US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is always quick to embarrass US President Donald Trump following his State of Union addresses. From sarcastically clapping at him to ripping up his speech this week, her latest antic shows that her relationship with the sitting President has reached an all-time low. Pelosi’s gesture was slammed by the likes of Piers Morgan on Twitter, who called it the ‘political equivalent of throwing one’s toys out of one’s pram.’

But one could argue the House Speaker’s move signifies a deeper problem for the Democrats- now that Trump has survived impeachment, they have run out of tactics to defeat him. If Pelosi was trying to hide her disappointment at this week’s events, then she failed.

It has been an awful week for the Democrats. The race to become the party’s next presidential candidate started off badly, and the Senate overturned the House of Representatives’ bid to impeach the President, which seemed like the only tactic they could deploy to oust him in a ‘constitutional’ manner.

The vote brings to an end the third presidential impeachment trial that bitterly divided the nation. It will be a huge relief to the President’s campaign team as they focus on re-electing Trump.

Trump was always likely to survive impeachment as the Republicans control the Senate. Few GOP senators like Mitt Romney sided with the opposition to vote to impeach him, but the chamber voted 52-48 to acquit the President of abusing his powers, and 53-47 of obstructing Congress.

In a further blow to the Democrats, Trump’s approval ratings on one Gallup poll have hit 49 percent, with 94 percent of Republicans approving of the President’s performance so far, compared to 47 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats.

When the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Senate then acquitted him. Clinton also experienced a poll bounce following the incident, but Richard Nixon discovered that his poll ratings plummeted when he resigned over the Watergate scandal. Trump has been fortunate that his fate proved to be similar to Clinton’s so far, particularly when there is an election coming.

But Pelosi has not surrendered yet. She made a statement suggesting the President will be ‘forever impeached’ and she intends to renew her efforts to investigate Trump’s finances and allegations of self-dealing. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) said his party has not made any decisions on what is next. Therefore, the House Speaker has no concrete plans on how to impeach the President.

Even if the Democrats produced new allegations against Trump, they must realise that as long as the GOP remains the dominant party in the Senate, they will never be able to impeach the President. This week’s events proved that, and their attempts to do so are only boosting Trump’s support in the polls. All this drama is likely to do is enrage the President’s supporters before the 2020 election.

If the opposition truly want to defeat the President, they must focus on selecting a candidate for 2020 who can beat Trump during the leadership debates and offer attractive policies. So far, Pete Buttigieg seems like the best hope the Democrats have to win, as this week’s Iowa caucus proved.

From constitutional and legal perspectives, the game is up for Pelosi. Even her gesture of ripping up the President’s State of Union address proved to be a PR disaster. It is almost impossible to impeach Trump, and following the devastation of this week’s Iowa caucus, even a presidential election might not be enough to oust him until the opposition find a candidate capable of doing so. But even that is looking unlikely for now.

L'articolo What’s Next For The Democrats Following Trump’s Acquittal? proviene da InsideOver.

Friday, January 31 looks like it will end up being sort of geopolitical Black Friday. Brexit will officially begin and the vote will be held on whether to admit witnesses in the impeachment proceedings against US President Donald Trump, a crucial step in the ongoing process. These are actually two parallel matters that are closely linked and it is no coincidence that they both have a crucial deadline on the same day.

Brexit And The US Senate

After so much struggle, both internally and externally, on Friday Great Britain is detaching itself from the European Union in order to begin its solitary navigation through the global geopolitical sea. It is a withdrawal that is also a relaunch on the global chessboard which should be based on the restoration of the old relations with the Anglosphere (from this point of view the wildfires that recently incinerated Australia, the favorite former colony, are an ill-omen).

