The Trump Impeachment
Unfit To Lead
‘We Are in a Constitutional Crisis’: Groups Deliver 10 Million Petitions to Congress Demanding Trump Impeachment
@womensmarch / Twitter We are in a dark time
@womensmarch / Twitter
A coalition of grassroots progressive advocacy groups on Thursday delivered 10 million petitions to Congress demanding that House Democrats uphold their “constitutional obligation” by immediately launching impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
The petition delivery—which one organizer described as “likely the biggest” in U.S. history—came just hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the country is in the midst of a “constitutional crisis” due to the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with congressional oversight.
During a rally on Capitol Hill Thursday, Jane Slusser—organizing director for Need to Impeach—urged Pelosi to take action in line with the gravity of her words.
“On behalf of a growing movement of 10 million, we ask Democratic leadership to be bold in standing up for democracy,” Slusser said. “We agree with Speaker Pelosi: We are in a constitutional crisis. And there is a remedy: Start impeachment hearings now.”
10,000,000 & counting to #ImpeachTrump. Add your name: t.co/wQHfGSXJbu pic.twitter.com/xkBS6EvJmV
— MoveOn (@MoveOn) May 9, 2019
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) told the crowd at Thursday’s rally that the U.S. Congress cannot continue to stand by and “allow the rule of law to be eroded.”
“Movements happen with actions like this where millions of us speak up, demanding that our representatives work on our behalf,” said Tlaib, who submitted a resolution to begin impeachment hearings before the redacted Mueller report was made public last month.
“We are in a dark time in our country but this moment is a moment of light. This is about our country and our democracy.” Rep. @RashidaTlaib #ImpeachTrump pic.twitter.com/9jtj3n7K9a
— Women’s March (@womensmarch) May 9, 2019
Mueller’s findings provided a detailed look into the Trump administration’s corrupt and possibly criminal behavior around the Russia investigation, including numerous instances of potential obstruction of justice.
Since the release of the special counsel’s 400-page report, a growing number of Democrats in Congress have expressed support for launching impeachment proceedings against Trump, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
With their delivery of 10 million petitions on Thursday, activists hoped to get the attention of Democrats who have yet to join their fellow lawmakers and constituents in backing impeachment hearings.
“I ask: How much more do we need to see to take action?” said Joseline Garcia, a volunteer with advocacy group By the People. “What kind of message are we going to be sending to future administrations and generations of people if we do not hold Donald Trump accountable for the numerous violations he has committed?”
“Congress, you have a choice,” Garcia added. “Are you going to be on the right side of history? Are you going to be on our side, or Trump’s side?”
‘We Are in a Constitutional Crisis’:
Daily dose of outrage at what is going on in Washington.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
OPINION
No, the case against President Trump is far from closed
There’s much in the redacted Mueller report that Congress has a right to discretely examine, no matter what Sen. Mitch McConnell says: Our view
THE EDITORIAL BOARD | USA TODAY | 7 minutes ago
President Trump’s executive privilege claim over the full Mueller report has stirred heated debate in Congress. Is it even constitutional?
Congressional Republicans want to end investigations into the presidency of Donald Trump and the unusual circumstances surrounding his rise to power. Several have made this case, most notably Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who on Tuesday used the disclosure of parts of the Mueller report to declare “case closed.”
The tactic is not entirely new. In 1998, supporters of President Bill Clinton, who was then under siege over his relationship with a former White House intern, created a group called MoveOn.org to urge Congress to, well, move on. The group exists to this day supporting liberal causes.
In this case, the call to move on is being made by actual members of Congress who are undermining their institution and their authority.
One day, they will regret this. They will regret it when a Democrat is next elected president and abuses his or her power. They will regret it when their grandchildren ask about their role in fostering democracy. Perhaps they will even regret it when they next look in the mirror.
McConnell’s “move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here” approach is contradicted by more than 800 former prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats, who have signed a letter saying the Mueller report provided more than enough evidence to indict Trump for obstruction of justice, were he anyone else but the president.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report.
ERIK S. LESSER, EPA-EFE
SEAN SPICER: Democrats should accept the conclusions of the Mueller report
Similarly, by refusing to provide the House Ways and Means Committee with the tax documents it has demanded, the Trump administration is in clear violation of law. The relevant statute, passed in the wake of a previous presidential scandal, is unambiguous that these documents “shall” be provided upon the request of the chairman. In backing up Trump, Republicans are essentially playing the role of accessories.
Worse, in providing cover for Trump’s refusal to provide other material, including the complete Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the GOP is debasing the Constitution.
If it weren’t enough that most Republicans countenanced Trump as he usurped Congress’ power of the purse with his border emergency declaration earlier this year, now they are ceding Congress’ oversight role and vital function as a check on presidential power.
Previous presidents might not have always agreed with decisions of Congress or the courts, but they recognized and honored the Constitution’s precept of separation of powers. They saw the genius in having three distinct branches sometimes in conflict or competition. Trump, on the other hand, treats laws and critics with contempt.
