Impeachment and partisanship meet in Trump trial

For the third time the United States has impeached a president, Donald Trump, and has entered a legal version of the Bermuda Triangle, in  an era where partisanship reigns, or perhaps more accurately rules, with accusations, counter charges, and tweets from the White House and a president known for his thin skin, screaming, “witch hunt” and another move from the “do nothing” Democrats, while in fact they have done the one thing that many of its critics wanted, impeaching Trump.

The trial, beginning on Tuesday with opening arguments, is a gateway to the victims of Potomac Fever, as the ranks swell, and Trump has asked, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to join his defense team.

His position that there needed to be a crime in order for impeachment was refuted by one of his own law school students, Frank Bowman  a University of Missouri law professor and author who, according to a Chicago Tribune report said, “Its comically bad. Dershowitz either knows better or should.”

Stonewalling is certainly not unknown in American politics, but the White House has become the master of the game with misusing “executive privilege” to prevent key witnesses from testifying to holding necessary documents, that prompted Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader to formally ask for all pertinent documents.

While much of America rolls its collective eye at the proceedings, many are watching to see the much used term of “Democracy at work” --- and to see the GOP, under Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell pledge to subvert the process in Trump’s favor, and do a one-night, at best, that would last long into the night, when most Americans are asleep.

Some wonder if this is what the framers of the Constitution intended, but it seems that those bewigged and knee breached men wanted was a broad frame to wrap around behavior that met political malfeasance, and not criminal, despite the assertion of Dershowitz.

With support from James Madison, the impeachment process was considered necessary, and political, as a check on the abuse of power by the chief executive, and words such as “impunity” and “perfidy” were added by others, in what was clearly delineated as a political process.

Keeping that in mind, the result hammered out in the 1787 Convention clearly supports the assertions by the House of Representatives against Trump.

While the 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate gives less chance of a removal from office, the obligation was clearly obligated by the lower House, and while Speaker Pelosi received her share of criticism by progressives, many of whom confused impeachment with removal from office, the pattern and path work today is as intended in 1787.

What we may not see is a design - broad as it was intended from the Trump defense team, but Tuesday’s pressure to allow some witnesses and documents suggest that McConnell is seeing some pressure from GOP senators to provide more legal cohesion.

A recent poll revealed that 69 percent of Americans favored Trump’s removal from office and 58 percent believe that he had abused power when he witheld military aid from Ukraine, unless there was an investigation of Hunter Biden, former Vice President Biden’s son for corruption, a charge that has proven baseless.

Later on Tuesday, the Senate rejected Schumer’s amendment requests, “and Democrats continue to seek documents about a series of four calls March 27 from Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to the State Department switchboard. The calls came at a time when Giuliani was organizing a campaign to remove Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Another document Democrats seek is a cable that William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, sent to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to describe concerns about withholding $391 million in military aid from Ukraine,” reported the right leaning USA Today.

“The State Department has not produced a single document in response to the congressional subpoena,” said Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., one of the managers prosecuting the president.

“Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s defense lawyers, said courts have long recognized executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of communications with the president. Sekulow argued that the privilege also applied to communications between the president’s aides, as they formulate advice.”

“Sekulow called it “a dangerous moment for America” if Trump couldn’t assert executive privilege and defend the claim in federal court.”

As if to paraphrase, or provide a coda to this opinion, Trump and company want a swift end to the trial so that he can go back to holding rallies and name calling and denying the facts, set forth by people such as Lev Parnas, and aide to Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, and former Ambassador to the Ukraine, Masha Yovanovich, and Alexander Vindman, all from the Administration who have clear evidence that the bribe, for there is no other term for it to the Ukrainian president.

The speed that Trump wants is a reversal from a full trial seeking vindication to realizing that if witnesses do come forward he could bring what the Wall Street Journal called “unpleasant surprises”.

What might happen is anyone’s guess in the fight to the finish about what might happen, even without removal, but an indication of what that might be seems to belong to conjecture, but it’s safe to assume that even more of the same mix of personal attacks, weakening the relationships with America’s allies, and the same underhanded tactics that have weakened America’s faith in good governance will continue.

2019 ends with a repeat of low wages for U.S. job market

The December Jobs Report for 2019 on Friday was supposed to be another hurrah moment of the U.S. economy, and a mainstay for President Trump’s reelection campaign in what has now become a familiar chess game to advance the board to rally the base.

It was also supposed to provide a greater and steadying influence to that mythical “unseen hand” of laissez faire economics, proving that the nation was well on its way to underscore a reversal of fortune from the Great Recession.

In one fashion, it did: unemployment was at 3.5 percent, but only 145,000 jobs were gained said the U.S Bureau of Labor and Statistics, just enough to sustain reasonable job growth, but not enough for a total surge but leaving any moves by the Federal Reserve to make a change in interest rates.

145,000 does not a revolution make, and “Inclusive of revisions, payrolls increased by 2.1 million overall in 2019 and averaged about 176,000 per month, representing the slowest pace of job additions since 2011. In 2018, job gains had averaged at 227,000 per month,” reported Yahoo Finance.

