From NATO Antics to a Pelosi Rebuff: Highlights of This Week

As of this post, only 332 days remain until the 2020 Election. Almost certainly, the days and weeks leading up to it will be filled with eyebrow-raisers that far overshadow the fundraisers. Here are just a few of the events that happened this week.

On Monday, in retaliation against France’s new digital services tax, the Trump Administration announced a proposal to levy tariffs on up to $2.4 billion worth of French imports. The French tax is aimed at preventing tech giants from avoiding taxes when they place their headquarters in low-tax countries in Europe. It would impact companies whose yearly global sales exceed 750 million Euros ($830 million) and French earnings over 25 million Euros. Such American companies as Facebook, Google, and Amazon, would be affected, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative called it “discrimination” against American companies.

Trump also attended the NATO summit this week, and what stands out most, at least for Tuesday, is not the official discussions or negotiations, but an informal chat. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on video mocking Trump in an exchange with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron.

Later, during a press conference, Trudeau didn’t comment directly on whether he had mocked Trump, but tried to explain that he had been making a reference to the fact that “there was an unscheduled press conference (for Trump)” before his meeting with Trump.

Trump responded to Trudeau’s remarks about him with, “Well, he’s two faced.”

Also on Tuesday, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris announced that she was ending her campaign for the 2020 election.

“I’m not a billionaire,” Harris said, explaining her decision to withdraw. “I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it has become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete. In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do.”

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held an 8 1/2-hour public hearing featuring three legal scholars and one Constitutional expert, each of whom provided testimony as to whether Trump committed bribery and other impeachable offenses by allegedly conditioning military aid to Ukraine, as well as a White House visit, on a public announcement by Ukraine’s new President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, of investigations into Trump’s political rivals.

The three legal scholars, Stanford University professor Pamela S. Karlan, Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, and University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, all chosen by Democrats, testified that, yes, Trump had committed impeachable offenses, and that he had obstructed Congress.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor called by the GOP (though he noted that he had not voted for Trump), disagreed, saying that if impeachment were to take place in this case, it “would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

Gerhard, however, testified, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.”

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that House committee chairs will begin drafting articles of impeachment against President Trump.

“The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when he says and acts upon the belief, Article II says I can do whatever I want. No, his wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution, a separation of powers, three co-equal branches, each a check and balance on the other,” said Pelosi.

Many believe that impeachment is almost certain, though a vote to remove Trump from office is unlikely in the Republican-led Senate.

Republicans hold that Democrats want to impeach Trump simply because they “hate” him. When asked by a journalist if she hated Trump, Nancy Pelosi responded, “As a Catholic I resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me … So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

Trump calls Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “two-faced” after NATO hot mic gaffe | CBS News [2019-12-04]

Rep. Biggs pushes back on Pelosi’s impeachment announcement |
Fox News [2019-12-05]

Don McGahn Must Comply with House Subpoena – “Presidents Are Not Kings”

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, must testify before House impeachment investigators, ruled a federal judge in Washington on November 25. Previously, the Trump administration had ordered McGahn and other White House senior officials to defy a subpoena to appear before Congress to provide testimony in the Trump impeachment inquiry.

The White House had said that McGahn and a group of other current and former senior White House officials were protected from testifying before Congress by “absolute immunity,” given their positions in the administration.

But in response to a lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that the president does not have the power to excuse McGahn from testifying.

“Stated simply,” wrote Jackson, “The primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.

“…This Court holds that Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process — no matter how many times the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years — even if the President expressly directs such officials’ non-compliance.”

Though McGahn must testify, he does retain the right to invoke executive privilege “where appropriate.”

“If McGahn wants to refuse to testify, such as by invoking executive privilege, he must do so in person and question by question,” said Jackson.

Don McGahn was a key witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Consequently, he is at the center of one of the strongest charges against Trump in the impeachment inquiry: criminal obstruction of justice by Trump in the Mueller probe.

During Mueller’s investigation, McGahn told Mueller’s team that Trump had ordered him to fire Mueller. When news of this became public, according to McGahn, Trump told McGahn to deny, in writing, that Trump had wanted to have Mueller fired.

At the time, McGahn stated that he would rather resign than fire Robert Mueller. In October, 2018, McGahn did step down as White House Counsel.

Though the Trump administration is expected to appeal, Brown’s ruling could have implications for other key witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, who have ignored subpoenas, or who have filed suits challenging the lawfulness of the subpoenas.

“Don McGahn will comply with Judge Jackson’s decision unless it is stayed pending appeal (by the DOJ),” said McGahn’s attorney, William A. Burck.

Judge rules Don McGahn must comply with House subpoena | Fox News [2019-11-25]

News Wrap: Judge rules former White House lawyer McGahn must testify to Congress | PBS NewsHour [2019-11-25]