vox--2020-02-05--3 winners and 3 losers from the impeachment and acquittal of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump is the clear winner of the now-resolved Senate impeachment battle — the question is at what cost .
He was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial , and he even got his way on persuading the Senate to eschew any witnesses , defying Democratic requests and the overwhelming preference of public opinion .
It ’ s a bit of a strange victory for Trump , whose approval rating at this point in his presidency is lower than that of Barack Obama , George W. Bush , Bill Clinton , George H.W .
Bush , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theirs .
This is the case even while the economy is strong and the nation , while not exactly at peace , isn ’ t suffering major casualties or threats from abroad .
Facing a structurally similar situation in 1998 and 1999 , Clinton secured not only acquittal but a clear political triumph over his adversaries — emerging from impeachment very popular even though his underlying conduct was sordid at best .
Trump , by contrast , is truly skating by with underwater approval ratings and a path to reelection that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popularity .
But while Trump ’ s standing remains ambiguous , impeachment and acquittal did generate a few other clear winners and losers .
To understand the impeachment 2020 drama , you have to understand it from the perspective of the key decision-makers — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the vulnerable House Democrats on whose behalf she ’ s acting .
From her point of view , as of last fall , impeachment was a problem , not an opportunity .
Special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report included clear evidence of obstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of whether that ’ s what he found .
That left a growing chorus of safe-seat Democrats agitating for impeachment , even as polling showed public support for impeachment was underwater .
Many pro-impeachment pundits argued at the time that if Democrats unified behind the cause , they ’ d sway public opinion to their side .
Pelosi evidently didn ’ t buy that .
Then the Ukraine story broke , a key group of frontlines came out for impeachment , impeachment ’ s poll numbers improved to become slightly popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , frontline members — and Pelosi — were worried about Republican messaging that Democrats were so obsessed with impeachment that they weren ’ t getting anything done .
The strategy the House took — to impeach Trump , to do it on a narrow grounds , and to conduct a fast investigation rather than litigate extensively over evidence — was built around those political concerns .
And if you share Pelosi ’ s key premises , her strategy worked .
She went from a situation where she was facing base pressure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her members did something popular and then moved on — even while leaving Senate Republicans to take multiple unpopular votes against hearing witnesses .
Lots of people never shared Pelosi ’ s view of the issues , and to many of them , impeachment may look like a failure .
But she achieved what she set out to , confirming her stature as a master tactician whether or not one agrees with her approach to broader strategic issues .
Senate Republicans made it pretty clear throughout this process that they were basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump did .
They listened with equanimity to Alan Dershowitz argue that there ’ s no such thing as abuse of power unless it violates specific statutes .
But then they also didn ’ t care about a Government Accountability Office finding that holding up duly appropriated aid to Ukraine was illegal .
They decided they didn ’ t want to hear from John Bolton , Mick Mulvaney , or anyone else with relevant information .
And indeed , despite a fair amount of speculation about possible deals to force Hunter Biden or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t explore those ideas seriously either .
Their reasoning is easy enough to understand : They were committed to voting to acquit Trump , so a full and extended airing of the facts could only set them up for embarrassment .
Critically , Trump got himself acquitted without even a token gesture of contrition .
Bill Clinton survived his sex and perjury scandal , but part of him doing so was to concede in public that what he did was wrong .
Ronald Reagan survived Iran-Contra , but disposing of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal personnel shake-up .
Trump didn ’ t distance himself from Rudy Giuliani , hail internal dissenters for cutting short an inappropriate mingling of politics and foreign policy , or concede that there was any problem with holding up the aid in the first place , even though he eventually released it .
This was all fairly predictable to any observer of American politics , but we didn ’ t know for sure until we saw it happen .
Before acquittal , members of the Trump administration had to worry at least a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would lead to consequences .
And potentially , whistleblowers had to hope at least a little that spilling the beans would lead to positive change .
Now we know that none of that is the case .
The concern that impeachment would only lead to acquittal and further erosion of the rule of law was aired in Democratic circles before the House acted , and the doubters turn out to have been entirely correct on this score .
Still , it ’ s hard to see any other possible tactical course of action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The essence of the problem is that almost every Republican has decided to stand by Trump no matter what .
Cory Gardner narrowly won a Senate race in the blue-leaning swing state of Colorado in the context of a huge GOP wave back in 2014 .
Since then , the same demographic shifts that have made heavily white working-class Midwestern states redder have only acted to make Colorado bluer .
That ’ s an obvious problem for Gardner as he runs for reelection in 2020 , but during his time in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to build a reputation for moderation or demonstrate any independence from Trump .
The impeachment fight could have been an opportunity to do that , but Gardner once again preferred to play loyal foot soldier and avoid taking any kind of risk .
The small-c conservative approach is understandable , but it ’ s also very hard to see how he wins reelection in a bluish state without taking some risks .
Arizona ’ s Martha McSally and Maine ’ s Susan Collins benefit from more conservative electorates than Gardner ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same position .
Mitt Romney ’ s bold decision to vote for conviction only further underscores the extent to which vulnerable Republicans didn ’ t display any courage or independence .
Of course , there ’ s a reason Romney can be bold .
He has a personal political brand separate from Trump and isn ’ t up for reelection in a Trump-unfriendly state until 2024 .
Overall , the growing correlation of Senate elections with national politics is helpful to the GOP caucus .
But these three specific members are disadvantaged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyalty forced them to repeatedly take unpopular stands against hearing further evidence .
This tends to be a bit lost on liberals , but a key point for many Republicans in Congress is that at the end of the day , Ukraine got its aid money .
The whole reason Trump had to resort to things like Giuliani ’ s irregular diplomatic channel and eventually putting an illegal hold on the flow of assistance is precisely that support for giving Ukraine assistance was widespread among congressional Republicans .
If Trump ’ s personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a widespread GOP stance , it could have been held up in Congress as a normal policy dispute .
But it wasn ’ t .
And then the reason House Democrats were able to find compliant witnesses for their impeachment hearings was , again , that many of Trump ’ s own appointees felt strongly about the aid on the merits .
Contrary to what you sometimes hear about Trump having completely taken over the Republican Party , he frequently gets pushback from congressional Republicans over policy issues they care about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the reason the aid was eventually released is that Trump was facing internal and external pressure to turn it over .
What Democrats wanted was accountability for Trump ’ s scheme .
And they were hoping , at least initially , to find some allies among Republicans .
But what Republican Russia hawks got instead was compliance with their policy preferences — not only did Ukraine get its assistance , but the White House has reversed its position in budget proposals to now favor helping Ukraine .
This is cold comfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was more focused on the integrity of the American political system than the alleged need to fight for Ukraine ’ s territorial integrity .
But you ’ d be misunderstanding the nature of GOP solidarity behind Trump if you miss the fact that there are ongoing tugs-of-war over the direction of American public policy , battles in which Trump bends to the Republican establishment far more than vice versa .
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff has been a frequent cable news guest for a while .
But his dual roles first as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and second as the lead impeachment manager gave him much wider public exposure .
And while he didn ’ t persuade enough Republican senators to call additional witnesses , he did get public opinion squarely on his side .
More broadly , across hours and hours and hours of argumentation , he clearly stood out as not only the formal head of the Democratic impeachment team but also its most effective public spokesperson .
Given that Pelosi is not an incredibly commanding television presence and the No .
