csmonitor--2020-01-16--Will 2020 be the year Iowa loses its clout? Or will it matter more than ever?

The Iowa caucuses are now just 19 days away .
Which means that soon , we might get some clarity on who is likely to become the Democratic nominee .
Politico ’ s Bill Scher makes an interesting case that Iowa will matter “ less than ever ” in 2020 .
He notes that the candidates themselves have spent less time in Iowa compared with previous cycles – and more time in states like California , which will vote on Super Tuesday .
This is all the intended result , he says , of changes made in 2008 to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , placing South Carolina and Nevada right after Iowa and New Hampshire , with a “ quasi-national primary ” shortly thereafter .
“ The sheer breadth of the Super Tuesday map , along with the compressed timetable , has persuaded candidates to crisscross the country , hunting for votes as well as dollars , ” Mr. Scher writes .
Others aren ’ t buying the notion that Iowa ’ s clout is on the wane .
The Hawkeye State has played a pivotal role in choosing the Democratic nominee going back to Jimmy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives winners .
Barack Obama ’ s win there over Hillary Clinton in 2008 propelled his candidacy forward in a way that ’ s hard to overstate .
The same was true for John Kerry in 2004 ( a year that had an even more condensed timetable , with a “ mini ” Super Tuesday just one week after New Hampshire ) .
The New York Times ’ s Ross Douthat argues that a victory by former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa next month might well “ wrap up the nomination.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders would likely set up a two-person race between Senator Sanders and Mr. Biden .
Perhaps the only outcome in Iowa that wouldn ’ t at least narrow the field significantly , Mr. Douthat writes , would be a “ somewhat random-seeming one ” or “ a de facto four-way tie.
” As we ’ ve noted before , this cycle bears many similarities to 2004 – with the top four candidates closely bunched in polls , and voters seeming to prioritize ‘ electability ’ above all else .
If those parallels continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa once again launching the eventual winner .
Let us know what you ’ re thinking at csmpolitics @ csmonitor.com .

Dear reader:
The Iowa caucuses are now just 19 days away. Which means that soon, we might get some clarity on who is likely to become the Democratic nominee.
Or not.
Why We Wrote This With its first-in-the-nation caucuses, Iowa has played a major role in selecting Democratic presidential nominees in recent decades, to the consternation of some.
Politico’s Bill Scher makes an interesting case that Iowa will matter “less than ever” in 2020. He notes that the candidates themselves have spent less time in Iowa compared with previous cycles – and more time in states like California, which will vote on Super Tuesday.
This is all the intended result, he says, of changes made in 2008 to the primary schedule by the Democratic National Committee, placing South Carolina and Nevada right after Iowa and New Hampshire, with a “quasi-national primary” shortly thereafter.
“The sheer breadth of the Super Tuesday map, along with the compressed timetable, has persuaded candidates to crisscross the country, hunting for votes as well as dollars,” Mr. Scher writes.
Others aren’t buying the notion that Iowa’s clout is on the wane. The Hawkeye State has played a pivotal role in choosing the Democratic nominee going back to Jimmy Carter because of the momentum it typically gives winners. Barack Obama’s win there over Hillary Clinton in 2008 propelled his candidacy forward in a way that’s hard to overstate. The same was true for John Kerry in 2004 (a year that had an even more condensed timetable, with a “mini” Super Tuesday just one week after New Hampshire).
The New York Times’s Ross Douthat argues that a victory by former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa next month might well “wrap up the nomination.” A first-place finish by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would likely set up a two-person race between Senator Sanders and Mr. Biden. Perhaps the only outcome in Iowa that wouldn’t at least narrow the field significantly, Mr. Douthat writes, would be a “somewhat random-seeming one” or “a de facto four-way tie.”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
As we’ve noted before, this cycle bears many similarities to 2004 – with the top four candidates closely bunched in polls, and voters seeming to prioritize ‘electability’ above all else. If those parallels continue, it’s easy to envision Iowa once again launching the eventual winner.
Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.


csmonitor--2020-01-17--What Virginia gun rally says about future of Second Amendment rights

“ We ’ re kind of at a crossroads .
We need to decide as a nation who we want to be , ” says Courtney Sodan , who manages her husband ’ s gunsmithing shop in James City County .
Gun owners are worried that traditional Virginia rural culture , with its heritage of hunting and guns , may be in danger .
They see Virginia as a harbinger for what could happen in other states , such as Texas and Georgia , where growing urban areas may soon tip power toward gun control advocates .
A sudden change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rally ’ s attendance .
For the first time in decades Democrats control the statehouse and the legislature .
More liberal voters in the Washington suburbs are now the fulcrum of state politics .
Pro-gun groups plan a big rally at the state capitol , with upwards of 20,000 people , in opposition to a package of gun control bills now speeding through the Virginia legislature .
Worried that extremist groups may be planning violence around the event , Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam has temporarily banned weapons from the capitol grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been central to historic American struggles .
On Monday it may be the center of another bitter U.S. dispute , this time over Second Amendment gun rights .
The old Confederate capital of Richmond , Virginia , is full of monuments to rebels , heroes , traitors , and tyrants .
They reflect the city and state ’ s central role in American history , and American conflict , from the era of the Revolution to today .
On Monday Richmond may once again be the focal point of a uniquely U.S. struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the right to bear arms .
A gun rights rally is expected to draw thousands of activists from across the country , many carrying weapons .
They intend to protest efforts to enact sweeping new gun control measures in a state where Democrats now control the governorship and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in a generation .
The fight is cultural as well as political .
Virginia ’ s historic rural pro-gun attitudes are being challenged by the growing power of more liberal suburban voters around Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional archetype of what it means to be an American citizen is at stake .
“ The rest of the country is looking at Virginia , ” says state Sen. Amanda Chase , a gun-carrying Republican from Amelia County .
“ This is not Republican versus Democrat .
Gun rights is an American value.
” But to many other Virginians , the idea of a mass armed rally at the state capitol on a holiday devoted to civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr. is its own form of tyranny – part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. That is where “ pro-gun groups are now saying , ‘ Hey , democracy doesn ’ t apply .
Elections don ’ t apply .
We ’ re going to do armed intimidation on a day that ’ s supposed to be a peaceful day of lobbying , ’ ” says Andrew Patrick , political communications director at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in Washington , D.C. For Democratic Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam and state law enforcement officials , the immediate concern is the threat of possible violence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court judge upheld Governor Northam ’ s temporary ban on weapons on the grounds of the capitol .
Mr. Northam argued that the ban is necessary because of “ credible intelligence ” that extremist militias and white supremacist groups are planning attacks around the rally .
Law enforcement officials are taking seriously social media posts threatening hangings and a “ boogaloo , ” slang for a new U.S. civil war .
In part that is because investigations found that poor policing led to some of the violence at a 2017 white supremacy rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s planned rally is part of the problem , say anti-gun activists .
Protesters at past gun rights demonstrations in Richmond have openly carried weapons and even brought them into the General Assembly building .
“ Now they want to ramp it up to 20,000 people with threats abounding .
That changes the scenario , ” says Mr. Patrick .
But the vast majority of participants in the day of planned gun rights protests and legislative lobbying hope that it all stays peaceful , for a wide variety of reasons , says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of “ The Triumph of the Gun-Rights Argument.
” “ They ’ re going to say , ‘ We ’ re here to let our voices be heard and not engage or argue with people on the other side .
Any of that stuff is going to reflect badly on us .
Show up but be respectful – and tone it down , ’ ” Mr. Wilson says .
A rapid shift in partisan political power is behind the sudden change in size and tone of the Richmond gun rights rally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ held a near supermajority in the Virginia House of Delegates , but GOP losses in successive state elections have given Democrats once-in-a-generation power .
That election swing is in large part a product of demographic changes , with more highly educated , high-income voters flooding into Vienna , Falls Church , Leesburg , and other suburbs of Washington , D.C .
But gun rights were a big issue .
Governor Northam ’ s response to the mass shooting in Virginia Beach last year helped lift him from the quagmire of his blackface scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was found on his medical school yearbook page .
To consider some of the same bills now being debated , the governor convened a special summer session of the General Assembly , which Republicans abruptly ended – frustrating many citizens and opposition lawmakers .
“ Virginia has been trending Democratic for some time , but what has happened all of a sudden was the 2019 election when Democrats got control and suddenly had the ability to push all these bills through that Republicans had been blocking for a couple of decades , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing a slew of gun control measures .
Bills to expand background checks and enact a “ red flag ” law , allowing police to take guns from people deemed dangerous , have passed legislative committees .
Other bills being considered could limit gun purchases to one per month , restrict the size of gun magazines legal in Virginia , and perhaps ban assault rifles .
Meanwhile , 91 of 95 Virginia counties have declared themselves “ Second Amendment sanctuaries , ” meaning they would resist enforcement of any gun measure deemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Virginia Citizens Defense League , a group pushing for sanctuary establishment .
The Virginia rally comes at a time when the struggle over gun control and gun access measures has in part migrated from the national level to the states .
Presidential candidate and New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg , for example , has spent millions in Virginia to lobby for gun control , citing the state as a prime source for an “ iron pipeline ” of illegal arms from red states in the South and Midwest to more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , gun rights activists are less worried about Washington under President Donald Trump than they were under President Barack Obama .
Some of their focus has shifted to fighting change in formerly red states now trending purple , or even blue .
“ The reason people are coming in from everywhere in the country [ to the rally ] is that they sense that what happens in Virginia is going to set a tone for what can happen in other states that may be making the same sort of movement from right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Yamane , founder of the blog Gun Culture 2.0 , and a sociologist at Wake Forest University .
As the rally approaches , some Virginia gun owners say they ’ re worried that a state where gun ownership and state policy has long been in sync , where the National Rifle Association is headquartered , may become a bellwether of spreading Second Amendment restrictions .
Courtney Sodan , for instance , manages her husband ’ s gunsmithing shop in James City County .
Virginia , she says , is the mother of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American .
In her mind , where the state goes the nation follows .
Friends across the country have told her they ’ re watching , she says .
“ I feel like we ’ re almost back in 1773 , having debates in the taverns , ” she says .
“ We ’ re kind of at a crossroads .
We need to decide as a nation who we want to be .
”

