I will have to watch tonight’s news… I don’t envy the current newly-elected U.K. government, in this situation they find themselves in, and have to make decisions on.
Would You inform us as to Your reactions of it?
Thanks.
The interesting correlative to this is the effect of techno-politics and how all combatants can be infused by the so called collusive effects which pit the representatives against the executors of constitutive interpretation.
When it really comes down to the wire, the executive wins palms up, because representation has become kind of a endlesw search for meaning.
That meaning is presented , and represented on in a high wire class act that has become more of.an aesthetic performance than demonstrative of real information. Everyone gets caught in the novel ways then in actually reading them in what may turn out to be just another plotless novel.
The theatrics anticipated in the 2020 election may dwarf those that went down in the 2016 one.
Decisions, which for the most.part predicate on part of having to accede to U.S. foreign policy. The result of an integral special U.S.- U.K. relationship
But please, at it’s earliest , remit whatever You got out of it tonight.
POLITICO
CONGRESS
Bolton curveball threatens to upend impeachment trial
Bolton’s offer is a win for Senate Democrats, who have sought additional testimony and documents against the president.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY
01/06/2020 12:03 PM ES
Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday that he would testify if he is subpoenaed as part of the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
In a statement posted online, Bolton, who was asked to testify as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry but refused to appear for a deposition, said he wants to meet his “obligations” both as a citizen and as a former top presidential adviser.
“Since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study,” Bolton wrote. “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”
Bolton’s surprise offer comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) remain at an impasse over the parameters for the chamber’s trial. Schumer has been pushing McConnell to allow additional witness testimony and document production as part of the trial, but McConnell has maintained that those issues should be considered after the trial begins.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“It is now up to four Senate Republicans to support bringing in Mr. Bolton,” Schumer said in a statement, renewing his demand for three other witnesses to appear for testimony: acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, top Mulvaney aide Robert Blair and senior budget official Michael Duffey. All three refused to appear for testimony before House impeachment investigators.
“If any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover up,” Schumer added, noting that Bolton’s lawyer has already said his client has information to share with investigators that has not been previously disclosed.
The statement from Bolton — who has remained relatively quiet since Trump fired him last year — hands Senate Democrats a new weapon as they seek to exert pressure on Republicans to call witnesses and seek documentary evidence to add to the House’s articles of impeachment. A Senate subpoena requires at least 51 votes, and four Republicans would need to vote with Democrats.
One of those potential GOP votes, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, said he would “of course” want to hear from Bolton. But he stopped short of declaring he would vote in favor of subpoenaing Bolton, adding: “What’s important is that we hear from him.”
Before his announcement, Bolton, who has been described as a central witness to the allegations for which the House impeached Trump, gave a heads up to McConnell informing the majority leader of his decision, according a source familiar with the matter.
GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas did not rule out voting to subpoena Bolton, but said the question of witnesses should be left for later in the trial, echoing McConnell’s position. He suggested if that occurred, it could actually help Trump’s case.
“What I think Bolton could say, this is a disagreement over the way foreign policy is being conducted. There’s no crime being judged,” Cornyn told reporters. “I have no objection to his testifying either through his deposition or some pre-recorded testimony. To me it amounts to an admission that what they’ve presented so far is pretty thin gruel.”
CONGRESS
Bolton’s move also unleashes new and complicated constitutional questions, including whether the House will attempt to subpoena Bolton now that he has acknowledged his willingness to comply with a congressional subpoena. Bolton’s pronouncement also raises the question of whether Trump could intervene to block his testimony.
Amid the clashes between McConnell and Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to formally transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate. The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, but Pelosi has said she wants to wait until the parameters of the Senate trial become clearer. Senators expect Pelosi to send the articles later this week.
“The president & Sen. McConnell have run out of excuses,” Pelosi wrote on Twitter Monday. “They must allow key witnesses to testify, and produce the documents Trump has blocked, so Americans can see the facts for themselves. The Senate cannot be complicit in the president’s cover-up.”
Bolton was not subpoenaed as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry, and he did not say in his statement whether he would comply with a subpoena from the lower chamber. A spokeswoman for Bolton declined to comment on whether he would honor a House subpoena.
Bolton indicated that he had initially planned to decide whether to testify based on the outcome of a court case brought by his former deputy, Charles Kupperman. Kupperman — who had been subpoenaed to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry but was ordered by Trump not to appear — sought a federal court ruling to resolve the conflicting demands.
But the House, seeking to disentangle its impeachment push from ongoing litigation, withdrew its subpoena and promised not to punish Kupperman for refusing to testify. The White House, too, urged the court to drop the case, claiming Kupperman was immune from testifying. Last week, Judge Richard Leon agreed, ending the short-lived court battle. Bolton acknowledged that decision, saying Leon issued a “carefully reasoned opinion.”
“It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts,” Bolton said Monday.
Bolton’s testimony would be a major break for impeachment investigators.
Senior State Department and White House officials described Bolton as a central witness to Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. According to former National Security Council aide Fiona Hill, Bolton bristled at Trump’s reliance on his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to conduct back-channel talks with Ukrainians in service of Trump’s efforts. Hill recalled that Bolton referred to the matter as a “drug deal,” adding that Bolton called Giuliani a “hand grenade” who threatened to blow up U.S. foreign policy goals.
A lawyer for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine adviser on the National Security Council, said Vindman “would definitely support” Bolton’s testimony.
“It will corroborate [Vindman’s] testimony as well as Dr. Fiona Hill’s testimony," said the lawyer, Michael Volkov. Vindman and Hill, the NSC’s former top Russia adviser, told lawmakers that Bolton was opposed to Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine.
Vindman does not harbor any resentment toward Bolton for refusing to testify in the House inquiry, Volkov said. “He admires Bolton and followed his directions at all times.”
Democrats said the aid was frozen to pressure Ukraine’s new president to launch Trump’s desired investigations. The White House has blocked several central witnesses to the decision on military aid from testifying before impeachment investigators.
NEWS ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT
Iran cultural sights------
As soon as the news of the killing of Qasem Soleimani broke, Iranians were divided. Some were offended and some celebrated it on social media.
The division got ugly on Twitter. Some were accused of being victims of “Stockholm syndrome” because they were angry about the killing, and others were labelled traitors.
But US President Donald Trump’s tweet threatening the targeting of Iran’s cultural sites united Iranians against him.
Some of the sites are religious and some are not, but secular and religious Iranians are proud of their heritage and came together to denounce the president’s threats. Nothing could better unite divided Iranians at home and in the diaspora than a hit on their beloved past.
Iran’s foreign minister seized the opportunity and in several tweets compared President Trump to the Islamic State group, which destroyed many cultural sites in Syria.
Presentational grey line
Iran’s top cultural sites
Iran is home to two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites. These are landmarks the UN body believes need preserving for their cultural, historic or scientific significance. They include:
Persepolis, the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid Empire, whose earliest remains date back to the 6th Century BC
Image copyrightALAMYAchaemenid inscription at Behistun, Iran
Naqsh-e Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan, which was built in the early 17th Century and is one of the largest city squares in the world
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESTiled Architecture of Imam Mosque, Isfahan
Golestan Palace in Tehran, the residence and seat of power for the Qajar dynasty which ruled Iran from 1785 to 1925
There are also a number of sites which - while not listed by Unesco - still retain huge cultural importance.
XxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx
Brit Reactions
BBC News
menu
Trump under fire for threat to Iranian cultural sites
115
06 January 2020
Middle East
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
Image captionNaqsh-e Jahan Square, in the city of Isfahan, is one of two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites in Iran
US President Donald Trump has faced growing criticism over his threats to attack Iran’s cultural sites.
Mr Trump made the threats amid fallout from the US assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.
The president said cultural sites were among 52 identified Iranian targets that could be attacked if Iranians “torture, maim and blow up our people”.
But the UN’s cultural organisation and UK foreign secretary were among those to note that such sites were protected.
The US and Iran have signed conventions to protect cultural heritage, including during conflict. Military attacks targeting cultural sites are considered war crimes under international law.
Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad on Friday on the orders of Mr Trump. The killing has sharply increased regional tensions, with Iran threatening “severe revenge”.
What were the president’s threats?
The first came in a series of tweets on Saturday.
Mr Trump said the US had identified 52 Iranian sites, some “at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture”, and warned they would be “hit very fast and hard” if Tehran carried out revenge attacks on US interests or personnel.
US ready to strike 52 Iranian sites, Trump warns
Who was Iran’s Qasem Soleimani?
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared to try to soften the threat by saying the US would act within international law.
But the president later repeated his threat, saying: “They’re allowed to kill our people, they’re allowed to torture and maim our people, they’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people - and we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”
On Monday, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway defended the president, saying he had not said he was targeting cultural sites, only “asking the question”.
She also said: “Iran has many strategic military sites that you may cite are also cultural sites”, before later clarifying her remark to say she was not suggesting Iran had camouflaged military targets as cultural sites.
Defence Secretary Mark Esper was later asked if the US would target cultural sites, and said: “We will follow the laws of armed conflict.”
When asked if that meant no, “because targeting a cultural site is a war crime?”, he responded: “That’s the laws of armed conflict.”
What criticism did his comments draw?
The director general of the UN’s cultural organisation, Unesco, Audrey Azoulay, said both Iran and the US had signed a 1972 convention to protect the world’s natural and cultural heritage .
They have also both signed a 1954 convention protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict . Mr Trump withdrew the US from Unesco in 2018, citing alleged anti-Israeli bias.
US Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy said Mr Trump was “threatening to commit war crimes”, echoing similar statements by Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
On Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said cultural sites were protected by international law, and Britain expected that to be respected.
The wider region has suffered many cultural attacks carried out by the Islamic State group, which targeted mosques, shrines, churches and famous sites such as Palmyra in Syria. The Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed the world’s tallest Buddha statues, in Bamiyan province.
Video captionOnce destroyed by the Taliban, the Buddha statues live again
Trump’s cultural sites threat unites Iranians
By Sam Farzaneh, BBC Persian
As soon as the news of the killing of Qasem Soleimani broke, Iranians were divided. Some were offended and some celebrated it on social media.
The division got ugly on Twitter. Some were accused of being victims of “Stockholm syndrome” because they were angry about the killing, and others were labelled traitors.
But US President Donald Trump’s tweet threatening the targeting of Iran’s cultural sites united Iranians against him.
