably depending on how this plays out. I don't hear a lot of talk about that. But in that's why presumably impart why McConnell has told Speaker Pelosi I'm not showing my resolution apparently the connell if we believe the stories yesterday stole the White House so I'm not showing you my resolution so we need to see what's in there and we need to see it in part to know. How does that trial play out? Procedurally now having said that the barebones own Senate Rules do allow any senator to really offer a pretty wide range of motions in writing. Send it up to the chief not to Mitch McConnell but to send to the chief who then reads the motion in can rule on it or allow the Senate to rule so damn could call for a witness long before we get right in the middle all of the presentation. So and then. That's the uncertainty. Here will their votes on calling witnesses even before the call has said he wants to have those so so I want to get to to the chief justice's role in this In a minute Before that though you know we set aside questions of whether this investigation is inquiry is analogous enough to the Clinton impeachment to merit using the same rules But if McConnell is committing to something along the lines of the Clinton impeachment process yes there'd be a a vote on a motion to dismiss but if if that motion fails there were witnesses called at at that stage of the Clinton impeachment is. He not locking himself into a situation where he's going to have to say. Oh well now we have to. We have to veer off the Clinton Process for whatever reason he needs to come up with to avoid. Oh you for sure. He's not committed to them. Self anyways not said he all his all his said for his own purposes. Here is well last question. We're going to defer to later. And the Clinton trial they did another resolution was a partisan version that couldn't get Democrats onboard for it but that laid out a very limited depositions of of three witnesses so those questions yet to be determined But it's entirely possible. We'll see those votes occurring during even before McConnell in essence of what I what I think I'm hearing from you is that there is no way for McConnell acting on trump's behalf or whoever's behalf to guarantee not that the trial surfaces new facts without making fifty one of his members vote to say you know John Bolton thanks but no thanks will will they would need to fifty one is everything right. He can't he can't he. Can't deter a vote on an early vote on a motion call a witness unless he's fifty one to shut it down so on the one hand right we're not really used to simple majority Senate's right right. We all say cough was just fifty one yards could do whatever they wanted but holding together those fifty one. He he may be able to do it. But I think there'll be a little dicey when it gets to particular questions About particular witnesses so I see this batted around. Democrats need four votes. If they I wanNA have a fair trial. McConnell can lose two and he gets fifty one what happens if three Republicans but with Democrats on these on these procedural questions witnesses and documents and we get a fifty fifty tie so I just assimilate this democrats stay together and they will seems reasonable especially on the witness questions. Joe Manchin is the was the sort of wild card and he was like. How can I have a trial without exactly exactly so fifty fifty so there are two issues here one of which is the chief but will come come to the chief second the first issue? What exactly is the motion right? Because because it's a motion to dismiss and it's fifty fifty that stalemate and stalemate vote loses so three defections on some types of votes this is a losing position for the Republicans a fifty fifty on a on a motion to dismiss. The motion fails sales. If it's left in John Roberts cannot. Aw this is the first edition so the first conditions it matters if the motion is calling witnesses depends on. Who wants who? Who which side is looking looking for fifty one so the first issue? What exactly is is the motion at play here? The second issue then is if it's a tie. Hi What does chief justice do as presiding officer in this is somewhere between. What's what's politically possible? What's in the chief justice's Head and then what's technically legally president here so we have episodes from the Johnson impeachment trial the nineteenth century where they were to opportunities where the chief justice is decided to vote to break a tie and after each one there was a senate motion to prevent the presiding officer or the chief from breaking ties in both of those failed. However the chief got the message we think in the next two opportunities back in the eighteen sixties? He didn't break ties he would he would strain with help. So there's no well there's no yes or no here they're right. He could decide whether or not he's going to break the tie dye. Can we divine anything precedential about those. Those two votes and Salmon Chase was the name of the right of the chief justice way back in the eighteen hundreds when he voted to break the tie was in furtherance of what we kind of conceive of as like moving the Senate trial closer towards what we imagine a courtroom trial be like was more partisan than that what it was his So that's a good question. Which would require me to bury renos back in the peach record to figure out what it what exactly they were? I don't believe they were as quite consequential as some of the potential titles that we're talking about here but I need to go back and figure out what precisely those were but the the question here is for Robert urge sent a lot of people trying to discern what will be his his incentive or his motives are his goals as presiding officer. And I think the answer is as we probably don't know yeah I I'll be responsible and just game out the okay. I mean He. I imagined he'll feel cross pressured. Because if if he's thinking about how his actions will reflect on the Supreme Court He's GonNa WanNa go with public opinion. which is I think? Clearly on the Democrat side in these is fair trial questions but he's also conservative and a Republican and it's no secret how his old party wants this all work out in the end So that's why I asked about past Intrusions by the Supreme Court justice and impeachments because if the idea is is that when the Supreme Court chief justice intervenes in an impeachment trial He does it to advance the cause of public information Then Robert's can just point to that and save precedent Kinda binds me here..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Need I mean what sort of What sort of technique are you envisioning? Are you talking about official stuff. I was just hoping you had an answer. Because because for me the the advantage the edge of this idea of holding onto the articles has nothing to do with holding onto him. If you hold onto them long enough Mitch. McConnell would be thrilled he doesn't have to. I don't have to take tough votes. You need to get the articles over eventually. I I worry about the The information environment in general but particularly at a time when people are tuned out because of the holiday and so I could see uh or real advantage in creating the expectation that you're going to have a trial in early January and then you know house. Democratic leaders say Republicans are insisting that they're going to help trump completed cover up and we're not going to send these articles Over until you know until the whole world watching sees that's what they're trying to do probably Mitch McConnell doesn't care and he gets his fifty one votes for the cover up anyway but then at least you've commandeered the You know the the bully pulpit and you've made clear that that's what's happening so that every Republican votes for the cover-up has to pay the price for it. That's the best I can think of but advertising could be a part of the mix Getting the Democratic Radic presidential candidates involved could be part of a mix mass politics can be part of a mix. I