Oct. 30, 2019
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Now that House has released its impeachment witch hunt resolution, it’s time for the Senate to step up and guarantee due process
The House has released
its resolution outlining rules governing the impeachment inquiry process,
including rules for each of the relevant House committees to follow, call
witnesses and question them, and if the White House and Senate believe they
fall short, then it is going to be up to the Senate to fill in the gaps,
provide due process and to begin to address the allegations being made against
President Donald Trump on substance. It is up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell to step forward with Senate Republican committee chairs and start
holding hearings. If Republicans in the House cannot ask all of the questions
that need to be asked, then the same witnesses should be called on the Senate
side so those questions can be asked. If the House refuses to allow certain
witnesses to be called, then call them on the Senate side so questions can
asked and a baseline can be established for the eventual trial in the Senate.
They are not powerless.
Video: Trump wants to end endless wars, and that's why Democrats want him impeached
Democrats appear to be
impeaching President Donald Trump for temporarily withholding military
assistance to Ukraine, pulling back forces from Syria and his overall
non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. It’s a clear message. Fight the
wars they say—or else.
NSC testimony reveals deep state arrogance
Americans for Limited
Government President Rick Manning: “"Leaked testimony by Lt. Col. Alexander
Vindman to the House Intelligence Committee is shocking in its revelation on
three critical points. First and foremost, a career NSC employee somehow
believes that his policy preferences supersede those of the elected President
of the United States. This reveals the ongoing deep state battle where
unelected bureaucrats resist the constitutional powers vested in the President
with full belief that they have moral authority. One simple question to
Vindman: Who the heck elected you? The second troubling aspect of his testimony
is that he clearly believes that the Democrats would engage in partisan
retribution against the Ukraine government as a result of their help in getting
to the bottom of the origins of the Russiagate scandal and any potential
findings of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden. Ironically,
this is exactly what the Democrats falsely say they are impeaching Trump over,
saying that exposing 2016 interference by Ukraine is in itself interference.
Third, as an officer in the U.S. military Vindman appears to be violating the
military code of conduct that allows for disobedience of an unlawful order but
does not allow testifying to the legislative branch in opposition to a
presidential national security policy that he was uniquely privy to. It no wonder that the President of the United
States cut out career foreign service and national security council personnel
from decision-making related to Ukraine and presumably elsewhere in the world.
And it begs the question as to what value any of these resister bureaucrats
provide when the President cannot include them in the decision-making process
due to their infidelity to their constitutional and legal duties. At this
point, it is reasonable to question whether the entirety of the National Security
Council should be required to submit their resignations and reapply for their
jobs if they believe they can actually inform and in good faith implement the President's
policies."
The Epoch Times: Auto firms side with Trump administration against California’s emission standards
“Giants of the
automotive industry both in the United States and abroad have come out in
support of the Trump administration on the issue of emission standards. General
Motors, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, and a raft of other manufacturers and suppliers
are falling in behind President Trump in a lawsuit on whether California will
continue to have the authority to set its own fuel economy standards as well as
emission standards for greenhouse gases. Under the ‘One National Program Rule,’
the Trump administration has pledged to ‘establish attainable fuel economy and
GHG (greenhouse gas) vehicle emissions standards that will help ensure that
more Americans have access to safer, more affordable, and cleaner vehicles that
meet their families’ needs.’ The so-called Coalition for Sustainable Automotive
Regulation combines the forces of GM and Fiat Chrysler with the more formal
Association of Global Automakers, which bundles manufacturers such as Toyota,
Aston Martin, Nissan, and Ferrari with key auto industry suppliers such as
Bosch and Texas Instruments.”
Now that House has released its impeachment witch hunt resolution, it’s time for the Senate to step up and guarantee due process
By Robert Romano
The House has released its resolution outlining rules governing the impeachment inquiry process of President Donald Trump, including rules for each of the relevant House committees to follow, call witnesses and question them, and if the White House and Senate believe they fall short, then it is going to be up to the Senate to fill in the gaps, provide due process and to begin to address the allegations being made against President Donald Trump on substance.
Because once the House moves forward with its chosen process, there is no other check in place in our constitutional system to balance it out.