There is much that the American people still need to know about Trump’s finances, particularly his relationship to Russia in the years after massive real estate losses made him radioactive to most Western banks. There is much in the Mueller report, including supporting evidence and what is behind some of those blacked-out sections, that Congress has a right to discretely examine.
Now is most assuredly not the time to arbitrarily end investigations.
© Copyright Gannett 2019
The Guardian -
Security officials monitoring a Chinese container ship at the port of Humen in
Even Trump may ultimately retreat from the cost of the China trade war
The president’s bullish advisers may be taking a hard line, but the chances of a deal are better than they look
Phillip Inman
@phillipinman
Sat 11 May 2019 11.00 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
During Donald Trump’s campaign to be president, he regularly cited China’s export subsidies as “evil”, and in his manifesto he pledged to “cut a better deal with China that helps American businesses and workers compete”.
The president turned decades of musings into a policy mission after his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, handed him a book by the academics Peter Navarro and Greg Autry – Death by China – which set out to explain how China manipulated the global trade system for its own ends.
Navarro has since become Trump’s trade tsar and – with Robert Lighthizer, the White House’s chief negotiator – provides the intellectual underpinning for Trump’s attempt to prise open China’s markets.
Autry was cheerleading for Trump on the BBC’s Today programme last week after the president increased the tariff from 10% to 25% on Chinese goods worth $200bn on Friday, including transport equipment, chemicals and an array of foods.
The message from the White House was that backsliding by Beijing over previously agreed liberalising trade reforms meant another $300bn of Chinese imports could soon be added to the list, which would effectively cover all imports to the US from the world’s second largest economy.
Autry said that it would be better if countries traded with each other without barriers, but that the global economy could still grow in a world of high tariffs – or at least the US could.
He likened the situation to the 19th century and Britain’s preference for free trade, which he said was pursued to its detriment when countries such as the US hid behind a protectionist wall of tariffs. After the second world war, the US had followed the free-trade lead set by the UK and that had been a mistake, he said. Free trade had been Britain’s downfall while protectionism played a large role in America’s success.
That is not a view of history shared by many economic historians. There were too many other factors at play in the 19th century that could have been more important, from slavery in the US providing farmers with free labour to Britain’s burgeoning empire, which became so costly to maintain.
White House observers are not sure that Trump has even read Navarro’s book, given that his goals appear to be so narrow: for example, declaring China “a currency manipulator” and putting “an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labour and environmental standards”.
Trump’s senior trade advisers are thought to be at the heart of the renewed tension between the US and China. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Lighthizer and Navarro are more concerned that Beijing tear up laws that force foreign companies to go into partnership with – and hand over technological knowhow to – domestic businesses when they sell goods in China. They also want to agree an arbitration process that bypasses communist-party-controlled arrangements.
These more structural issues are at the heart of Navarro’s book and are the crux of the current dispute, which those close to the president say is being driven by Lighthizer.
Most analysts believe there would be a high cost to both sides from higher tariffs, though the impact on the global economy might be cumulative as economies in Europe and the US lose momentum. A fall in trade might knock between 0.2% and 0.3% off global GDP, says Angus Armstrong, a former head of macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. “That doesn’t sound like much, but if it happens when there’s a broader slowdown, it adds to the momentum and can make matters much worse,” he says.
Analysts at the Oxford Economics consultancy say the likely cost of the tariff rises – arising from lost Chinese demand for US goods due to retaliatory measures and extra expense for US consumers – would rebound on the US and hurt key states and industries, rippling out to the rest of the world. “The Trump administration’s tariff hike will cost the US economy $62bn in lost output by 2020, or 0.3% of GDP, relative to the expected level of US GDP in our baseline forecasts,” the analysts say. “The cost to the global economy will surpass $360bn in foregone output relative to what would otherwise have been the case under our baseline for 2020.”
The conciliatory language and the measured response from Beijing is reassuring
Bo Zhuang and Eleanor Olcott, economists at the consultancy TS Lombard, say the costly implications for both sides of a prolonged fight means a deal is still likely.
“Even if the tariffs remain in place, the fundamentals call for a deal. Trump will maintain talks with China, just as he has done with North Korea following the fallout from the Hanoi summit. The rising bankruptcy rate of US farmers and greater volatility in the markets will sharpen his resolve for a deal,” they say.
“Some commentators have said Beijing will now call for boycotts of US goods and place non-tariff barriers on US goods. At this stage, we believe that such harsh retaliatory measures are unlikely. This week’s events have pushed back our timeline for a deal but the conciliatory language and the measured response from Beijing is reassuring,” they add.
To some extent, Trump is already winning. The US trade deficit with China decreased to the narrowest in almost three years in March – $28.3bn – as imports slowed and exports advanced.
That turnaround offers Trump a chance to claim his trade war was yielding desired results. Add to that the clamour from Iowa soya bean farmers, who are already suffering from lost sales in China due to counter-tariffs, and the pressure on Trump to agree a deal could be overwhelming.
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.