2 and 3 figures in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this suggests a potential larger role for Schiff as the caucus ’ s informal public communications lead .
That Schiff ’ s performance was widely praised by Democratic observers also sets him up well for a political future in the crowded space of California politics .
It ’ s not hard to imagine him running for Dianne Feinstein ’ s Senate seat when she retires , or some other statewide office , or else making a play for a top role in the next generation of House Democratic leadership .
The Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that tipped frontline Democrats over into supporting an impeachment inquiry .
But it ’ s hardly the only Trump administration scandal that raises fundamental questions about his fitness for office .
Some of us called last fall for a broader impeachment inquiry that would more or less take for granted that conviction was impossible , and instead simply try to amass a full public record of Trump ’ s misconduct .
That would include looking into serious questions about the president ’ s personal business interests in Turkey and the Persian Gulf , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries , along with the big-picture question of violations of the emoluments clause and his continued stonewalling of legally valid requests for his tax returns .
The Watergate inquiry , after all , ended up uncovering evidence of misdeeds that were actually much more wide-ranging and severe than helping cover up a burglary at the DNC .
But that only came about because investigators decided to really kick the tires of the whole situation rather than maintaining a laser-like focus on the easiest-to-explain narrative .
Democrats wanted to avoid getting bogged down in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment was all they were doing .
And while in principle there ’ s nothing stopping Democrats from doing more investigations , all signs are that the party leadership wants to focus attention on banal governance issues like a reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program .
And even if Democrats do go back to issuing subpoenas , it ’ s clearer than ever that Republicans have no interest in trying to make the Trump administration comply .

President Donald Trump is the clear winner of the now-resolved Senate impeachment battle — the question is at what cost.
He was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment trial, and he even got his way on persuading the Senate to eschew any witnesses, defying Democratic requests and the overwhelming preference of public opinion.
It’s a bit of a strange victory for Trump, whose approval rating at this point in his presidency is lower than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, or Jimmy Carter at the same point in theirs. This is the case even while the economy is strong and the nation, while not exactly at peace, isn’t suffering major casualties or threats from abroad.
Facing a structurally similar situation in 1998 and 1999, Clinton secured not only acquittal but a clear political triumph over his adversaries — emerging from impeachment very popular even though his underlying conduct was sordid at best. Trump, by contrast, is truly skating by with underwater approval ratings and a path to reelection that’s built on Electoral College bias rather than popularity.
But while Trump’s standing remains ambiguous, impeachment and acquittal did generate a few other clear winners and losers.
Winner: Nancy Pelosi and frontline House Democrats
To understand the impeachment 2020 drama, you have to understand it from the perspective of the key decision-makers — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the vulnerable House Democrats on whose behalf she’s acting.
From her point of view, as of last fall, impeachment was a problem, not an opportunity. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report included clear evidence of obstruction of justice, but he punted on the question of whether that’s what he found. That left a growing chorus of safe-seat Democrats agitating for impeachment, even as polling showed public support for impeachment was underwater.
Many pro-impeachment pundits argued at the time that if Democrats unified behind the cause, they’d sway public opinion to their side. Pelosi evidently didn’t buy that. Then the Ukraine story broke, a key group of frontlines came out for impeachment, impeachment’s poll numbers improved to become slightly popular, and leadership got on board.
Still, frontline members — and Pelosi — were worried about Republican messaging that Democrats were so obsessed with impeachment that they weren’t getting anything done.
The strategy the House took — to impeach Trump, to do it on a narrow grounds, and to conduct a fast investigation rather than litigate extensively over evidence — was built around those political concerns. And if you share Pelosi’s key premises, her strategy worked. She went from a situation where she was facing base pressure to do something unpopular to one where she and her members did something popular and then moved on — even while leaving Senate Republicans to take multiple unpopular votes against hearing witnesses.
Lots of people never shared Pelosi’s view of the issues, and to many of them, impeachment may look like a failure. But she achieved what she set out to, confirming her stature as a master tactician whether or not one agrees with her approach to broader strategic issues.
Loser: The rule of law
Senate Republicans made it pretty clear throughout this process that they were basically indifferent to the underlying question of what Trump did.
They listened with equanimity to Alan Dershowitz argue that there’s no such thing as abuse of power unless it violates specific statutes. But then they also didn’t care about a Government Accountability Office finding that holding up duly appropriated aid to Ukraine was illegal. They decided they didn’t want to hear from John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, or anyone else with relevant information. And indeed, despite a fair amount of speculation about possible deals to force Hunter Biden or someone else to testify, they ultimately didn’t explore those ideas seriously either.
Their reasoning is easy enough to understand: They were committed to voting to acquit Trump, so a full and extended airing of the facts could only set them up for embarrassment.
Critically, Trump got himself acquitted without even a token gesture of contrition. Bill Clinton survived his sex and perjury scandal, but part of him doing so was to concede in public that what he did was wrong. Ronald Reagan survived Iran-Contra, but disposing of the situation involved identifying fall guys and an internal personnel shake-up. Trump didn’t distance himself from Rudy Giuliani, hail internal dissenters for cutting short an inappropriate mingling of politics and foreign policy, or concede that there was any problem with holding up the aid in the first place, even though he eventually released it.
This was all fairly predictable to any observer of American politics, but we didn’t know for sure until we saw it happen. Before acquittal, members of the Trump administration had to worry at least a little that getting caught doing something wrong would lead to consequences. And potentially, whistleblowers had to hope at least a little that spilling the beans would lead to positive change. Now we know that none of that is the case.
The concern that impeachment would only lead to acquittal and further erosion of the rule of law was aired in Democratic circles before the House acted, and the doubters turn out to have been entirely correct on this score. Still, it’s hard to see any other possible tactical course of action by Democrats generating a better result. The essence of the problem is that almost every Republican has decided to stand by Trump no matter what.
Loser: Vulnerable Republican senators
Cory Gardner narrowly won a Senate race in the blue-leaning swing state of Colorado in the context of a huge GOP wave back in 2014.
Since then, the same demographic shifts that have made heavily white working-class Midwestern states redder have only acted to make Colorado bluer. That’s an obvious problem for Gardner as he runs for reelection in 2020, but during his time in the Senate, he’s done next to nothing to build a reputation for moderation or demonstrate any independence from Trump. The impeachment fight could have been an opportunity to do that, but Gardner once again preferred to play loyal foot soldier and avoid taking any kind of risk. The small-c conservative approach is understandable, but it’s also very hard to see how he wins reelection in a bluish state without taking some risks.
Arizona’s Martha McSally and Maine’s Susan Collins benefit from more conservative electorates than Gardner’s but structurally speaking found themselves in the same position.
Mitt Romney’s bold decision to vote for conviction only further underscores the extent to which vulnerable Republicans didn’t display any courage or independence. Of course, there’s a reason Romney can be bold. He has a personal political brand separate from Trump and isn’t up for reelection in a Trump-unfriendly state until 2024.
Overall, the growing correlation of Senate elections with national politics is helpful to the GOP caucus. But these three specific members are disadvantaged by it, and especially so when party loyalty forced them to repeatedly take unpopular stands against hearing further evidence.
Winner: GOP Russia hawks
This tends to be a bit lost on liberals, but a key point for many Republicans in Congress is that at the end of the day, Ukraine got its aid money.