But Friday is also a crucial day for America as well. The Senate will be voting on the possibility of hearing other witnesses in the impeachment proceedings against Trump. It is a crucial point in the dispute. If new witnesses are excluded, the proceedings will be based exclusively on the documents scrutinized by the Senate. If this proves the case it will still not result in impeachment, given the crushing Republican majority the likelihood of the Senate voting to remove the President from office is virtually zero—about twenty Republicans would have to betray Trump. So it could be said that Trump is gambling a lot but not everything. If his line wins out—in other words no witnesses—he believes he is in the clear even if many things remain unpredictable.

The Two Meanings Of Black Friday

In order to call new witnesses, the Democrats must find a majority in the Senate. They currently have 47 senators and they need at least four Republican votes. Until a few days ago they were sure of victory given that some Republicans had stated they backed their request. But, as the The Hill and the New York Times explain, a cautious optimism is spreading in the Republican camp.

The recalcitrant Republican senators have apparently taken a more low profile position and seem more in line with that of the party. Thus Friday could mean Brexit and, at the same time, the end of the impeachment rows. Parallel victories for Johnson and Trump.

It could therefore become a “Black Friday”—in the negative sense of the term—for the many opponents of the two political leaders, identified as symbols and trailblazers of the return to national sovereignty and the end of “sacred and wild” globalization.

For the advocates of the return of the nation state it could, however, prove to be a sort of “Black Friday” along the lines of the now more widespread commercial meaning of the term—in other words an opportunity to gain advantages that could prove decisive.

‘The Deal of the Century’

All of this is happening, and it seems to be no coincidence, in the week in which Trump launched the so-called Deal of the Century in the Middle East, a veritable gift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is safe to argue that Trump expects Netanyahu—in exchange for the gift—to support his attempts to avoid the impeachment cage, disputes in which the neoconservatives are decisive.

A symbol of the Trump-neocon struggle is the duel fought by the standard bearer of the movement, John Bolton, with the White House. The former National Security Advisor is doing his best to get Trump into trouble, with the President forced on the defensive.

Netanyahu’s relations with the American neoconservatives are well-known. This gives rise to the possibility that the Israeli premier, having obtained the coveted Deal of the Century, could put in a good word for Trump in that area. It might not prove decisive but it could have some influence.

Johnson And Trump

It is worth noting that the Deal of the Century has so far only been supported unconditionally by one country in Europe: Great Britain. This support has been communcated via Johnson and his Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab. London has therefore decided to play the game on Trump’s side

Obviously Johnson is entertaining the idea of acting as a playmaker in the Middle East, reviving the glories of the Balfour Declaration, when Great Britain laid the groundwork for a future homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.

But behind this support is also without doubt the idea of redesigning the relationship with Washington (in parallel opposition to that of the EU) which is an essential part of the relaunch of the Anglosphere. This is the importance of Trump’s victory, in Johnson’s view.

On this crucial Friday both of them could achieve a decisive result. This is what Trump is seeking at least, even though he might, however, find himself more embroiled in impeachment than before. Trump’s game, in contrast to that of Johnson—which Brexit secured for him—still hangs in the balance. The possibility of being locked in the impeachment cage—an image we have not chosen by chance—remains.

The significance of the next Black Friday still waits to be seen. We shall see.

Translation by Dale Owens

L'articolo Brexit And The Impeachment Of Trump: It’s Black Friday proviene da InsideOver.

Since he became US President, Donald Trump has used the World Economic Forum at Davos to his advantage. In 2018, he attended the event to boast about America’s economic growth only to miss it a year later.

In 2019, Trump decided that the US ‘does not need this quasi-public forum to communicate its thoughts’, according to Steven Blitz, chief US economist at TS Lombard. However, his decision was probably determined by his frustration with NATO and NAFTA at the time, as suggested by Cailin Birch, global economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, when interviewed by CNBC. 

This year, the US President decided to attend the meeting, and there can only be two reasons for that: his possible impeachment and an upcoming election.

Trump said during a Tuesday morning speech at the 50th annual gathering in Davos that he has ‘never been more confident in America’s future.’ He focused on steady job growth, low unemployment and phase one of his new trade deal with China.