mean there were. There were nationwide impeachment rallies on Tuesday night There should be more in bigger ones Particularly around these key votes where Republicans are going to try to short circuit the trial. I mean that's where that's where I would try to take things if I were in charge of a broad left response to impeach man a- and the thing is on the advertising front in particular it's just baffling that. There's not a much more concerted and targeted advertising effort on this stuff. They should be hammering the shit out of these four or five senators right now. I mean it should have been going on for for weeks. Yeah right yeah I mean look at. This is not an easy situation for Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and and and Thom Tillis and Martha mcsally and then of of course you've got the ones that are actually sort of trying to adopt a principled independence from trump like Romney and I don't know if you would go at them I think that backfires Right and it gives them one of the complications to this. That I've I've heard Democrats talk about is and this is sort of an interesting thing to try and debate and figure out. I don't I don't really have a position on it. Yeah but sometimes if the attacks are to direct it gives them away and it. It almost gives like some of the senators. That are kind of on the knife's research easier way out. It's like when when John McCain voted against repealing the affordable care act it. There was this moment in the in the well. Well of the Senate where where a bunch of Democrats wanted to to applaud or just take a victory lap or whatever before before it was is all said and done and Chuck Schumer Shush them. Because right because you know. I don't agree with every strategic decision. Chuck Schumer's ever made but I think he's so wisely. Then that if you gloat when the when the deciding vote hangs in the balance and and you know John McCain and what the fuck does he care like. Don't do that you know in certain in certain cases You know a direct aggressive attack is not necessarily always the best. But I'm I'm thinking less about how you micro target each individual center and more how you tell America that a vote to acquit without any witnesses equals cover up and I. I can see the ways that I listed but if if there or any other if there are any other ideas I want the people listening to hear them I will I frankly feel a little bit A little bit hopeless about this aspect of it. I think that there's not any kind of meaningful way of pressuring the Senate At this point maybe maybe just making those marginals a little uncomfortable rebel but to me like I just hate to return to this but I think the big picture is what happens after this process. I mean I know that's not exactly satisfying but look. Here's the bottom line right. We've always known that this is going to come down to an election right and right and what's going to matter as weather progressive. Democrats mobilize properly no one really interesting thing. I was talking to the Democratic Sharon Wisconsin and they are cheaper focused right now on knocking on doors in Milwaukee right to them. That's the ballgame knocking on doors in Milwaukee and making connections in rural Wisconsin to keep the margins down for trump. And Right now. Oh that's all they're really thinking about. And so you know. I don't know I hate to say this but all we can do is just make our case. I mean this. A lot of this goes back to the problem that you raised earlier. which is that our gatekeepers are screwed up right? The media gatekeepers of the ones. It's not as one Chuck Schumer. Shush Chesa Shusha's down the partisans on his side in order to create space for the McCain's of the world to do the right thing right the things that actually actually gets them to do the right thing are the gatekeepers and if it again this of course goes back to your original challenge. How do you get the gate for two right? Yeah it's it's a bit of a message right I by the way there's one thing we haven't talked about which I think is really important. It's all these spin off investigations. The Gatien's that are going on right now in the southern district and so forth. Yeah I think that's part of it too is like you. Ideally leave the impeachment inquiry open. You promised to keep it aggressive. You do advertising you micro target the individual senators but you create a the climate of fear among Among Vulnerable Senate Republicans that they don't know what they're voting to cover up and And Yeah I think that's a big part of yeah That's sort of like what I would like to see. The broader Democratic Party Democratic Democratic affiliated brain trust thinking about because otherwise you have this situation where You know the process draws to a close and then maybe there's a cacophony of developments down the line and it's not all part of one story where Republicans covered up trump's crimes only to have the cover-up collapsed on them and now now their votes to quit him. are exposed as a cover up of these things that we've right and the thing about that is that that is actually a message that individual members and senators can carry very effectively. It's not something that maybe you would use pay. Dad's Ed's It's not quite clear how you would say you know Susan Collins had better watch out about what's going to emerge later right but that is really a point that I think senators and House members can make very forcefully and interviews. Not something they should say as often as possible right. I mean to to to draw the affordable care. Act back in the discussion discussion Rivera. Remember when in the last days when they were about to take the final vote on it. Mitch McConnell who was minority leader at the time. What like you gave a press conference where he made sure to strike a very ominous tone? Democrats think that they can put this behind them with by taking this final vote and yeah I just want to be very clear that this is all in front of them. They're gonNA take this threat in. Every every Republican running in the United States is going to remind nine voters. What happened When Democrats pass this bill and and and and a similar sort of like forward-looking messaging it didn't stop the affordable care? Act from from passing right and it might not stop trump from being removed from from office. Certainly won't but it but it would sort of channel the way the news media and voters who are very engaged. Think about everything that happens right and that actually. There's a way to do that. That I think supports your earlier. Point about keeping Democrats on much more institute a On a much more of an institutional war footing in the house right What they should be saying to put those two things together is you may vote? You may run a sham trial now which you hear from no witnesses but let me be clear we are going to get those witnesses. We're going to hear from those witnesses Mrs. We're GONNA fight in court until we hear from them. We're GONNA fight in court until we get his tax returns an and his finances and then what we're going to say is here's what you cover it up right. So I think the aggressive institutional war-footing it forms the underpinning of that kind of message that is the hopeful. Note that I think we we should end on it and I hope that Influential people in the Democratic Party are listening and they follow They Do as Greg just he said Greg Sargent thanks for joining us. Thanks Brian that's it. For this week I won't be back until the New Year but in the meantime I'd encourage everyone listening to keep in mind. How straightforward weird things? Look when you peel away. All the layers of obfuscation trump has been impeached for extorting vulnerable foreign government to interfere in the twenty twenty election on his behalf. The evidence that he's guilty is overwhelming and until he became president. Nobody would have disputed. The what he did is an impeachable offense. There are people out there closer to the president who have even more evidence but trump has ordered them not to testify and they have complied with his order. If their testimony were exculpatory skull Tori Republicans would be desperate to put them on the witness stand. Instead they're desperate to keep that information from ever coming to light that makes them accomplices. That's it that's the story. Tell your friends tell your family and if you representatives or new sources tell you otherwise. Tell them they're using their power to spread lies and that you won't forget. This show is produced by crooked media. It's written and hosted by me Brian. Boiler Steven Hoffman is our producer and editor. If you enjoyed this episode please subscribe rate and review US wherever you get your podcasts..