Mediaboss Marketing

After an Autumn of accusation and acrimony that included two damning weeks of testimony from a variety of witnesses, the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday afternoon released its report documenting the impeachment investigation into the activities of Donald Trump in Ukraine. The information contained within is intended as a baseline for the drafting of articles of impeachment against Trump, a duty that will fall upon Rep. Jerrold Nadler and the members of his House Judiciary Committee shortly.

The report coming in at 300 pages long, including 150 pages of meticulously-organized notes got directly to the point in its preface:

President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nations upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

The report explains in ruthless detail the manner in which Trump and his various minions, including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland, attempted to strong-arm Ukraine into doing Trumps electoral bidding. Compounding Trumps Ukraine transgressions, according to the report, have been his ceaseless attempts to obstruct the investigation, and indeed any form of oversight Congress has attempted to execute.

Never miss the news and analysis you care about.

The damage to our system of checks and balances, reads the report, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the presidents ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. Any future president will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.

Notably, the House Intelligence report does not recommend any specific articles of impeachment, though several are obliquely suggested. On Monday, The Washington Post reported that House Democrats are debating whether to add impeachment articles specifically related to Trumps obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation or emoluments violations.

Also notable, the report does not use the word bribery, except to quote Trump and Giuliani accusations against the Bidens and the whistleblower. After weeks of deploying the Latin phrase quid pro quo to describe Trumps illegal actions in Ukraine, Democrats finally began saying bribery in connection with Trumps activities, likely because that word is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. The absence of such pointedly specific language in this report is disquieting if it signals a rhetorical retreat by Democrats, but such concerns will be forestalled if that language eventually appears in the articles of impeachment themselves.

The House Intelligence Committee report is a strong document, but it is difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff did a masterful job of managing the public testimony of key witnesses like U.S. envoy to Ukraine William Taylor, Ukraine expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and National Security Council Eastern Europe specialist Fiona Hill, in the face of balderdash eruptions from the likes of Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan. The report is the issue of that endeavor, and stands as a pivot point for the next phase of impeachment proceedings.

The day before the release of the House Intelligence Committee report, Republicans attempted to blot out the sun with a multiple-megaton manure bomb they passed off as their own impeachment hearings report. This 110-page ball of sweaty drivel is the culmination of years of Breitbart-bubble GOP conspiracy-mongering.

Publicly available and irrefutable evidence shows how senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President Trumps candidacy, reads the Republican rebuttal report, and that some in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington worked with a Democrat operative to achieve that goal.

Its the dramatic insertion of irrefutable that makes this art; the addled accusation that Ukraine attempted to thwart Trumps election in 2016 has been debunked more times than the Flat Earth theory. It is laughable on its face; more than anything else, Ukraine needs to keep its relationship with the U.S. thoroughly bipartisan if it wishes to survive a Russian aggression campaign that has already captured Crimea. If Ukraine sticks a toe into the fractious waters of U.S. election politics, like as not theyd lose the whole leg.

The GOPs blatherskite-riddled report is a triumph of noise over substance. It should be carved word for word on the tombstone of the Republican Party if and when that bat belfry of an organization finally collapses under the weight of its own well-heeled inadequacies.

The worst part? Republicans know their report is a raft of lies, specifically about Ukraine election interference The GOP-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has said so in broad daylight but Trumps defenders will fountain its gibberish to all points on the compass regardless, because they are playing to an audience of one. As the Eagles foretold, they are all but prisoners here, of their own device.

The impeachment train has a few more stops to make before it reaches a trial in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee, which currently endures a platoon of GOP nonsense-mongers like Reps. Doug Collins, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs and Jim Jordan, is set to become a deliberately disrupted shitshow of historic proportions.

When the smoke clears, the committees Democratic majority will present articles of impeachment for a vote. Like as not, those articles will be approved by the committee. After that, a full vote of the House on those articles will come. Almost certain to break along party lines, the Democratic House majority will carry the day, and Donald Trump will officially be impeached at which point, the show moves to the Senate domain of Mitch McConnell for a trial to decide whether Trump will be removed from office.