Although the President normally loathes these events as they are packed with establishment figures, this is an excellent election opportunity for him. Despite stagnant wage growth, the US economy is performing. An average of 205,000 jobs per month were added to America’s economy from September to November. China agreed to buy $200 billion worth of US products once phase one of the US-China trade deal was concluded. It is no wonder he has so far spent his time dining with business leaders and discussing with them the benefits of 5G innovation, as opposed to impeachment hearings.

Trump made the economy his central focus during his 2016 campaign with a promise to make America ‘great again.’ As long as the economy continues to boom and trade deals are signed, the US President needs to do all he can to drag the American public’s focus back onto this issue, even if it means using platforms like Davos as an opportunity to do so.

Furthermore, many of the business leaders he has met so far might be interested in investing in the US, so this is also his chance to say that his visit to the World Economic Forum sparked interest in the American economy among some of the world’s wealthiest entrepreneurs.

It would also be a double victory for the President if he managed to persuade French President Emmanuel Macron to reach a deal on the digital tax being proposed by his government that impacts US technology firms.

Trump is also bragging about successful trade talks with his EU counterparts, which is one positive achievement for him.

If he manages to secure any of these outcomes, then his progress at Davos would make an outstanding election pitch to voters before the 2020 election has officially begun.

The more chances the President has to talk about the economy, the more he can concentrate on depicting the Democrats as hellbent on impeachment.

Politico reports that Trump’s aides have established a war room to argue their case to voters that Trump is being railroaded by his opponents. One senior administration official described the Trump administration’s goal as ensuring the Democrats are held to account in the public arena.

The White House is confident that Senate Republicans will acquit the President, which is why there is more focus on winning the public’s support.

Trump has managed to deflect Davos’s attention away from impeachment proceedings by asking White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham to respond to the Democrats’ accusations.

Overall, the Trump administration has been successful in deploying the timing of the World Economic Forum to its advantage, as the meeting is happening at the same time as Trump’s impeachment trial. The President can claim that he was busy focusing on the economy whilst the Democrats concentrated on exaggerating Trump’s constitutional authority abroad. Either way, this can be depicted as a win for him.

L'articolo Why Davos Matters to Trump Now More Than Ever Before proviene da InsideOver.

The Trump impeachment trial has begun, and senators from both sides of the aisle are making their arguments in favor or versus the president’s removal. It will be an intense exchange of arguments, facts, and spins over these next weeks during a pivotal time for some of the senators. With the Iowa caucus on the horizon, they will be prevented from conducting their respective campaigns in the Hawkeye State.

The reason: all senators, who perform the role of the jury during the trial, are subject to attendance. It is not yet conceivable to predict how long the entire process will take. While the majority of Republicans are inclined to conclude the trial sooner rather than later, the Democrats seek a detailed process with witness testimony and subpoenas – despite the detriment it might pose on Democratic presidential candidates and their prospects during the first votes in states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

In just two weeks, Iowa will once again initiate the Democratic race for the presidency. The caucus has traditionally been a reliable indicator for success, even though there are comparatively few delegates votes to obtain in the sparsely populated state. Ordinarily, it would be even more critical to increase campaign appearances. However, Warren, Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Benett, the affected senators in the race, are hindered by the impeachment, which could make any appearances before election day inconceivable.

Sanders is particularly irritated by the idea of ​​being stuck in Washington in the next few weeks. “I would rather be in Iowa, I would rather be in New Hampshire, Nevada, and so on,” Sanders said in an interview. Nonetheless, the decision to impeach Trump and to conduct the trial at this stage was not only critical but necessary, the Democratic senators continue to assure these days.

The timing alone is a problem for them. Some Warren or Sanders supporters even sense a conspiracy, which suggests that Speaker Pelosi deliberately waited to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate to put the extreme left in her party at a disadvantage during this particularly important campaign phase and thus strengthen establishment favorite, Joe Biden.