“We’re kind of at a crossroads. We need to decide as a nation who we want to be,” says Courtney Sodan, who manages her husband’s gunsmithing shop in James City County.
Gun owners are worried that traditional Virginia rural culture, with its heritage of hunting and guns, may be in danger. They see Virginia as a harbinger for what could happen in other states, such as Texas and Georgia, where growing urban areas may soon tip power toward gun control advocates.
A sudden change in partisan control in Virginia is powering the rally’s attendance. For the first time in decades Democrats control the statehouse and the legislature. More liberal voters in the Washington suburbs are now the fulcrum of state politics.
A big pro-gun rally planned Monday in Richmond, Virginia, is about more than Second Amendment rights. It’s also about ebbing political power due to demographic change, and worry about changing cultural attitudes.
Pro-gun groups plan a big rally at the state capitol, with upwards of 20,000 people, in opposition to a package of gun control bills now speeding through the Virginia legislature. Worried that extremist groups may be planning violence around the event, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam has temporarily banned weapons from the capitol grounds.
Richmond, Virginia, has long been central to historic American struggles. On Monday it may be the center of another bitter U.S. dispute, this time over Second Amendment gun rights.
The old Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, is full of monuments to rebels, heroes, traitors, and tyrants. They reflect the city and state’s central role in American history, and American conflict, from the era of the Revolution to today.
On Monday Richmond may once again be the focal point of a uniquely U.S. struggle – this time over the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. A gun rights rally is expected to draw thousands of activists from across the country, many carrying weapons. They intend to protest efforts to enact sweeping new gun control measures in a state where Democrats now control the governorship and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in a generation.
The fight is cultural as well as political. Virginia’s historic rural pro-gun attitudes are being challenged by the growing power of more liberal suburban voters around Washington, D.C. Virginia gun owners worry that their traditional archetype of what it means to be an American citizen is at stake.
Why We Wrote This A big pro-gun rally planned Monday in Richmond, Virginia, is about more than Second Amendment rights. It’s also about ebbing political power due to demographic change, and worry about changing cultural attitudes.
“The rest of the country is looking at Virginia,” says state Sen. Amanda Chase, a gun-carrying Republican from Amelia County. “This is not Republican versus Democrat. Gun rights is an American value.”
But to many other Virginians, the idea of a mass armed rally at the state capitol on a holiday devoted to civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr. is its own form of tyranny – part of a growing “insurrectionist idea” in the U.S. That is where “pro-gun groups are now saying, ‘Hey, democracy doesn’t apply. Elections don’t apply. We’re going to do armed intimidation on a day that’s supposed to be a peaceful day of lobbying,’” says Andrew Patrick, political communications director at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in Washington, D.C.
Threats of violence
For Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and state law enforcement officials, the immediate concern is the threat of possible violence at the rally. On Thursday a circuit court judge upheld Governor Northam’s temporary ban on weapons on the grounds of the capitol. Mr. Northam argued that the ban is necessary because of “credible intelligence” that extremist militias and white supremacist groups are planning attacks around the rally.
Law enforcement officials are taking seriously social media posts threatening hangings and a “boogaloo,” slang for a new U.S. civil war. In part that is because investigations found that poor policing led to some of the violence at a 2017 white supremacy rally in Charlottesville.
The size of Monday’s planned rally is part of the problem, say anti-gun activists. Protesters at past gun rights demonstrations in Richmond have openly carried weapons and even brought them into the General Assembly building.
“Now they want to ramp it up to 20,000 people with threats abounding. That changes the scenario,” says Mr. Patrick.
But the vast majority of participants in the day of planned gun rights protests and legislative lobbying hope that it all stays peaceful, for a wide variety of reasons, says Harry Wilson, a gun owner and author of “The Triumph of the Gun-Rights Argument.”
“They’re going to say, ‘We’re here to let our voices be heard and not engage or argue with people on the other side. Any of that stuff is going to reflect badly on us. Show up but be respectful – and tone it down,’” Mr. Wilson says.
Virginia’s fast-changing political picture
A rapid shift in partisan political power is behind the sudden change in size and tone of the Richmond gun rights rally.
Up until three years ago, Republicans held a near supermajority in the Virginia House of Delegates, but GOP losses in successive state elections have given Democrats once-in-a-generation power.
That election swing is in large part a product of demographic changes, with more highly educated, high-income voters flooding into Vienna, Falls Church, Leesburg, and other suburbs of Washington, D.C.
But gun rights were a big issue. Governor Northam’s response to the mass shooting in Virginia Beach last year helped lift him from the quagmire of his blackface scandal in February, when a racist photo was found on his medical school yearbook page. To consider some of the same bills now being debated, the governor convened a special summer session of the General Assembly, which Republicans abruptly ended – frustrating many citizens and opposition lawmakers.
Michael A. McCoy/Reuters/File View caption Hide caption Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam speaks to gun control activists at a rally by Moms Demand Action and other family members of shooting victims outside the Virginia Capitol in Richmond, July 9, 2019.
“Virginia has been trending Democratic for some time, but what has happened all of a sudden was the 2019 election when Democrats got control and suddenly had the ability to push all these bills through that Republicans had been blocking for a couple of decades,” says Mr. Wilson.
State Democrats are pushing a slew of gun control measures. Bills to expand background checks and enact a “red flag” law, allowing police to take guns from people deemed dangerous, have passed legislative committees. Other bills being considered could limit gun purchases to one per month, restrict the size of gun magazines legal in Virginia, and perhaps ban assault rifles.
Meanwhile, 91 of 95 Virginia counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” meaning they would resist enforcement of any gun measure deemed to violate the state or U.S. Constitution, according to the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group pushing for sanctuary establishment.
“We’re almost back in 1773”
The Virginia rally comes at a time when the struggle over gun control and gun access measures has in part migrated from the national level to the states.
Presidential candidate and New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg, for example, has spent millions in Virginia to lobby for gun control, citing the state as a prime source for an “iron pipeline” of illegal arms from red states in the South and Midwest to more gun-wary blue ones in the North.
Meanwhile, gun rights activists are less worried about Washington under President Donald Trump than they were under President Barack Obama. Some of their focus has shifted to fighting change in formerly red states now trending purple, or even blue.
“The reason people are coming in from everywhere in the country [to the rally] is that they sense that what happens in Virginia is going to set a tone for what can happen in other states that may be making the same sort of movement from right back to more left,” says David Yamane, founder of the blog Gun Culture 2.0, and a sociologist at Wake Forest University.
As the rally approaches, some Virginia gun owners say they’re worried that a state where gun ownership and state policy has long been in sync, where the National Rifle Association is headquartered, may become a bellwether of spreading Second Amendment restrictions.
Courtney Sodan, for instance, manages her husband’s gunsmithing shop in James City County.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Virginia, she says, is the mother of presidents and the first true soil called American. In her mind, where the state goes the nation follows. Friends across the country have told her they’re watching, she says.
“I feel like we’re almost back in 1773, having debates in the taverns,” she says. “We’re kind of at a crossroads. We need to decide as a nation who we want to be.”