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Greg Sargent thanks for coming back on the show. Thanks for having me on Brian. So by the time people listened to this episode. Donald Trump will be impeached beached He will probably be very upset about it But because of the holidays will be in this kind of little phase where the process is still underway. But nothing's is happening If you're vulnerable Senate Republican are you happy about the pause or would you rather get it over with sooner rather than later. Well I think a lot depends on how the break goes right. I mean if they start catching hell in their in their states about from constituents who are who are angry about the potential for a sham. I am process Sham trial. Then I think that they hate to have to wait. I mean it's GonNa be on democratic groups and pro rule of law groups to kick up a lot of fuss during that period and get some pressure on them along those lines. Those of us who supported impeachment from the outset have made the argument that there's this value in doing it even if Republicans are going to make sure that trump's days in office Because the process the forcing Republicans in the House and Senate to take votes it all those votes essentially constitute them his corruption their own. How do you think that proposition looks today? Well I think it looks really good and you can see that very clearly in precisely what Mitch McConnell is doing to try and turn this trial Ryland to a very quick little. Donald Trump was out there and I don't really think we should place much stock in this. But he was out there saying oh I want to turn this into a AH a festival of of baying for Hunter. Biden's head on a platter and Mitch McConnell Essentially shut that down pretty quick and said no and I think as you wrote somewhere Mitch McConnell was saving trump from himself. And doing this as well as saving his own marginal members from long drawn out trial. Point being though that Mitch Inch Mitch. McConnell understands as well as anyone else does that the more facts that are brought into evidence the worse it is for the marginal Republican senators and tough places like Susan Susan Collins and main Martha mcsally and errors in Arizona and so forth. I had direct experience of that earlier this week. I was able to get The video of Susan Collins in Nineteen Ninety nine during the Bill Clinton impeachment trial calling for more witnesses and evidence. I am willing to travel. The road owed wherever it leads whether it's to the conviction or the acquittal of the president but in order to do that I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination to get to the truth and I was surprised that they got back to me. Pretty quick with a quote from Senator herself saying I haven't made the decision on the witness issue in this particular case now. This is only a process question. You'd think thank right but it's a tough process question. Do you want to vote for the cover up or do you want to vote for transparency and truth and The fact that Susan Collins this is struggling with this I think shows that even just going through the motions is tough for them. Yeah I mean it's there's you know multiple all steps here right there's Probably going to be some sort of resolution to establish the ground rules of the trial and then at some point votes on witnesses and then the vote vote on whether to acquit or convict. And it's obviously Mitch McConnell's goal to make sure that the Republicans vote to convict and ideally the Republicans ever have to vote for any witnesses at all so that just that means he's going to try to around fifty one votes to basically basically dismissed the charges Before you even get to place where house. Impeach managers can request or demand Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton testify before the Senate every phase of that process the the cost to Republicans I think becomes higher her but that just means that at the at the early phase you know. Are we going to. Are we going to have a fair trial at all Mitch. McConnell can lose two or three senators give them a free free pass to say I want to hear from witnesses but if you get fifty one votes to dismiss they can say look. I tried tried to vote for A process where Where we heard from witnesses? My colleagues disagreed. So now I have to vote With what we have before us from from the articles articles of impeachment in the presentation of them by by the managers. And I don't think there's enough there to convict so I quit. And thus every Republican Senator Votes votes to acquit. And I. I don't think that that's like a highly unlikely outcome And I guess it just it gets to. It gets to my thinking about like like what more Democrats could do. I obviously votes to cover up Trump's crimes you know say no to any witness testimony are going to be bad for whichever vulnerable. Republicans have to take those votes but you know should Democrats have. I've been beating the drum starting in September that that Republicans need to be committing to a fair trial now should Democrats be withholding unrelated legislation education. Like the Defense Authorization Act or the The NAFTA UPDATE and just saying we're not going to play ball with you on on other things if what you're going to do is complete the cover up. Trump is asking you. Well I just want to return to something you said earlier about the scenario a scenario ruin which Mitch McConnell. Let's to two or so of the marginal senators Make fake noises about wanting a real trial and then still oh passing a quick Acquittal with fifty one or passing the initial steps to the acquittal by essentially getting past the process stuff with fifty one votes I think the calculation there becomes complicated for them right because even if they do that even if Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and Martha mcsally or whichever three you pick are allowed to to sort of make their fake noises. If the whole thing is a sham. It's still bad for Senate Republican. That's true right now. The the because I mean in this era of nationalized voting right everything turns on the national narrative and one really interesting thing will to track will be whether they're those marginal senators privately go to McConnell and say we really need a real We need a real proceeding at least something more or than just a quick fifty one vote now right and if that happens of course then they run more risks in addition right. That's that's really the spot they're in so I mean I guess the in terms of messaging it seems like the thing that Democrats can do that could be most effective. Active is just to continue to spotlight the facts right. I mean look how quickly the debate shifted when Schumer just sent that one letter now. I think there's an argument that that shows. They should have been doing it more more aggressively earlier but it just goes to show you that just one. There's if there's one thing that the press can get right on this stuff it's a cover up or not cover. I'm right right do house. Democrats have any substantive role to play with their own powers Going going forward now that they've passed the articles so I think there's all this talk about them holding onto the impeachment and not sending it over one thing one