While the latter appears preposterous at first sight, the instant effect of the trial is apparent: Biden and Pete Buttigieg, who is also a moderate, will have free rein in Iowa. Biden just concluded a two-day swing across the state. However, a significant advantage for Biden is unlikely. Due to the nature of the charges against Trump, the impeachment does not only affect the senators, but Biden also, who, via his son, Hunter, will be brought up frequently during the trial this week.

Biden’s campaign efforts in the middle of the trial might thus be semi-marginalized in the upcoming weeks; however, his name, most importantly, will remain a national focal point. Meanwhile, Buttigieg, who is not linked to the impeachment, could fall off the radar in Iowa and nationally.

However, Sanders, Warren, Bennett, and Klobuchar are not inevitably at a disadvantage due to their presence on Capitol Hill, either. They all have the opportunity to shine while performing their constitutional obligations in the Senate and can exhibit themselves as powerful and dedicated adversaries of Trump – live and every day on all the major networks. Moreover, while they will not be able to appear in Iowa for now physically, their surrogates, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Sanders, will deliver their message and campaign for him in Iowa instead. Klobuchar, Warren, and Bennett have made similar arrangements with their respective surrogates.

The impeachment is thus not necessarily a significant obstacle for the senators. Joe Biden, however, is the only candidate who might be able to benefit from both: obtaining an edge in Iowa, while also staying in the national news through the impeachment. One should thus not be startled if Biden managed to solidify his lead in Iowa before the first votes being cast.

L'articolo Who of the Democratic Candidates Benefits off the Impeachment? proviene da InsideOver.

The first day of the Trump impeachment trial commenced as anticipated: in utter acrimony between the Democrats and the Republicans, primarily over the trial’s resolution introduced by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, which Democrats labeled a farce.

In his opening statement, lead impeachment manager for the Democrats, Adam Schiff, attempted to call upon the senators’ integrity and reminded them what he believed was at stake before raising the question of whether Republicans will be able to say goodbye to partisanship and welcome to a fair and balanced procedure.

Schiff’s statement came after Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, had sharply scrutinized the resolution that Mitch McConnell aspired to put to the vote on Tuesday and which entailed the rules procedures for the forthcoming weeks. It stipulated that the Democrats, as well as the defense, were only granted 24 hours for their arguments. However, the appearance of each side ought to be restricted to two days, which would have resulted in twelve hours per day.

Since the trial should in no case begin before 9 am with longer breaks to be expected, the Democrats and Schumer feared that their team would be at the lectern at night to justify the impeachment and thus absent from the public’s spotlight.

The White House’s defense council, meanwhile, repudiated these allegations in the first session yesterday. Instead, it was the Democrats who attempted to void not only the 2016 election but steal 2020 also, the lawyers argued.

Nonetheless, in an apparent concession to Democrats, the resolution introduced at the start of the trial deviated from the resolution McConnell unveiled on Monday. Changes to the resolution were written by hand into the original text, highlighting how the adjustment to the opening remarks schedule occurred at the last minute – despite McConnell’s previous claims to possess sufficient votes to pass his original resolution.

It was unclear whether he feared an early showdown that the Trump loyalists could have lost or whether the moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney beseeched McConnell into these concessions. As a result, the Democrats and the defense are now granted 24 hours over three days to conduct their arguments.

Besides the scheduling issues, the Democrats demanded various amendments to ensure, inter alia, that the Senate would summons witnesses – including Trump’s Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. The Democrats, moreover, attempted to enforce further requests that the Senate would subpoena numerous documents for the procedure in advance – including from the White House, the US State Department, and the Pentagon.

Republicans, however, rejected all efforts on day one.

After a 12-hour debate and just before 2 am, the GOP voted along party lines, 53 to 47, to ratify McConnell’s trial resolution and with it in favor of postponing the decision on whether to summon witnesses or subpoena documents for the trial.