csmonitor--2020-01-21--Impeachment trial: A foregone conclusion belies big stakes

“ Republicans have complained that this is a political process , but for many of the senators taking votes , I think it has a major political impact , ” says Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report .
At the end of this trial , what will voters in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Florida think about the president ?
Likewise , how will voters view endangered senators up for reelection ?
Unlike President Trump , the last two presidents threatened by impeachment – Bill Clinton in 1999 and Richard Nixon , who resigned in 1974 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while it ’ s true that most polls show a nation evenly divided on the question of impeachment and removal , this election won ’ t be decided at the national level , but in swing states .
And yet Republicans and Democrats are furiously strategizing – not to change the end result , but to shape public opinion .
The Senate trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress began in earnest on Tuesday with wrangling over rules , but its endpoint appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high bar – a two-thirds vote , or 67 senators – to convict and remove a president from office .
That ’ s hard to imagine in a chamber controlled by the president ’ s own party .
The pitched partisan battles over procedure and witnesses .
The solemn scene of all 100 senators sitting quietly at their desks .
The chief justice of the United States presiding over the impeachment trial of a president – only the third in U.S. history .
The Senate trial of President Donald Trump on charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress began in earnest on Tuesday with wrangling over rules , but its endpoint appears to be a foregone conclusion .
The Constitution sets a high bar – a two-thirds vote , or 67 senators – to convict and remove a president from office .
That ’ s hard to imagine this time , in a chamber controlled by the president ’ s own party .
And yet Republicans and Democrats are furiously strategizing – not to change the end result , but to shape public opinion , says Steven Smith , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in St. Louis .
“ This really isn ’ t about convicting the president , obviously , so the real question is whether or not the political context is evolving in a way that favors one side or the other.
” Unlike President Trump , the last two presidents threatened by impeachment – Bill Clinton in 1999 and Richard Nixon , who resigned in 1974 – were not facing reelection .
And while it ’ s true that most polls show a nation evenly divided on the question of impeaching and removing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be decided at the national level , but in swing states .
At the end of this trial , what will voters in Wisconsin , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Florida think about the president ?
Likewise , how will voters view endangered Republican senators up for reelection – such as Susan Collins of Maine and Martha McSally of Arizona ?
Both took a hit in approval ratings in the latest state-by-state Morning Consult poll , with Senator Collins now the least-popular senator in the country – quite a slide for a senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Republicans have complained that this is a political process , but for many of the senators taking votes , I think it has a major political impact on their own political fortunes going into 2020 , ” says Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report .
Democrats have comparatively few competitive seats to defend , but for Doug Jones of Alabama , the most vulnerable Democrat , a vote to convict “ could be his death sentence , ” she says .
In the Democrat-controlled House , under the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats voted with near-unanimity on Dec. 18 to impeach , charging that the president abused his power by pressuring the government of Ukraine to investigate his political rival , Joe Biden , and Mr. Biden ’ s son Hunter , for his personal electoral benefit , and then obstructing Congress as it sought to investigate .
But the Senate is not the House .
It has its own rules and is a more unpredictable body , led by its own wily , strategic politician , Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky .
Democrats on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ cover-up ” and complicity with the White House by introducing rules that would compress the time frame for arguments and putting off the question of calling witnesses and documents .
Under pressure , Senator McConnell agreed to expand the timetable for arguments from two days to three ( and 24 hours total ) for each side .
Democrats say that witnesses and documents are essential to a fair trial , and that unlike in the Clinton trial , they have not been able to question all relevant witnesses in advance .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late Tuesday in a vote along party lines .
With Republicans holding a 53-seat majority , Democrats need four GOP senators to join them in the call for witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton .
It ’ s not clear that they will get them , though Senator Collins has said “ it is likely ” that she will support a call for witnesses , but only after both sides have made their cases and senators have submitted written questions – as was agreed on in the Clinton trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one side may prove not to be .
“ It ’ s unlikely that the Republicans will approve witnesses for the House managers without witnesses for the defense , and then honestly , all bets are off .
Who knows what will come of that .
It ’ s going to be a circus , ” says Professor Smith .
The president will be represented in the chamber by the White House legal team , his personal lawyers , and celebrity attorneys , including Ken Starr , the special prosecutor who triggered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz .
Over the holiday weekend , the White House submitted its first legal defense of the president .
It does not dispute the basic facts of a request to investigate the Bidens and the withholding of military aid to Ukraine .
But it describes the two articles of impeachment as a “ brazen political act ” and denounces the “ rigged process ” that brought them to the Senate .
The legal brief contends there was no abuse of power because the president broke no law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president – not Congress .
As for obstructing Congress , the president ’ s legal team argues he has constitutional authority to protect the powers of the executive branch , and “ asserting legal defenses and privileges is not ‘ obstruction.
’ ” The two articles of impeachment do not “ remotely approach ” the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office , they say .
The president himself remains a “ wild card ” in all this , says Sarah Binder , a congressional expert at the center-left Brookings Institution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to “ corral him away from his instincts ” to get behind what ’ s in his best interest – a short , streamlined trial .
“ But the president is watching this on TV , and will see those House managers go over his conduct , which he will take very personally , ” says Ms. Binder .
“ Is the president going to fire off tweets , or get the Republicans to do a different kind of defense ?
” The Democrats , on the other hand , want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more evidence to come to light – as happened last week with Lev Parnas , a former associate of Rudy Giuliani , President Trump ’ s personal lawyer , and last week ’ s finding by the independent Government Accountability Office that the president acted illegally in withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine .
“ The House managers will want [ people ] to pay as much attention to the trial as possible .
Whatever they can do to make it more attractive to public viewing , the better for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate historian .
“ The president ’ s defenders will want to minimize this , and get it over as quickly as possible.
” Both sides will be making their case to the public – not really to the senators , he says .
With President Clinton , Americans knew of his sexual relations with a White House intern and that he lied about it under oath , but they differed over whether it was an impeachable offense .
The same is true now , says Mr. Ritchie .
“ Quite frankly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing .
The question is , is it proper for him to be doing this or not ?
” he says .
“ People are going to have to sort that out for themselves .
”

