On today’s BradCast: Some good reporting, some bad politics, and some accountability on the horizon. [Audio link to today’s show follows below.]
Among the many stories worth your while covered on today’s program…
- Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to take impeachment “off the table”, just as she did back in 2006 during the George W. Bush regime, asserting this time that, “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” It was a mistake during the Bush era, and its a mistake now. Perhaps not a political one — at least as she and many Democrats may see it — but a mistake for the nation and its long term well-being. We discuss and explain why;
- While he may (or may not) be safe from impeachment, Donald Trump’s legal troubles are getting no better. New York state’s recently elected Attorney General has now reportedly subpoenaed Duetsche Bank and other financial institutions related to a number of Trump projects where, according to recent testimony by his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Trump exaggerated his wealth on financial statements in order to fraudulently borrow money for real estate and other projects;
- Speaking of subpoenas, federal investigators are now said to finally be investigating Republican election fraud in North Carolina, where a GOP absentee ballot fraud scheme resulted in the nullification of last November’s U.S. House election — and a new one now scheduled — in the state’s 9th Congressional District. The State Board of Elections had requested a federal probe following apparent GOP absentee fraud in the 2016 election, but Trump’s U.S. Attorney in NC appears to have ignored the request, paving the way for the same fraud scheme to be repeated during 2018 cycle. McCrae Dowless, the contractor who carried out the fraud, as hired by GOP candidate Mark Harris, has already been indicted on state charges. But Harris, so far, has escaped accountability at both the state and federal levels. His campaign has now been subpoenaed by the feds. Stay tuned;
- The Trump Administration evacuated the last of the remaining U.S. diplomats in Venezuela on Monday night, saying their presence in the country has become a “constraint” on U.S. policy there, whatever that may ominously mean. Top Trump officials have been threatening the administration of President Nicolas Maduro for several months since opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself to be President of the nation in turmoil. Since late last week, power outages have crippled the country, with each side blaming the other and Maduro charging the U.S. has sabotaged the power grid with cyberattacks.
But some excellent reporting by the New York Times over the weekend reveals, yet again, that many of the claims against Maduro being made by Trump Administration and supportive Republicans in Congress like Sen. Marco Rubio, are based on completely false information. On Sunday, the Times published a video report revealing that claims by Trump officials from National Security Advisor John Bolton to Sec. of State Mike Pompeo to Vice President Mike Pence and, yes, Rubio, charging that Maduro’s forces set fire to aid trucks coming from Colombia are inaccurate. In fact, as the Times’ unearthed video reveals, it was protesters in support of Guaido on the Colombian side of the border who caused the fires. This is just one more reason to be skeptical about Trump’s intentions in the troubled South American nation (and media reports of same) as his own political fortunes worsen at home.
And, in case you don’t find Rubio wrong enough in his false claims about the aid trucks, just wait until you hear what the dumb cluck charged over the weekend regarding an explosion at the ‘German Dam’ in Bolivar State!;
- Finally, Desi Doyen joins us for the latest Green News Report, with news on the oil, gas and mining lobbyist Trump has now officially nominated to head the U.S. Interior Dept; news on Wyoming Republicans bailing out their coal industry; how Bernie Sanders was right about climate change and the media as long ago as 1989; and this Friday’s plans for school children in more than 90 countries to strike in demand of action on climate change, thanks to the inspiration of Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg…
CLICK TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD SHOW!…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradCast_BradFriedman_PelosiImpeachment_TrumpNYProbe_NC9-FedSubpoena_VenezuelaScam_031219.mp3]
(Snail mail support to “Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028” always welcome too!)
|
Greg Palast and many others are reporting that while there is some suffering among the Venezuelan people, the problem is caused by the US sanctions, the US stealing funds due to the Venezuelan government for oil sold through the Citgo brand of gasoline and also sold to the same Koch refinery in Houston to which the Keystone XL pipeline is to connect, and which is instead given illegally to Guaido, and the UK impounding Venezuelan gold reserves held in British banks and making it impossible for Venezuela to make short-term loans common in international trade.
Not even the US could stand up under such economic war. Instead, the US is again about to violate the Nuremberg codes to wage aggressive war for foreign oil. The law is only for those who oppose the US and who don’t kneel at the feet of Trump.
Ivanka Trump granted trademark for ‘voting machines’ in China
China grants more trademark approvals for Ivanka Trump firm – including voting machines
Just sayin’ …
Has anyone noticed how upholding the rule of law in a democracy is a political “problem”for Democrats but no political “problem” is cited for the Republicans who would protect a serial lawbreaker in their own party who currently occupies the White House. Why is doing the right thing always a political risk for the Democrats (whether it be pushing a progressive agenda or bring the Republicans to account)? Somebody, please cite for this benighted poster the public mewlings of ANY pundit bewailing the coming day of reckoning for the ambitions of the heedless Republicans who seek both total rule for themselves and the perpetual immiseration of the weak.
The possible REAL reasons Ms. Pelosi is claiming that the “I” word is off the table?