reason I'm a little skeptical optical of that and I'm happy to be told I'm wrong about this you know there's been a lot of criticism of leadership for doing it too quickly for doing it. Too narrowly and so forth. I was for for a broader impeachment. I would've been happy to have a little longer or somewhat longer but I really wonder whether there's a genuine risk of some of these moderate starting to drop off off if it if it drags on right now. I don't know what happens from the point of view of those moderate members. If you pass the articles through the House the impeachments done and then you hold it. I suspect that they'd still not like that right. Because what they want is for took pushed over to the Senate I mean they want the hot potato out of their exact hands. But I'm going to switch metaphors. There's no such thing as half pregnant with impeachment Schmidt right you can't vote for the resolution that sets the rules of impeachment And then learn all this horrible stuff and then vote against impeachment. Which is why you know you? You have a basically unanimous democratic caucus voting for the articles of impeachment. Having voted for them. If more bad news comes to light about trump nick more evidence that he committed further impeachable offenses comes too late. You don't get to you. Don't save yourself anything by ignoring them. You've already voted for the impeachment. If you're scared the the voters in your district are going to be mad at you for that. It's that that ship has sailed it's overwrite so there's an argument that I think leadership should make to them though like we should press what we have to our fullest advantage and if that means is Holding more hearings damage trump. That's good for all democrats If that means You know holding the articles impeachment in order to make a stink about About the fact that the Senate majority leader has already announced. He wants to read the trial. That's all all to the better like the the the hard part is over the you know they are already You know going to be Identified in ads ads or whatever and Republican campaigns in the fall has members who voted to impeach trump. It's already happened so it reminds me in a weird way of back when Congress was debating the affordable care act and in Democrats were agonizing over whether they should do a public option or not or a national exchange versus a state based health insurance exchange and it was just so beside. The point is like it's obamacare either. You're going to vote for Obamacare or against it so stop agonizing over the little details If you decided that you need to vote for this because it's the right thing to do but you're scared about the political consequences down the line. The picayune details details aren't GonNa be what what causes you problem. It's going to be the vote. Will the votes done. So now. Just you know. Make the most of it That's sort of how I see it I I guess. I'm curious for your thoughts on that. Well I just want to try and step back and and raise a bigger point about all of this. I think we're almost pinning too much on some of this process stuff we know he's getting acquitted. Right we know that's going to happen. Okay we would like there to be a trial that's real. I think we don't know whether even if that happened. How much we would get from Bolton and Mulvaney although I would love to see it tried right so I don't? I don't know that that we can actually expect too much of a range of options at the end of this chapter right here right to me what I think really matters. There's more as what happens after the impeachment on the equival. Right if the Democrats continue to prosecute this stuff in court if they try to you know get testimony from people. Oh and by the way to go back to the point you raised before the possibility of other things breaking. You know. There's this I think there's a sort of illusion out there that this ends with trump's trump's acquittal right it doesn't I mean all these Republicans who vote no on the articles in the House and all the Republicans who vote to acquit. The Senate and. I think it's almost certainly going to be near unanimous in both right. Yeah what really is going to end up mattering over the long. Longterm is what comes out after and I think there's a extremely good chance we're GONNA get incredibly big revelations down the line that are at least as bad as the ones we already know the trial unless something unexpected happens and who knows maybe by the time you listen to this We'll be in a very different place but the trials probably going to start Artan early January. So we're talking a couple of weeks to To communicate to as much of the country as possible that Senate Republicans are going to try to short circuit witness testimony to complete a cover up for Donald Trump. How do you get the message out there? If you're the Democratic Party you know everyone's going to scatter the four To the four winds in and people are going to be with their families on Christmas and new years. And how do you. How out of you before before Mitch? McConnell manages to get that vote done. How do you get the word out in this environment on the short timeframe well? I don't really have an answer to that and I don't think anybody does right. I mean the information environment is really screwed up right now unless you're running official proceedings. You can't really get the sort of punch that you need..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"We need to show that they can get things done in Washington but if you if you if you draw the like that like the fallacy is pretty obvious there right okay. So why don't they just pass everything that Donald Trump wants. It'll prove that they can get things done. Of course that means Donald Trump will become more popular and suddenly their ability to hold on to their districts. Democrats ability to hold the House Democrats ability to beat trump in the election and starts deteriorating right so like at some level down to how much of an emergency do you think we're in right and the frustration. Is that Pelosi and some of these other Democrats crats are not treating this like it's sufficient emergency right. It's an it is to my mind and emergency that overrides. All other policy goals right. We have eleven eleven months to decide whether we're going to continue to be a liberal democracy or not and whether or not you got a better deal in prescription drug prices the prescription drug prices are really important. But they're actually not as important as that. Yeah so I I actually think about this in almost the exact same way is that if Democrats rats are going to like cut if they're going to quote cut deals with trump They really ought to be a one shot deal. You're not gonNA have a second. The second chance to to get this done. That really advanced the ball on some progressive goal and They should also be issues issues. Sort of code as a Democratic Party issues so like I traced out a hypothetical that if trump were willing to pair a big minimum wage hike. Fifteen dollars minimum wage. Whatever in order to get this trade deal done like I'd probably get there? I think that that ends. You know you you get so much out of it that it might be worth it. And it's clear that trump gave some to get some and so it's not just a a straight victory for him but if you don't have that kind of You know situation at hand If the benefits are marginal or if you think that future Democratic president can do as well or better than you just don't do it right like this is not cutting the same trade deal with Mitt Romney it would be totally unremarkable of Democrats. were making this deal with Mitt Romney But in a world with democracy under threat and the US president is the single biggest part of that threat then handing him easily spun on victories. That validate key parts of his message. Seems like such an obvious mistake that I'm kind of stunned and I WANNA go back to this idea of despair that I was talking about about earlier because