“Republicans have complained that this is a political process, but for many of the senators taking votes, I think it has a major political impact,” says Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
At the end of this trial, what will voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida think about the president? Likewise, how will voters view endangered senators up for reelection?
Unlike President Trump, the last two presidents threatened by impeachment – Bill Clinton in 1999 and Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 – were not facing reelection. And while it’s true that most polls show a nation evenly divided on the question of impeachment and removal, this election won’t be decided at the national level, but in swing states.
The Republican-controlled Senate isn’t likely to remove President Trump. But the trial is important, our reporter finds, because of the political messages it may send in an election year.
And yet Republicans and Democrats are furiously strategizing – not to change the end result, but to shape public opinion.
The Senate trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress began in earnest on Tuesday with wrangling over rules, but its endpoint appears to be a foregone conclusion. The Constitution sets a high bar – a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators – to convict and remove a president from office. That’s hard to imagine in a chamber controlled by the president’s own party.
The pitched partisan battles over procedure and witnesses. The solemn scene of all 100 senators sitting quietly at their desks. The chief justice of the United States presiding over the impeachment trial of a president – only the third in U.S. history.
The Senate trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress began in earnest on Tuesday with wrangling over rules, but its endpoint appears to be a foregone conclusion. The Constitution sets a high bar – a two-thirds vote, or 67 senators – to convict and remove a president from office. That’s hard to imagine this time, in a chamber controlled by the president’s own party.
And yet Republicans and Democrats are furiously strategizing – not to change the end result, but to shape public opinion, says Steven Smith, an expert on the Senate at Washington University in St. Louis. “This really isn’t about convicting the president, obviously, so the real question is whether or not the political context is evolving in a way that favors one side or the other.”
Why We Wrote This The Republican-controlled Senate isn’t likely to remove President Trump. But the trial is important, our reporter finds, because of the political messages it may send in an election year.
Unlike President Trump, the last two presidents threatened by impeachment – Bill Clinton in 1999 and Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 – were not facing reelection. And while it’s true that most polls show a nation evenly divided on the question of impeaching and removing the president, this election won’t be decided at the national level, but in swing states.
At the end of this trial, what will voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida think about the president? Likewise, how will voters view endangered Republican senators up for reelection – such as Susan Collins of Maine and Martha McSally of Arizona? Both took a hit in approval ratings in the latest state-by-state Morning Consult poll, with Senator Collins now the least-popular senator in the country – quite a slide for a senator with a history as a political bridge-builder.
“Republicans have complained that this is a political process, but for many of the senators taking votes, I think it has a major political impact on their own political fortunes going into 2020,” says Jessica Taylor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Democrats have comparatively few competitive seats to defend, but for Doug Jones of Alabama, the most vulnerable Democrat, a vote to convict “could be his death sentence,” she says.
House vote set the stage
In the Democrat-controlled House, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrats voted with near-unanimity on Dec. 18 to impeach, charging that the president abused his power by pressuring the government of Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, for his personal electoral benefit, and then obstructing Congress as it sought to investigate.
Mary F. Calvert/Reuters View caption Hide caption Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky leaves Senate chambers for a brief recess during the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump in Washington, on Jan. 21, 2020.
But the Senate is not the House. It has its own rules and is a more unpredictable body, led by its own wily, strategic politician, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Democrats on Tuesday accused the majority leader of a “cover-up” and complicity with the White House by introducing rules that would compress the time frame for arguments and putting off the question of calling witnesses and documents. Under pressure, Senator McConnell agreed to expand the timetable for arguments from two days to three (and 24 hours total) for each side.
Democrats say that witnesses and documents are essential to a fair trial, and that unlike in the Clinton trial, they have not been able to question all relevant witnesses in advance. An attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents failed late Tuesday in a vote along party lines.
A rift over witnesses
With Republicans holding a 53-seat majority, Democrats need four GOP senators to join them in the call for witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton. It’s not clear that they will get them, though Senator Collins has said “it is likely” that she will support a call for witnesses, but only after both sides have made their cases and senators have submitted written questions – as was agreed on in the Clinton trial.
Of course, witnesses perceived as friendly to one side may prove not to be. “It’s unlikely that the Republicans will approve witnesses for the House managers without witnesses for the defense, and then honestly, all bets are off. Who knows what will come of that. It’s going to be a circus,” says Professor Smith.
The president will be represented in the chamber by the White House legal team, his personal lawyers, and celebrity attorneys, including Ken Starr, the special prosecutor who triggered the impeachment of Mr. Clinton, and Harvard constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz.
The White House case
Over the holiday weekend, the White House submitted its first legal defense of the president. It does not dispute the basic facts of a request to investigate the Bidens and the withholding of military aid to Ukraine. But it describes the two articles of impeachment as a “brazen political act” and denounces the “rigged process” that brought them to the Senate.
The legal brief contends there was no abuse of power because the president broke no law and foreign policy is the domain of the president – not Congress.
As for obstructing Congress, the president’s legal team argues he has constitutional authority to protect the powers of the executive branch, and “asserting legal defenses and privileges is not ‘obstruction.’” The two articles of impeachment do not “remotely approach” the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office, they say.
The president himself remains a “wild card” in all this, says Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the center-left Brookings Institution. Majority Leader McConnell and other Republicans have been able to “corral him away from his instincts” to get behind what’s in his best interest – a short, streamlined trial.
“But the president is watching this on TV, and will see those House managers go over his conduct, which he will take very personally,” says Ms. Binder. “Is the president going to fire off tweets, or get the Republicans to do a different kind of defense?”
The Democrats, on the other hand, want to lengthen the trial, allowing time for more evidence to come to light – as happened last week with Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, and last week’s finding by the independent Government Accountability Office that the president acted illegally in withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine.
“The House managers will want [people] to pay as much attention to the trial as possible. Whatever they can do to make it more attractive to public viewing, the better for them,” says Don Ritchie, former Senate historian. “The president’s defenders will want to minimize this, and get it over as quickly as possible.”
Both sides will be making their case to the public – not really to the senators, he says. With President Clinton, Americans knew of his sexual relations with a White House intern and that he lied about it under oath, but they differed over whether it was an impeachable offense. The same is true now, says Mr. Ritchie.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“Quite frankly, everybody knows what this president’s doing. The question is, is it proper for him to be doing this or not?” he says. “People are going to have to sort that out for themselves.”
To see all of The Monitor's impeachment coverage, go here.


csmonitor--2020-01-21--The Senate impeachment trial resumes amid procedural debate