The whole reason Trump had to resort to things like Giuliani’s irregular diplomatic channel and eventually putting an illegal hold on the flow of assistance is precisely that support for giving Ukraine assistance was widespread among congressional Republicans. If Trump’s personal skepticism of the merits of helping Ukraine were a widespread GOP stance, it could have been held up in Congress as a normal policy dispute. But it wasn’t. And then the reason House Democrats were able to find compliant witnesses for their impeachment hearings was, again, that many of Trump’s own appointees felt strongly about the aid on the merits.
Contrary to what you sometimes hear about Trump having completely taken over the Republican Party, he frequently gets pushback from congressional Republicans over policy issues they care about. Aiding Ukraine was just such an issue, and the reason the aid was eventually released is that Trump was facing internal and external pressure to turn it over.
What Democrats wanted was accountability for Trump’s scheme. And they were hoping, at least initially, to find some allies among Republicans. But what Republican Russia hawks got instead was compliance with their policy preferences — not only did Ukraine get its assistance, but the White House has reversed its position in budget proposals to now favor helping Ukraine.
The White House will propose keeping security assistance for Ukraine at current levels when it releases its upcoming budget, abandoning past attempts to slash State Department funding for Ukrainehttps://t.co/oWVQcczneZ — John Hudson (@John_Hudson) January 30, 2020
This is cold comfort for those whose concerns about this matter was more focused on the integrity of the American political system than the alleged need to fight for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. But you’d be misunderstanding the nature of GOP solidarity behind Trump if you miss the fact that there are ongoing tugs-of-war over the direction of American public policy, battles in which Trump bends to the Republican establishment far more than vice versa.
Winner: Rep. Adam Schiff
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff has been a frequent cable news guest for a while.
But his dual roles first as the head of the main investigating committee and second as the lead impeachment manager gave him much wider public exposure. And while he didn’t persuade enough Republican senators to call additional witnesses, he did get public opinion squarely on his side. More broadly, across hours and hours and hours of argumentation, he clearly stood out as not only the formal head of the Democratic impeachment team but also its most effective public spokesperson.
Given that Pelosi is not an incredibly commanding television presence and the No. 2 and 3 figures in the House leadership hierarchy are even worse, this suggests a potential larger role for Schiff as the caucus’s informal public communications lead.
That Schiff’s performance was widely praised by Democratic observers also sets him up well for a political future in the crowded space of California politics. It’s not hard to imagine him running for Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat when she retires, or some other statewide office, or else making a play for a top role in the next generation of House Democratic leadership.
Loser: Fans of congressional oversight
The Ukraine aid scandal happened to be the issue that tipped frontline Democrats over into supporting an impeachment inquiry. But it’s hardly the only Trump administration scandal that raises fundamental questions about his fitness for office.
Some of us called last fall for a broader impeachment inquiry that would more or less take for granted that conviction was impossible, and instead simply try to amass a full public record of Trump’s misconduct. That would include looking into serious questions about the president’s personal business interests in Turkey and the Persian Gulf, as well as China and other foreign countries, along with the big-picture question of violations of the emoluments clause and his continued stonewalling of legally valid requests for his tax returns.
The Watergate inquiry, after all, ended up uncovering evidence of misdeeds that were actually much more wide-ranging and severe than helping cover up a burglary at the DNC. But that only came about because investigators decided to really kick the tires of the whole situation rather than maintaining a laser-like focus on the easiest-to-explain narrative.
Democrats wanted to avoid getting bogged down in litigation over witnesses or the perception that impeachment was all they were doing. And while in principle there’s nothing stopping Democrats from doing more investigations, all signs are that the party leadership wants to focus attention on banal governance issues like a reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program. And even if Democrats do go back to issuing subpoenas, it’s clearer than ever that Republicans have no interest in trying to make the Trump administration comply.


vox--2020-02-05--It’s official: The Senate just acquitted President Trump of both articles of impeachment

The Senate just voted to acquit President Donald Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — ending a more than four-month impeachment process that began when Trump withheld aid from Ukraine and pressured its leader to investigate Hunter Biden .
The acquittal is the third time in US history the Senate has acquitted a president who has previously been impeached , after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Clinton in 1999 .
While several Republican senators acknowledged the president ’ s wrongdoing , nearly all of them eventually voted to acquit Trump of both articles .
Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only senator to break with his party and vote to convict on the abuse of power charge .
As a result , the vote on the two articles was slightly different .
Senators voted 52-48 to acquit the president on abuse of power , and 53-47 to acquit him of obstruction of Congress .
The outcome was not a surprise .
It would have taken 67 votes to convict the president , meaning 20 Republicans would have had to cross over and join the Democrats ’ 47-member caucus .
Given Republicans ’ unwillingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was always an unlikely outcome .
After 51 Republicans voted against calling witnesses , the vote was all but a foregone conclusion .
The vote caps off a tumultuous few months in the House and the Senate that has been filled with bitter fights over subpoenas , witness testimony and process .
During the last few weeks , House impeachment managers presented an overwhelming slate of evidence to demonstrate Trump ’ s willingness to abuse his power in order to get reelected .
By the conclusion of the trial , many Senate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wrongdoing so much as arguing that it didn ’ t merit removal .
Manager Adam Schiff , in his closing arguments , warned Republicans that their votes would inextricably tie them to the president .
“ If you find that the House has proved its case , and still vote to acquit , your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history , ” he said .
Senate Republicans , on the whole , didn ’ t seem to mind .
Senate Republicans were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more evidence has emerged during the Senate trial , there ’ s one thing that ’ s stayed constant : Republicans ’ loyalty to Trump .
During a tense vote on considering more witnesses and evidence last week , just two Republicans — Sens .
Susan Collins and Mitt Romney — defied the president to vote alongside Democrats .
And while several moderates including Collins , Lisa Murkowski , Lamar Alexander , and Rob Portman have said they think Trump ’ s handling of aid to Ukraine was improper , all but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the final impeachment vote clearly illustrates , the conference continues to remain fiercely united behind the president .
This loyalty is driven heavily by the support that Trump continues to receive from the Republican base .
According to a recent Gallup poll , 89 percent of Republicans approved of the job he was doing as president .
Last year , Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) , a swing-state senator up for reelection in 2020 , experienced firsthand what happens when a Republican goes against Trump : After writing a Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared to obtain funds for his border wall , Tillis was threatened with a primary challenge and quickly reversed course .
Others that have spoken out about Trump in the past , like Alabama Rep. Martha Roby and former South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford , have paid the price at the ballot box .
These votes could be fodder during the election At this point , it ’ s not certain what the next steps will be for Congress : Sen. Lindsey Graham has suggested that there should be more investigations into Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though the conspiracy theory about the former vice president ’ s work on Ukraine and corruption has already been debunked .
And the House could continue its own investigations , though what that looks like is not yet clear : Schiff declined to say whether the House would subpoena former National Security Adviser John Bolton when asked this weekend .
What is perhaps more predictable is that senators ’ Trump impeachment vote — and their vote on witnesses — will become fodder during the 2020 election cycle .
For Republican senators in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joni Ernst , Kelly Loeffler , Collins , and Tillis , especially , these votes are expected to be raised by their competitors .
The same is true for vulnerable Democrats , like Sen. Doug Jones , who faces an intense fight to keep his seat in Alabama this fall .
It ’ s tough to predict exactly how these votes will play out with voters , though recent polls offer a glimpse .
