As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ op eds.
The Center for Public Integrity has received 146 pages of documents under court order that bolster and underscore the testimony by impeachment witnesses as to the effort by the Trump regime to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for announcement of a bogus investigation into the Bidens. Following the infamous July 25 "I need you to do us a favor" call between Trump and Ukrainian president Zelinsky, this is what Department of Defense officials were doing:
They specifically undertook an unusual maneuver, stopping the disbursements by adding a rare footnote to spending documents for Pentagon operations and maintenance efforts, which declared the Ukraine funding in particular was being held up for a week at a time. Then, over a period of about seven weeks, they tacked the footnote again and again onto eight such documents, each time as a temporary measure.
An unnamed lawyer at OMB, not wanting to participate in what appeared to be an illegal funding policy, decided to quit, as did another OMB official, according to congressional testimony by Mark Sandy, the office’s deputy associate director for national security and a 12-year veteran at the agency. OMB spokespeople have disputed the account, saying the resignations were not over the policy.The documents, though heavily redacted by Trump consigliere William "Low" Barr, still manage to reveal the concern of staff at the Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon that the action violated the Impoundment Control Act. No wonder Republicans are so fearful of more documents and witness testimony coming out in a Senate impeachment trial. Here's one of the smoking (or as Trump would spell it, "smocking") guns in the release of documents (click to enlarge):
And here is your bureaucracy version of a literally smoking gun:— Peter W. Singer (@peterwsinger) December 21, 2019
Newly released #UkraineDocs show that a mere 90 minutes after Trump's phone call, the White House ordered the military aid to be put on hold, but to be "closely held" infohttps://t.co/IqT70JkWBH
HT @Zeddary pic.twitter.com/H9eeHuOlo4
The Washington Post has a special section of articles written by 13 writers from around the world on "How Trump Changed My Country." As you might imagine, none of the changes in any of the 13 countries was for the better. Here's one snippet from a Russian writer, but please go check out the rest because the cumulative effect is sobering:
One evening in August, Russia’s most popular TV anchor, Vladimir Solovyov, indulged in mocking adoration of Donald Trump. The American president had hinted that he wanted to buy Greenland, and Solovyov said he loved Trump for destroying liberal cliches. This particular cliche appeared to be the belief that in the modern world, strong powers will not engage in land grabs — a topical issue in Russia, which had recently snatched Crimea away from Ukraine. “Strong states will get more lands, weak states will lose them, and Trump is showing that in a crude and vivid manner,” said Solovyov, prompting long applause from the studio audience.
When Russia ditched the communists back in the early 1990s, the triumphant West, led by the United States, beckoned, a shiny role model to pursue. Today, visionless and rudderless, the United States is a laughingstock to Kremlin mouthpieces like Solovyov — and a source of bewilderment, if not disgust, to the country’s liberal critics of President Vladimir Putin. Embodying that disillusionment is Trump, who seems intent on proving decades of Kremlin propaganda about America’s cynicism and lack of scruples. (See: Ukraine.)The damage Trump has done to our country at home and abroad is already likely irreversible, because it's reasoned that if a debacle like Trump happened here once, it can always happen again.
As we noted yesterday, Jon Allsop at the Columbia Journalism Review has consistently pertinent analyses of the intersection of politics and media in our information- diffuse, dystopian times. Here's a segment of a piece he wrote on December 16 on the cult of "bothsideism:"
When it comes to much impeachment coverage, bothsidesism isn’t the beginning and end of the problem, but part of our broader reflex to frame contentious political stories around the concept of partisanship. In parts of the press, a set of party-oriented impeachment narratives has taken hold that contains some truth, but also rests on a selective interpretation of available evidence. Entrenched partisanship—in Congress and the country—is real, and newsworthy, as is the role that our fragmented information ecosystem has played in stoking and reinforcing division. And yet it does not follow, as some journalists and pundits seem to have surmised, that impeachment has been a waste of time. At the beginning of his show yesterday, Todd said the “national response” to impeachment has been “whatever.” And yet, as I wrote earlier this month, support for impeaching Trump, while recently static, is historically high. (A Fox News poll out yesterday reinforced that finding.) Six Republicans in Michigan are not the country.Perhaps some of our media need to begin with a refresher course like this:
The media’s job, done properly, is multidirectional: it holds power to account, and communicates matters of public interest to news consumers. On impeachment, too much coverage seems to have got stuck in a feedback loop: we’re telling the public that politicians aren’t budging from their partisan siloes, and vice versa, with the facts of what Trump actually did getting lost somewhere in the cycle. The cult of “both sides” is integral to this dynamic, and it’s serving the impeachment story poorly. Now, more than ever, our top duty should be to fight for the truth.
The glitter and sequins are for when you achieve media elite status.
Following the editorial in Christianity Today calling for Trump's removal from office, a conservative newspaper in a deep red state editorializes in much the same vein. From the Sunday Fargo Forum (ND):
Regardless of one’s faith tradition, Trump stands as a leader who has shredded norms and values and morals. He has undeniably used his office for personal gain — and for the benefit of his sons, daughter and son-in-law — yet the far-right refuses to hold him accountable.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. Our Constitution spells out separation of powers as well as checks and balances between equal branches of government.
However we deal with Trump’s misconduct, there will be consequences, for the country and for conservative causes. We want a viable, upright conservative party to shape policy.The Forum has about a 47,000 circulation on Sundays, and is the primary daily paper in southeast North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.
Luckily for us (and you), Infidel 753 is back providing us with thought- provoking posts as well as his link round- up, which is the best collection of links to interesting posts on the Internet (in our humble opinion). As we've said before, if you haven't bookmarked his blog, you're missing out.