President Donald Trump 's impeachment trial is set to unfold at the Capitol , a contentious proceeding over whether to remove him from office for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals and obstructing Congress ' ensuing investigation .
As the Senate reconvenes with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding , a first test will come midday Tuesday when the session gavels open to vote on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 's proposed rules for debate .
More than procedure is at stake : Mr. Trump 's presidency is on the line , and the nation is deeply divided just weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To complicate matters , four presidential candidates are serving as jurors in the Senate trial , which will keep them off the campaign trail .
On the eve of the trial , the Republican leader offered a compressed calendar for opening statements , just two days for each side , as Mr. Trump 's lawyers argued for swift rejection of the `` flimsy '' charges against the president and acquittal .
`` All of this is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first full filing Monday .
`` The articles should be rejected and the president should immediately be acquitted . ''
Democrats – as the House prosecutors practiced opening arguments well into the night on the Senate floor – vowed to object to a speedy trial as they pressed for fresh witnesses and documents .
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned of a `` cover-up '' with Senator McConnell 's plan that could lead to back-to-back 12-hour days .
`` It 's clear Senator McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rushing the trial through , '' Mr. Schumer said .
He called the proposed rules a `` national disgrace . ''
The first several days of the trial are expected to be tangled in procedural motions playing out on the Senate floor or , more likely , behind closed doors , since senators must refrain from speaking during the trial proceedings .
Senators are poised for only the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history , coming just weeks before the first primaries of the 2020 election , with four senators running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Bernie Sanders , the Vermont independent , told supporters in Des Moines they 're going to have to `` carry the ball '' for him while he takes his seat in Washington .
The Iowa caucuses are in less than two weeks .
Mr. Trump , meanwhile , is at a global conference in Davos , Switzerland .
His White House said Senator McConnell 's proposed rules protect Mr. Trump 's rights to a fair trial .
White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland said the White House looks forward `` to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the process as quickly as possible , and seeking an acquittal as swiftly as possible . ''
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will also be away for the proceedings , leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to Poland and Israel to commemorate the 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz at the end of World War II .
She issued a statement Tuesday denouncing Senator McConnell 's proposed ground rules as a `` sham '' because of the compressed schedule and lack of guarantee that witnesses will be called or that evidence gathered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate trial .
`` The Senate GOP Leader has chosen a cover-up for the President , rather than honor his oath to the Constitution , '' Speaker Pelosi said .
Also Tuesday , the House Democratic managers overseeing the impeachment case asked White House counsel Pat Cipollone , the president 's lead lawyer at the trial , to disclose any `` first-hand knowledge '' he has of the charges against Mr. Trump .
They said evidence gathered so far indicates that Mr. Cipollone is a `` material witness '' to the allegations at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President 's legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues , conflicts , or biases , '' the managers wrote in a letter to Mr. Cipollone .
House Democrats impeached the Republican president last month on two charges : abuse of power by withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine as he pressed the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and obstruction of Congress by refusing to cooperate with their investigation .
The Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach a president and the Senate the final verdict by convening as the impeachment court for a trial .
The president late Monday named eight House Republicans , some of his fiercest defenders , to a special team tasked with rallying support beyond the Senate chamber in the court of public opinion .
Senator McConnell is angling for a quick trial and acquittal , and with Republicans holding the Senate majority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved by senators in the president 's party .
The Republican leader had promised to set rules similar to the last trial , of President Bill Clinton in 1999 , but his resolution diverged in key ways , which may leave some senators from both parties uneasy .
After the four days of opening arguments , senators will be allowed up to 16 hours for questions to the prosecution and defense , followed by four hours of debate .
Only then will there be votes on whether or not to call other witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate would then vote on each impeachment article .
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah emailed his constituents that he was on board with the resolution put forth by Senator McConnell , even as he said the allegations against Mr. Trump are `` extremely serious – did the President abuse his office for personal political gain , and did he obstruct Congress ' investigation by blocking subpoenas ? ''
Senator Romney is among a small number of Republican senators who want to consider witness testimony and documents that were n't part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test of their votes will likely come later .
With security tightening at the Capitol , the House prosecutors led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff made their way Monday through crowds of tourists in the Rotunda to tour the Senate chamber .
The White House legal team led by Mr. Cipollone and Jay Sekulow soon followed .
Four TV monitors were set up inside the Senate chamber to show testimony , exhibits , and potentially tweets or other social media , according to a person familiar with the matter but unauthorized to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own filing Monday , House prosecutors issued fresh demands for a fair trial .
`` President Trump asserts that his impeachment is a partisan 'hoax . '
He is wrong , '' the prosecutors wrote .
The House Democrats said the president ca n't have it both ways – rejecting the facts of the House case but also stonewalling congressional subpoenas for witnesses and testimony .
`` Senators must honor their own oaths by holding a fair trial with all relevant evidence , '' they wrote .
The White House document released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president do n't amount to impeachable offenses .
It asserts that the impeachment inquiry , centered on Mr. Trump 's request that Ukraine 's president open an investigation into Democratic rival Biden , was never about finding the truth .
House Democrats in their initial court filing over the weekend called Mr. Trump 's conduct the `` worst nightmare '' of the framers of the Constitution .
`` President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a United States election for his personal political gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress 's investigation into his misconduct . ''
But Mr. Trump 's team contended that even if Mr. Trump were to have abused his power in withholding the Ukraine military assistance , it would not be impeachable because it did not violate a specific criminal statute .
No president has ever been removed from office .
With its 53-47 Republican majority , the Senate is not expected to mount the two-thirds votes needed for conviction .
Even if it did , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an `` unconstitutional conviction '' because the articles of impeachment were too broad .
This story was reported by The Associated Press .

Lisa Mascaro, Eric Tucker, and Zeke Miller

President Donald Trump's impeachment trial is set to unfold at the Capitol, a contentious proceeding over whether to remove him from office for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals and obstructing Congress' ensuing investigation.
As the Senate reconvenes with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, a first test will come midday Tuesday when the session gavels open to vote on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's proposed rules for debate.
More than procedure is at stake: Mr. Trump's presidency is on the line, and the nation is deeply divided just weeks before the first Democratic primary presidential contests. To complicate matters, four presidential candidates are serving as jurors in the Senate trial, which will keep them off the campaign trail.
On the eve of the trial, the Republican leader offered a compressed calendar for opening statements, just two days for each side, as Mr. Trump's lawyers argued for swift rejection of the "flimsy" charges against the president and acquittal.
"All of this is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn," the president's lawyers wrote in their first full filing Monday. "The articles should be rejected and the president should immediately be acquitted."
Democrats – as the House prosecutors practiced opening arguments well into the night on the Senate floor – vowed to object to a speedy trial as they pressed for fresh witnesses and documents.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned of a "cover-up" with Senator McConnell's plan that could lead to back-to-back 12-hour days.
"It's clear Senator McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through," Mr. Schumer said. He called the proposed rules a "national disgrace."
The first several days of the trial are expected to be tangled in procedural motions playing out on the Senate floor or, more likely, behind closed doors, since senators must refrain from speaking during the trial proceedings.
Senators are poised for only the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history, coming just weeks before the first primaries of the 2020 election, with four senators running for the Democratic nomination sidelined from campaigning.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, told supporters in Des Moines they're going to have to "carry the ball" for him while he takes his seat in Washington. The Iowa caucuses are in less than two weeks.
Mr. Trump, meanwhile, is at a global conference in Davos, Switzerland. His White House said Senator McConnell's proposed rules protect Mr. Trump's rights to a fair trial. White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland said the White House looks forward "to presenting a vigorous defense on the facts and the process as quickly as possible, and seeking an acquittal as swiftly as possible."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will also be away for the proceedings, leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to Poland and Israel to commemorate the 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz at the end of World War II.
She issued a statement Tuesday denouncing Senator McConnell's proposed ground rules as a "sham" because of the compressed schedule and lack of guarantee that witnesses will be called or that evidence gathered by the House would be admitted in the Senate trial.
"The Senate GOP Leader has chosen a cover-up for the President, rather than honor his oath to the Constitution," Speaker Pelosi said.
Also Tuesday, the House Democratic managers overseeing the impeachment case asked White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the president's lead lawyer at the trial, to disclose any "first-hand knowledge" he has of the charges against Mr. Trump. They said evidence gathered so far indicates that Mr. Cipollone is a "material witness" to the allegations at hand.
"You must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President's legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases," the managers wrote in a letter to Mr. Cipollone.
House Democrats impeached the Republican president last month on two charges: abuse of power by withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine as he pressed the country to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden, and obstruction of Congress by refusing to cooperate with their investigation.
The Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach a president and the Senate the final verdict by convening as the impeachment court for a trial.
The president late Monday named eight House Republicans, some of his fiercest defenders, to a special team tasked with rallying support beyond the Senate chamber in the court of public opinion.
Senator McConnell is angling for a quick trial and acquittal, and with Republicans holding the Senate majority, the trial proposal is likely to be approved by senators in the president's party. The Republican leader had promised to set rules similar to the last trial, of President Bill Clinton in 1999, but his resolution diverged in key ways, which may leave some senators from both parties uneasy.
After the four days of opening arguments, senators will be allowed up to 16 hours for questions to the prosecution and defense, followed by four hours of debate. Only then will there be votes on whether or not to call other witnesses.
At the end of deliberations, the Senate would then vote on each impeachment article.
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah emailed his constituents that he was on board with the resolution put forth by Senator McConnell, even as he said the allegations against Mr. Trump are "extremely serious – did the President abuse his office for personal political gain, and did he obstruct Congress' investigation by blocking subpoenas?"
Senator Romney is among a small number of Republican senators who want to consider witness testimony and documents that weren't part of the House impeachment investigation, but the test of their votes will likely come later.
With security tightening at the Capitol, the House prosecutors led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff made their way Monday through crowds of tourists in the Rotunda to tour the Senate chamber. The White House legal team led by Mr. Cipollone and Jay Sekulow soon followed.
Four TV monitors were set up inside the Senate chamber to show testimony, exhibits, and potentially tweets or other social media, according to a person familiar with the matter but unauthorized to discuss it on the record.
In their own filing Monday, House prosecutors issued fresh demands for a fair trial. "President Trump asserts that his impeachment is a partisan 'hoax.' He is wrong," the prosecutors wrote.
The House Democrats said the president can't have it both ways – rejecting the facts of the House case but also stonewalling congressional subpoenas for witnesses and testimony. "Senators must honor their own oaths by holding a fair trial with all relevant evidence," they wrote.
The White House document released Monday says the two charges against the president don't amount to impeachable offenses. It asserts that the impeachment inquiry, centered on Mr. Trump's request that Ukraine's president open an investigation into Democratic rival Biden, was never about finding the truth.
House Democrats in their initial court filing over the weekend called Mr. Trump's conduct the "worst nightmare" of the framers of the Constitution.
"President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a United States election for his personal political gain," the House prosecutors wrote, "and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress's investigation into his misconduct."
But Mr. Trump's team contended that even if Mr. Trump were to have abused his power in withholding the Ukraine military assistance, it would not be impeachable because it did not violate a specific criminal statute.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
No president has ever been removed from office. With its 53-47 Republican majority, the Senate is not expected to mount the two-thirds votes needed for conviction. Even if it did, the White House team argues it would be an "unconstitutional conviction" because the articles of impeachment were too broad.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.