According to a FiveThirtyEight aggregation of these surveys , 84 percent of Democrats support removal , along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Republicans .
In states like Maine , for example , the positions of these independent voters will be particularly critical for the Senate race .
In nine months , what voters make of the president — and the Senate ’ s decisions — will be evident .

The Senate just voted to acquit President Donald Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — ending a more than four-month impeachment process that began after revelations that Trump had withheld aid from Ukraine and pressured its leader to investigate Hunter Biden.
The acquittal is the third time in US history the Senate has acquitted a president who has previously been impeached, after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Clinton in 1999.
While several Republican senators acknowledged the president’s wrongdoing, nearly all of them eventually voted to acquit Trump of both articles. Sen. Mitt Romney, ultimately, was the only senator to break with his party and vote to convict on the abuse of power charge.
As a result, the vote on the two articles was slightly different. Senators voted 52-48 to acquit the president on abuse of power, and 53-47 to acquit him of obstruction of Congress.
The outcome was not a surprise. It would have taken 67 votes to convict the president, meaning 20 Republicans would have had to cross over and join the Democrats’ 47-member caucus. Given Republicans’ unwillingness to break with the president, that was always an unlikely outcome. After 51 Republicans voted against calling witnesses, the vote was all but a foregone conclusion.
The vote caps off a tumultuous few months in the House and the Senate that has been filled with bitter fights over subpoenas, witness testimony and process. During the last few weeks, House impeachment managers presented an overwhelming slate of evidence to demonstrate Trump’s willingness to abuse his power in order to get reelected. By the conclusion of the trial, many Senate Republicans were no longer denying the president’s wrongdoing so much as arguing that it didn’t merit removal.
Manager Adam Schiff, in his closing arguments, warned Republicans that their votes would inextricably tie them to the president.
“If you find that the House has proved its case, and still vote to acquit, your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history,” he said.
Senate Republicans, on the whole, didn’t seem to mind.
Senate Republicans were never going to convict
Even as more and more evidence has emerged during the Senate trial, there’s one thing that’s stayed constant: Republicans’ loyalty to Trump.
During a tense vote on considering more witnesses and evidence last week, just two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney — defied the president to vote alongside Democrats. And while several moderates including Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, and Rob Portman have said they think Trump’s handling of aid to Ukraine was improper, all but Romney balked at going any further.
As the final impeachment vote clearly illustrates, the conference continues to remain fiercely united behind the president. This loyalty is driven heavily by the support that Trump continues to receive from the Republican base. According to a recent Gallup poll, 89 percent of Republicans approved of the job he was doing as president.
Last year, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), a swing-state senator up for reelection in 2020, experienced firsthand what happens when a Republican goes against Trump: After writing a Washington Post op-ed opposing the national emergency Trump had declared to obtain funds for his border wall, Tillis was threatened with a primary challenge and quickly reversed course.
Others that have spoken out about Trump in the past, like Alabama Rep. Martha Roby and former South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, have paid the price at the ballot box.
These votes could be fodder during the election
At this point, it’s not certain what the next steps will be for Congress: Sen. Lindsey Graham has suggested that there should be more investigations into Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma, though the conspiracy theory about the former vice president’s work on Ukraine and corruption has already been debunked. And the House could continue its own investigations, though what that looks like is not yet clear: Schiff declined to say whether the House would subpoena former National Security Adviser John Bolton when asked this weekend.
What is perhaps more predictable is that senators’ Trump impeachment vote — and their vote on witnesses — will become fodder during the 2020 election cycle.
For Republican senators in possible swing states, including Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, Kelly Loeffler, Collins, and Tillis, especially, these votes are expected to be raised by their competitors. The same is true for vulnerable Democrats, like Sen. Doug Jones, who faces an intense fight to keep his seat in Alabama this fall.
It’s tough to predict exactly how these votes will play out with voters, though recent polls offer a glimpse. According to a FiveThirtyEight aggregation of these surveys, 84 percent of Democrats support removal, along with 43 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans. In states like Maine, for example, the positions of these independent voters will be particularly critical for the Senate race.
In nine months, what voters make of the president — and the Senate’s decisions — will be evident.


vox--2020-02-05--Mitt Romney just did something that literally no senator has ever done before

Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) , the Republican Party ’ s 2012 presidential nominee , just became the sole exception to the Senate ’ s party-line vote to acquit President Trump — and the first senator who has ever voted to remove a president of his own party .
Romney says he broke party lines to vote to convict on one of two charges , abuse of power , because he believes Trump ’ s conduct shows that the president is unfit and that he “ should be removed from office.
” “ I believe that the act [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt an election , ” Romney told Fox News ’ s Chris Wallace , “ is as destructive an attack on the oath of office and on our Constitution as I can imagine.
” Only two other presidents besides Trump have faced an impeachment trial : President Andrew Johnson in 1868 , and President Bill Clinton in 1999 .
Both Johnson and Clinton were Democratic presidents , and no Democrat voted to convict either man ( though some Republicans did vote to acquit ) .
Johnson was impeached on three charges and nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary to remove him from office voted to do so .
At the time , the Democratic Party was a rump party , virtually powerless in Congress because they were closely associated with the Southern white secessionists who waged war against the Union .
Only nine Senate seats were held by Democrats during the Johnson impeachment , and all nine voted to keep Johnson in office .
Similarly , President Clinton was charged with two offenses and acquitted on both — the Senate voted 55-45 to acquit him of a perjury charge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of justice .
Every senator who voted to remove Clinton was a Republican .
It ’ s worth noting that Trump ’ s supporters , including his own legal team , have tried to discredit the impeachment effort by labeling it a “ partisan impeachment.
” But , until now , every impeachment trial of a president ended with the president ’ s fellow partisans lining up for acquittal .
Romney ’ s vote makes Trump ’ s impeachment trial the first bipartisan vote to remove a president in American history .

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, just became the sole exception to the Senate’s party-line vote to acquit President Trump — and the first senator who has ever voted to remove a president of his own party.
Romney says he broke party lines to vote to convict on one of two charges, abuse of power, because he believes Trump’s conduct shows that the president is unfit and that he “should be removed from office.”
“I believe that the act [Trump] took — an effort to corrupt an election,” Romney told Fox News’s Chris Wallace, “is as destructive an attack on the oath of office and on our Constitution as I can imagine.”
Romney’s vote makes him a unique figure in America history.
Only two other presidents besides Trump have faced an impeachment trial: President Andrew Johnson in 1868, and President Bill Clinton in 1999. Both Johnson and Clinton were Democratic presidents, and no Democrat voted to convict either man (though some Republicans did vote to acquit).
Johnson was impeached on three charges and nearly convicted — 35 of the 36 senators necessary to remove him from office voted to do so. At the time, the Democratic Party was a rump party, virtually powerless in Congress because they were closely associated with the Southern white secessionists who waged war against the Union.
Only nine Senate seats were held by Democrats during the Johnson impeachment, and all nine voted to keep Johnson in office.
Similarly, President Clinton was charged with two offenses and acquitted on both — the Senate voted 55-45 to acquit him of a perjury charge, and 50-50 to acquit him of obstruction of justice. Every senator who voted to remove Clinton was a Republican.
It’s worth noting that Trump’s supporters, including his own legal team, have tried to discredit the impeachment effort by labeling it a “partisan impeachment.” But, until now, every impeachment trial of a president ended with the president’s fellow partisans lining up for acquittal.