you know it's it's obviously not just me right. I mean I wrote this thing because I had this sort of ambien sense that it was happening The reaction to it was has got a ton of feedback from other people who are feeling the same thing. Recently I started reaching out to therapists to talk to them about what their patients are saying about trump I lasted this in the run up to the election I started talking to therapists about patients who had a lot of anxiety that trump would win the election. It's kind of heartbreaking. Because one way that they helped them manage that anxiety was to help them. See how unlikely that possibility was. She's obviously not possible anymore. Right so I've been talking to therapists pissed. You know in in blue parts of the country but who say that trump comes up in almost for some of them. Trump comes up in almost every session right and and I was just talking to somebody this morning. Who was telling me that She feels like people have moved from the state of hyper Hyper vigilance to a state of despair and that despair is I mean. It's dangerous for them but it's dangerous for all of us. We cannot ah go into election with are people feeling that By the way she was saying that some of the people that she treats they're having the hardest time with what's happening are are Holocaust survivors. And so I think that our people the people who are going to hopefully have a chance to save democracy In eleven months. They need to feel like they have a champion. They need to feel like there's somebody who recognizes the scale of the emergency who recognizes is. How terrified they are and who can stand up for them and inasmuch as we have everybody focused on this little tiny demographic slivers hours of these front-line districts? I don't think we have that and I think it's it's really really dangerous before wrapping it up. I did want to talk to little bit about the trial. What you anticipate it looking like stipulating that Sitting here we don't think that there's anywhere close to twenty the republican votes to remove him. What do you think it looks like? Are you concerned about these murmurings among moderate Democrats. They might prefer censure rather than impeachment. Of course I'm concerned terrified and I mean it's it's it's so self defeating it makes it makes my head want to explode. I mean I cannot fathom why they think that kind of getting to this point and then let essentially leading donald trump off the hook would be You know an a good idea not just for a good for the country but ultimately a good idea for them but the other thing that concerns me about the Senate trial With Bill Clinton's Senate trial. I think there was three witnesses called. I would be surprised if there's even that many I mean from what I've read there's you know there's trump who wants to turn it into a big circus and try to call hundred Biden and try to call all these other people in some sense. I feel like that would be the better situation for Democrats. Go find you call Hunter Biden but we're also calling Rudolph Giuliani and we're also calling. You know life partners and all these other figures a trial in which kind of nobody's but he's called and it's just kind of a bunch of Senate floor speeches seems really anticlimactic all right. Let's leave it there. Michelle Goldberg. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. That's it for this week. By next week's episode. The impeachment of Donald Trump should be complete and we will be awaiting the trial of Donald Donald Trump in the United States senate. That trial probably won't begin until January But that doesn't mean everything will be on hold until then there's another transcript out there. The Democrats want to see this one between Ukrainian President Vladimir's Alinsky and vice president. Mike pence so the chase is on for that will also likely learn whether and when the supreme cream court will hear arguments over president. Trump's challenges to all these subpoenas of his financial records and one silver lining of a narrow impeachment investigation.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Some of you on this committee appear to believe Russia and its security services did not conduct campaign against our country and that perhaps Somehow for some reason you credit. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by Russian security services themselves. And there's a story about impeachment that goes like this. Democrats moved to impeach Donald Trump two months ago because unlike the Russia scandal the Ukraine scandal is simple easy for the public to understand if you've heard that story before you may have heard this one that actually there are no distinct Russia and Ukraine scandals. There's just one scandal through two weeks of impeachment hearings. We learned a lot about the Ukraine backstory. The hoops president trump and his subordinates jumped through before he hopped on the phone with his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelinski. And said. I would like you to do us a favor though but what the hearings left fairly murky is how and when trump came to view the allied government of Ukraine as a target for and partner in corruption. It's not as though trump had a normal relationship with Ukraine before he became nervous about the twenty twenty election and then pick Zelinski is name out of a hat to understand how we got here. We have to go back to the beginning long before Donald Trump became president. You were reportedly the closest political geyser American Political Adviser to victory on a coach of Ukraine. Frayne who is a close ally Vladimir Putin Russia. If you're listening I hope you're able to find the thirty thousand emails that are missing being. There's been some controversy about something in the Republican Party Platform. That essentially changed. The Republican Party's views when it comes to I Ukraine. How much influence did you have on changing that language? Sir I had none in fact I didn't even hear of it until after I convention was over. Where did it come from then because everybody on the platform committee had said it came from the trump campaign if not you and frankly that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama the people of Crimea me up from what I've heard would rather be with Russia than where they were? Let's talk about this new reporting from the New York Times this morning about Paul Manafort and his dealings in The Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych. He was a consultant for Victor Yanukovych and apparently the times and investigators have gone back and found these handwritten ledgers breaking news. Here more changes at the very top of the trump campaign. I'm told that this morning. His Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort offered and Donald Trump accepted his resignation. Paul Manafort joined the trump campaign in March of twenty sixteen around the time. The campaign came came to learn that Russia intended to leak dirt had stolen from Democrats at the time. Manafort was deeply in debt to a modeling Russian billionaire named Oleg Der Pasta and yet he agreed to work for trump pro bono. By that point trump had already made a big bazaar showing his admiration for Vladimir Putin but Manafort's unexpected arrival on the scene brought someone who had been at the center of the struggle between Russia and the West over the future of Ukraine into the heart of the trump operation seven and he was firmly on Russia's side between trump's deference to Putin and Manafort's lasting influence trump's relationship with Ukraine crane has never really been on the level last year. The Ukrainian government froze all of its ongoing investigations of manafort including its cooperation. With special counsel. Counsel Robert Muller in an Echo of the current extortion scandal Ukraine took that action just as the US finalized the sale of Javelin missiles to strengthen Ukraine's hand in. It's hot war with Russia. The country's president time was pets report. SHANECO who was once a client of you guessed it Paul Manafort and pour a Shaneco who's going to manufacture dirt on trump's political enemies until he unexpectedly lost the presidency to an anti corruption. Political reformer named Vladimir's Alinsky Alinsky or consider the Russian conspiracy theories that Rudy Giuliani pedaled on trump's behalf about the Biden's and Ukrainian interference in the two thousand sixteen election election. The became the subject of the trump Zielinski call on July twenty fifth. Giuliani pluck those from Russian aligned. Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitri for Tush. who was once business partners with again Paul Manafort and where did for Tosh get those conspiracy theories we'll probably from any number of places but the vector who imported that disinformation into the United States needs no introduction metaphors former or deputy Rick Gates has testified that manafort began pushing it starting before the twenty sixteen election? So this question. Why did trump takes such a predatory Oy posture with the new government of Ukraine? The short answer is simple. He wanted to cheat in the election but why pick on Ukraine in the first place that is part of a much longer story. My guest. This week is frank four. He's written extensively about Manafort and Ukraine in the Atlantic Manic. We'll look back at the origins of the Ukraine scandal and how they disappear into a larger story of corruption Russian election interference and the two thousand sixteen election. I'm Brian Butler. And this is Rubicon. frank thanks for being here pleasure So for a while. Now I've thought that the best way to kind of place. The Ukraine scandal in the wider constellation of trump's corruption is to just try to answer the question. How did the Ukraine scandal start? Because when I tried to pinpoint an origin I realized that the DOTS actually extend way into the past and it didn't just begin at random in May of this year when trump I had a freak out about about his standing in the election and having to run against Joe Biden. So how is he as you understand it. Did the Ukraine scandals start so I go back to this core question that critics have always asked about Donald Trump which is is this guy vulnerable to foreign manipulation and and people ask that question because of the wide array of properties that he owned around the world and the way that his business interests were tangled up in places where you authoritarian governments who just weren't abiding by the same sorts standards that that we abide by it. So I think you kind of have to go go back and look at the long history of people from the former Soviet Union trying to manipulate trump in various area sorts of ways and some of the relation is is willing and trump is fully aware of. What's happened a lot of it is subconscious and I think when you have oligarchs from Russia or Ukraine they look at trump and they say oh? This guy is a totally familiar figure. We understand how his mind works. We understand how he can be. He can be influenced and so people were using various channels to try to to sway way Donald Trump. And you know I think the first time. We really started to acutely conceptualize what was happening. I think is with the Manafort Fort Scandal where you said. This guy came from came from Ukraine. He was working for the Pro Russian party. Why was he why did he descended on the trump campaign? But I look all the way through and I see I see you have oligarchs In Ukraine rain who have constantly been trying to figure out. What's the right channel? Is it the campaign chairman. Is it the personal lawyer They're hiring Fox. News commentators as their lawyers are getting columns placed in the hill by by columnist who they can pretty well be sure is going going to end up in Donald Trump's twitter feed and so there's also the sense of they know exactly how to rile him up. It's a look at that Ukraine scandal. You know the the the narrow question that shift is focus on is. was there a quid pro quo. Was He trying to extort Ukrainians wins in order to get dirt on his political opponent. But I look at it and I say if I look at the transcripts now look at the whole narrative of the scandal. I'd say the president was very actively in successfully manipulated by bad actors in this part of the world who who were very very successful in shifting the foreign policy of the United States to suit their aims. I'm glad you put it that way because you listeners. who heard the INTRO Will suspect that I think Paul Manafort is a big part of the origin story of the of Ukraine scandal. And I definitely believe that but there are these episodes is it. Don't quite fit the picture right like after After trump's been elected and MANAFORT's no longer in the in the middle of trump world. There's there's this story about this Ukraine peace plan right that that makes its way to Mike. Flynn who was then the national security adviser but it doesn't come from manafort directly comes uh-huh maybe not for Manafort at all. It comes from Michael Cohen and and Felix Seder. who were You know in league with the same same sort of shady people that you just described but on a sort of a different channel and even I wonder you know and I'm pretty pretty thick and all this like how critical critical Manafort is to the story. Because if you imagined he'd like never worked for trump Trump was still very much in Russia's debt When the election and ended He was singing Putin's praises long before Manafort joined the campaign. He was working on the Moscow. Tower project independently Manafort and and. It seems conceivable to me that we were always going to end up here. Because Russia help trump win and Russia's leverage over trump and so trump was going to side with the store corrupt factions actions in Ukraine rather than the pro-western reformers. No matter what I think. That's I think this would happen absent. Paul Manafort because you you have a lot of people in so I think that the the actually the crucial thing is the development of the relationship between Ukraine in the United States. It's and I'm just GONNA. I think this is a foreign policy story in addition to being a corruption story which is that Russia is a revolution in Ukraine in two thousand fourteen. The PRO Russian government. The Paul Manafort works for gets swept out of power they get replaced by By by a more liberal democratic regime albeit still oligarch kick and the United States starts spending a lot of money protecting Ukraine and that gives us leverage over Ukraine. So you have somebody. He like Ambassador Marie Ivanovich who's in Ukraine. All American ambassadors always wanted Ukraine to behave in a less corrupt sort of way they've always wanted presidents to challenge Ukraine's oligarchy system. But finally we had all this leverage over the government and the government starts taking actions to clean clean itself up and so you got a lot of oligarchs who were suddenly very much on the defensive. Paul Manafort's clients were on the defensive. You've Rudy Giuliani's kind of new clients and the people that he collaborated with in this extortion scheme were suddenly on the defensive and and so they needed to find a way to undermine the US embassy in Kiev and so they see that Donald Trump was a guy who they could manipulate into doing their bidding. They're and they're the way that they were able to entice. Donald trump to their side was to feed him a lot of bogus. This conspiracy theories that he bought into because they were They all adopted the kind of the memes of Donald Trump. They there were arguments about the deep state. They were arguments about how he was. His opponents. Were manipulating things that were arguments about. How Ukraine was the one manipulating the election? Not Russia and so they knew how they knew how to to to to to go him they knew his psyche..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Jurassic. We'll discuss the dots left unconnected by the impeachment been increased so far and what we risked by not connecting them. I'm Brian Butler Quinta Jurassic. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me so I guess. Let's just start with your global assessment of the impeachment process as it stands in specifically what you thought when you read Gordon. Silence is opening statement and then he washed his hearing and all of the revelations that came out of that Schorr. Well I remember seeing someone roads In the morning before silence hearing that it wasn't going to be very notable unless he went full semi the ball. Sammy the bull vulgar. No the famous mafia figure who flips turned on the Mafia gave testimony against them. And I think it's fair to say that he went full Sammy the He really turned on a dime from what he'd said during his testimony which there plenty of questions about that but he was was incredibly damning what he said about the extent to which everyone was in the loop I think was the exact phrase and that really just knocks down defense after defense after defense the Republicans had been road testing. She wrote a piece for the Atlantic earlier. This month about how it's folly. To assume career government officials will save us from the threat the trump and his supporters pose to democracy and the piece itself off is about I about Robert Muller and later about the diplomats Who testified at the first impeachment? Hearings I wonder how Fiona Hill's testimony that that ended search just before we record this fits into your view of that so my argument and the piece was that the first two civil servants who testified instantly kind of became name of online George Kent had the bow tie. Hi Bill Taylor had this great Walter cronkite voice and they sort of came forward as the voices of almost authority from a different time I'm of you know America Apple Pie and that's really appealing right now. In a sort of the bleak period in which we're living and the danger is that those civil servants are not there to be heroes. They're there to do their jobs. which actually Taylor in Kent kept saying over and over again? You know. I'm I'm nonpartisan. I'm telling you what I know. I've been called to testify and I felt it was my duty. I don't WanNa be here with Fiona Hill. She's a little bit differently differently. Situated than Kent in that she's technically was a political appointee in this administration but I think she does speak to that kind of ethos of public public service in the in the way that she was testifying and in the same way as you saw Taylor can't allow a lot of people right now. Said you know Fiona Hill Forever Fianna Hell Fan the club. You know I've been self you and a hill twenty twenty. It's like no there. Yeah right she unfortunately cannot run for president And there's a similar dynamic. There is the one that I I saw with Kenton Taylor. To that Fiona Hills job was to work in the National Security Council in Europe and Russia matters and her job now as she sees it as clearly to come before Congress and tell Congress what she knows she kept emphasizing again and again. I'm a fact witness. This is my purpose but she's not going to ride in and save the day and what I mean by that specifically is that she's actually she's she's been an incredible witness Just in terms of I mean her own performance. He's given these amazing speeches but however many speeches she gives they're not going to break through to the gym Jordan's of the world and so does it help the Democrats and the impeachment. The effort that they have this amazing witness Fiona Hill that she tells a clear story that matches up with everyone else's strobe -solutely but it's not going to solve the problem that you know at the end of the day Jim Jordan and Devin nunes are still going to be up there yelling about the steele dossier. So I've been struck a few times as the impeachment process. This is unfolded by so the flip side of this like th. They don't have a magic ability to convince Jim Jordan and they might not even feel like It it's their role all to involve themselves beyond whatever legal obligation to Congress is by how this process has revealed. How these conspiracies can fester and develop even as people of genuine integrity witness them unfolding get folded into them and they're still kind of no way for them to to do what we might imagine? The heroic thing is right like I think a Bill Taylor first and foremost in this. Because he knew something was up and he could resign Zayn and he could have blown the whistle but he worked through proper channels to try to stop the conspiracy from taking effect and he tried to help the people of Ukraine and yet from from his perspective. He prevailed right like the. The Republicans are so fond of noting that quid pro quo was never fully consummated and having succeeded why would he then speak up. Lose his post throw the Ukrainians that he clearly cares about to the very wolves he just save. Save Them From and so if it hadn't been for the impeachment process I don't think he would've ever said anything about this and then separately. There's this really dramatic matic testimony from Fiona Hill that we clipped played in the intro. A big part of what I think she was talking about. There was perception right from her perspective. There was this sort of wrong but limited meddling happening in Ukraine policy but then from Gordon silence perspective he was just carrying out policy what he believed the US policy to be and so the whole notion of conspiracy is kind of the wrong language for either of them to describe what's happening and so there's nothing thank really for either of them to do to alert the public right and so it's not just the bureaucrats can't save us because they can convince the broader public or they can't Stop Stop Republicans From acting in their own political interests but they can't save us because sometimes they just can't see that there's anything to save us from they have equities to protect attacked or they're just kind of in the fog of it and blind to all the dimensions of what they're living room. Does that make sense. I think the the best example of someone who's who's struck in the fog seems to have been Kurt Volker and in saying this I'm drawing not only on Volker's own testimony which seemed to me like he may have I've been trying to intentionally obfuscate his understanding of what was going on but The testimony of others including can't Ann Taylor who kind of indicated that they felt Volker may have been drawn a little too far in that. They didn't question his motives but that he was thinking a little too much. Sort of tactically step-by-step. How do I mitigate harm and that lost the sense of when you take a step back? This is really something wrong. That's happening and in that way. Volker is actually a really good example I think of the sort of the corruption of Donald Trump right the the way that people kind of get sucked in and and lose their perspective regarding the other people involved. Here you know Taylor Kent Hill would. Would we be hearing from any of these people. If the whistle blower complaint hadn't been filed. I don't know and I agree. It's a really disturbing bring thought not only because you know how many other instances have there been where a whistleblower complaint wasn't filed and we didn't find out what happened vend but also because I think it goes back to the same issue with Volker. You know this is a case study of how difficult it is has to be a moral person and serve your country which all these people really do seem to have that. We're doing under incredibly difficult. Circumstances in a government run by someone who's actively trying to undermine you they're all these people trying to do the right thing and some of them have even come out of it looking good and at the end of the day. There's just this lurking question of did they let themselves has get drawn into far. I mean we we can zoom back. To other controversies other officials. Who we were told were the adults in the room who were trying to keep