csmonitor--2020-01-23--Political scandal isn’t necessarily the end – it can be a beginning

Reading about former Watergate “ plumber ” Egil Krogh today , as the fury of President Donald Trump ’ s Senate trial reverberates in Washington , I was struck by several lessons the arc of Mr. Krogh ’ s life might offer about larger meanings of President Trump ’ s pressure campaign against Ukraine and subsequent impeachment .
Mr. Krogh passed away on January 18 .
As The Washington Post and New York Times obituaries noted on Wednesday , as a young aide in President Richard Nixon ’ s White House , he was one of the leaders of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hence the “ plumber ” nickname – and other skullduggery .
In particular , Mr. Krogh approved a burglary into the office of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsburg ’ s psychiatrist .
Carried out with farcical ineptitude , the break-in produced little but a trail of evidence implicating the White House in the crime .
The possible takeaway for President Trump ’ s team ?
All administrations are tempted to work around the executive branch to get sensitive tasks done – illegal or not .
Sometimes it 's looking for a press leak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal lawyer to push a foreign country to announce an investigation into one of your political opponents .
It ’ s seldom effective .
As political scientist Jonathan Bernstein notes , the bureaucracy is not just a “ deep state ” blockade ; it ’ s a critical source of ability and expertise about what can – and can ’ t – be done .
Chief executives ignore it at their peril , as Presidents Nixon and now Trump have found out .
The other lesson offered by Mr. Krogh ’ s biography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swirl of a historic political scandal , it is not the end of work and hope .
It can be the beginning .
Mr. Krogh eventually pled guilty to burglary and conspiracy charges and served 4 ½ months in prison .
He later called the Ellsburg break-in “ a meltdown in personal integrity ” and through the rest of his life taught and lectured on ethics , so others could learn from his mistakes .
“ Integrity , like trust , is all too easy to lose , and too difficult to restore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memoir .
Let us know what you ’ re thinking at csmpolitics @ csmonitor.com .

Dear reader:
Reading about former Watergate “plumber” Egil Krogh today, as the fury of President Donald Trump’s Senate trial reverberates in Washington, I was struck by several lessons the arc of Mr. Krogh’s life might offer about larger meanings of President Trump’s pressure campaign against Ukraine and subsequent impeachment.
Mr. Krogh passed away on January 18. As The Washington Post and New York Times obituaries noted on Wednesday, as a young aide in President Richard Nixon’s White House, he was one of the leaders of a group charged with plugging media leaks – hence the “plumber” nickname – and other skullduggery.
In particular, Mr. Krogh approved a burglary into the office of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsburg’s psychiatrist. Carried out with farcical ineptitude, the break-in produced little but a trail of evidence implicating the White House in the crime.
The possible takeaway for President Trump’s team? All administrations are tempted to work around the executive branch to get sensitive tasks done – illegal or not. Sometimes it's looking for a press leak. Sometimes it’s getting your personal lawyer to push a foreign country to announce an investigation into one of your political opponents.
It’s seldom effective. As political scientist Jonathan Bernstein notes, the bureaucracy is not just a “deep state” blockade; it’s a critical source of ability and expertise about what can – and can’t – be done. Chief executives ignore it at their peril, as Presidents Nixon and now Trump have found out.
The other lesson offered by Mr. Krogh’s biography is that for those caught in the swirl of a historic political scandal, it is not the end of work and hope.
It can be the beginning.
Mr. Krogh eventually pled guilty to burglary and conspiracy charges and served 4 ½ months in prison. He later called the Ellsburg break-in “a meltdown in personal integrity” and through the rest of his life taught and lectured on ethics, so others could learn from his mistakes.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“Integrity, like trust, is all too easy to lose, and too difficult to restore,” he wrote in a 2007 memoir.
Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.


csmonitor--2020-01-23--US targets birthright citizenship with new visa restrictions

The Trump administration is coming out Thursday with new visa restrictions aimed at restricting `` birth tourism , '' in which women travel to the United States to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport .
Visa applicants deemed by consular officers to be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth will now be treated like other foreigners coming to the U.S. for medical treatment , according to State Department guidance sent Wednesday and viewed by The Associated Press .
The applicants will have to prove they are coming for medical treatment and they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The State Department planned to publicize the rules Thursday , according to two officials with knowledge of the plans who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity .
The rules will take effect Friday .
The practice of traveling to the U.S. to give birth is fundamentally legal , although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion .
Women are often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all forms of immigration , but Mr. Trump has been particularly plagued by the issue of birthright citizenship – anyone born in the U.S. is considered a citizen , under the Constitution .
The Republican president has railed against the practice and threatened to end it , but scholars and members of his administration have said it 's not so easy to do .
Regulating tourist visas for pregnant women is one way to get at the issue , but it raises questions about how officers would determine whether a woman is pregnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could get turned away by border officers who suspect she may be just by looking at her .
Consular officers do n't have the right to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant or intends to become so .
But they would have to determine whether a visa applicant would be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth .
Birth tourism is a lucrative business in both the U.S. and abroad .
American companies take out advertisements and charge up to $ 80,000 to facilitate the practice , offering hotel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the U.S .
The U.S. has been cracking down on the practice since before Mr. Trump took office .
There are no figures on how many foreign women travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth .
The Center for Immigration Studies , a group that advocates for stricter immigration laws , estimated that in 2012 , about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the U.S. , then left the country .
The draft rule is `` intended to address the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth tourism , including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry , '' a State Department spokesperson said .
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
AP writer Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this report .