Romney’s vote makes Trump’s impeachment trial the first bipartisan vote to remove a president in American history.


vox--2020-02-05--Why Trump’s acquittal will damage US foreign policy

President Donald Trump ’ s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial won ’ t just serve as an indictment of the American political system , it will also deal a body blow to US foreign policy efforts to curb global corruption and promote the rule of the law .
For decades , a fixture of American diplomacy has been to get other nations to follow America ’ s example .
There ’ s a top-level official at the State Department and multiple bureaus there that work on these very issues .
The Ukraine scandal at the center of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those efforts .
The administration would only send nearly $ 400 million in military aid as long as Kyiv had made strides in tackling its corruption problems .
The Pentagon last May certified Ukraine had done enough defense-sector reforms to merit the support .
But despite this , Trump personally held up the money to extract something else from Ukraine : an announcement that it would open an investigation into the Bidens .
That clear abuse of power for Trump ’ s own political gain led the Democratic-majority House to impeach the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to investigate further by declining to call any witnesses in its trial of the president .
And on Wednesday , the Senate took the final step : acquitting Trump on both articles of impeachment ( though one Republican , Utah ’ s Sen. Mitt Romney , voted to convict ) .
This means that , ultimately , the system designed to keep the top levels of the US government from descending into lawlessness has failed .
That , as former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and others say , will now make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other nations to follow America ’ s lead .
Trump ’ s acquittal , then , will do immense damage to America ’ s “ soft power , ” Washington ’ s ability to convince other nations to do what the US wants without using military force .
It essentially kneecaps a key aspect of US foreign policy , and all because of the president ’ s misbehavior and Republicans ’ refusal to break with him over it .
“ Trump represents the greatest destruction of American soft power in history , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican Council on Foreign Relations , told me earlier this week .
Why the US cares about ending global corruption In 2017 , the Center for Global Development senior fellow Kimberly Ann Elliott wrote about the problems corruption can wreak on the world .
“ When it is pervasive and uncontrolled , corruption thwarts economic development and undermines political legitimacy , ” she wrote .
“ Less pervasive variants result in wasted resources , increased inequity in resource distribution , less political competition , and greater distrust of government.
” The solution ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform should reduce corruption in the long run , ” she argued , while noting that the exposure of widespread corruption could lead to widespread public anger at first .
Pushing countries to be more democratic and liberalize their economies has been a core tenet of US foreign policy for years , one followed by Republican and Democratic administrations alike .
One reason is that it makes America look good to get another country to run its government better and treat its people well .
The other reason is that it benefits America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security problems to trade with .
But many nations , particularly more autocratic ones , are loath to change their ways .
The US could use its military might to force governments to do what it says , but that would be dangerous and costly , and other countries would surely turn on America .
The US , then , hopes the power of its example at home can inspire corrupt governments that flout the rule of law to reform .
The problem is the “ soft power ” America wields is dwindling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One clear example of this was a situation George Kent , a top State Department official on European affairs , described in his closed-door deposition to the House last October during the impeachment inquiry .
He discussed the Trump administration efforts to stop Ukraine ’ s government from opening an investigation into former President Petro Poroshenko .
Per Kent , a top Ukrainian official looked back at the Americans and said , “ What ?
You mean the type of investigations you ’ re pushing for us to do on Biden and [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage is really to the glitter of America ’ s supposed exceptionalism ” In an ideal America , Trump would have received a severe reprimand for abusing his power and his corrupt practices , like using the presidency to enrich himself and his family .
Even if short of impeachment , Republicans could ’ ve placed severe political pressure on Trump by showing him their support has limits .
That ’ s not what happened .
Instead , Trump ’ s party will be responsible for letting him get away with the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Collins ( R-ME ) out it when explaining she would vote to acquit Trump , she ( and surely others ) claim Trump has “ learned ” from the impeachment experience and will alter his behavior .
Of course , Trump has been formally impeached , and that in itself is significant .
But given that no House Republicans voted for impeachment , Trump and his allies can argue ( and have ) that it was merely a partisan political ploy and not the serious rebuke for his behavior it is supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when considering one of the arguments Trump ’ s legal team made : that a president can basically do whatever he wants in order to get reelected if he believes his reelection is good for the country .
“ Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest , ” Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz contended in front of the Senate last week .
“ If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in impeachment.
” He went on : That ’ s a deeply troubling message to send to the rest of the world , particularly autocrats who want to remain in power for years .
Now when US diplomats tell their foreign counterparts to be less corrupt , fix partisan problems , and adhere to the rule of law , there ’ s a greater chance those talking points won ’ t resonate .
“ Toxic partisanship and deepening ideological fault lines in America , without question , has a significant impact on America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy and beacon of human rights , ” Richard Javad Heydarian , an expert on US-Asia relations at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan , told me earlier this week .
“ The damage is really to the glitter of America ’ s supposed exceptionalism.
” And should Trump be reelected despite all this , Heydarian continued , it would send a strong message to foreign governments that a leader can disregard the law while not losing public support , especially since he ’ ll have fewer restrictions on his behavior during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats running for president are pushing for anti-corruption measures to be even more central to US foreign policy .
Progressives say they are horrified by how Trump has cozied up to dictators and authoritarians from Saudi Arabia to Russia to North Korea .
His “ America First ” style has also led him to ignore human rights and democracy around the world , values the US historically stood for ( at least in theory ) , in favor of the economy and trade .
The way to reverse Trump ’ s damage ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as progressive foreign policy proponents tell me , is that authoritarians benefit from corrupt practices — like having access to dark money or putting sycophants in positions of power .
Thus , by curbing that behavior , the US will help democracy flourish and raise its soft-power standing .
But it ’ s unclear whether a new Democratic administration would be able to reverse the damage Trump ’ s acquittal will have on America ’ s prestige .
In fact , the US actually has become a more corrupt country on Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group Transparency International , the US was tied for the world ’ s 16th-least corruption nation in 2017 .
As of 2019 , America slipped to 22nd .
The world , without question , has taken notice — and it ’ s already hurting US foreign policy .
“ This severely undermines America ’ s credibility and moral ascendancy , ” says Heydarian .

President Donald Trump’s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial won’t just serve as an indictment of the American political system, it will also deal a body blow to US foreign policy efforts to curb global corruption and promote the rule of the law.
For decades, a fixture of American diplomacy has been to get other nations to follow America’s example. There’s a top-level official at the State Department and multiple bureaus there that work on these very issues.
The Ukraine scandal at the center of Trump’s impeachment saga was initially part of those efforts. The administration would only send nearly $400 million in military aid as long as Kyiv had made strides in tackling its corruption problems. The Pentagon last May certified Ukraine had done enough defense-sector reforms to merit the support.
But despite this, Trump personally held up the money to extract something else from Ukraine: an announcement that it would open an investigation into the Bidens.
That clear abuse of power for Trump’s own political gain led the Democratic-majority House to impeach the president. Afterward, the Republican-held Senate chose not to investigate further by declining to call any witnesses in its trial of the president. And on Wednesday, the Senate took the final step: acquitting Trump on both articles of impeachment (though one Republican, Utah’s Sen. Mitt Romney, voted to convict).
This means that, ultimately, the system designed to keep the top levels of the US government from descending into lawlessness has failed.
That, as former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and others say, will now make it harder for the US to tell other nations to follow America’s lead.