Some of the sites are religious and some are not, but secular and religious Iranians are proud of their heritage and came together to denounce the president’s threats. Nothing could better unite divided Iranians at home and in the diaspora than a hit on their beloved past.
Iran’s foreign minister seized the opportunity and in several tweets compared President Trump to the Islamic State group, which destroyed many cultural sites in Syria.
Iran’s top cultural sites
Iran is home to two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites. These are landmarks the UN body believes need preserving for their cultural, historic or scientific significance. They include:
Persepolis, the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid Empire, whose earliest remains date back to the 6th Century BC
Naqsh-e Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan, which was built in the early 17th Century and is one of the largest city squares in the world
Golestan Palace in Tehran, the residence and seat of power for the Qajar dynasty which ruled Iran from 1785 to 1925
There are also a number of sites which - while not listed by Unesco - still retain huge cultural importance.
Copyright © 2020 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Senate cover-up? So’re smells like:
POLITICO
CONGRESS
GOP moderates side with McConnell over Bolton testimony
Democrats are unlikely to get four Republicans to vote to subpoena John Bolton
01/06/2020 05:56 PM EST
Despite John Bolton’s willingness to testify about the Ukraine scandal, the GOP-controlled Senate has no immediate plans to subpoena him in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial — a win for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House.
While Democrats have called for testimony from Trump’s former national security adviser, so far there’s no sign that they will secure support from four Republicans they would need to follow through on their demand.
In their bid for a “fair trial,” Democrats were hoping moderate Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah will endorse their efforts to bring in Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify at the trial. They also want to subpoena documents related to the Ukraine scandal.
But on Monday, Collins and Murkowski both signaled they wanted to begin the trial first. “I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton,” Collins said, echoing McConnell’s argument. “I think that we will decide at that stage who we need to hear from.”
Murkowski, when asked about a potential Bolton subpoena, said: “We’ve got to get to the first place first.”
Romney said he was open to hearing testimony from Bolton, but he stopped short of saying he would vote with Democrats to subpoena him. Romney acknowledged Bolton “has firsthand information” on the Ukraine scandal, and “assuming that articles of impeachment reach the Senate, I’d like to hear what he has to say.”
Even vulnerable Republicans, such as Cory Gardner of Colorado, who faces a competitive re-election race in 2020, expressed no interest in hearing from Bolton.
“Is Nancy going to send the articles over? She doesn’t seem to care?” said Gardner, referring to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "You guys want to have a trial by Twitter but until she has the articles sent over there is no trial.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s allies are losing patience with Pelosi and are accusing her of trying to dictate the terms of the Senate trial by withholding the articles of impeachment. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a staunch Trump ally, reiterated Monday he would move to change Senate rules to allow the chamber to move forward on its own authority, if Pelosi refuses to transmit the articles soon.
“From my view, I think we should urge the speaker to send over the articles [of impeachment]. If she doesn’t, we should change the rules,” Graham told reporters on Monday. “You can’t let her use the rules against us. She has a duty to transmit them.”
“I don’t want to turn the Senate over to Nancy Pelosi,” Graham added.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also introduced his own resolution Monday that would allow the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment “for lack of prosecution.”
“My view is that the majority leader’s made a very generous offer to Democrats, which is: Let’s use the Clinton rules and start this trial. And we can decide witnesses and so forth later,” Hawley said. “Now, I don’t know why we would call witnesses on the Democrat side. They’ve had their chance.”
Hawley and other Republicans have argued that they should rely on the same information the House used to impeach the president. In their view, if the House could impeach Trump based on the information presented to the chamber, the Senate can make its decisions based on the same evidence.
The House voted in December to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, after he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rivals in exchange for military aid.
CONGRESS
Bolton curveball threatens to upend impeachment trial
BY ANDREW DESIDERIO AND KYLE CHENEY
McConnell and Schumer sparred again about the terms of the Senate impeachment trial on the floor Monday. McConnell is insisting the Senate use the same format as President Bill Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial, when the Senate decided unanimously to initially hear arguments and then call witnesses.
“The Senate has a unanimous bipartisan precedent for when to handle mid-trial questions such as witnesses: In the middle of the trial,” McConnell said Monday. “The Senate said, 100 to nothing, that was good enough for President Clinton. So it ought to be good enough for President Trump. Fair is fair.”
But Schumer has rejected that argument, noting the Clinton impeachment trial had sworn testimony from witnesses.
“Leader McConnell’s view of the trial is an Alice-in-Wonderland view,” Schumer said. “When Leader McConnell proposes that we follow the 1999 precedent, he is essentially arguing that we should conduct the entire impeachment trial first, and then once it’s over, decide on whether we need witnesses and documents.”
© 2020 POLITICO LLC
The New York Times
Opinion
The Nightmare Stage of Trump’s Rule Is Here
Unstable and impeached, the president pushes the U.S. toward war with Iran.

By Michelle Goldberg
Opinion Columnist
Jan. 6, 2020
After three harrowing years, we’ve reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation, has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.
We don’t yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to fight ISIS. Iraq’s Parliament has voted to expel American troops — a longtime Iranian objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in response, only to then claim that it was a draft released in error.) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran’s cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.
THE ARGUMENT
Listen to our podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt
The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but “a normal Monday in the Middle East,” and Democrats briefed on it were unconvinced by the administration’s case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the “Iranian menace” — has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.
Rather than self-defense, the Suleimani killing seems like the dreadful result of several intersecting dynamics. There’s the influence of rapture-mad Iran hawks like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence. Defense officials who might have stood up to Trump have all left the administration. According to Peter Bergen’s book “Trump and His Generals,” James Mattis, Trump’s former secretary of defense, instructed his subordinates not to provide the president with options for a military showdown with Iran. But with Mattis gone, military officials, The Times reported, presented Trump with the possibility of killing Suleimani as the “most extreme” option on a menu of choices, and were “flabbergasted” when he picked it.
Trump likely had mixed motives. He was reportedly upset over TV images of militia supporters storming the American Embassy in Iraq. According to The Post, he also was frustrated by “negative coverage” of his decision last year to order and then call off strikes on Iran.
Beyond that, Trump, now impeached and facing trial in the Senate, has laid out his rationale over years of tweets. The president is a master of projection, and his accusations against others are a decent guide to how he himself will behave. He told us, over and over again, that he believed Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to “save face” and because his “poll numbers are in a tailspin” and he needed to “get re-elected.” To Trump, a wag-the-dog war with Iran evidently seemed like a natural move for a president in trouble.
It’s hard to see how this ends without disaster. Defenders of Trump’s move have suggested that he might have re-established deterrence against Iran, frightening its leadership into restraint. But Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University and former senior adviser to Obama’s State Department, tells me that Iran likely believes that it has to re-establish deterrence against the United States.
“If they don’t do anything, or if they don’t do enough, then Trump will get comfortable with this kind of behavior, and that worries them,” said Nasr. To Iranians, after all, America is the aggressor, scrapping a nuclear agreement that they were abiding by and imposing a punishing “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign. Just like militarists in the United States, they’re likely to assume that weakness invites attacks. “I don’t think they want to provoke war, but they do want to send a signal that they’re prepared for it,” said Nasr.
Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it’s still ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to negotiations. “His maximum pressure policy has failed,” Nasr said of Trump. “He has only produced a more dangerous Iran.”
DEBATABLE
Agree to disagree, or disagree better? Broaden your perspective with sharp arguments on the most pressing issues of the week. Sign up here.
Meanwhile, ISIS benefits from the breach between Iraq and America. “ISIS suicide and vehicle bombings have nearly stopped entirely,” said Brett McGurk, who until 2018 was special presidential envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS. “Only a few years ago, there were 50 per month, killing scores of Iraqis. That’s because of what we have done and continue to do. These networks will regenerate rapidly if we are forced to leave, and they will again turn their attention on the West.”
Unlike with North Korea, it’s difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters defusing the crisis the president has created. Most of this country has never accepted Trump, but over the past three years, many have gotten used to him, lulled into uneasy complacency by an establishment that has too often failed to treat him as a walking national emergency. Now the nightmare phase of the Trump presidency is here. The biggest surprise is that it took so long.
© 2020 The New York Times Company
Crisis mode:
Opinion
No One Believes Trump which is real bad in am international crisis
Jan. 7, 2020, 8:26 a.m. ET
I
This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.
“This is where having credibility — and having a president who didn’t lie about everything — would be really, really helpful,” Samantha Power, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, wrote recently.
A president with credibility would be better able to persuade foreign governments to help protect American diplomats and military members who are now at risk.
A president with credibility would be more likely to beat Iran in the global court of public opinion.
A president with credibility would be able to set clear red lines that might influence Iran’s behavior in coming weeks.
But President Trump has no credibility. His political rise was built on a lie (about Barack Obama’s birthplace). He has told thousands of untruths since becoming president. He appears to be lying again — about why he ordered the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most significant military leader.
Over the weekend, Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat, tweeted the following: “The moment we all feared is likely upon us.” Murphy was referring to Trump’s rash behavior. But Murphy just as easily could have been referring to Trump’s credibility. The United States has entered a serious national security conflict, and the whole world knows our president is a habitual liar.
For more …
Trump and his aides have said he ordered Suleimani’s killing to prevent an upcoming attack on Americans. But that explanation doesn’t make much sense on its face: How would the killing of a general stop an attack? Plus, as Slate’s Joshua Keating writes: “Subsequent reporting suggests there was no ticking bomb. The Soleimani strike was first raised not as a preventive measure, but as a response to an attack on a U.S. facility in Iraq that killed an American contractor a week earlier.”
Vanity Fair’s Abigail Tracy writes that though “the Washington defense and diplomatic communities are not exactly mourning the death of Qassim Suleimani, a powerful Iranian commander … there has been such an erosion in confidence, domestically and abroad, in not only what the Trump administration says but in its ability to construct a lucid foreign policy.”
“When someone has proven over and over again that they are not trustworthy, you can, and in important situations should, stop trusting them,” Vox’s Matt Yglesias writes. Yglesias adds: “Unfortunately, in the escalating crisis with Iran, many people [in the media] seem to have forgotten this basic principle.”
Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone, on Vice President Mike Pence’s claim that Suleimani supported the 9/11 hijackers: “The administration has provided no evidence that Suleimani personally assisted the transit of future 9/11 hijackers. And the formal investigation into the 9/11 attacks absolves Iran of fore-knowledge and operational involvement in the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.”