Nonetheless, the fact that the moderate Republicans did not appear to be inclined to rush to early conclusions can be seen as a minor success for the Democrats, particularly after day one had impressively illustrated how far apart the Trumpian GOP and the Democrats are. The fact that, unlike during the Clinton trial in 1999, both sides could not even concur on the rules in advance is a testimony of the latter.

It remains to be seen, however, what price the Democrats are willing to pay for Mitt Romney and co. to ensure an infinitesimally more impartial trial. Romney, for one, has already affirmed he was interested in Bolton’s testimony. However, the trade-off would presumably be a subpoena for Hunter Biden. So far, the Democrats have not been inclined to make him a participant. Whether they are prepared to put their leading presidential candidate and his son in jeopardy in order to potentially obtain a smoking gun Bolton may or may not possess, remains to be seen though it is not entirely inconceivable after the first day of the Trump trial is in the books.

L'articolo The Trump Impeachment: Day One proviene da InsideOver.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have established the requirements for the formal opening of impeachment proceedings against President Trump. However, the Democrats did not have an option but to proceed, despite the almost certain defeat in the Senate.

Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed two articles of impeachment on Tuesday, namely abuse of Power and obstruction of Congress, which will allow the Democrats to vote on these articles before Christmas and formally open an impeachment procedure.

The Democrats continue to accuse Trump of urging Ukrainian President Selenskyj to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, in an attempt to influence the US presidential election in his favor in 2020. They see as proven that Trump has made the initiation of such investigations the sine qua non for a meeting with Selenskyj in the White House as well as for the release of military aid for Ukraine. According to the Democrats, this conduct amounts to an abuse of power.

The obstruction of justice allegation is based on Trump hindering the House’s investigation in what the Democrats have called “unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry”.

Nadler stated the Judiciary Committee will deal with the charges this week. Already on Thursday, the committee could vote on the points and make a recommendation to the plenary of the House of Representatives, which could then hold a vote on the articles.

The Democrats hold the majority in the House. Since only a simple majority is sufficient, the impeachment procedure is virtually decided already, despite Republican representatives. However, it will be interesting to see whether Republicans are opposing the President. Considering the statements in the House to date, suggest the party remains unified.

However, not only Republicans could oppose the articles. What seems unlikely is not a foregone conclusion at the meta-level, as several Democratic representatives are from areas that voted in favor of Trump in the 2016 election. In these areas, impeachment is likely to find infinitesimal support. Considering that in November 2020, members of the House, as well as a third of Senators, will also be elected, results in a scenario in which some Democrats will have to choose between career and party.

Nonetheless, even if both articles find a majority, Trump’s removal from office remains inconceivable. After the vote in the House, the process continues in the Senate, where Trump’s Republicans have a comfortable majority. Likely in January, it will come to a trial against the President, based on the aforementioned two articles of impeachment. However, a conviction and removal by the Senate, which would require a two-thirds majority, is currently considered highly unlikely, as it requires 20 Republican senators to turn against the President and the party’s line.

Although removal from office is virtually impossible due to the aforementioned constellation in the Senate, the Democrats, who are cognizant of the circumstances decided to proceed. The options at this advanced stage had been limited. It has led the Democrats into a political dilemma, from which there simply is no way out for them, except for concluding the whole saga.

Without Articles of Impeachment, the party could have lost its remaining credibility. Since the Russia Collusion affair, which concluded with the Mueller report and simply was insufficient for impeachment, they have been looking for reasons to initiate proceedings. Trump and his ego obliged, while Democrats attempted to spin almost every move the President made into a criminal conspiracy or a case of severe corruption. It has left the Democrats with two issues:

First, the public has lost interested. The overkill with Trump news and alleged crimes has ensured that now, that the president may (or may not) have broken the law, many people are not even following the developments anymore, with even more opposing an impeachment.