“Great! No more tedious US lectures on rule of law, fair trials, evidence, equality before the law, transparency, corruption, free and fair elections” — some 130 governments around the world right now. — toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) January 31, 2020
Trump’s acquittal, then, will do immense damage to America’s “soft power,” Washington’s ability to convince other nations to do what the US wants without using military force.
It essentially kneecaps a key aspect of US foreign policy, and all because of the president’s misbehavior and Republicans’ refusal to break with him over it.
“Trump represents the greatest destruction of American soft power in history,” Luis Rubio, the president of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, told me earlier this week.
Why the US cares about ending global corruption
In 2017, the Center for Global Development senior fellow Kimberly Ann Elliott wrote about the problems corruption can wreak on the world.
“When it is pervasive and uncontrolled, corruption thwarts economic development and undermines political legitimacy,” she wrote. “Less pervasive variants result in wasted resources, increased inequity in resource distribution, less political competition, and greater distrust of government.”
The solution? “The spread of democratization and market reform should reduce corruption in the long run,” she argued, while noting that the exposure of widespread corruption could lead to widespread public anger at first.
Pushing countries to be more democratic and liberalize their economies has been a core tenet of US foreign policy for years, one followed by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
One reason is that it makes America look good to get another country to run its government better and treat its people well. The other reason is that it benefits America to have more stable countries with fewer security problems to trade with.
But many nations, particularly more autocratic ones, are loath to change their ways. The US could use its military might to force governments to do what it says, but that would be dangerous and costly, and other countries would surely turn on America. The US, then, hopes the power of its example at home can inspire corrupt governments that flout the rule of law to reform.
The problem is the “soft power” America wields is dwindling thanks to Trump and his allies.
One clear example of this was a situation George Kent, a top State Department official on European affairs, described in his closed-door deposition to the House last October during the impeachment inquiry. He discussed the Trump administration efforts to stop Ukraine’s government from opening an investigation into former President Petro Poroshenko. Per Kent, a top Ukrainian official looked back at the Americans and said, “What? You mean the type of investigations you’re pushing for us to do on Biden and [Hillary] Clinton?”
“The damage is really to the glitter of America’s supposed exceptionalism”
In an ideal America, Trump would have received a severe reprimand for abusing his power and his corrupt practices, like using the presidency to enrich himself and his family. Even if short of impeachment, Republicans could’ve placed severe political pressure on Trump by showing him their support has limits.
That’s not what happened. Instead, Trump’s party will be responsible for letting him get away with the Ukraine scandal basically unpunished. As moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) out it when explaining she would vote to acquit Trump, she (and surely others) claim Trump has “learned” from the impeachment experience and will alter his behavior.
Of course, Trump has been formally impeached, and that in itself is significant. But given that no House Republicans voted for impeachment, Trump and his allies can argue (and have) that it was merely a partisan political ploy and not the serious rebuke for his behavior it is supposed to be.
It’s worse when considering one of the arguments Trump’s legal team made: that a president can basically do whatever he wants in order to get reelected if he believes his reelection is good for the country.
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz contended in front of the Senate last week. “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
He went on:
It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, ‘unless you build a hotel with my name on it, and unless you give me a million dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.’ That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest. But a complex middle case is, ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. If I’m not elected the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be impeachable.
That’s a deeply troubling message to send to the rest of the world, particularly autocrats who want to remain in power for years. Now when US diplomats tell their foreign counterparts to be less corrupt, fix partisan problems, and adhere to the rule of law, there’s a greater chance those talking points won’t resonate.
“Toxic partisanship and deepening ideological fault lines in America, without question, has a significant impact on America’s role as a promoter of democracy and beacon of human rights,” Richard Javad Heydarian, an expert on US-Asia relations at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan, told me earlier this week. “The damage is really to the glitter of America’s supposed exceptionalism.”
And should Trump be reelected despite all this, Heydarian continued, it would send a strong message to foreign governments that a leader can disregard the law while not losing public support, especially since he’ll have fewer restrictions on his behavior during a second term.
This is why most Democrats running for president are pushing for anti-corruption measures to be even more central to US foreign policy. Progressives say they are horrified by how Trump has cozied up to dictators and authoritarians from Saudi Arabia to Russia to North Korea. His “America First” style has also led him to ignore human rights and democracy around the world, values the US historically stood for (at least in theory), in favor of the economy and trade.
The way to reverse Trump’s damage? Stopping corruption worldwide. The theory, as progressive foreign policy proponents tell me, is that authoritarians benefit from corrupt practices — like having access to dark money or putting sycophants in positions of power. Thus, by curbing that behavior, the US will help democracy flourish and raise its soft-power standing.
But it’s unclear whether a new Democratic administration would be able to reverse the damage Trump’s acquittal will have on America’s prestige.
In fact, the US actually has become a more corrupt country on Trump’s watch. According to the watchdog group Transparency International, the US was tied for the world’s 16th-least corruption nation in 2017. As of 2019, America slipped to 22nd.
The world, without question, has taken notice — and it’s already hurting US foreign policy. “This severely undermines America’s credibility and moral ascendancy,” says Heydarian.


vox--2020-02-06--Why Congress’s antitrust investigation should make Big Tech nervous

When Elizabeth Warren took the stage for a presidential campaign rally in Brooklyn in January , thousands of supporters welcomed her by chanting , “ Break them up.
” Among the main targets of that taunt was Big Tech , the group of companies led by Amazon , Apple , Google , and Facebook that ’ s at the center of Warren ’ s proposed plan to level the playing field in the US economy by unwinding some of the power these giants have amassed .
“ They ’ ve bulldozed competition , used our private information for profit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else .
And in the process , they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation , ” Warren alleged last year .
Still , there ’ s no guarantee that Warren , or another progressive like Bernie Sanders , will win the Democratic primary , let alone beat President Trump in the general election .
And those outcomes are still a way off .
But a group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives , led by Rep. David Cicilline ( D-RI ) , is pushing the conversation forward now .
Cicilline and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antitrust Subcommittee began investigating the four tech giants last spring , probing for answers through five public hearings and hundreds of written queries on how these titans have accumulated so much wealth and power , and whether they ’ ve done so through anti-competitive or other unlawful means .
The long-term impact of all this remains unclear , whether it ends with the breakup of these companies , major changes in how they operate , or absolutely nothing at all .
In the meantime , though , Congress ’ s investigation of Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s applying pressure to the country ’ s top two antitrust enforcement agencies — the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) and the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) — which have been slow to act until now but which each announced probes of the country ’ s powerful tech behemoths last summer following Congress ’ s own announcement .
“ The House hearings created an atmosphere and were one important part of making it impossible for the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice not to bring cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former chairman of the FTC and a law professor at George Washington University , told Recode in an interview .
Spokespeople for Amazon , Apple , Facebook , Cicilline , and the FTC declined to comment on the impact of the House investigation on the DOJ and FTC probes .
Reps for Google and the DOJ did not immediately provide comment .
The Federal Trade Commission is working on antitrust probes of Facebook and Amazon .
The Department of Justice is believed to be investigating Google and Facebook , and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations .
Some are at earlier stages — essentially unofficial fact-finding probes .
The FTC can sue companies to stop anti-competitive behavior , as well as take them to court or agree to a settlement that may include a financial penalty .
It can also block mergers or acquisitions or even unwind acquisitions or mergers that have already been consummated .