She is making a calculation based on what happened to Clinton and does not want to give the Rs a chance to rally to Trump and save his presidency. The American public saw through the Rs acts against President Bill Clinton and she does not want a repeat that could on this occasion rescue Trump. I would offer that it is more than clear that Trump today is not analogous to Clinton then. At that time the Republicans quite simply sought to overturn an election and used the Lewinsky “scandal” as their causus belli excuse. The trouble for them is that everyone knew this and Dole’s cry of “Where’s the outrage?” was the plaintive response to the public’s ability to see through the R’s efforts. Of course, then Speaker Newt Gingrich’s own unpopularity with the public and his smug repulsiveness (and open hypocrisy) did not the help the R’s case against Clinton. As evidenced by their showing in the 2018 midterms it is clear that the Dems don’t have these problems, as even rank and file Rs admit in recent polling that Trump is an unindicted, serial lawbreaker. Clinton was wronged by the Republicans and all knew it then; Trump is not being wronged by the Democrats and all know it now. The fly in the ointment is that the Rs don’t care that Trump is a crook, a buffoon, and a liar. They LIKE this about him: he’s THEIR crook, buffoon, and liar.
In reply to Desi’s observation regarding “a failed impeachment”: I offer that the calculation may not perceive the loss of “a failed impeachment” to be limited merely to Senate rejection but that it could extend to a Democratic loss of the House and failure to retake the Senate. Not getting the impeachment is not the worry that Nancy may have. Rather, being voted out and triggering a return to Republican rule of the legislature is the real “failure” that may keep her up at night. The concern for “dividing the country” is not Ms. Pelosi’s fear; her fear is that the division could benefit the Republicans and put them back in control of the House and help them keep the Senate. If you are going to divide the country, you want the division to favor your side. If your side improves life for the people who believe in a progressive agenda it should do the same for those who voted for the other side. You can’t do that if you don’t have power. Nancy, given her history, may not yet think the winds will blow in the good direction for the Dems in the very short term. They only have the House now and not the whole legislature, and they don’t have the Supreme Court. The first goal is not the impeachment itself; the first goal is not to LOSE what little power you just gained. It is worth noting that this calculation must admit that, despite the prospect of shrinking power in the years to come (even with the gross unfairness as seen by the majority of Americans due to the way the Senate allocates power to low population states) the Republicans do have the Democrats spooked. That took years to achieve and it will take time for the Dems to “unspook” themselves.
Back in the Nixon’s time even with the Southern Strategy beating they took, there was no Dem handwringing over impeaching Tricky Dick. Those Dems had not yet been spooked so they went for it. To this day the used-to-winning, maximalist Republicans do not have such inhibitions. Indeed, they had planned “impeachment” hearings based on “two years worth of material lined up” (said former Congressperson Jason Chaffetz in 2016 as quoted in a WaPo piece of that time) for the coming Hillary Clinton administration. But of course, no sane person believes that impeaching a Democrat would “divide the country”; that’s an effect that only follows investigating Republicans.
Another matter to consider may be that Nancy wants to allow the investigations to be airtight to the extent that IF impeachment in the House goes forward the purpose of it would be to put on record those who would protect the blindingly guilty Criminal-In-Chief. She understands the salutary symbolism of an impeachment but the effort to put one out there would still have to be such that the symbolism will not be the only characteristic that it will have. In other words, while the symbolism will be good the substance under it would also need to be able to withstand even the harshest of bad-faith scrutiny. There must be no risk that anyone could mistake this for “Ben-GAH-zeee!” Of course, symbolism working only to put the Rs on the defensive such that they would fall onto history’s “naughty” list is not likely worth the effort since the Rs simply don’t care. Naughty is a feature, not a bug, of the Republican Party. Impeachment without hope of removal could still lead to Trump being a one-term president — but that calculation may not be as strong as Ms. Pelosi likely hopes that it, by rights, should be.
How about this? What if Nancy is only drawing fire to provide cover for Maxine Waters and Rashida Tlaib in their efforts to pursue the prospect of an impeachment? It seems unreasonable that she would buck her caucus when that caucus is largely convinced that the nation is being led by a documented lawbreaker. Proof? Has anyone noticed that Ms. Pelosi has not actually shut down her caucus members who want Trump’s scalp? All she does is give lip service to impeachment being off the table; that is quite different from actually punishing her caucus members for their public comments – which she has NOT done. Speaker Pelosi, no radical she, is NOT a “blue-dog conserva-Dem”. She could easily shut her more outspoken and progressive members down – again, which she has NOT done. Oh, yeah, sure, she ostentatiously rolled her eyes at the Green New Deal. However — where are her efforts to shut that initiative down? Hmm.
Ok, maybe this. Susie Madrak on SIRIUS XM on the show “Make It Plain” suggested that Nancy may be trying to becalm Trump into a false state of security so that he does not take any action that could threaten what the House is currently doing by, say, trying to rally the Rs to stonewall them. It is true that Nancy is ‘way smarter than Trump and has shown an ability to think rings around him like she did during the shutdown. She may be at it again, only this time to simply make the malefactor think that he is safer than he really is. The question, of course, is “from what?”
You tell me.