Hello Everyone:
It is a very rainy Wednesday but Yours Truly is warm and snug, ready to post the weekly edition of Blogger Candidate Forum. Things are hotting up in Washington D.C. Former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen finished his testimony before the House of Representatives Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee issued an arm load of subpoenas to the White House and the Trump Organization for any and all documents. Sounds like the Committee is laying the foundation for possible impeachment. Meanwhile, Mr. Donald Trump is still smarting from the failed summit, in Hanoi, Vietnam, with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un. The president hoped to walk away with the "deal of a lifetime," a de-nuclearized North Korea. Instead, he just walked away. Oh, before Blogger forgets, on a completely different subject, pay attention to former Massachusetts Governor William Weld. Governor Weld has declared himself a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, defying conventional wisdom of challenging a same party candidate for election. We will talk about Gov. Weld and other potential challengers next Wednesday. For now, the subject at had is North Korea and Michael Cohen. Shall we start?
 |
| The president Kim Jung Un shaking hands Hanoi, Vietnam vox.com |
Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, a we couldn't do that. They were willing to denuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn't give up all of the sanctions for that, so we'll continue to work and we'll see. But we had to walk away from that particular suggestion. We had to walk away from that. (vox.com; Feb. 28, 2019; date accessed Mar. 6, 2019)
The North Koreans clarified their position in a separate presser,
state that they only sought the removal of five UN sanctions resolutions adopted in 2016 and 2017, and that the 'area' that they were willing to verifiably denuclearize in exchange for this was its Yongbyon facility:..." (thediplomat.com; date accessed Mar. 6, 2019)
They also added that they were ready to make commitments on a permanent halt of nuclear testing and long-range rocket launch tests...in order to lower the concerns of the United States (Ibid). What does it mean?
What it all means is that the North Koreans want the sanctions lifted before they will consider shutting down their historical center of its nuclear enterprise. However, no one really believes that North Korea is willing to give up its nuclear weapons, cynically considered as a tool to wheedle concessions from Washington. Second, while shutting down the Yongbyon facility was limit their ability to expand it arsenal of fission weapons. Although it would not be a critical blow to the overall nuclear weapons program. The forfeiture of the facility is significant for another reason: "it calls into question North Korea's ongoing ability to produce tritium, a critical component of boosted fission weapons and, by extension, thermonuclear devices which typically rely on a boosted fission primer" (Ibid). What do we make of North Korea's seeming willingness to forego future weapons and long-range missile tests?
One perspective is that it is an empty gesture, designed to bring the United States back to the negotiating table. Another way to look at it is that it reflects North Korea's increased confidence in its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities. The year 2017 was bumper for weapons and missile testing for North Korea, proving that it could launch an intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of landing in the United States. The only major question is the lack of a proven re-entry vehicle. An expanded nuclear arsenal could mean trouble for the U.S., increasing the need for surveillance, launches become more difficult to track which means that the chances of North Korea landing a missile on the West Coast are greater. In general, interpreting North Korea's denuclearization gestures as sincere is unwise. Perhaps, the president was right to walk away. By walking away, the U.S. could maintain the upper hand and set a higher bar for denuclearization without giving away the entire store. Meanwhile back home, Michael Cohen was launching verbal nuclear weapons of his own.
 |
| Michael Cohen washingtontimes.com |
If the Hanoi Summit was a bust, Mr. Cohen's testimony before the House Oversight Committee was a blockbuster. For, perhaps the first time, the eager public got a glimpse into Trump world and it was not a pretty picture. In an explosive opening statement, the disgraced Mr. Cohen called the president "a cheat, a racist, and con man," accusing the president of committing one (at least) crime while in office and brought checks. This is coming from the man who said he would take a bullet for Mr. Trump. Yours Truly guesses not anymore.
In his prepared remarks, Mr. Cohen claimed that then-candidate Trump "knew his longtime confidant Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about WikiLeaks' possibly revealing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee" (abcnew.go.com; Feb. 27, 2019; date accessed Mar. 6, 2019). Both controversial men denied the allegation. Regardless, the inference has already been made and could add fuel to the collusion fire.
Last week, Mr. Cohen told the Oversight Committee that, in 2017, Mr. Trump's former personal lawyer Jay Sekulow edited Mr. Cohen's statement before he presented to the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
During today's session before the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Cohen was confronted by Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) about false statement he made in his previous appearance before the Oversight Committee regarding the Trump Tower Moscow project. Rep. Raskin said,
You said you lied to Congress about Trump's negotiations to build his Moscow Tower because he made it clear that he wanted you to lie,...
Mr. Cohen replied,
One of the reasons you knew this was because 'Mr. Trump's personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it (cnbc.com; date accessed Mar. 6, 2019).
Needless to say Rep. Raskin was incredulous and pressed Mr. Cohen over which lawyers edited his statement. Michael Cohen freely gave Mr. Sekulow. Mr. Sekulow denied the accusation in a statement:
...testimony by Michael Cohen that attorney for the president edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false (Ibid).
In response to new documents submitted by Mr. Cohen today, Mr. Sekulow stood by his denial.
Michael Cohen also spoke to Congress about hush money payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to facilitate Mr. Trump's chances of winning the 2016 election. Although the president denies any sort of relationship with the women, his company did reimburse Mr. Cohen for checks written out his personal account. Seriously, how many lawyers actually do that? If these allegations prove true, it would constitute a violation of campaign finance laws. Mr. Cohen maintains that "Trump directed him to arrangement the payments to the women shortly before the 2016 election to prevent their claims from damaging Trump's chances of winning the presidency" (Ibid).
What this all adds up to is a mountain range of legal troubles for the president and everyone (including his three eldest children) in his orbit. This brings us to this week's announcement by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee of a wide-ranging probe of Trump world, including an exhaustive list of subpoenas. Some have speculated that the Judiciary Committee is laying the groundwork for impeachment. Possible but here is the situation.
Impeachment is a protracted political as well as a legal procedure and the 2020 election cycle is already in motion. The question before the president is does he want to fight a two-front battle; re-election, impeachment and removal from office? For the Democrats, the question is does the chain of evidence lead to impeachment and is there enough political capital for it? Another scenario is that the president may be confronted with the undeniable fact that, the Special Counsel's report combined with whatever the House uncovers, will be enough to remove him from office and the only face saving measure is resignation.
No comments:
Post a Comment