The Department of Justice ’ s antitrust division , on the other hand , is the only one of the two federal antitrust enforcers that can prosecute antitrust violations in criminal court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about different companies : They ’ re concerned about if and how Amazon prioritizes its products and services over those of its partners and competitors ; what Facebook ’ s strategy is when it acquires young , upcoming competitors ; how dominant Google is in online advertising ; and whether Apple ’ s control of the App Store leads to it unfairly favoring its own products .
The tech companies have defended their business practices .
Many of these topics and concerns were on display at the committee ’ s last antitrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executives from smaller companies , including the CEO of the popular wireless speaker company Sonos , testified about Big Tech ’ s upper hand and how the business practices of the tech giants have allegedly harmed their businesses .
One of the committee ’ s lawmakers highlighted another upper hand : the enormous sums that these giant corporations spend on lobbying .
Facebook and Amazon spent $ 17 million and $ 16 million respectively on lobbying last year , which were both record sums for the companies , according to the Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged “ the reality that they walk into our offices and they tell us their side of the story ” and the importance of smaller firms taking a risk by speaking out .
“ We are trying our best to make sure that we continue to create the environment for your kinds of companies , ” he added .
Two months earlier , Cicilline and the rest of his bipartisan committee grilled a different breed of official as part of their antitrust probe : Joseph Simons , the chairman of the Federal Trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top antitrust official at the Department of Justice .
Neither seemed especially thrilled to be there .
That might have had something to do with the topic they were discussing : Antitrust regulators ’ history of enforcement — or underenforcement — of the biggest companies in tech .
( The last major antitrust battle between the US government and a tech giant ended in early 2013 when the FTC cleared Google of violating antitrust law in relation to how it ranks and displays search results from competing websites like Yelp and TripAdvisor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee under which the antitrust subcommittee sits , expressed early in the hearing how “ deeply concerned ” he was by the antitrust agencies ’ “ lax merger enforcement.
” He also noted that it “ has been decades since the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission has brought a significant monopolization case in the tech sector , ” likely referring to the 2001 antitrust case that the DOJ brought against Microsoft .
Later , Cicilline chastised Simons for “ trading away the right ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zuckerberg , in exchange for a $ 5 billion fine that some lawmakers in attendance deemed “ disappointing.
” The settlement resulted from the FTC ’ s claim that Facebook ’ s actions in the Cambridge Analytica scandal violated a 2012 FTC order related to an earlier suit over alleged consumer data-privacy violations .
It was a record-breaking penalty for the FTC , but was criticized by some as a slap on the wrist that would not materially affect how Facebook does business .
That ’ s in part because $ 5 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s profits in a given year ; in 2018 , they hit $ 22.1 billion .
“ I am very disappointed , ” Simons replied to the panel of lawmakers , “ that you all are disappointed.
” What happens next Yes , the hearings have provided Congress members with the requisite moments of political grandstanding , and opportunities tailor-made for earning a headline quote .
Cicilline ’ s reprimand of a top Amazon lawyer at one hearing — “ I may remind you , sir : You are under oath ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuanced lines of questioning suggest a group of lawmakers and staff striving to have a real impact .
The subcommittee ’ s staff includes Lina Khan , the young legal scholar who wrote Amazon ’ s Antitrust Paradox , a paper widely read in antitrust circles that argued that current antitrust doctrine is ill-suited to rein in internet giants like Amazon .
For the most part , US antitrust enforcers have , over the last few decades , favored business practices that keep consumer prices low ; companies like Amazon , with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack .
Cicilline has said publicly that the committee plans to publish a report with its findings in the “ first part ” of 2020 , but where the investigation goes from there is unclear .
The committee could make recommendations to increase the power of the FTC or to create a new regulatory agency focused exclusively on competition in digital markets .
Cicilline could introduce new antitrust legislation .
News outlets including Bloomberg News and CNBC reported late last year that Cicilline is working with presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Competition Restoration Act .
The draft legislation reportedly includes proposals such as a ban of most mergers in which one of the companies generates more than $ 40 billion in revenue a year — all of the Big Four tech giants are larger than that — as well as expanding the legal scope of what constitutes “ predatory pricing ” — a tactic that some Amazon critics have accused the tech giant of , but which Amazon has denied .
But with hundreds of bills already awaiting passage in the Republican-controlled Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced , would be anything more than a stake in the ground — at least until the 2020 elections are over .
“ There ’ s very little chance of new legislation prior to the election , but legislative fact-finding is a long game , ” said Herbert Hovenkamp , an antitrust expert and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School , in an email to Recode .
Hovenkamp cited 1940s Congressional hearings that eventually led to an expansion of merger law in 1950 .
In the meantime , the committee ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indirect one : ratcheting up the pressure , through its public hearings and written questioning , on regulators .
Michael Kades , an antitrust lawyer who spent 20 years at the FTC , believes the investigation plays a crucial role even if it doesn ’ t directly impact the decisions of the FTC or DOJ .
“ [ I ] t will increase the transparency and subject the decision to more scrutiny , ” he said in an email to Recode .
The public will be able to compare the FTC and DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , and the subcommittee will have deep knowledge to evaluate the regulator decisions as well , he added .
The Federal Trade Commission has indeed been probing Amazon ’ s business practices , though neither the agency nor Amazon has confirmed a formal investigation .
That might be because , as a source familiar with the probe described it in mid-January , the FTC staff is still in something of an education phase , getting up to speed on how the different business lines of Amazon work and interact .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort , ” the person said , “ but it ’ s in an initial stage.
” In June , Recode reported that the agency was questioning some Amazon competitors on areas including the pricing of its Fulfillment by Amazon logistics service as well as how it bundles myriad services under the Prime membership program , potentially unfairly undercutting competitors .
Later in 2019 , Bloomberg News reported that FTC staff members were interviewing merchants who sell products on Amazon .
One data point they sought was the percentage of total online sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How quickly , and in what direction , the inquiry escalates is still any outsider ’ s guess .
But some of those who have been on the inside think the broad direction in which this story is headed is clear .
“ One unmistakable objective of [ the House investigation ] is to press the agencies to bring cases , ” Kovacic , the former FTC chairman , told Recode .
“ It ’ s infeasible for the FTC to come through this calendar year without something in hand.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up Big Tech seem real .

When Elizabeth Warren took the stage for a presidential campaign rally in Brooklyn in January, thousands of supporters welcomed her by chanting, “Break them up.”
Among the main targets of that taunt was Big Tech, the group of companies led by Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook that’s at the center of Warren’s proposed plan to level the playing field in the US economy by unwinding some of the power these giants have amassed. “They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation,” Warren alleged last year.
Still, there’s no guarantee that Warren, or another progressive like Bernie Sanders, will win the Democratic primary, let alone beat President Trump in the general election. And those outcomes are still a way off.
But a group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), is pushing the conversation forward now. Cicilline and the dozen other members of the House Antitrust Subcommittee began investigating the four tech giants last spring, probing for answers through five public hearings and hundreds of written queries on how these titans have accumulated so much wealth and power, and whether they’ve done so through anti-competitive or other unlawful means.
The long-term impact of all this remains unclear, whether it ends with the breakup of these companies, major changes in how they operate, or absolutely nothing at all. In the meantime, though, Congress’s investigation of Big Tech is having one immediate consequence: It’s applying pressure to the country’s top two antitrust enforcement agencies — the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) — which have been slow to act until now but which each announced probes of the country’s powerful tech behemoths last summer following Congress’s own announcement.