That alone, was a downer for some economists, bankers and market observers, but in this middling report there was some cause for relief, if not outright joy, because the the better gauge, the U-6 underemployment rate “which also includes discouraged workers no longer seeking jobs and part-time employees seeking full-time work” fell to 6.7%.

As Yahoo Finance noted, “This level was lower than any point since at least 1994, or as far back as Bloomberg data tracks. Peter Tchir, head of macro strategy for Academy Securities, called this “the one impressive number” in Friday’s report.”

If there was a soundtrack for December, it might be Peggy Lee crooning, “Is That All There Is,” with wages still taking a downward trend, and bobbing up occasionally, for a small gasp of air, but with a yearly round out of only 2.9 percent over the year, this makes for an uneven report, at best, and as we have shown before, robs some, while paying some others, and defying economic standards that say wages should trend higher for a tight labor market.

“It’s easier to get a job than a raise in this economy,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton to The New York Times.

“Consumer spending is a pillar of the economy, and it depends on income growth. Over the past 12 months, wages grew just 2.9 percent. That was substantially below the 3.3 percent average in 2018,” they added.

“Something that the Fed has been humbled by is how little wage acceleration there’s been,” Ms. Swonk said, referring to the Federal Reserve.”

The good news, tempered by higher housing and medical costs, is “The labor squeeze has helped workers at the lowest end of the pay scale, giving their wages a push that exceeds the average increase. Minimum-wage increases across 21 states and 26 cities and counties this year could further help pull up paychecks at the bottom,”

Before Friday’s report ING said that the “The Labor market slack is greater than the unemployment figure alone’ meaning wage growth will remain subdued.”

Adding to Swonk’s statement, they opined that, “Having peaked at 3.4% year on year in February, wage growth has edged lower through 2019 despite the unemployment rate being at the lowest level since the late 1960s.

Conventional wisdom, according to the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book, “the vast majority of Districts continued to note difficulty hiring driven by a lack of qualified applicants as the labor market remained very tight.”

One theory the Times proposed: “One argument is that companies are satisfying workers with improved benefit packages – medical, pensions, vacation days – and are being more restrictive on salaries. However, according to the employment cost index report, benefit growth is in fact underperforming wage & salary growth.”

While no one can break out the booze, as the lyrics suggest, but since consumer spending is the backbone of the U.S. economy, there are bound to be concerns, even with forthcoming revisions.

From an analytical stance, ING added, “if we look at employment as a proportion of working age population we see that while the ratio has been improving, it remains well below the pre Global Financial Crisis peak and is in fact still below the levels experienced in the recessions of the early 1990s and the early 2000s.”

Moving to labor force participation, we see some sidelined action, that was not intended, since the increase, again, not at pre-recession levels, has moved some off the bench, and according to The New York Times, “Nearly three-quarters of new hires have come off the sidelines.”

“The unemployment rates for groups that have tended to receive a smaller share of the expansion’s rewards — high school dropouts, African-Americans and Latinos — have also dipped since December 2018,” they stressed.

“Many of the new entrants have been women, who now make up a majority of the nonfarm payroll for the first time in nearly a decade and dominate sectors that are expanding fastest, like health care,” but these are still in more traditionally female roles, such as nurses, home health aides, what another generation called “Pink Collar Jobs.”

“Their participation in the labor force, though, still lags rates in most European countries, which tend to offer better parental leave and child care options,” showing that America still has a long way to go for social and economic equity, and despite the increase in November’s LFP of 63.2 and the hint in May of 62.8, there is a drop back to 3.5.

Some economists see these women, who are at their peak earning years from 25 to 54 years old, are by their mere presence, offer a modicum of assurance, even while controlling for their European counterparts.

There is good news however, and a hit was the hiring peak in retail of 41,000 jobs, plus the aforementioned gains in health care of 28,000, and the addition of  leisure and hospitality of 40,000 jobs, for December. But, recent store closings, such as Bed Bath and Beyond, and Macy's, among others, could reverse those gains.

On the down side was manufacturing, losing at 12,000, but construction did increase to 30,000, according to an analysis of new government data by the Associated General Contractors of America, but Labor reported it nearly unchanged at 20,000.

Not so fast say others, even with a helicopter view of December, “Mining and manufacturing also struggled. Industrial goods and automobile manufacturers were the hardest hit, in part because of the trade war, said Andy Challenger, a vice president at Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago based outplacement firm that tracks layoff announcements,” in Chicago, in an interview with the Times, and Bloomberg News Report.

He also pointed out, as seen above, that people are still getting laid off and losing their jobs.

Killing of Iranian general increases U.S. divisions

The news of the attack on the American Embassy in Iraq has created a windstorm of concern and panic for the United States, and also for Americans, then the sudden news of the retaliatory killing of Iranian General Sulemani ordered by President Trump, which resulted in more than furrowed brows as the country braced itself for Iranian retaliation for the killing of their key official that some have likened to an assassination of the head of the CIA.

The gravity of the situation is exacerbated by what many fear is a bumbling attempt by the president, unschooled in foreign policy, and from a White House where most often cooler heads have not prevailed.