trump on the rails keep policy in order in in many cases? It seems like what that ended up forcing them to do was try to cram a corrupt endeavor into a facially legitimate government action try to find a legal pretext text for it. Try to find a policy rationale for it that could be explained to Congress to the public to themselves probably as you know maybe not ideal policy and maybe not wise but acceptable within you know with you know on the rails in some sense and then they leave and we never get the full story because you know either they succeeded in cramming trump's corrupt objectives into whoa facially non-corrupt box in a bail or the try to stop it and they resign and they go back to their private lives and in almost all these cases with like like the one big exception being Jim Komi we just never hear from Jim. Mattis former defense secretary from DNA Powell former deputy national security adviser iser nature. mcmasters another good example of this and it makes me really worry about what happens on the flip side of this impeachment process is that we're going to go back to that. And trump is going to be at the apex of his corruption because he's going to have survived the one confrontation over it. The Democrats were willing to bring against the question should Democrats wrap this impeachment up without making some kind of maybe time-limited but serious effort to compel testimony from the principals. I suppose right. The bureaucrats won't save us with any of the political appointees. Have the information that's needed. If not to remove Donald Trump then to strip away the legitimacy from the things he might do as he abuses his power going forward. So I think that the clear implication of Hill's testimony is that John Bolton knew a lot more about what was happening in real time than she did and he tried to shield the National Security Council from it and Democrats haven't even issued him a subpoena. Is that a mistake Bolton. I don't understand what Game Baltin is playing to be completely honest with you. I mean it really seems like he can't decide Reid who he wants to go to the prom with he he kind of you know. He says he doesn't WanNa testify and then he dangles you know. Well I have all this information that I could give you sort of one step forward one step back so I'm going to be completely honest. I have no idea what game he is playing. I agree with you. That based on Hill's testimony it seems like he has a lot to say. Based on the testimony of two Morrison Hill. Successor is seems like he has a lot to say because Morrison Morrison was an incredibly frustrating witness. Not even talking about the public airing but just by his deposition. If you read the transcript. He basically says John Bolton you know went into this room and had this conversation and then he came out and he's asked what did he say to you and he basically Gli says I don't want to talk about that over and over again and so we get these kind of hints that John Bolton must have known more and must have. You've done more without that ever actually being fleshed out soon away..
"donald trump" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill
"Tremendous respectful women have you ever had have respect for me and i will tell you know i have not it was that denial that comment from donald trump that spurred summers irvoas to speak out about her experiences with him i ran for fifteen minutes you tell mr trump emerged he hadn't sued on i stood up and he came to me and started kissing me open mouth as he was pulling me towards him i walked away down in a chair he was on a less seat across from me and i made an attempt at conversation then asked me to sit next to him i complied he then grabbed my shoulder and began kiss me again very gresley and pays places hand on my breast i pulled back and walked to another part of the room he then walked up grabbed my hand and walked me into the bedroom i walked out he then turned around and said leslie down and watch some telly telly put me in in brave in embrace and i tried to push him away i pushed his chest but space between us and i said come on man get real he'd be repeated my words back to me get real as he began thrusting his genitals he tried to kiss me again with my hands still on his chest and i said do your trip and right now attempting to make it clear i was not interested he said what do you want and i said i came to have dinner he said okay we'll have dinner after service went public donald trump began to systematically lay.
"donald trump" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill
"Yes they're concerned well that's their problem not ours are we going to wind up with with so many people's lives gone in south korea in seoul because we make that move ask you this how do you feel about dead americans john bolton's appointment as the national security adviser comes as wall to all news coverage details the multiple alleged affairs that donald trump had with stormy daniels or special you remind me of my daughter he's like you're smart beautiful and a woman to be reckoned with like you i like you with karen mcdougal he's very proud of ivanka essay shed bay i mean she's a brilliant woman she's beautiful she's you know that's his daughter and he should be proud her he said i was beautiful like her and you know you're smart girl and there's been a lot of comparing but there was some it might be hopeful to recall what happened the last time the country was in a similar situation with a sitting president and that was bill clinton in the late nineteen ninety s i want you to listen to me i'm going to say this again i did not have sexual relations with that woman miss lewinsky i never told anybody to live and not a single time never these allegations are false and i need to go back to work for the american people as the socalled monica lewinsky scandal intensified in nineteen ninety eight and nineteen ninety nine bill clinton seemed to find a new love for lobbing cruise missiles and authorizing bombing campaigns in afghanistan and sudan for seventy eight days at us led nato bombing of yugoslavia and of course iraq in operation desert fox which clinton authorized on the eve of the impeachment proceedings against him earlier today i ordered american forces to strike iraq are missile sent the following message to saddam hussein when you abuse your own people or threaten your neighbors you must pay a price.
"donald trump" Discussed on The Dollop with Dave Anthony and Gareth Reynolds
"Donald trump was elected president on the number eight two thousand sixteen just a couple of months later the court ruled against donald trump's appeal and he was ordered to pay one us in rick as around three hundred thousand dollars so i guess that's america we could erin looking aaron i broke him he broke an how you doing budd okay graf was it worse than you imagine it was a better um it was it was exactly what i expected till the very end i think though the guy the guy voting for as a kid i i think the truth is that it is like you know if i've heard a lot of this just in like you know a vacuum of conversation that you here because now news is so there's so much coming at you so often you already can't absorb it and in a way what he's done is he's overloaded the system with information via there's just too much that so crazy that it's impossible to focus on it i mean if we truly just folk it like if we could just hone in on like say the sexual assault his committed and you just stuck to that potentially that could get legs in that could actually start to become something that can hurt him or the idea that he's you know his business practices the problem is it's almost like a mighty morphin power power ranger of all this different bullshit formed into one big fucking monster it so he he so um uh wrong on so many different level overwhelms a overwhelming an but also like the system the fact that the system that we live in this is legal yeah um that's a problem it's also a problem now because the eu certainly i mean.