I am, of course, not sanguine about the final outcome. Impeachment is a political exercise, and Trump has Senate Republicans wrapped so tightly around his finger that his fingernail is turning blue. All that, however, is for a day yet to come. The case for impeachment has been made beyond question or doubt, and the House Intelligence Committee report is the sum and substance of the argument for Trumps ultimate removal. It is a document of historic merit.

More here:
Republicans' Alternative Report Does Nothing to Refute Impeachment Report - Truthout

This years elections to determine who represents you in the New Jersey Legislature saw the lowest amount of spending in a decade for state legislative races, a new report shows.

And while Democrats shelled out three times as much cash, Republicans ended up gaining seats for the first time in 10 years.

Candidates and outside groups spent nearly $25 million on the races, the lowest price tag on a legislative election since 2009, according to preliminary numbers released Tuesday by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.

On the ballot were a special state Senate seat in South Jerseys 1st District and all 80 seats in the state Assembly.

Its a significant decrease from 2017s pricey legislative election the most expensive in the states history which saw a total of more than $67 million in spending, according to ELEC. That year featured all 120 legislative seats, including the entire Senate, in which the chambers president, Stephen Sweeney, fought to keep his seat. And it was a gubernatorial election year.

But this years races were more low-key, with the Assembly, the Legislatures lower house, topping the ticket.

Outside groups funneled in more than $5.8 million, down from $23 million in 2017 and about half of what was spent in 2015 at $10.9 million, ELEC reported.

Nearly half of that came from General Majority PAC, a political group tied to Democrats, which spent about $2.7 million, according to ELEC. Democratic power broker George Norcross has significant ties to its backers and the candidates it supports. It was also a top spender in 2017, 2015 and 2013, ELEC determined.

This years election was the most low-key legislative race in a decade, said Jeff Brindle, ELECs executive director. It followed one of the most controversial, expensive legislative races in history in 2017. Maybe campaign donors needed a break.

He noted that parties and independent groups may be saving their money for next years presidential election and campaigns to fill 12 state congressional seats.

Democrats spending blew other parties out of the water at more than $4 million. Republicans spent less than $1 million, and a mere $800,000 came from other party affiliations, according to ELEC.

Still, Democrats lost three legislative seats the Senate seat and both Assembly seats in the 1st District. But they will still hold sizable control both chambers come January, when the new lawmakers are sworn in.

Swing districts that can go to either party saw the most spending, and more than 60 percent of spending went to the top ten districts. More than $2 million was poured into each of the 1st, 21st and 8th legislative district races.

Nearly $3 million went into South Jerseys 1st district, which flipped its Senate seat from blue to red when Republican Mike Testa defeated Democratic incumbent Bob Andrzejczak. The election was to fill the seat vacated by Democrat Jeff Van Drew, who moved up to the U.S. House of Representatives last year.

North Jerseys 21st district had the second-largest amount at $2.7 million, where Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick fended off Democratic and independent challengers. It was the most expensive Assembly-only election, according to ELEC.

And the 8th district held onto by incumbent Republican Ryan Peters and his new running mate, former Burlington County Sheriff Jean Stanfield saw $2.1 million in spending.

The races in the 8th and 21st districts ranked as the fifth and tenth most expensive Assembly-only elections respectively, in state history, based on numbers adjusted for inflation, ELEC reported.

NJ Advance Media staff writer Brent Johnson contributed to this report.

Sophie Nieto-Munoz may be reached at snietomunoz@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her at @snietomunoz. Find NJ.com on Facebook.

Have a tip? Tell us. nj.com/tips

Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

See more here:
N.J. Dems spent 3 times more than Republicans on state elections. But they lost seats. - NJ.com

Republicans will seek to craft rules governing a potential impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on their own if they cant reach an agreement on guidelines with Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.

The Kentucky Republican has already declared that the GOP-controlled Senate would follow through with a trial should the House impeach Trump. He has also suggested that the Senate would not cut short such a trial, allowing evidence against Trump to be presented.

What remains far less clear, however, is how such a trial would be conducted which witnesses, if any, will be called to testify, which senators will be allowed to speak and for how long, and how much power Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who would preside over the proceedings, will wield.