Second, the Democrats were forced to establish some form of impeachable offenses. Retreat at this stage and without a formal impeachment would have vindicated Trump by satisfying the narrative of a witchhunt against him, which, in the end, could not deliver any charges.

Delivering charges to the Senate was necessary, even though Trump will most likely be exonerated. However, the Democrats will be able to argue that the crimes were committed, only the Republicans turned against the country and saved a guilty President.

The proceedings will continue to prove to be a major political theater, and probably not further damage the reputation of Trump – despite joining a brief list of Presidents who have been impeached in the House – but the Democrats. The bigger picture here is whether or not a failed attempt will be detrimental to the Democratic presidential candidates, as it would be the magnum opus of the Democrats’ failed strategy against Trump and as such potentially result and what the party has been fighting against Trump’s reelection.

L'articolo The Democrats’ Express to Nowhere: An Impeachment out of Desperation proviene da InsideOver.

The US House of Representatives voted for a resolution expressing support for the two-state solution, which is the longstanding plan for two separate Israeli and Palestinian states existing side-by-side. They also oppose Jerusalem annexing territory in the West Bank.

It was a non-binding resolution and it was a vote targeted at the Trump administration’s reversal of US policy regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution passed 226-188, and divided according to party, with most Democrats voting in favour, and most Republicans opposed. Even Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a staunch Israeli supporter, said that it is a ‘restatement of the US’s policy of supporting the two-state solution.’

This resolution could not come at a worse time for both US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Both leaders are being threatened with impeachment and if their respective parliaments succeed in ousting them, the two greatest opponents of a two-state solution will be removed from office.

The US has been committed to this solution since Bill Clinton was President. At the beginning of his presidency, Trump stated at a joint press conference with Netanyahu that America no longer supported this policy.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Prime Minister has changed his mind on this proposal during the last decade. In the 2009 Israeli election, he supported a demilitarised Palestinian state. In the 2015 polls, he declared his own policy ‘null and void’, arguing Israel lacked a partner for peace. Earlier this year, Netanyahu pledged to expand Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank in a bid to attract right-wing and nationalist voters.

Even if both leaders survive their impeachment hearings, Trump will find himself at odds with Netanyahu either way. It will be difficult for the US President to gain the House of Representatives’ support for any conclusion to this conflict other than the two-state solution. If Trump survives impeachment and a Republican-controlled Senate kills the House of Representatives’ resolution, the Trump administration’s Israeli policy is safe.

But if Netanyahu is less fortunate in surviving his own impeachment hearing, Israel could face another poll and his rival Benny Gantz, who leads the Blue and White Party, could lead a new government. A survey by Channel 12 discovered that 46 percent of people think Netanyahu should resign. It also found that the Prime Minister would lose to Gantz in a fresh poll.

If the Blue and White leader did succeed the current Prime Minister, it is unlikely he will support a two-state solution. He refused to endorse it during a meeting with EU ambassadors earlier this year, but he believes a settlement with Palestine must be reached. If both the US and Israel oppose a two-state solution, what other options are available to their respective governments?

The one-state solution would grant equal rights to all in a state that would neither be Jewish nor Palestinian in character, but this could lead to instability and civil war.

The Israeli far-right support preserving Israel’s Jewish character by denying full rights to the Palestinians. However, this would mean Israel would no longer be a democratic state.

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry said at some point Israel will have to choose between being a democratic or a Jewish state. A 2015 survey by the Israel Democratic Institute found that 74 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that decisions central to peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority. That pollster also discovered that Israel should be Jewish, not democratic, first.

This conflict needs a resolution, and fast. The US-Israeli relationship will be tested over the next couple of months thanks to their respective leaders facing impeachment inquiries and the House of Representatives’ support for a two-state solution. But as Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, told the New York Times, perpetuating the current status quo ‘is the most frightening of possibilities.’

L'articolo US Support for a Two-State Solution May Impact the US-Israeli Relationship proviene da InsideOver.