The Nightmare Stage of Trump’s Presidency
It’s Time to Calibrate Fears of a Cyberwar With Iran
© 2020 The New York Times Company
Reactions: Iran
Opinion
By killing Qassem Suleimani, Trump has achieved the impossible: uniting Iran
Dina Esfandiary
The national hero’s assassination has brought together Iran’s divided government and its exhausted and desperate public
Tue 7 Jan 2020 13.11 EST
For Iranians, the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s notorious Quds force, was a profound upset. Suleimani was one of the most influential and powerful men in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He had more sway than the president, spoke to all the various factions, and had a direct line to the supreme leader. Most importantly, he was popular with the general public. One poll, taken as the fight against Islamic State raged, found that 73% of Iranians had a favourable opinion of him. Even so, the large crowds that have turned out on the streets of cities across the country have exceeded predictions. In a sense, though, the formidable show of unity is no surprise. Iran – like any other country – is proud, patriotic, and its people tend to put their differences aisde when faced with an outside enemy.
Iran: dozens dead in crush at Suleimani burial procession
Suleimani oversaw Iran’s regional policy, and as a result is regarded as having spent his lifetime defending his country. When Isis approached the Iranian border after taking over swaths of territory in neighbouring Iraq in 2014, the Quds force were at the forefront, representing the only country willing to commit boots on the ground in the fight to destroy the group. While many in the region viewed Suleimani as a deeply controversial figure, to put it mildly, a significant number of Iranians, Kurds and Iraqis saw him as having been pivotal in stopping Islamic State.
At home, this popularity cut across political lines. Becoming a battle hero is one way to win broad legitimacy, and so it has proved in death as in life. The killing of one of their country’s most senior officials is perceived by Iranians as a violation of sovereignty, and the rally-around-the-flag effect has been notable.
That doesn’t mean all Iranians condoned Suleimani’s actions abroad. In fact, for years people have been complaining about the extent to which the government has seemed to be occupied elsewhere, even as the internal situation deteriorated. In 2018, chants of “no to Gaza, no to Lebanon, I give my life for Iran” and “Leave Syria and think of us” echoed (not for the first time) at protests around the country. When economic times have been hard due to sanctions, both prior to the 2015 nuclear deal and today, Iranians find it difficult to understand why their rulers pour money into the region rather than using it in Iran.
Ordinary people continue to be squeezed by Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, with no prospects for improvement. This, along with general discontent, led to significant protests in November 2019. These caught the government off guard, but didn’t prevent it swiftly crushing the demonstrations and enacting a nationwide ban on the internet that lasted five days. That response, unsurprisingly, further entrenched the discontent. Trump’s killing of Suleimani, however, has put those concerns on the back burner. Instead, Iranians have adopted a “better the devil you know” approach: unifying across the spectrum, even to the point of standing behind their government, in order to resist increasing US aggression.
And this means that, while Suleimani’s loss is a significant blow for Iran, the strike by the US was in one sense a gift to the Iranian government. It could never have dreamed of achieving such unity in difficult times otherwise.
The assassination has also had the effect of bringing together a divided elite, at least for the time being. Leading figures from the conservative and reformist camps spoke in unison, from the supreme leader, who vowed “revenge”, to the former presidential candidate and leader of the Green movement, Mehdi Karroubi, still under house arrest, who reportedly expressed his condolences. Even the former foreign minister of Iran under the shah, Ardeshir Zahedi, described Suleimani as a “patriotic and honorable soldier who was a son of Iran”.
The US withdrawal from the nuclear deal already meant that moderates had been forced to harden their positions. The Rouhani administration, for example, could no longer actively support dialogue with the US, instead cautiously calling for discussions on the condition that all sanctions were lifted beforehand. Today, even that position has become difficult. Who in the political establishment can expend political capital suggesting rapprochement with the US after what it has done and, importantly, after the level of public mourning? The answer is easy: no one.
With the killing of Suleimani, Trump has accomplished what no one in the Iranian elite thought possible: he has united a fractured, exhausted and desperate Iranian public in a show of unity.
And while these scenes are very far from an equivocal statement of support for the Islamic Republic, they are a resounding message to the world: Iranians will stand with their government in the face of external threats.
• Dina Esfandiary is a fellow at the Century Foundation and co-author of Triple-Axis: Iran’s Relations with Russia and China
© 2020 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
My reaction to it is, was it justified or not?
The UK’s objective stance meets with UK approval, which is in-keeping with World Heritage Site protection for the preservation of cultural sites. Too much of historically-relevant Civilisations have already been lost… most recently Syria, in being bombed the f*ck out of.
Iran launches missiles on US airbases in Iraq at al-Asad and Erbil – live updates
Pentagon confirms attacks on US and coalition forces targeting ‘at least two bases’
Full report: missiles launched against US airbase in Iraq
Donald Trump says strike against ‘monster’ Suleimani was retaliation – video
Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now) and Joan E Greve in Washington (earlier)
Key events
20:11 EST
The White House is planning a possible televised address from Donald Trump tonight, according to multiple reports. The White House has yet to confirm any plans.
Confirmed: The WH is planning for a possible address from President Trump tonight. Plans could change but I’m told aides are working on it.
— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 8, 2020
Updated at 20:11 EST
20:06 EST
Iran’s Tasnim news agency is now quoting Iranian officials warning that if the US retaliates against these strikes in Iraq, Hezbollah will fire rockets at Israel — a threat to widen the conflict and bring Iran’s regional allies into play.
Updated at 20:13 EST
19:48 EST
A top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader posted an image of the Iranian flag as news steams in of multiple attacks on US military sites.
— Saeed Jalili (@DrSaeedJalili) January 7, 2020
The tweet seems to be a counterpoint to Donald Trump’s tweet featuring a low-resolution image of the American flag, following a strike that killed Iranian general Qassim Suleimani.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020
Updated at 20:02 EST
19:40 EST
Nancy Pelosi says she’s “closely monitoring the situation”, adding that she’d like “needless provocations from the Administration” end.
Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war.
— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2020
In the meantime, defense secretary Mark Esper and secretary of state Mike Pompeo have arrived at the White House. According to CNN, Esper was carrying a large bag.
Updated at 19:49 EST
19:22 EST
The Department of Defense has confirmed: “At approximately 5:30 p.m. (EST) on January 7, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq. It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at Al-Assad and Irbil.”
The assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, Jonathan Hoffman, said that the US is “working on initial battle damage assessments”:
In recent days and in response to Iranian threats and actions, the Department of Defense has taken all appropriate measures to safeguard our personnel and partners. These bases have been on high alert due to indications that the Iranian regime planned to attack our forces and interests in the region.
As we evaluate the situation and our response, we will take all necessary measures to protect and defend U.S. personnel, partners, and allies in the region.
Updated at 20:03 EST
19:19 EST
Iran’s Tasnim news agency has just reported a second wave of attacks has commenced against the al-Asad airbase in Iraq, according to the Guardian’s Michael Safi. More to come.
Updated at 20:17 EST
19:09 EST
Nancy Pelosi received a phone call from Mike Pence, as she was about to open the House for new session. The speaker’s chief of staff said Pelosi called the vice president back minutes after presiding over the House, and was briefed on Iran’s attacks.
Pelosi reportedly received a note with news of the attacks in the interim.
.@SpeakerPelosi returned a phone call to @VP at 6:34 p.m. tonight after her required presiding over the House at 6:30 p.m. The Vice President briefed the Speaker on the Iranian attacks on facilities housing U.S. troops in Iraq.
— Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) January 7, 2020
Updated at 19:09 EST
18:58 EST
Iran has reportedly fired at multiple US facilities in Iraq
Missiles have fired from Iran at Erbil in northern Iraq, as well as Al Asad Air Base in the west, according to ABC News.
MORE: A U.S. official confirms to @ABC News that ballistic missiles have been fired from inside Iran at multiple U.S. military facilities inside Iraq.
The facilities include Erbil in northern Iraq and Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq, the official said. https://t.co/myq7nvXUgO
— ABC News (@ABC) January 7, 2020
The Guardian has not yet independently confirmed this report.
Updated at 18:58 EST
18:49 EST
The White House press secretary said that Donald Trump “has been briefed and is monitoring the situation” in Iraq.
We are aware of the reports of attacks on US facilities in Iraq. The President has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team.
— Stephanie Grisham (@PressSec) January 7, 2020
Updated at 18:51 EST
18:45 EST
From The Guardian’s Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour:
An airbase in Iraq’s Anbar province that hosts a US contingent has come under fire, the US military confirmed, after a day in which Donald Trump and the Iranian leadership exchanged threats of retaliatory attacks.
Initial reports said al-Asad base was hit by six rockets. It has previously been a target of an Iranian-backed Shia militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah, whose attacks on US and coalition troops triggered tit-for-tat strikes that culminated in the killing on Friday of top Iranian general Qassem Suleimani.
There were also unconfirmed reports of missile attacks elsewhere in Iraq.
Earlier in the day, the secretary of Iran’s national security council, Ali Shamkhani, said 13 “revenge scenarios” were being considered in the wake of the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds force, and that even the most limited options would be a “historic nightmare” for the US.
Ali Shamkhani told the Tasnim news agency: “The 27 US bases that are closest to Iran’s border are already on high alert; they know that the response is likely to include medium-range & long-range missiles.”
Trump responded to Iranian threats in remarks to the press at the White House “We’re totally prepared. And likewise, we’re prepared to attack if we have to,” he said.
US base in Iraq comes under rocket attack as Trump and Iran exchange threats
Updated at 18:51 EST
18:42 EST
According to Iran state TV, Tehran has launched “tens” of surface-to-surface missiles toward Iraq’s Ain Assad air base, which houses US troops.
US military officials have confirmed to reporters that at least six rockets fell on the air base.
The US military confirms an ongoing rocket attack on Al-Asad airbase where US troops are based. It’s the one Trump said Iraq would have to pay for if the US leaves.
— Liz Sly (@LizSly) January 7, 2020
Updated at 18:43 EST
18:25 EST
Iran launches missiles on Iraqi air base where US troops are housed
From senior US military source in Iraq:
“Under missile attack from Iran. These are either cruise missiles or short range ballistic missiles. All over the country.”
— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) January 7, 2020
In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said: “The brave soldiers of IRGC’s aerospace unit have launched a successful attack with tens of ballistic missiles on Al Assad military base in the name of martyr Gen.Qasem Soleimani”.
BREAKING: STATEMENT FROM IRGC:
“The brave soldiers of IRGC’s aerospace unit have launched a successful attack with tens of ballistic missiles on Al Assad military base in the name of martyr Gen.Qasem Soleimani.”#Iraq #Iran #AlAssadBase
— Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 7, 2020
There is no information yet on any casualties or damage from the rockets. The Guardian will have more updates soon.
Updated at 20:00 EST
18:18 EST
Republican senators block a resolution to declare that attacks on cultural sites are war crimes
Although Donald Trump has walked back threats to attack Iranian cultural sites, which are forbidden under international law, Democratic senators today tried to pass a resolution rebuking such attacks.
Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, tried to get unanimous consent to pass the resolution, but his efforts were blocked by the Senate armed services committee chair Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
“Therefore be it resolved by the Senate, that attacks on cultural sites are war crimes.”
That’s the resolution Republicans just objected to passing.
Attacking cultural sites in Iran would align us with the most sinister forces and draw us further down the path to illegal war. pic.twitter.com/A6L8TGrTSY
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) January 7, 2020
© 2020 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
!!!
Mconnel, president
President Mitch McConnell
He’s in charge of everything but shooting at Iran.

By Gail Collins
Opinion Columnist
Jan. 8, 2020
I guess we can get back to impeachment.
Donald Trump announced the Iran crisis was over Wednesday, adding that Americans “should be extremely grateful and happy.”
It’s not entirely clear who he wants us to be grateful to. God? Fate? The ayatollah?
Let’s take a wild guess that the answer is living in the White House.
It was a very short talk — less than 10 minutes — but the president still managed to give himself multiple pats on the back. (“Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before. …”)
And, naturally, blame everything bad on Barack Obama. Trump threw in one whopping inaccuracy — this would be our friendly, peace-loving version of “big fat lie.” He is going to spend the rest of his life claiming the Obama administration paid Iran billions of dollars to get the nuclear peace accord. Utterly false, but you will never talk Trump out of it, any more than you’ll convince him that windmills don’t cause cancer or that he didn’t really win the popular vote.
Dark, suspicious minds wondered if the president had started the whole Iran crisis to get Americans to stop thinking about the impeachment story. Certainly possible. This is a guy who knows how to distract. He golfs, he tweets, he creates crises.
If Trump thought there was any chance of actually getting kicked out of office, God knows what he’d do. Invade another country? Arrest Nancy Pelosi? Pretend to adopt a pet?
Fortunately for him — if not for us — Mitch McConnell is running everything. The House impeachment vote is, of course, a done deal. The bill is going to reach the Senate sometime soon, and the majority leader has been dropping tiny hints that he’s leaning toward giving Trump a pass. (“I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers.”)
During their deliberations, the senators apparently won’t be hearing from John Bolton, who’s now jumping up and down and waving his hand in an effort to volunteer to serve as a witness. Bolton would be the ideal person to ask about Trump’s plan to trade military aid to Ukraine for political dirt on Joe Biden. Granted, he’s a little late out of the gate. Probably been busy searching his conscience. Can’t possibly have anything to do with having a book coming out.
Doesn’t matter. McConnell has expressed zero enthusiasm for the idea of letting Bolton come — unless Donald Trump decides that the Senate’s top priority should be an unconstrained search for the truth. Hehehehe.
It would take four Republican defections just to get Bolton in the door. Even the most theoretically independent of them — even the ones who are at no political risk whatsoever — seem too terrified to stand up to their leader. (O.K., Mitt Romney, one last chance.)
Some of the Republicans might think wistfully that Mike Pence — even Mike Pence — would be a big improvement over the guy we’ve got now. For the country, maybe, but not for Mitch McConnell. Trump is the perfect president for Mitch. For the past three years, the senator from Kentucky has basically been running the government. Somebody has to do it, and the administration’s people are barely capable of opening their office doors.
Trump’s two big victories as president have been the tax cut — organized and pushed through to law by Mitch McConnell — and a raft of new conservative federal judges. Listen to the president and you’d think he had the opportunity to name them all because Barack Obama just forgot — or was too lazy — to fill any openings. (“He gave me 142!”)
In the real world Obama was nominating judges like crazy. McConnell refused to even give them a hearing.
Thanks to his pal and protector Mitch, Trump has it both ways on issues like gun control and prescription drug prices. He can say he’s in favor of change without taking any risk that anything will be presented for his signature into law. Mitch has it all covered — with a lid. The House passed more than 400 bills last year, and about 80 percent of them are sitting around moldering on the Senate runway.
This is incredible power for a politician who’s never been elected to national office and isn’t even popular in his home state — one recent poll put him at the very bottom of the Senate, with a 37 percent positive voter rating in Kentucky.
Nevertheless, the country’s been Mitchified.
It’s really the McConnell era, and we ought to be discussing that every day, particularly whenever Donald Trump is within earshot.
There’s only so much the media can do to make this situation clear. We have certain journalistic rules against beginning news stories with, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who actually runs the country, expressed support for his minion, Donald Trump . …”
But nobody’s stopping you. Tweet away. It’ll drive the president crazy. No idea how McConnell would react. He’s probably too busy making all the real decisions to notice.
© 2020 The New York Times Company
President Trump says Iran stands down!
The chances of his Senate equittal are guaranteed, and his narrative will most certainly suggest a 2020 win!
This was a tremendous politi cal gamble from which he has succeeded to win palms up!
The inversion of politically dynamic , as manifestation of a new dialectic, is testament to his achievement, dare to say.
The pieces of the missing platform have been successfully assembled.
A lot of wind has been removed from the impeachment credibility, by whay Fixed suggested, or the effects of will powered by determination, ( or something akin), and such apparently hidden motives could go by a 'collusive interpretation, but it is simply not quite so.
The ontological rescue consists of the highest level, and it was not Trump who dreamed it up out of an invisible landscape, but someone much higher and more delegated. The frontman had to act as if his apprenticeship was just a debt repaid to an unforgiving god, while in reality it subscribed to Christian values.
It is not really an inside job perpetuated by the mob, and yet they are instrumental.
Kudos!*
*course subject to any possible derailment caused by Iranian dirty tricks hereafter.
hmm. hey yo i wonder if the idiot did this to distract us all from the impeachment thing? think about it. attack iran > iran is obviously outgunned so will only shoot a few bottle rockets at some american bases to get revenge > trump becomes the hero in american protestant redneck backward working class conservative eyes.
i dunno though, i still don’t think this will have any lasting advantage in forestalling the general political current that’s moving toward socialism in the west, so i’m not really disappointed. aside from being a temporary distraction and fix for the mess that trump is in, it sure as shit doesn’t make the middle east any more friendly toward the U.S., which is a good thing. ‘course that idiot never cared about the U.S. in the first place, so even seeing in advance what might result in long term foreign relations with the middle east from that air strike, wouldn’t be something to worry about. this asswipe’s job is to play the bitch of industrial lobbyists and deep state special interest groups and put as much money as he can in his own pockets before he dies. and this will certainly work, because he’ll be dead before western capitalism is eradicated. yeah ol’ don trump’s gonna get away clean i’m afraid. and ya’ll sorry sonsabitches sat right there and let him, too. i don’t know whether to laugh or laugh.
Hey alls I’m sayin is the U.S. has done it before…
“Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas, that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser of the United States Navy.”
I’ve thought as well in more dramatic terms way back in this forum , .calling it ’ war the dog '., as a way of distracting internal problems and pegging it to outside influences.
Clever, but not new, as You noted.
It appears Trump is a gambler, and makes policy the same way as he ran the Tump casino in Atlantic City.
Then deny failure by not paying the contract is working for him to try to limit over run expenses.
But again, another ingenuity: .he set this up, or was set up in terms of faux entertainment, politics, clowning folksy playing around, grandiose in a feel good way, a good guy to have around, etc
Meanwhile the proof is in the pudding, we are how we always thought of ourselves, robust, go getter Yankees No one can mess around with, he can withstand the lashings of all of the serpentine tongued socialist bums, …
He is THE Man, for all seasons, with or without public sentiment, he is an idol by fiat, even the gods shine fortune upon his countenance, Bless America and for whom it stands, Trump.
POLITICO
NULL
‘I’ve never seen him like that’: Trump defends Iran briefing after GOP Sen. Lee lashes out

President Donald Trump. | Drew Angerer/Getty Image
President Donald Trump on Thursday defended senior administration officials from forceful criticism by Sen. Mike Lee, after the Utah Republican called their classified briefing on the killing of a top Iranian military commander “the worst” he had participated in during his tenure on Capitol Hill.
“I get along great with Mike Lee. I’ve never seen him like that,” Trump told reporters at a White House event, referring to Lee’s fiery remarks Wednesday following the congressional briefing — which featured Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel.
“I had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women saying it was the greatest presentation they’ve ever had,” the president claimed.
Sprinting across several morning television news programs to address Washington’s heightened tensions with Tehran, Vice President Mike Pence also pushed back against Lee’s complaints.
While Pence said he had “great respect” for Lee and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who joined with his GOP colleague in blasting the briefing, he told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “the truth is both of them have voted against the military action that’s been taken by this administration in self-defense in Yemen and in the region, and we respectfully disagree with them.”
The briefing Wednesday focused primarily on Trump’s order last week to eliminate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite paramilitary Quds Force, in an overnight U.S. drone strike near Baghdad’s international airport. That assault prompted a missile salvo from the Iranian military against two Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops.
Although senior administration officials have claimed Soleimani’s removal from the battlefield prevented an imminent threat that could have endangered as many as hundreds of American lives in the region, congressional Democrats have evinced skepticism regarding the intelligence behind the strike.
Lee appeared to echo those concerns, branding Wednesday’s session “the worst briefing I’ve seen — at least on a military issue — in my nine years” in the Senate.
He fumed that the administration officials in attendance warned against even deliberating legislation to restrict Trump’s authority to attack Iran, knocking their statements as “un-American” and “unconstitutional.”
“They had to leave after 75 minutes while they’re in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public,” Lee said. “I find that absolutely insane.”
In an interview with NPR on Thursday, Lee sought to clarify that his anger “was not about the Soleimani killing” but was “instead about the possibility of future military action against Iran.”