A closer examination by the U.S. dailies has revealed a cumbersome initial retaliation from the White House, for the December death of an American contractor, one that hit two countries with 24 reported casualties, and an undeclared amount of collateral damage.

The U.S. Army, under Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, misunderstanding the situation on the ground, gave weight to the law of unintended consequences, about Iraqi opposition towards the Iranian coalition with scant knowledge of the Iraqi and Iranian partnership, which the Iraqi citizens objected to, and was hostile to; but, after the retaliation, for the contractor's death, that many saw as overplay, that anger was transferred to America, that peaked with the embassy attack, which from many accounts seemed to be tacitly permitted by local Iraqi officials, and which evaporated shortly afterwards.

In short, the American government, over several decades, has often gravely misunderstood the Middle East, and its group identity, and that they, in effect, have their own implicit understanding, that says when one country is attacked, the others also not only feel the tremors, but, by proxy, retaliation.

As The Guardian reported, “The killing will be viewed by many inside Iran, and among its Shia regional allies, as an act of war, and Suleimani as a martyr whose violent death must be avenged in kind. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and Mohammad Javad Zarif, its foreign minister, have already indicated as much. They will use the assassination to rally wavering support for the regime.”

At the beginning of his administration, Trump’s critics felt that if an international crisis were to appear, he would bungle it, and now having seen a number of his ham-fisted actions with other countries, (plus name calling), of leaders from China to North Korea, and closer to home, Canada, those critics are justifiably worried.

The presidential penchant for bellicose rhetoric, via Twitter, will not do him, or the United States, any good, and his threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites, was another unwise statement.

Whether or not Esper's announcement, on Tuesday, that this would not occur, as  a violation of the laws of war, (in response to a reporter’s question), or a rescindment by Trump alone, remains unclear; but, yet again, this is symptomatic of the reckless statements from the president.

Secretary Esper

Of equal concern is the attitude of our allies, who are poised to receive just as much blowback in the form of an attack on their military sites.

As a coda to this concern is the statement from our oldest ally, England while noting that he [Sulemani] was a precarious and dangerous person, orchestrating violence, in the region, but also calling for a "de-escalation from all sides".

Characteristically, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was not told of the attack; and in a report by BBC News, it was reported that “Tory MP Tom Tugendhat said there was a "pattern" from the current White House not to share details with its allies, which was a "matter of concern".

The former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee added: "I have long believed the purpose of having allies is so we can surprise our enemies, not each other.”

Of equal concern were statements from “Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn [who] said earlier that the "US assassination" was an "extremely serious and dangerous escalation".

“Mr Corbyn said the UK "should urge restraint" from both Iran and the US - and called for the government to "stand up to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the United States".

He added: "All countries in the region and beyond should seek to ratchet down the tensions to avoid deepening conflict, which can only bring further misery to the region, 17 years on from the disastrous invasion of Iraq."

“The acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, said Iran was governed by "a brutal regime", but accused President Trump of "yet again radically and recklessly escalated tensions in an area where peace-keeping was already on a knife edge".

Closer to home, Congressional Democrats, it was learned, were also not told of the plan to kill Soleimani, causing even an even deeper partisan divide, against the background of the impeachment.

“I haven't seen intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that was going on or decrease other risk to the United States,” said Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Of course, the Iran response is of great concern, there are a number of choices retaliation can take: assassination of a U.S. official or one of its allies, or a cyber-attack on the banking system of one, or both.

“Iran has an alternative range of political tools that could be deployed against its arch-foe. It is likely it will try to channel Iraqi anger over the use of its territory for the assassination of Suleimani and leading Iraqi militiamen into a concerted bid to push US forces, diplomats and contractors out of Iraq altogether. Recent Iraqi street protests against Iran’s overweening influence may now be eclipsed by a bigger struggle against the US and its much-resented importunities,” added The Guardian.

On Main Street tongues are wagging that this is a ruse by Trump to deflect from his impeachment and pending trial in the Senate, but some feel that may well reflect the law of unintended consequences than reality.

Also, in that vein, on the opposite side of the political aisle, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, that for Democratic candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the conflict gives them an opportunity to increase their polling, especially for the former who has extensive foreign policy experience as Vice-President in the Obama administration, and for the latter his anti-war stance, and his vote against the war on Iraq.

Their divergence can help cast them as stalwarts in a campaign that has not always discussed foreign policy in depth. But, it can also backfire for those voters that want a less dovish approach from Sanders.

“A CNN poll from late November found that 48 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters thought Mr. Biden was best equipped to handle foreign policy; Mr. Sanders was a distant second at 14 percent.

Mr. Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he represented Delaware, is perhaps at his most fluent and comfortable when discussing international affairs, and he has made that issue a centerpiece of his message in a race that has been largely limited to domestic debates,” said the Times.

In an ever evolving story, National Public Radio, on Monday reported that, “In a letter to House Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called last week's drone airstrike against Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani "provocative and disproportionate," saying the strike "endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran."

“Pelosi said the House will vote later this week on a resolution under the War Powers Act to prevent Trump from acting against Iran after 30 days unless Congress votes to authorize further military operations.”