For example, it looks like the House is going to shut down any and all calls by Republicans for witnesses unless the chairs of the relevant committees approve. The resolution provides that the ranking Republican member on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees can seek subpoenas for witnesses with the approval of the chair, but if that is declined, then “the ranking member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision…”
In short the Democratic majority on each committee could simply shut down and all Republican requests for witnesses, even if those witnesses might provide exculpatory information on the question of impeaching President Trump.
But that’s not much different that the process in the Bill Clinton impeachment inquiry resolution. The difference then was that witnesses could be called by the chair and ranking member together, but that if they couldn’t agree, it would go to the committee. In theory that might compel both sides to work together to avoid voting on every witness, but the majority on the committee could still overrule minority witnesses at every turn in either event if they desired.
Leaving that aside, it is also unclear if the transcripts of previously interviewed witnesses will ever be released publicly at any point, including any recordings that have been made. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is “authorized,” but not required, “transfer… records or materials” related to the inquiry to the House Judiciary Committee.
The White House for its part issued a statement calling the process even under the resolution a “sham,” saying via Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, saying, “The White House is barred from participating at all, until after Chairman Schiff conducts two rounds of one-sided hearings to generate a biased report for the Judiciary Committee… This resolution does nothing to change the fundamental fact that House Democrats refuse to provide basic due process rights to the Administration.”
It also noted that rules for the President’s counsel to appear at the House Judiciary Committee have yet to be written.
So, if the White House and Congressional Republicans do not like this process, then it is up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to step forward with Senate Republican committee chairs and start holding hearings. If Republicans in the House cannot ask all of the questions that need to be asked and iIf the House refuses to release transcripts of the closed door witnesses, then the same witnesses need to be called on the Senate side so those questions can be asked. If the House refuses to allow certain witnesses to be called, then call them on the Senate side so questions can asked and a baseline can be established for the eventual trial in the Senate.
More importantly, hearings in the Senate concurrent with those in the House will give the American people a fuller picture of what’s at stake, and to hear the other side of the story. And all that can be done long before the House votes to impeach President Trump, if they ever do.
Meaning, if the anonymous CIA so-called whistleblower is never called publicly in the House, there will be opportunity to do so on the Senate side.
If and when the Senate trial begins, Rule VI of the Senate’s impeachment rules states clearly, “The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgment, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgements, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.”
Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning issued a statement calling for the Senate to hold up funding for the legislative branch in the upcoming omnibus spending bill if the House refused to fully provide due process, saying, “The Senate should reject all attempts to fund the legislative branch in the upcoming omnibus appropriations bill until the House of Representatives engages in due process, with full participation by the minority, in their impeachment witch hunt. While Congress has every right to pursue impeachment, the current ‘make up the rules as you go along’ secret star chamber being implemented by U.S. Rep. Schiff and coordinated with Speaker Pelosi violates the precepts of minority rights within our system, and the Senate is under no obligation to fund it. There can be no excuse for continuing to fund this sham, which denies the President of the United States basic constitutional rights that every citizen should expect to be honored.”
So, again, if the Senate and the White House feel that due process and minority rights are not being fully followed, there are a bevy of opportunities for Senate Republicans to do something about it. They don’t have to wait for a trial. They can hold their own hearings, call their own witnesses, ask their own questions and block funding if it comes to that — and start addressing the allegations against President Trump on their merits. They are not powerless.
Robert
Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited
Government.
Video: Trump wants to end endless wars, and that's why Democrats want him impeached
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3p06DWgjic
NSC testimony reveals deep state arrogance
Oct. 29, 2019, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in response to testimony by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman that he was "uncomfortable" with President Donald Trump's July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky:
"Leaked testimony by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to the House Intelligence Committee is shocking in its revelation on three critical points. First and foremost, a career NSC employee somehow believes that his policy preferences supersede those of the elected President of the United States. This reveals the ongoing deep state battle where unelected bureaucrats resist the constitutional powers vested in the President with full belief that they have moral authority. One simple question to Vindman: Who the heck elected you? The second troubling aspect of his testimony is that he clearly believes that the Democrats would engage in partisan retribution against the Ukraine government as a result of their help in getting to the bottom of the origins of the Russiagate scandal and any potential findings of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden. Ironically, this is exactly what the Democrats falsely say they are impeaching Trump over, saying that exposing 2016 interference by Ukraine is in itself interference. Third, as an officer in the U.S. military Vindman appears to be violating the military code of conduct that allows for disobedience of an unlawful order but does not allow testifying to the legislative branch in opposition to a presidential national security policy that he was uniquely privy to.