“I want to be clear: With respect to the strike against Soleimani, that was arguably lawful. I still have questions that remain unanswered on that point. I’m going to set that aside a moment, and I’m going to assume for purposes of this discussion that that may well have been lawful,” Lee said.
“What I’m most concerned about is about where that goes from here,” he continued. “What comes next? Is there another strike coming against Iran? If so, at what point do they need to come to us seeking an authorization for the use of military force? The fact that they were unable or unwilling to identify any point at which that would be necessary yesterday was deeply distressing to me.”
The briefing has prompted both Lee and Paul to throw their support behind a resolution offered by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) aimed at forcing the president to halt military action against Iran if not authorized by Congress except in a case of an imminent threat. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also announced Wednesday that the chamber would vote Thursday to limit Trump’s war-making powers.
“Mike and Rand Paul disagreed because they want information that, honestly, I think is very hard to get. It’s OK if the military wants to give it, but they didn’t want to give it,” Trump said. “And it really had to do with sources and information that we had that really should remain at a very high level. Could we individually maybe give one or two of them some information? Possibly, if we can do that.”
On “Fox & Friends,” Pence praised Lee as a “great conservative and a great leader” and said the administration had “honest differences of opinion” with the two senators regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East.
“But let me assure your viewers, I was there every step of the way,” Pence said. “And while to protect sources and methods, we’re simply not able to share with every member of the House and Senate the intelligence that supported the president’s decision to take out Qassem Soleimani, I can assure your viewers that there was a threat of an imminent attack.”
Pence was also pressed Wednesday by NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie on “Today” as to why the administration briefers could not, in a secure setting in the Capitol, share with lawmakers the nature of the threat Soleimani posed.
“Well, some of that has to do with what’s called sources and methods, Savannah,” he responded. “That if we were to share all of the intelligence — and, in fact, some of the most compelling evidence that Qassem Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against American forces and American personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have — it could compromise those sources and methods.”
© 2020 POLITICO LLC
POLITICS NEWS
As Pelosi prepares to transfer impeachment articles, Trump signals he might block Bolton testimony
Trump said in an interview that he would “have to” invoke executive privilege to block John Bolton from testifying in the Senate trial.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) walks back to her office after leaving the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 10, 2020.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Jan. 10, 2020, 12:02 PM EST / Updated Jan. 10, 2020, 4:26 PM EST
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter to Democratic lawmakers on Friday that she will consult with them Tuesday as she announced steps to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Pelosi’s announcement comes as President Donald Trump says he’d block his former national security adviser from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial.
The speaker’s letter suggested that the House could name its managers, who will act as the prosecutors for the Senate trial, and transmit the two articles of impeachment against the president as soon as next week. But Pelosi gave no specific indication of exactly when she intends to send the articles to the Senate, a step that is necessary for the trial to begin.
“I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate,” she wrote. “I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.”
“In an impeachment trial, every senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ Every senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the president or the Constitution,” she continued.
This browser does not support the video element.
Asked Friday morning if she would submit the articles to the Senate next week, Pelosi would only tell reporters at the Capitol, "We’ll see.”
Trump, in a Fox News interview excerpt released Friday, called Pelosi’s actions “ridiculous,” adding: “She should have sent them a long time ago. It just belittles the process.”
Trump added that he thinks he would “have to” invoke executive privilege to block his former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial, saying it would be “for the sake of the office.”
When asked by Fox News’ Laura Ingraham why he would not let Bolton testify, Trump said, “I have no problem, other than one thing: You can’t be in the White House as president — future, I’m talking about future, many future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things. …”
Asked if he would invoke executive privilege, Trump said, “Well, I think you have to, for the sake of the office.”
Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he wouldn’t mind a Senate deal on witnesses if it meant that his defense could also call people to testify who are of interest to Republicans. When asked whether he’d object to his former national security adviser testifying, Trump said it would be up to the Senate, but protecting executive privilege was critical.
The administration has tried to prevent several top officials from testifying in the House and Senate proceedings, frustrating Democrats who have called for their testimony. Bolton, a key figure in the impeachment saga who did not testify during the House inquiry, said earlier this week he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.
Fighting over process
In her letter to colleagues on Friday, Pelosi sharply criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for actions that she said show his partiality toward Trump. McConnell has said he has enough Republican votes in the Senate to move forward with his plan for the impeachment trial without the support of the Democrats demanding witness testimony. He has also said that he is working in coordination with the White House counsel in preparation for the trial.
“For weeks now, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency, disregard for the American people’s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts,” Pelosi said.
“Leader McConnell’s tactics are a clear indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the president’s violations for which he was impeached,” she added.
When asked at the Capitol about Pelosi saying she could send the articles, McConnell simply responded, “About time.” He later told reporters, “We’ve been asking to get started for the last, how many weeks has it been now? And we’ll get about it as soon as we can.”
The majority leader added, “Look, we’re just getting started,” when asked whether he thought the trial would need to be wrapped up before Trump delivers his State of the Union address early next month. “I’m glad we now have the option to do it. And it’s been a long wait, I’m glad it’s over.”
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement on Pelosi’s announcement that his Democratic colleagues "are ready for the trial to begin and will do everything we can to see that the truth comes out.”
Building pressure
Pelosi’s announcement comes after several Democrats in the House and Senate publicly said this week that she should relent and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, although some of those Democrats later walked back those statements.
For weeks, Democrats have been calling for the testimony of several top administration officials who they say had direct knowledge of Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, while withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to the country and a White House meeting for its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
The speaker told reporters Thursday that she would send the articles “when I’m ready” and explicitly said she wouldn’t hold them “indefinitely,” but pressure has been building on her from within her own party as well as from Republicans to transmit them.
McConnell added to that pressure when he said Thursday that he supports a resolution offered by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., that would allow for the dismissal of the articles if Pelosi decided not to send them over.
McConnell has said the first phase of the trial would include “arguments from the prosecution, arguments from the defense” and a “period of written questions” submitted by senators of both parties. The majority leader, however, did not say whether Republicans would agree to hearing witness testimony, although he has said he would want the trial to adhere to the precedent set during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, in which the Senate decided later in the proceedings on whether to call witnesses.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate president pro tempore and Finance Committee chairman, criticized Pelosi in a statement Friday for what he called her “pointless delay,” saying the speaker threw Congress into “unnecessary chaos.”
“From the beginning, it’s been unclear what the goal of this hurry-up-and-wait tactic was or what the country stood to gain,” he said. “We now know the answer was nothing. We’ve had three needless weeks of uncertainty and confusion, causing even more division.”
The trial will likely put the five Senate Democrats running for the Democratic presidential nomination at a disadvantage in the race, as they will need to be present for the trial to act effectively as jurors. The trial could begin ahead of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, both slated for early next month.
BBC News
menu
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
10 January 2020 Africa
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
Image copyrightAFPDonald Trump
US President Donald Trump seems to think that he was overlooked for last year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Why, what did he say?
“I’m going to tell you about the Nobel Peace Prize, I’ll tell you about that. I made a deal, I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said: ‘What, did I have something to do with it?’ Yeah, but you know, that’s the way it is. As long as we know, that’s all that matters… I saved a big war, I’ve saved a couple of them.”
A video clip of him talking to supporters at a campaign event in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday evening was shared on Twitter:
Presentational white space
Who was he talking about?
Although he did not name the Nobel Peace Prize winner or the country, it is clear that Mr Trump was referring to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.
Mr Abiy, 43, is Africa’s youngest head of government.
Image copyrightAFP
Image captionMr Abiy has been praised for introducing a series of reforms
He came into office in April 2018 after months of anti-government protests forced his predecessor to resign.
Mr Abiy has introduced massive liberalising reforms to Ethiopia, shaking up what was a tightly controlled nation.
He freed thousands of opposition activists from jail and allowed exiled dissidents to return home. He has also allowed the media to operate freely and appointed women to prominent positions.
And in October last year, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - the only head of state to win the prize since Mr Trump was elected in 2016.
ADVERTISEMENT
Why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Mr Abiy was honoured for his “decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea”.
The two countries fought a bitter border war from 1998-2000, which killed tens of thousands of people. Although a ceasefire was signed in 2000, the neighbours technically remained at war until July 2018, when Mr Abiy and Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki signed a peace deal. So for two decades, the long border was closed, dividing families and making trade impossible.
The Nobel Committee said it hoped the peace agreement would help to bring about positive change to the citizens of Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Since the peace deal with Eritrea, Mr Abiy has also been involved in peace processes in other African countries, the committee said.
You may be interested in:
Has Abiy brought peace to East Africa?
Inside the mind of Abiy Ahmed
Bold reforms expose Ethiopia’s ethnic divides
Mali president’s ex-aide ‘charged over anti-Trump tweets’
Did Trump help broker peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea?
Not really - the US’s influence in the peace talks was minimal. The United Arab Emirates, which has a lot of influence in the Horn of Africa, was key in helping to bring the two parties together, says the BBC’s former Ethiopia correspondent, Emmanuel Igunza.
Saudi Arabia also played a key role in helping end the dispute.
Video captionNear Zalambessa relatives who had not seen each other for more than two decades hugged and kissed
The peace deal helped bring back Eritrea from the cold after sanctions were imposed in 2009.
The UN Security Council lifted the sanctions in November 2018, four months after the peace deal was signed.
ADVERTISEMENT
Why did Trump make the comments now?
This is not clear, given that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on 11 October last year, and Mr Abiy gave his acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway, on 10 December.
Interestingly, Mr Trump has not officially congratulated Mr Abiy but his daughter, Ivanka Trump, who serves as his senior adviser, and the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have done so.
However, Mr Trump has publicly said he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for, among other things, his efforts to convince North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un to give up nuclear weapons.
More on this story
Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed: Inside the mind of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner
10 December 2019
Abiy Ahmed’s reforms in Ethiopia lift the lid on ethnic tensions
29 June 2019
Nobel Peace Prize: Has Abiy brought peace to East Africa?
11 October 2019
Abiy Ahmed: Ethiopia’s prime minister
11 October 2019
Ethiopia country profile
24 June 2019
Copyright © 2020 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
------------‘’---------------‘’‘-------------’‘’- x. X.
New charges in Toledo
Another Insane Trump Rant, But This One Had a Revealing Moment
In the midst of apocalyptic Democrat-bashing, the president seemed to reveal this is all a routine.