The Trump administration is coming out Thursday with new visa restrictions aimed at restricting "birth tourism," in which women travel to the United States to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport.
Visa applicants deemed by consular officers to be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth will now be treated like other foreigners coming to the U.S. for medical treatment, according to State Department guidance sent Wednesday and viewed by The Associated Press. The applicants will have to prove they are coming for medical treatment and they have the money to pay for it.
The State Department planned to publicize the rules Thursday, according to two officials with knowledge of the plans who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity. The rules will take effect Friday.
The practice of traveling to the U.S. to give birth is fundamentally legal, although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion. Women are often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals.
President Donald Trump's administration has been restricting all forms of immigration, but Mr. Trump has been particularly plagued by the issue of birthright citizenship – anyone born in the U.S. is considered a citizen, under the Constitution. The Republican president has railed against the practice and threatened to end it, but scholars and members of his administration have said it's not so easy to do.
Regulating tourist visas for pregnant women is one way to get at the issue, but it raises questions about how officers would determine whether a woman is pregnant to begin with and whether a woman could get turned away by border officers who suspect she may be just by looking at her.
Consular officers don't have the right to ask during visa interviews whether a woman is pregnant or intends to become so. But they would have to determine whether a visa applicant would be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth.
Birth tourism is a lucrative business in both the U.S. and abroad. American companies take out advertisements and charge up to $80,000 to facilitate the practice, offering hotel rooms and medical care. Many of the women travel from Russia and China to give birth in the U.S. The U.S. has been cracking down on the practice since before Mr. Trump took office.
There are no figures on how many foreign women travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth. The Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for stricter immigration laws, estimated that in 2012, about 36,000 foreign-born women gave birth in the U.S., then left the country.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
The draft rule is "intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism, including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry," a State Department spokesperson said.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writer Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this report.


csmonitor--2020-01-22--Trump and McConnell: Political odd couple turned powerful partnership

“ The president , I think , sees Mitch as a Class A operator , ” says Chris Ruddy , CEO of the conservative Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of Mr. Trump , in an email .
“ He ’ s also a pretty frank guy , and I know the president appreciates that candidness.
” This hard-fought alliance now faces a major test in the Senate trial , which began in earnest Tuesday .
Namely , will Mr. Trump continue to defer to Mr. McConnell , or will he muddy the messaging at this high-stakes juncture in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed a mutual respect .
Through experience – passage of major tax reform and the confirmation of a record number of federal judges , including two Supreme Court justices – President Trump has learned that Mr. McConnell ’ s advice is worth listening to .
Both men are all about winning , whether in elections or on legislation and confirmations or , now , in ensuring that Mr. Trump survives an election-year impeachment trial with party unity intact .
When Donald Trump became president , he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Trump camp , it doesn ’ t get any “ swampier ” than Mr. McConnell – now finishing his sixth term in the Senate .
They are perhaps the ultimate Washington odd couple .
One is a charismatic showman who operates on gut and instinct .
The other is low on charisma and shrewdly calculating .
One is a political outsider who has remade the Republican Party in his own populist image .
The other embodies the GOP establishment .
Yet despite some high-profile clashes – punctuated by angry tweets – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have made their relationship work .
Foremost , they ’ re both all about winning , whether in elections or on legislation and confirmations or , now , in ensuring that President Trump survives an election-year impeachment trial with party unity intact .
Through experience – passage of major tax reform and the confirmation of a record number of federal judges , including two Supreme Court justices – Mr. Trump has learned that Mr. McConnell ’ s advice is worth listening to .
“ The president , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operator , a master of the Senate , who has helped him tremendously to move his legislative agenda through , ” says Chris Ruddy , CEO of the conservative Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of Mr. Trump , in an email .
“ He ’ s also a pretty frank guy , and I know the president appreciates that candidness.
” Mr. Ruddy acknowledges that when Mr. Trump became president , the two men were “ somewhat wary of each other.
” But over time they ’ ve developed a mutual respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put a value on getting things done , ” he says .
This hard-fought alliance now faces a major test in the Senate trial , which began in earnest Tuesday .
Namely , will Mr. Trump continue to defer to Mr. McConnell , or will he muddy the messaging at this high-stakes juncture in his presidency ?
Since his Dec. 18 impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , Mr. Trump has sent mixed signals on what he wants – from “ outright dismissal ” of the articles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including former Vice President Joe Biden , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff .
Mr. McConnell has said that an effort to dismiss the case would fall short , to the president ’ s embarrassment .
Furthermore , for Mr. Trump , being acquitted after a trial sends a stronger reelection message than a dismissal , presidential allies argue .
Mr. McConnell and Mr. Trump ’ s lawyers oppose the calling of witnesses ; Democrats want to call four , including former national security adviser John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mulvaney , and question them about Mr. Trump ’ s alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine to help in his reelection effort .
For now , the McConnell game plan , in conjunction with the Trump lawyers , is in effect .
But with the mercurial Mr. Trump , one can never be sure what he might say or do .
Indeed , for all their shared goals , the two men can seem at times from different planets .
The key to making any joint Trump-McConnell venture work , say sources connected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differing styles and take advantage of the best of each .
“ McConnell ’ s not a golfer , McConnell ’ s not a backslapper , ” says Scott Jennings , a former campaign aide to Mr. McConnell from Kentucky .
“ Think of them as a corporation .
Someone ’ s got to work in sales and marketing and someone ’ s got to work in product engineering.
” At the same time , Mr. Trump ’ s alliance with Mr. McConnell reflects a pragmatic streak in the president , a willingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ draining the swamp ” – that is , changing the way Washington works .
Because to some in the Trump camp , it doesn ’ t get any swampier than Mr. McConnell – now finishing his sixth term in the Senate and expected to win his seventh in November .
Former aides to Mr. McConnell are all over Washington , working as lobbyists and consultants .
Ken Cuccinelli , a Trump acolyte and top official at the Department of Homeland Security , once called Mr. McConnell the “ head alligator ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have resonated with Mr. Trump when he first arrived in Washington .
Certainly , the early going between the two was rough .
In July 2017 , when the Senate failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act , Mr. Trump was furious – spurring a month of severely strained relations , punctuated by angry presidential tweets slamming Mr. McConnell by name .
A phone call between the two men reportedly descended into a profanity-laced shouting match , followed by weeks of no contact .
Mr. McConnell faced other sources of frustration that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversial reaction to protests by white supremacists in Charlottesville , Virginia , and the president ’ s open antagonism toward some of Mr. McConnell ’ s GOP Senate colleagues .
Complicating matters was the position of Mr. McConnell ’ s wife , Elaine Chao , as transportation secretary .
When asked that summer about the tensions between her husband and Mr. Trump , she said , “ I stand by my man – both of them.
” By the end of the summer , the two men had patched things over .
Populist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antagonist , was out as Mr. Trump ’ s chief White House strategist , and tax reform was on its way to passage .
The president ’ s mood was brightening .
On the effort to repeal “ Obamacare , ” “ McConnell got it as close as he could , but the votes weren ’ t there , ” Mr. Jennings says .
“ From that day forward , they ’ ve been hand in glove on just about everything.
” Last year , Mr. McConnell even gave himself a nickname – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he promised to defeat all progressive proposals in the Senate .
At this point , “ McConnell is probably one of his best advisers , and Trump probably realizes that , ” says Al Cross , a former longtime Louisville reporter , now at the University of Kentucky in Lexington .
For Mr. Trump , having an ally who doesn ’ t compete for the spotlight is a plus .
Mr. McConnell is famously taciturn , and keeps his own counsel .
“ McConnell keeps things close to the vest , even with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make decisions on the fly , ” says Jim Manley , who ran communications for former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid .
“ In meetings between Reid and McConnell , neither of whom are known for eloquence , Reid was always the more loquacious of the two.
” Also working in Mr. McConnell ’ s favor may be the fact that he isn ’ t quite the “ institutionalist ” that some make him out to be .
He resisted Mr. Trump ’ s entreaties to get rid of the legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a 51-vote majority in the Senate and not 60 votes .
But when it came to another Senate tradition , filling a Supreme Court vacancy expeditiously , Mr. McConnell was willing to break the mold .
He refused to hold a hearing or a vote on President Barack Obama ’ s nominee – Merrick Garland , named in March 2016 – saying the next president should fill the vacancy .
The gambit paid off after Mr. Trump won the election , allowing him to name a conservative to the high court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the confirmation of 187 federal judges , ensuring a conservative judicial legacy that will last decades .
Of all the impacts from the Trump-McConnell partnership , that may be the biggest of all .
To see all of The Monitor 's impeachment coverage , go here .