“The House hearings created an atmosphere and were one important part of making it impossible for the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice not to bring cases, including against Amazon,” William Kovacic, a former chairman of the FTC and a law professor at George Washington University, told Recode in an interview.
Spokespeople for Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Cicilline, and the FTC declined to comment on the impact of the House investigation on the DOJ and FTC probes. Reps for Google and the DOJ did not immediately provide comment.
Big Tech is under multiple microscopes
The Federal Trade Commission is working on antitrust probes of Facebook and Amazon. The Department of Justice is believed to be investigating Google and Facebook, and perhaps Apple as well. Some are official investigations. Some are at earlier stages — essentially unofficial fact-finding probes. The FTC can sue companies to stop anti-competitive behavior, as well as take them to court or agree to a settlement that may include a financial penalty. It can also block mergers or acquisitions or even unwind acquisitions or mergers that have already been consummated. The Department of Justice’s antitrust division, on the other hand, is the only one of the two federal antitrust enforcers that can prosecute antitrust violations in criminal court.
Lawmakers and regulators have different antitrust concerns about different companies: They’re concerned about if and how Amazon prioritizes its products and services over those of its partners and competitors; what Facebook’s strategy is when it acquires young, upcoming competitors; how dominant Google is in online advertising; and whether Apple’s control of the App Store leads to it unfairly favoring its own products. The tech companies have defended their business practices.
Many of these topics and concerns were on display at the committee’s last antitrust hearing, held last month. Four executives from smaller companies, including the CEO of the popular wireless speaker company Sonos, testified about Big Tech’s upper hand and how the business practices of the tech giants have allegedly harmed their businesses.
One of the committee’s lawmakers highlighted another upper hand: the enormous sums that these giant corporations spend on lobbying. Facebook and Amazon spent $17 million and $16 million respectively on lobbying last year, which were both record sums for the companies, according to the Washington Post. Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) acknowledged “the reality that they walk into our offices and they tell us their side of the story” and the importance of smaller firms taking a risk by speaking out.
“We are trying our best to make sure that we continue to create the environment for your kinds of companies,” he added.
Two months earlier, Cicilline and the rest of his bipartisan committee grilled a different breed of official as part of their antitrust probe: Joseph Simons, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and Makan Delrahim, the top antitrust official at the Department of Justice.
Neither seemed especially thrilled to be there. That might have had something to do with the topic they were discussing: Antitrust regulators’ history of enforcement — or underenforcement — of the biggest companies in tech. (The last major antitrust battle between the US government and a tech giant ended in early 2013 when the FTC cleared Google of violating antitrust law in relation to how it ranks and displays search results from competing websites like Yelp and TripAdvisor.)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee under which the antitrust subcommittee sits, expressed early in the hearing how “deeply concerned” he was by the antitrust agencies’ “lax merger enforcement.” He also noted that it “has been decades since the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission has brought a significant monopolization case in the tech sector,” likely referring to the 2001 antitrust case that the DOJ brought against Microsoft.
Later, Cicilline chastised Simons for “trading away the right” to interview Facebook leadership, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in exchange for a $5 billion fine that some lawmakers in attendance deemed “disappointing.” The settlement resulted from the FTC’s claim that Facebook’s actions in the Cambridge Analytica scandal violated a 2012 FTC order related to an earlier suit over alleged consumer data-privacy violations. It was a record-breaking penalty for the FTC, but was criticized by some as a slap on the wrist that would not materially affect how Facebook does business. That’s in part because $5 billion is pennies when compared to the company’s profits in a given year; in 2018, they hit $22.1 billion.
“I am very disappointed,” Simons replied to the panel of lawmakers, “that you all are disappointed.”
What happens next
Yes, the hearings have provided Congress members with the requisite moments of political grandstanding, and opportunities tailor-made for earning a headline quote. Cicilline’s reprimand of a top Amazon lawyer at one hearing — “I may remind you, sir: You are under oath” — comes to mind.
But the nuanced lines of questioning suggest a group of lawmakers and staff striving to have a real impact. The subcommittee’s staff includes Lina Khan, the young legal scholar who wrote Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, a paper widely read in antitrust circles that argued that current antitrust doctrine is ill-suited to rein in internet giants like Amazon. For the most part, US antitrust enforcers have, over the last few decades, favored business practices that keep consumer prices low; companies like Amazon, with its low prices, are therefore hard to attack.
Cicilline has said publicly that the committee plans to publish a report with its findings in the “first part” of 2020, but where the investigation goes from there is unclear. The committee could make recommendations to increase the power of the FTC or to create a new regulatory agency focused exclusively on competition in digital markets.
Cicilline could introduce new antitrust legislation. News outlets including Bloomberg News and CNBC reported late last year that Cicilline is working with presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren on a new draft bill called the Anti-Monopoly and Competition Restoration Act.
The draft legislation reportedly includes proposals such as a ban of most mergers in which one of the companies generates more than $40 billion in revenue a year — all of the Big Four tech giants are larger than that — as well as expanding the legal scope of what constitutes “predatory pricing” — a tactic that some Amazon critics have accused the tech giant of, but which Amazon has denied.
But with hundreds of bills already awaiting passage in the Republican-controlled Senate, it seems unlikely the bill, if introduced, would be anything more than a stake in the ground — at least until the 2020 elections are over.
“There’s very little chance of new legislation prior to the election, but legislative fact-finding is a long game,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, in an email to Recode. Hovenkamp cited 1940s Congressional hearings that eventually led to an expansion of merger law in 1950.
In the meantime, the committee’s most substantial impact may be an indirect one: ratcheting up the pressure, through its public hearings and written questioning, on regulators.
Michael Kades, an antitrust lawyer who spent 20 years at the FTC, believes the investigation plays a crucial role even if it doesn’t directly impact the decisions of the FTC or DOJ.
“[I]t will increase the transparency and subject the decision to more scrutiny,” he said in an email to Recode. The public will be able to compare the FTC and DOJ decisions to the subcommittee’s final report, and the subcommittee will have deep knowledge to evaluate the regulator decisions as well, he added.
The Federal Trade Commission has indeed been probing Amazon’s business practices, though neither the agency nor Amazon has confirmed a formal investigation. That might be because, as a source familiar with the probe described it in mid-January, the FTC staff is still in something of an education phase, getting up to speed on how the different business lines of Amazon work and interact.
“I do think it’s a good-faith effort,” the person said, “but it’s in an initial stage.”
In June, Recode reported that the agency was questioning some Amazon competitors on areas including the pricing of its Fulfillment by Amazon logistics service as well as how it bundles myriad services under the Prime membership program, potentially unfairly undercutting competitors.
Later in 2019, Bloomberg News reported that FTC staff members were interviewing merchants who sell products on Amazon. One data point they sought was the percentage of total online sales for which the merchants rely on Amazon.
How quickly, and in what direction, the inquiry escalates is still any outsider’s guess. But some of those who have been on the inside think the broad direction in which this story is headed is clear. “One unmistakable objective of [the House investigation] is to press the agencies to bring cases,” Kovacic, the former FTC chairman, told Recode. “It’s infeasible for the FTC to come through this calendar year without something in hand.”
And perhaps only then would talk of breaking up Big Tech seem real.