BY JACK HOLMES JAN 10, 2020
President Donald Trump Holds “Keep America Great” Campaign Rally In Toledo, Ohio
BRITTANY GREESONGETTY IMAGES
At this point, thanks to the almighty curve on which we as a nation have decided to grade Donald Trump, American president, Thursday night’s yell-fest in Toledo was just another Very Presidential Event. The world’s most powerful man demonized his political opponents as enemies of the state because they want Congress to have some role in making less-and-less-theoretical war on Iran. He called members of the assembled press “sick,” and again suggested the free press has no legitimate role in our democratic republic if it fails to support his version of reality. He again characterized Hispanic immigrants as violent criminals, MS-13 “animals” against whom any measures are presumably justified. He lied, and also threw out more evidence-free claims about imminent attacks that justified his assassination of Iran’s second most important figure. He yelled, and not for the first time, that the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has a “pencil neck.” This is all considered normal.
But there was one moment that proved particularly revealing. In the course of these explosions of, uh, patriotism, El Jefe tends to drift on and off the script provided to him by his lackeys—chiefly, the Santa Monica Wormtongue Stephen Miller. In the course of one such drift last night, he railed against Democrats on-script and then jumped off to, for perhaps the first time in his life, reflect on what he’s doing.
Let’s just get a transcript here.
But they want to have open borders. they want to have sanctuary cities. The radical Democrats have never been more extreme than they are right now. They are stone-cold crazy. You know, it’s interesting. As I’m saying this stuff, you know—they want crime, they want chaos—I’m saying all this stuff, and then I say, “Gee, now I sort of understand why they hate me, right?” [Chuckles.] But it’s true. It’s true. Their policies are a disaster. They’re bad politicians, and they have horrible policies. But what they do, they stick together, and they’re vicious. They’re vicious, horrible people. I didn’t use to say that. They’re horrible people. What they do to people is a disgrace. But they stick together.
You might say he’s just joking around, but the blasé way he recites the “stuff” he says about Democrats points to it being a kind of bit. It’s a routine. Unlike Miller and unlike the people in the crowd, Donald Trump is no true believer. He’s a vector for forces that long predate him, the fear and resentment of a changing world that has long blasted out of Fox News and talk radio. He knows what people want to hear and he says it. He thinks something will help him so he says it. Democrats? Sure, call 'em vicious and horrible crime-wanters.
It’s times like these that you remember Donald Trump does not actually care about any of this stuff. He does not care about illegal immigration—he’s employed undocumented immigrants at his properties and on construction projects. He does not care about these people in the crowd who support him so enthusiastically, one of whom he shouted out for booing the very mention of Central American countries. Everybody’s a mark or an enemy. Do they love me, or do they not love me? The Democrats have chosen to oppose him, so now he’ll say whatever’s necessary to destroy them. Meanwhile, can you imagine what the Liberal Media would do if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren called Republicans “vicious, horrible people” who want crime and chaos? The Washington Post fact-checker needles Sanders for intricate healthcare policy claims that…are true.
Is Trump’s rapacious cynicism better or worse than being a true believer? I suppose we’re about to find out. The run-up to the 2018 elections, where Trump himself was not even on the ballot, were incredibly ugly. Imagine what’s about to come over the next 11 months.
JACK HOLMES Politics Editor
Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.
©2020 Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Trump, ‘prosperity gospel’ sell false promises.
‘Evangelicals for Trump’ was an awful display by supposed citizens of the Kingdom of God
Trump mocked his enemies, trafficked in half-truths, instilled fear and expressed zero humility. My fellow evangelicals loved every minute of it.
JOHN FEA | OPINION CONTRIBUTOR | 21 minutes ago
I have spent my entire adult life in the evangelical community. I had a born-again experience when I was 16 and I never looked back. I currently teach history at a Christian college with evangelical roots. As a historian, I study American evangelicalism.
But I have never seen anything like what I witnessed last Friday night as I watched President Donald Trump speak to a few thousand of his evangelical supporters at El Rey Jesus, a largely Hispanic megachurch in Miami, during the kickoff to his “Evangelicals for Trump” campaign.
It is no coincidence that this rally took place two weeks after Christianity Today, the historic voice of moderate evangelicalism, called for Trump’s removal from office. The magazine’s editor, Mark Galli, described Trump’s character as “grossly immoral” and warned his fellow evangelicals that their ardent support of the president was damaging to their Christian witness.
While the “Evangelicals for Trump” campaign had been in the works for several weeks prior to Galli’s editorial, it is hard to see the decision to schedule the kickoff event for Jan. 3 as anything but damage control. Even the smallest crack in his evangelical support — especially in swing states like Florida — could result in a Trump loss in 2020.
One note that’s music to evangelicals
Before Trump’s speech Friday night, several evangelical leaders laid their hands on the president and prayed for him. “Apostle” Guillermo Maldonado, the pastor of El Rey Jesus, prayed that Trump would fulfill his role as a new King Cyrus, the Old Testament Persian ruler who released the Jews from captivity and allowed them to rebuild Jerusalem.
Paula White, a preacher of the Prosperity Gospel (God blesses the faithful with financial and physical health), prayed against the demonic forces, presumably Democrats, trying to undermine Trump’s presidency.
“Evangelicals for Trump” event in Miami, on Jan. 3, 2020.
“Evangelicals for Trump” event in Miami, on Jan. 3, 2020.
As Trump took the podium, the evangelicals in attendance, many wearing pro-Trump clothing and “Make America Great Again” hats, began screaming “USA, USA, USA.” It was clear from the outset that this event would be no different from any other Trump rally. It didn’t matter that the room was filled with born-again Christians. Trump only knows how to sing one note, and it is music to the ears of his evangelical supporters.
Trump and the ‘Prosperity Gospel’: He’s selling false promises to credulous evangelical Christians
Trump bragged about the crowd size, adding that there were “thousands of people” outside “trying to get in.” He called the “Evangelicals for Trump” movement the “greatest grass roots movement in American history.” He reminded everyone that he took the life of Qasem Soleimani. “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” the Rolling Stones anthem that has become Trump’s theme song, blared over the church loudspeaker in Spanish when he finished his speech. Maybe “Onward Christian Soldiers” would have been more appropriate.
Trump painted himself as a president who is protecting American evangelicals from those on the political left who want to “punish” people of faith and “destroy religion in America.” One of the evangelical Christians in the audience screamed “Pocohontas,” a racist reference to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Trump was visibly pleased.
Trump the strongman was on display. Like autocratic leaders before him, he stirred fear among his people and offered them safety under his regime.
Cheering Trump’s depraved words
At one point in his speech, Trump rattled off the names of the Fox News personalities who carry his water on cable television. The crowd roared as the president read this laundry list of conservative media pundits.
This rhetorical flourish was all very appropriate on such an occasion because Fox News, more than anything else, including the Bible and the spiritual disciplines, has formed and shaped the values of so many people in the sanctuary. Trump’s staff knows this. Why else would they put such a roll call in the speech?
At times, it seemed like Trump was putting a new spin on the heroes of the faith described in the New Testament book of Hebrews. Instead of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Joseph, Moses, David, and Samuel, we got Sean (Hannity), Laura (Ingraham), Tucker (Carlson), and the hosts of Fox and Friends.
Message to evangelicals: Impeachment is about Donald Trump. It’s not an attack on you.
I am used to this kind of thing from Trump, but I was stunned when I witnessed evangelical Christians — those who identify with the “good news” of Jesus Christ —raising their hands in a posture of worship as Trump talked about socialism and gun rights.
I watched my fellow evangelicals rising to their feet and pumping their fists when Trump said he would win reelection in 2020.
Trump spent the evening mocking his enemies, trafficking in half-truths in order to instill fear in people whom God commands to “fear not,” and proving that he is incapable of expressing anything close to Christian humility.
His evangelical supporters loved every minute of it. On Friday night, Christians who claim to be citizens of the Kingdom of God went to church, cheered the depraved words of a president, and warmly embraced his offer of political power. Such a display by evangelicals is unprecedented in American history.
I usually get angry when members of my tribe worship at the feet of Trump. This time I just felt sad.
John Fea
© Copyright Gannett 2020
Why Trump’s changing Iran story is costing him support in Congress
Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN
Updated 11:22 AM EST, Sat January 11, 2020
(CNN)President Donald Trump’s decision to kill a top Iranian general and risk a war without consulting lawmakers has prompted Republican griping, with even close Trump allies going on the record to rein in the President’s power to escalate things further.
That’s in part because, a full week after the airstrike that killed Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the White House has yet to offer a clear, consistent articulation of what “imminent” attack the US was trying to avoid – and, in fact, top administration officials are offering conflicting justifications, raising key constitutional questions.
The House has its say on Iran
While Republicans have largely fallen in line on the question of whether Trump should be allowed to pressure a foreign country – Ukraine – to undermine his political rival, they are exerting a few flashes of independence from the White House when it comes to attacking Iran.
The President has made specific allegations about the necessity of killing Soleimani. His top aides have remained much more oblique, making it seem as if they are trying to cloud the record without contradicting their boss.
Of course, ignoring Congress and fighting over policy and funding with lawmakers has been a constant of Trump’s presidency, even during his first two years, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.
Those fights intensified when Democrats took control of the House a year ago, leading to a record-setting government shutdown in early 2019. Then, when Trump blew off questions about his pressure on Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and tried to squash a congressional investigation, House Democrats impeached him for it.
Trump’s decision to kill an Iranian general and tempt war without consulting Congress was of a different order, and created a national security crisis that puts American lives at risk. And Congress, like the public, has been kept in the dark on some of the most important intelligence.
It’s an important question because, if there was no imminent threat of danger to Americans, the killing veers from anti-terror operation to political assassination. The Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war, did not envision that sort of power.
Here’s what the administration has said so far – and why it matters.
Embassies targeted
Expanding on an already broad list of justifications for the killing, Trump said at a rally with supporters in Ohio on Thursday that Soleimani had been plotting to blow up the US Embassy in Iraq, along with other diplomatic locations.
“Soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad,” Trump said, adding, “but we stopped him, and we stopped him quickly, and we stopped him cold.”
He added in a Fox News interview on Friday that four embassies had been targeted. But Trump is the only US official to make that specific allegation in that way. Others, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, have been much more vague, promising they had the goods to justify “imminent” threat, but failing to say publicly what the intelligence was.