“The president, I think, sees Mitch as a Class A operator,” says Chris Ruddy, CEO of the conservative Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of Mr. Trump, in an email. “He’s also a pretty frank guy, and I know the president appreciates that candidness.”
This hard-fought alliance now faces a major test in the Senate trial, which began in earnest Tuesday. Namely, will Mr. Trump continue to defer to Mr. McConnell, or will he muddy the messaging at this high-stakes juncture in his presidency?
Stark differences in personality and style belie a shared focus on winning that has bolstered the president’s relationship with the Senate majority leader, now facing a critical test in the impeachment trial.
But over time they've developed a mutual respect. Through experience – passage of major tax reform and the confirmation of a record number of federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices – President Trump has learned that Mr. McConnell’s advice is worth listening to. Both men are all about winning, whether in elections or on legislation and confirmations or, now, in ensuring that Mr. Trump survives an election-year impeachment trial with party unity intact.
When Donald Trump became president, he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were wary of one another. To some in the Trump camp, it doesn’t get any “swampier” than Mr. McConnell – now finishing his sixth term in the Senate.
They are perhaps the ultimate Washington odd couple.
One is a charismatic showman who operates on gut and instinct. The other is low on charisma and shrewdly calculating. One is a political outsider who has remade the Republican Party in his own populist image. The other embodies the GOP establishment.
Yet despite some high-profile clashes – punctuated by angry tweets – President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have made their relationship work. Foremost, they’re both all about winning, whether in elections or on legislation and confirmations or, now, in ensuring that President Trump survives an election-year impeachment trial with party unity intact.
Why We Wrote This Stark differences in personality and style belie a shared focus on winning that has bolstered the president’s relationship with the Senate majority leader, now facing a critical test in the impeachment trial.
Through experience – passage of major tax reform and the confirmation of a record number of federal judges, including two Supreme Court justices – Mr. Trump has learned that Mr. McConnell’s advice is worth listening to.
“The president, I think, sees Mitch as a Class A operator, a master of the Senate, who has helped him tremendously to move his legislative agenda through,” says Chris Ruddy, CEO of the conservative Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of Mr. Trump, in an email. “He’s also a pretty frank guy, and I know the president appreciates that candidness.”
Mr. Ruddy acknowledges that when Mr. Trump became president, the two men were “somewhat wary of each other.” But over time they’ve developed a mutual respect. “They both like winners and put a value on getting things done,” he says.
This hard-fought alliance now faces a major test in the Senate trial, which began in earnest Tuesday. Namely, will Mr. Trump continue to defer to Mr. McConnell, or will he muddy the messaging at this high-stakes juncture in his presidency?
Since his Dec. 18 impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, Mr. Trump has sent mixed signals on what he wants – from “outright dismissal” of the articles of impeachment to the calling of Democratic witnesses, including former Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
Mr. McConnell has said that an effort to dismiss the case would fall short, to the president’s embarrassment. Furthermore, for Mr. Trump, being acquitted after a trial sends a stronger reelection message than a dismissal, presidential allies argue.
Mr. McConnell and Mr. Trump’s lawyers oppose the calling of witnesses; Democrats want to call four, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and question them about Mr. Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine to help in his reelection effort.
For now, the McConnell game plan, in conjunction with the Trump lawyers, is in effect. But with the mercurial Mr. Trump, one can never be sure what he might say or do.
Indeed, for all their shared goals, the two men can seem at times from different planets. The key to making any joint Trump-McConnell venture work, say sources connected to each, is to acknowledge those differing styles and take advantage of the best of each.
“McConnell’s not a golfer, McConnell’s not a backslapper,” says Scott Jennings, a former campaign aide to Mr. McConnell from Kentucky. “Think of them as a corporation. Someone’s got to work in sales and marketing and someone’s got to work in product engineering.”
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s alliance with Mr. McConnell reflects a pragmatic streak in the president, a willingness to compromise on his stated goal of “draining the swamp” – that is, changing the way Washington works. Because to some in the Trump camp, it doesn’t get any swampier than Mr. McConnell – now finishing his sixth term in the Senate and expected to win his seventh in November. Former aides to Mr. McConnell are all over Washington, working as lobbyists and consultants.
Ken Cuccinelli, a Trump acolyte and top official at the Department of Homeland Security, once called Mr. McConnell the “head alligator” in the swamp.
That type of rhetoric may have resonated with Mr. Trump when he first arrived in Washington. Certainly, the early going between the two was rough. In July 2017, when the Senate failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Trump was furious – spurring a month of severely strained relations, punctuated by angry presidential tweets slamming Mr. McConnell by name. A phone call between the two men reportedly descended into a profanity-laced shouting match, followed by weeks of no contact.
Mr. McConnell faced other sources of frustration that summer, including Mr. Trump’s controversial reaction to protests by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the president’s open antagonism toward some of Mr. McConnell’s GOP Senate colleagues.
Complicating matters was the position of Mr. McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as transportation secretary. When asked that summer about the tensions between her husband and Mr. Trump, she said, “I stand by my man – both of them.”
By the end of the summer, the two men had patched things over. Populist bomb-thrower Steve Bannon, a major McConnell antagonist, was out as Mr. Trump’s chief White House strategist, and tax reform was on its way to passage. The president’s mood was brightening.
On the effort to repeal “Obamacare,” “McConnell got it as close as he could, but the votes weren’t there,” Mr. Jennings says. “From that day forward, they’ve been hand in glove on just about everything.”
Last year, Mr. McConnell even gave himself a nickname – the “Grim Reaper” – as he promised to defeat all progressive proposals in the Senate.
At this point, “McConnell is probably one of his best advisers, and Trump probably realizes that,” says Al Cross, a former longtime Louisville reporter, now at the University of Kentucky in Lexington.
For Mr. Trump, having an ally who doesn’t compete for the spotlight is a plus. Mr. McConnell is famously taciturn, and keeps his own counsel.
“McConnell keeps things close to the vest, even with his own leadership team. He doesn’t make decisions on the fly,” says Jim Manley, who ran communications for former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid. “In meetings between Reid and McConnell, neither of whom are known for eloquence, Reid was always the more loquacious of the two.”
Also working in Mr. McConnell’s favor may be the fact that he isn’t quite the “institutionalist” that some make him out to be.
He resisted Mr. Trump’s entreaties to get rid of the legislative filibuster, so he could pass bills with a 51-vote majority in the Senate and not 60 votes. But when it came to another Senate tradition, filling a Supreme Court vacancy expeditiously, Mr. McConnell was willing to break the mold. He refused to hold a hearing or a vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee – Merrick Garland, named in March 2016 – saying the next president should fill the vacancy.
The gambit paid off after Mr. Trump won the election, allowing him to name a conservative to the high court. In all, Mr. McConnell has overseen the confirmation of 187 federal judges, ensuring a conservative judicial legacy that will last decades. Of all the impacts from the Trump-McConnell partnership, that may be the biggest of all.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
To see all of The Monitor's impeachment coverage, go here.