There is no answer at this point to such questions, McConnell told reporters at his weekly press conference at the Capitol.

Should he fail to reach an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) at the outset of a trial, McConnell said he would probably come back to my own members and say, OK, can 51 of my own members agree how were going to handle this. If that fails, McConnell described a hypothetical jump ball scenario in which the Senate would vote on witnesses on a case-by-case basis.

During the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, the Republican-controlled Senate reached a bipartisan agreement governing some of the proceedings. It failed, however, to reach a deal on witness testimony. That decision was put to the entire Senate in a series of votes. In one of those votes, the upper chamber voted 70-30 not to call Monica Lewinsky as a live witness because many feared the salacious details involved in the case would tarnish the Senate.

In advance of a Trump impeachment trial, some Republican lawmakers and other allies of the president have expressed a desire to see former Vice President Joe Biden and perhaps his son Hunter Biden testify. They argue that the two would be key witnesses in the case, given that Democrats pushing for impeachment argue that Trump abused his power by allegedly withholding congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in exchange for that countrys leaders announcing an investigation into the Bidens Ukrainian business dealings.

Other possible witnesses floated by some Republicans include the U.S. intelligence community whistleblower whose concerns that Trump pushed for such a quid pro quo in phone call with Ukraines president kicked the impeachment push into high gear. Another of the potential witnesses wanted by the Trump allies is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who chaired the impeachment hearings in the lower chamber and helped author his panels report citing overwhelming evidence of misconduct by Trump in the Ukraine matter.

If the White House chooses to call witnesses in its defense, and obvious potential witnesses include Hunter Biden or the whistleblower, I believe the Senate should allow the White House to present its witnesses, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Tuesday.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Schiff would be one of my favorites on a list of possible impeachment witnesses.

But McConnell acknowledged Tuesday that its possible Republicans would encounter difficulty in getting the 51 votes needed to call some of those witnesses. Joe Biden, for example, is a former senator with decades of relationships with several of the chambers members. He also happens to be running for president in 2020. Insisting he or his son testify could sow further discord in the upper chamber and alienate a small group of moderates and frequent Trump critics who have expressed distaste with his conduct regarding Ukraine.

I dont think that is likely appropriate, but I want to see all of the evidence before making any decisions in that way, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told a reporter last week when asked if either Biden should testify in an impeachment trial.

Republicans have a slim hold on the upper chamber, 53-47, meaning theyd need nearly all their members to sign off on either a rules package or individual witness testimony.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said the trial cant just be a dog and pony show, adding that its got to be serious proceedings. When asked if he wants Hunter Biden to testify, however, Manchin declined to rule out supporting such a motion, saying, Anything that is relevant to this trial should be heard.

Schumer said Tuesday he had not yet begun discussions with McConnell about an impeachment trial. But he added that he hoped the Senate could avoid a partisan proceeding, which appears on track to take place sometime next month.

The best way to do something as important and almost a hallowed procedure as this is in a bipartisan fashion, Schumer said.

CORRECTION: During Clintons impeachment trial, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans not the Democrats, as a previous version of the story mistakenly said.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

The rest is here:
Republicans To Go It Alone In Impeachment Trial If Senate Can't Agree On Rules - HuffPost

Despite the constant posturing by its elected officials, Connecticut has no "crisis" in transportation infrastructure. The transportation problem has nothing to do with transportation. The transportation problem -- state government's problem generally -- is only that state government's personnel costs can't be controlled, since government long ago lost the necessary courage.

This was demonstrated last week when the leader of the Republican minority in the state House of Representatives, Themis Klarides of Derby, proposed removing personnel costs from state government's Special Transportation Fund. Reporting Klarides' idea, the Waterbury Republican-American's Paul Hughes noted that nearly 30 percent of the $1.7 billion allocated to the transportation fund by the state budget this year is spent not on infrastructure but on the ordinary operating costs of the transportation and motor vehicle departments and the boating division of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection -- salaries, benefits, and pensions.