Lawmakers, however, said there was no mention of embassy targeting in their briefings this week.
“I listened very carefully. I definitely would have known if anyone said that. That is news to me,” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia told CNN’s Ted Barrett.
A vague target ‘in the region’
Pompeo, a former CIA director, had previously said that the exact timing or target of an attack was unknown.
“It was going to be against the United States of America, likely in the region. We can’t say much more than that, but the American people should know there was an attack. It was in the planning stages, but we had seen Qasem Soleimani be able to deliver on this kind of plan before,” he said in a Fox News appearance on Thursday.
Interviewer Laura Ingraham, on Friday, specifically asked if Soleimani wanted to blow up the US Embassy in Iraq. Pompeo didn’t say yes, but mentioned previous protests that jeopardized the US Embassy.
“It was his forces that penetrated our embassy just a handful of days before that – Kata’ib Hezbollah warriors orchestrated and directed by Qasem Soleimani himself. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Soleimani had intentions not only to take action against our forces, our diplomats in Iraq, but in other countries around the region and world as well.”
Later Friday, Pompeo was pressed about the discrepancies.
The White House briefing room exchange, in which he maintains the “imminent” language and insists on the lack of specificity, is key. Here’s how it reads:
Q: Can you clarify? Did you have specific information about an imminent threat, and did it have anything to do with our embassies?
POMPEO: We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on US embassies. Period. Full stop.
Trump had a busy week even aside from Iran and impeachment. Here’s what you missed.
Q: So you were mistaken when you said you didn’t know precisely when and you didn’t know precisely where?
POMPEO: Nope. Completely true. Those are completely consistent thoughts. I don’t know exactly which minute. We don’t know exactly which day it would’ve been executed. But it was very clear: Qasem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests. And those attacks were imminent.
Q: Against an embassy?
POMPEO: Against American facilities, including American embassies, military bases. American facilities throughout the region.
Why Congress wasn’t briefed
Vice President Mike Pence said lawmakers couldn’t be trusted with the most sensitive information.
“Some of that has to do with what’s called sources and methods,” Pence said Thursday on NBC’s “Today” show. “Some of the most compelling evidence that Qasem Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack against American forces and American personnel also represents some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have – it could compromise those sources and methods.”
Except that’s not generally the way it’s supposed to work. Congress is supposed to be in the loop. And not every member of Congress. Rather, just eight lawmakers – the so-called Gang of 8 – representing the top two lawmakers from each party in the House and Senate and four top leaders from the intelligence committees. The Trump administration has ignored this bipartisan notification with previous operations, too.
But the larger question for Congress is focused on the future, particularly if the situation reescalates. The last time Congress authorized the use of military force was in 2003, when it voted to let President George W. Bush invade Iraq. Actions against terror groups are conducted under the 2001 vote taken after the 9/11 terror attacks. Democrats, along with a few Republicans, voted in the House to restrict Trump’s ability to act against Iran.
Certainly there are competing interests – justifying the killing of an individual by the US government vs. protecting methods and sources of intelligence gathering. But Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey said he had attended the intelligence briefing for senators and left without any clarity.
“I think this is a case where one ultimately molds the intelligence that exist to fit what you want to do,” Menendez said on MSNBC.
On Thursday, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a close Trump ally, voted in favor of a Democratic-written war powers resolution, saying it was because the “Trump movement is an anti-war movement.”
“I think the President needs to see his allies animating his true beliefs and instincts,” Gaetz said. “I think that it’s actually harmful to the President if all of the Republicans look like the pro-war party.”
What happens next?
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, erupted after a briefing by administration national security officials specifically over this question of separation of powers.
“It was, instead, about the possibility of future military action against Iran,” he told NPR. “And it was on that topic that they refused to make any commitment about when, whether and under what circumstances it would be necessary for the President, or the executive branch of government, to come to Congress seeking authorization for the use of military force.”
But Lee and other Republicans raising the alarm about war powers are still in the minority in their party. Even for some Republicans who want to have a debate on war powers, now is not the time, because it could damage Trump.
“I absolutely think we need to have an honest debate on the war powers act,” said Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican. “But it does not need to be specific to one country and it does not need to be done in the manner in which it was done.” He said the debate should occur "when it’s not seen as an attack against the President
© 2020 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
“costing him support in congress.”
That’s rich.
Yeah, isn’t it? Like the national security of the country was rather less important then his primary concern.
I think even Republicans must hate this guy, but their carreeres ride on their tailcoats.
The Guardian -
Trump impeachment
Impeachment: Trump fumes as Pelosi prepares to send articles to the Senate
President claims speaker is ‘absolute worst in US history’
How to dump Trump: Rick Wilson on Running Against the Devil
Whether or not Nancy Pelosi is the “absolute worst Speaker of the House in US history”, as Donald Trump insists, the Democrat said on Sunday her caucus will meet on Tuesday to decide when to transmit two articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.
John Bolton impeachment testimony will be blocked, Donald Trump says
Preparations continue for a piece of pure Washington theatre. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached, which makes Trump only the third president to face trial in the Senate, a process Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton survived.
The articles of impeachment were approved before Christmas but Pelosi delayed sending them to the Senate while Democrats sought to negotiate trial rules with Republicans who hold the upper chamber.
Democrats want former national security adviser John Bolton and other key Trump aides to appear as witnesses and new evidence to be presented. Bolton has said he will appear if served with a subpoena.
In an interview with Fox News broadcast on Friday night, Trump made clear that he would block such testimony, citing executive privilege.
Majority leader Mitch McConnell remains in lockstep with the White House, saying he has not ruled out new witnesses but emphasising that impeachment is a political rather than a judicial process and promising the case against Trump will quickly be dismissed.
Republicans have followed their leader, regardless of the oath they will take to be impartial jurors. Democratic hopes that moderates such as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska might force the calling of witnesses seem to have been in vain.
“It’s about a fair trial,” Pelosi told ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “They take an oath to have a fair trial and we think that would be with witnesses and documentation. Now the ball is in their court to either do that or pay a price for not doing that.”
Pelosi said McConnell’s behaviour, including signing up to a resolution to dismiss the charges against Trump without a trial, was “vastly unusual”.
“Dismissing is a cover-up,” she said.
The case against Trump is that he abused his power, by seeking investigations in Ukraine regarding a conspiracy theory about election interference and alleged corruption involving former vice-president Joe Biden, and then obstructed Congress in its attempts to investigate the affair.
In House hearings, witnesses detailed the withholding of nearly $400m in military aid as well as promises of a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelinskiy. Bolton, who sought a judge’s opinion on whether he should testify, thereby delaying a decision until the articles were approved, emerged as a key figure.
For example, Fiona Hill, a British-born former White House expert on Russia policy, explained how Bolton called efforts towards the Kyiv government by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and others a “drug deal” in which he wanted no part.
Even if Republicans do allow new witnesses and documentation, a two-thirds majority of 100 senators would be required to remove Trump – a vastly unlikely outcome.
But leading Democrats, among them Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff, chairman of the House intelligence committee, have pointed to the emergence of new reporting on the Ukraine scandal as a benefit of Pelosi’s delay.
Pelosi told ABC: “We have confidence in our case that this is impeachable and the president is impeached for life, regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell. We’re confident in the impeachment and we think that’s enough testimony to remove [Trump] from office.”
On Saturday, Trump claimed “new polling shows that the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax is going nowhere”. In fact, most polling shows the US public split.
On Saturday a CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of Iowa voters, released ahead of the caucuses which kick-off the Democratic primary on 3 February, said 45% of voters in the state, of either party, disapproved of the process while 43% approved. Nationally, polls site fivethirtyeight.com puts support for removing Trump at 50.2%, to 46.2% against.
Trump spent the weekend presenting his aggressive moves against Iran as a contrast to alleged Democratic inaction domestically. Pelosi “is obsessed with impeachment”, he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “She has done nothing. She is going to go down as one of the worst speakers in the history of our country. And she’s become a crazed lunatic.”
On Sunday, Trump demanded ABC host George Stephanopoulos “ask Crazy Nancy why she allowed Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff to totally make up my conversation with the Ukrainian President & read his false words to Congress and the world”.
That was a reference to a summary Schiff made at a congressional hearing of a 25 July phone call between Trump and Zelinskiy which sits at the heart of Trump’s impeachment.
Why is Pelosi waiting to send Trump articles of impeachment to the Senate?
The president and allies have sought to portray an attempt to misrepresent Trump’s words. Opponents say the rough White House version of the call shows Trump engaged in impeachable behaviour.
Asked about Trump’s personal attacks, Pelosi told ABC: “It’s Sunday morning. I’d like to talk about some more pleasant subjects than the erratic nature of this president … but he has to know that every knock from him is a boost.”
She added: “I don’t like to spend too much time on his crazy tweets, because everything he says is a projection. When he calls someone crazy, he knows that he is.”
© 2020 Guardian News & Media
POLITICO
CONGRESS
How Schumer might get the last laugh on impeachment trial
Democrats plan to squeeze vulnerable Republicans with a series of tough votes that could hurt them in November.

Support for obtaining new documents at President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is “even stronger than we thought," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.
By BURGESS EVERETT and MARIANNE LEVINE
01/13/2020 05:10 AM EST
Chuck Schumer lost the first impeachment trial battle to Mitch McConnell. But the Democratic leader and his party insist they can still win the war.
While Senate Majority Leader McConnell has locked up enough Republican votes to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, his Democratic counterpart is readying a counteroffensive. Schumer will force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump.
Story Continued Below
Democrats argue the half-dozen at-risk GOP senators will need some daylight between them and Trump to get reelected. And if they vote against Schumer’s motions to hear new evidence and witness testimony, they’ll be seen as Trump sycophants — undermining their bids and boosting Schumer’s odds of becoming majority leader.
Support for obtaining new documents at the trial is “even stronger than we thought, with large numbers of Republicans supporting it,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “And when you go against what the American people feel strongly about, on an issue they’re paying attention to, it’s not a good idea.”
Public surveys in key swing states back up Democrats’ claims.
Polling from Hart Research found that 63 percent of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina would react unfavorably if their senator voted against calling witnesses or subpoenaing documents during the Senate impeachment trial. Another poll from Morning Consult found 57 percent of voters believe the Senate should call additional witnesses. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans.
Story Continued Below
Given Trump’s fast-paced presidency, there’s no guarantee impeachment is the top issue for voters in November.