"It no wonder that the President of the United States cut out career foreign service and national security council personnel from decision-making related to Ukraine and presumably elsewhere in the world. And it begs the question as to what value any of these resister bureaucrats provide when the President cannot include them in the decision-making process due to their infidelity to their constitutional and legal duties. At this point, it is reasonable to question whether the entirety of the National Security Council should be required to submit their resignations and reapply for their jobs if they believe they can actually inform and in good faith implement the President's policies."
To view online: https://getliberty.org/2019/10/nsc-testimony-reveals-deep-state-arrogance/
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured report from the Epoch Times’ Alan McDonnell, General Motors, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and other car manufacturers are supporting the Trump administration’s One National Program Rule for fuel emissions and ending California’s two-tiered approach to regulating emissions:
Auto firms side with Trump administration against California’s emission standards
By Alan McDonnell
Giants of the automotive industry both in the United States and abroad have come out in support of the Trump administration on the issue of emission standards. General Motors, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, and a raft of other manufacturers and suppliers are falling in behind President Trump in a lawsuit on whether California will continue to have the authority to set its own fuel economy standards as well as emission standards for greenhouse gases.
Under the “One National Program Rule,” the Trump administration has pledged to “establish attainable fuel economy and GHG (greenhouse gas) vehicle emissions standards that will help ensure that more Americans have access to safer, more affordable, and cleaner vehicles that meet their families’ needs.”
The so-called Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation combines the forces of GM and Fiat Chrysler with the more formal Association of Global Automakers, which bundles manufacturers such as Toyota, Aston Martin, Nissan, and Ferrari with key auto industry suppliers such as Bosch and Texas Instruments.
Coalition spokesman and CEO of the Association of Global Automakers, John Bozzella, said that although the group wants stricter standards than those proposed by the Trump administration, they still felt the need to step in. “The certainty of one national program, with reasonable, achievable standards, is the surest way to reduce emissions in the timeliest manner,” he told The Associated Press. “With our industry facing the possibility of multiple, overlapping, and inconsistent standards that drive up costs and penalize consumers, we had an obligation to intervene.”
Bozzella said he believes a middle ground could be found in the fight to lower emissions and improve fuel economy.
A lawsuit is currently being pursued by the Environmental Defense Fund against the Trump administration, as the president seeks to roll back Obama-era congressional rulings that allowed California to set stringent standards for emissions and economy—far above the standards set by federal regulators.
Both the Trump administration and most of the industry agree, however, that setting one standard would be the most efficient way of achieving industry goals, and would ultimately produce the best results for the environment. Negotiations between Trump officials and California had reached a stalemate this fall, however, causing President Trump to announce that he would seek to revoke California’s authority to set their own standards.
Four other major car manufacturers—Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, and Honda—made a separate agreement with California’s air pollution regulation authority, the Air Resources Board, in July on tougher emission and fuel economy standards. However, the Justice Department subsequently launched an antitrust probe into their actions, with federal investigators now probing whether these manufacturers engaged in anti-competitive behavior in forging agreements between each other to follow California’s standards.
The Trump administration proposes maintaining standards at 2021 levels until 2025. Under Obama administration standards, new vehicles would have to achieve 30 mpg in real-world driving conditions by 2021, and 36 mpg in 2025. Current standards demand a fuel efficiency of 26 mpg.
According to the current administration, freezing fuel economy levels will reduce average new car prices by up to $2,700 by 2025. Making these newer cars more affordable will make road travel safer and boost manufacturing in the automotive sector.
Environmental groups, however, believe savings to consumers may be offset by higher fuel costs per mile if standards remain frozen at 2021 levels.
By virtue of a congressional waiver, the Clean Air Act of 1970 granted California the authority to set its own emission standards. With the most cars of any state, California continued to face unique smog and air quality issues. The administration of President George W. Bush denied California’s proposal to introduce stringent greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. However, the state asked the EPA to reconsider, and the proposal was accepted in 2009 during the presidency of Barack Obama.
Numerous other states and the District of Columbia adhere to California’s fuel economy standards.
The EPA is now seeking to withdraw the 2013 Clean Air Act waiver that allowed California to pursue its own tailpipe greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards, and zero-emission vehicle mandate.