This has been going on for a long time. While the Special Transportation Fund was established in 1984 to cover infrastructure costs, within three years state government was incurring budget deficits and began spending the fund on transportation personnel as well. Neglecting infrastructure was a lot easier than controlling personnel costs, since the employees involved were members of the unions that controlled and still control the state's majority party.

Because Republicans and a few conservative Democrats commanded a majority on the budget last year, an attempt was made to bolster the transportation fund. Last year's budget placed in the fund the revenue from sales taxes on motor vehicles. But this year an enlarged Democratic majority in the General Assembly and a new Democratic governor diverted the motor vehicle sales tax revenue from the transportation fund back to the General Fund, thereby creating the "crisis" its perpetrators now decry.

But Klarides and other Republican legislators deserve little credit for acknowledging this budget shell game. For just shifting money from the General Fund to the transportation fund, as the Republicans propose, is useless, since it fails to explain how the General Fund revenue is to be replaced or done without. That is, the Republicans do not specify what non-transportation spending must be cut and priorities changed to protect the transportation fund.

Cut spending? Change priorities? Nobody can do that, neither Democrats nor Republicans, since Republicans are just as scared of the unions and other special interests as the Democrats are. The Republicans won't even seek audits of the most expensive state government policies -- education, welfare, urban, government employee labor -- no matter how obvious the failure of those policies becomes.

The Republicans have lost the last three elections for governor -- not by much, but three elections they should have won -- and haven't won a majority in the state Senate in 23 years and in the state House in 33 years. They got close in the 2016 legislative election but last year were smashed back to their normal irrelevant numbers.

Republicans have not elected anyone to Congress from Connecticut in 13 years, though not long ago half the delegation was Republican.

So Republicans have nothing to lose by telling the horrible truth about state government's desperate circumstances and its subservience to special interests. For by itself it will mean nothing even if the Republicans win an election on account of disgust with the Democrats. Connecticut can be saved only by reversing its direction.

-----

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer.

Continued here:
Connecticut Republicans have nothing to lose but the state itself - Journal Inquirer

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz is being prevented from offering powerful testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of President Trump because establishment Republicans are too fearful about his past work for Jeffrey Epstein to let him speak, Rep. Matt Gaetz said.

"I suggested we call Dershowitz. I think Dershowitz should have been on our list," the Florida Republican said during an appearance Monday on the pro-Trump podcast War Room: Impeachment, which is hosted by Steve Bannon

"There were some establishment Republicans who were, like, Oh no, we can't have Dershowitz because of these Epstein allegations." Gaetz said. Dershowitz helped arrange a 2008 plea deal for the convicted sex offender, who died in jail earlier this year after being arrested on separate charges.

Gaetz protested what he described as Democrat-leaning academics using scholarly voices, which Dershowitz could have contested, to give legitimacy to the hearings, which begin Wednesday.

"They are going to bring what I can only perceive as pious, condescending, law professor, 'act of omission'-types to talk down to the Congress and really talk down to the MAGA movement. You bring Dershowitz right in there and make Democrats look at a civil libertarian-style Democrat, and I think Dershowitz would have carved them up," Gaetz said. "But, because they are worried about the [Epstein] allegations, there was consternation about calling him.

I think that was a mistake, he said. I don't think there is anyone we could put in that chair better than Alan Dershowitz. There's a decent chance Dershowitz would have been the professor of some of the Democrat witnesses."

In a letter over the weekend to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, ranking member Doug Collins of Georgia called for the panel to expand its list of witnesses and add more Republicans.

"To ensure fairness and restore integrity to the ongoing impeachment process, I request an expanded panel and a balanced composition of academic witnesses to opine on the subject matter at issue during the hearing," wrote Collins.

"The Committee will hear from only four academic witnesses during its consideration of the question of impeachment. This is less than a quarter of those called to testify during the Clinton impeachment," he said.

The four witnesses, all constitutional law scholars identified for the first time Monday, will appear Wednesday. Critics note an imbalance that privileges the Democrats.

Last week, a Republican aide reportedly said Nadler had not responded to four recent letters from Republicans with questions about the impeachment proceedings.

See the article here:
'Dershowitz would have carved them up': Matt Gaetz says fearful Republicans blew it by not letting Harvard professor testify - Washington Examiner