But Maine moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins is already moving to blunt Schumer’s tactics, which she has complained about bitterly. She says she’s working with a handful of Republicans to keep a pathway open for witnesses, flashing some independence from Trump and McConnell.
“I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for witnesses for both the House managers and the president’s counsel if they choose,” Collins said in a statement for this story. “It is unfortunate that Chuck Schumer — who voted against witnesses in the Clinton trial and prejudged its outcome — and his allies are seeking to politicize this process.”
Trump national security adviser John Bolton’s offer to testify gives some momentum to Democrats’ calls for witnesses and documents about the White House’s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine. Democrats also want to hear from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey, and Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair.
Story Continued Below
“If the Republicans ram through process that ultimately leads to no witnesses, I think they do it at their own peril,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a former chairman of the party’s campaign arm. “Some of these members: They have an audience of one. But I think they forgot that there’s a broader audience that they’re going to have to face at election time.”
Republicans say Schumer has the politics all wrong, and that they are merely following the precedent of President Bill Clinton’s trial. That means starting the trial and deciding on witnesses later. However, Clinton impeachment investigators in 1999 did not face the same level of stonewalling the House has faced to date from Trump and Senate Republicans and eventually sought testimony from key witnesses.
So now that Schumer’s proposal has been rejected, Republicans merely see an effort to save face.
“He can create that narrative, I’m not the least bit worried about it,” said endangered Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). “Sounds like he’s trying to make lemonade out of lemons.”
“Everybody believes Sen. Schumer’s going to play a game with impeachment to try and get back the Senate,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is also up for reelection. “He wakes up every day trying to be the majority leader.”
Yet concentrating on process may also be good politics for Democrats.
“It’s a popular issue across America. I’ve not heard any blowback from it. Why wouldn’t someone want to hear from witnesses with firsthand information?” asked Doug Jones of Alabama, the most vulnerable Democratic senator facing reelection. He said not a single constituent “has said that’s an unreasonable position.”
Crossing Trump and being seen as following Schumer’s marching orders would court disaster for most GOP senators, who can’t afford to alienate their party’s conservative base. And Democrats are eager try to capitalize on Republican votes against new evidence in the impeachment trial.
Story Continued Below
And given slim hopes of most major legislation getting passed in the Senate this year, the impeachment votes may be some of the most high-profile roll calls taken by senators this year.
“The procedural votes may be more important than the vote on removal or acquittal. Because what will matter more to voters than where a senator lands is how he or she got there,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster for Hart Research. “So if Susan Collins or any of the other Republicans vote for acquittal and the takeaway for voters is this is a political or partisan vote on an important issue, that will have a long lasting impact.”
---------------------------------------'------
Close, oh close to wag the dog it almost barks at you.
MSNBC
The Rachel Maddow Show / The MaddowBlog
SAUL LOEB
Report further connects Trump’s impeachment fears, airstrike
01/13/20 09:20AM — UPDATED 01/13/20 09:36AM
The official White House explanation for the airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani – or more accurately, explanations – can no longer be taken seriously. Donald Trump and his team have changed direction several times, in meandering and contradictory ways, to the point that their rhetoric on the subject is literally unbelievable.
But the point of the scrutiny is not to document the latest in an endless stream of presidential lies. It’s also not some elaborate “gotcha” exercise. What’s important here is coming to terms with why in the world the American president risked a war on Jan. 3, and whether Trump put his political interests above our national security interests with his decision.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that in the wake of the airstrike, the president “told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate.” Over the weekend, the New York Times reported something similar:
He told some associates that he wanted to preserve the support of Republican hawks in the Senate in the coming impeachment trial, naming Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas as an example, even though they had not spoken about Iran since before Christmas.
This is, of course, exactly the kind of scenario that shouldn’t happen. When a Commander in Chief is making a life-and-death decision, which risks not only a war but further destabilizing the Middle East, he shouldn’t be thinking about how his directive might help his impeachment trial defense.
Indeed, as we discussed last week, it adds an ironic twist to the circumstances: Trump was impeached in part for putting his political interests above our national security interests. If the latest reporting is correct, it led him to make another decision that put his political interests above our national security interests.
That may well serve as the basis for yet another White House scandal, which Team Trump is unprepared to respond to, since it seems incapable of offering a consistent, honest, and straightforward answer to the most basic of questions: why exactly did the president authorize this airstrike?
The more Trump and his team struggle with this, the easier it is to believe the president risked a war because he’s worried about his impeachment crisis.
©2020 NBC UNIVERSAL
ABCNews
Trump calls for ‘outright dismissal’ but GOP senator says there aren’t enough votes
By Mariam KhanJan 13, 2020, 8:23 PM ET
Senate Republicans are downplaying President Donald Trump’s weekend tweet calling for an “outright dismissal” of the charges against him.
Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of Senate leadership, told reporters on Monday that the Senate Republican caucus simply doesn’t have the votes.
Sen. Roy Blunt arrives for a briefing on developments with Iran at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 8, 2020.
“The argument for an argument to dismiss is: there was one in the Clinton rules,” Blunt said, referring to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. “But I think I’m safe in saying there’s almost no interest in motion to dismiss, certainly there aren’t 51 votes for a motion to dismiss.”
Over the weekend, Trump argued that a trial would give Democrats a “credibility that it otherwise does not have” and urged Republicans to dismiss the charges against him.
President Donald Trump talks to reporters before departing from the South Lawn of the White House, Jan. 13, 2020.
“Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, ‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have,” Trump tweeted. “I agree!”
But Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have said that dismissing the articles of impeachment against Trump is not a likely scenario. Instead, they have endorsed a vote of acquittal, believing it sends a stronger message.
Several Republican senators are now debating whether or not a “motion to dismiss” should even be included in the rules resolution McConnell is currently drafting, which will determine the procedure senators will abide by during Trump’s impeachment trial. During Clinton’s trial, the rules resolution included a motion to dismiss, but it ultimately failed.
“Our members, generally, are not interested in a motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard. They believe the president needs to be heard, for the first time, in a fair setting,” Blunt said.
Other Republican senators concur.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters on Monday, “I would vote against a motion to dismiss immediately. Absolutely.”
Utah Sen. Mitt Romney said, “I will not be supporting a motion to dismiss.”
Other senators, while they’re not commenting on how they’d vote on a motion to dismiss, have said multiple times now that they want a fair trial that allows for the House impeachment managers and Trump’s legal team to make their case before the Senate chamber and the American people.
A reporter asks questions as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) leaves the Senate floor and walks to his office at the Capitol, Jan. 8, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
According to several senators, McConnell is finalizing the rules resolution by early this week, and it’s likely he will release the rules resolution once the articles of impeachment have been transmitted to the Senate.
On Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the House would vote on a resolution this week to name impeachment managers, a move that would trigger the delivery of impeachment articles to the Senate. She’s meeting with her caucus on Tuesday morning to take the temperature of her colleagues before making a final determination on the timing to formally send the articles.
© 2020 ABC News Internet Ventures. All rights reserved.
BBC News
menu
Trump impeachment: Democrats announce new evidence ahead of vote
15 January 2020
US & Canada
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionUkrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas is an associate of President Trump’s personal lawyer
Democrats in the US House of Representatives have unveiled new evidence as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, they released a trove of documents relating to the allegation that Mr Trump put pressure on Ukraine to investigate a political rival.
The president denies the allegation and has branded the inquiry a “witch hunt”.
The new materials include text messages that suggest the former US ambassador to Ukraine was put under surveillance.
They were obtained from the Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas, an associate of Mr Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Senior Democrats said they would send the documents to the Senate alongside the formal articles of impeachment.
The House will vote on Wednesday on whether to send these articles to the Senate. As Democrats control the House, this vote is expected to pass meaning the impeachment trial can begin in earnest next week.
Mr Trump was impeached by the House last month, on accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He denies trying to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation into his would-be Democratic White House challenger Joe Biden.
What is the new evidence?
The materials include letters, phone records, notes and flash drives from Mr Parnas, who was born in Ukraine and is a close associate of Mr Giuliani.
They were made available to investigators earlier this week and then sent to the House Judiciary Committee
Image captionRudy Giuliani has been central in pushing the suggestion that the Bidens were involved in wrongdoing in Ukraine
The documents show that Mr Parnas was in regular contact with Mr Giuliani as well as Ukrainian officials.
One handwritten note from Mr Parnas, who was indicted last year on conspiracy charges, mentions asking Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate “the Biden case”.
Also among the new materials is a screenshot of a previously undisclosed letter from Mr Giuliani to Mr Zelensky, in which he asks to arrange a meeting.
Some of the materials show Mr Parnas and Mr Giuliani discussing the removal of then US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
Ms Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine for reasons that remain unclear. Last year, she testified that she was fired over “false claims” by people with “questionable motives”.
Several text messages also appear to suggest that the former US envoy was placed under surveillance.
Mr Parnas was given updates on the ambassador’s location and mobile phone use by a man named Robert F. Hyde. Mr Hyde is a Republican Congressional candidate in Connecticut and Trump campaign donor.
“She’s talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off,” one message reads. “They will let me know when she’s on the move,” another says.
Ms Yovanovitch has called for an investigation into the messages. “The notion that American citizens and others were monitoring [her] movements… is disturbing,” her lawyer said.
ADVERTISEMENT
These documents “demonstrate that there is more evidence relevant to the president’s scheme, but they have been concealed”, Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Tuesday.
What will happen next?
If the House votes to send the articles of impeachment and this new evidence to the Senate, then the trial will probably begin on Tuesday.
Video captionA beginner’s guide to impeachment and Trump
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will be sworn in to preside, and he will administer an oath to all 100 senators to deliver “impartial justice” as jurors.
Lawmakers may hear opening arguments next week. The House managers will set out their case against Mr Trump, and the president’s legal team will respond.
The trial is expected to last up to five weeks, with the Senate taking only Sundays off.
The White House said on Tuesday the president was “not afraid of a fight” in his trial.
Deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said Mr Trump was in fact eager for witnesses to testify that “this man did nothing wrong”.
The impeachment trial will be only the third ever of a US president. But as Mr Trump’s Republicans control the Senate 53-47, he is all but certain to be acquitted as a two-thirds majority is required to convict
House to vote on sending Trump impeachment articles to Senate
Trump impeachment and a US state divided
Copyright © 2020 BBC.