Memo re impeachment trial

Senators have been given a memorandum written by Democratic former senator Russ Feingold and Republican former senator Chuck Hagel entitled: Presidential Impeachment Trial: What a Senator Should Know. What I found particulary interesting is Section III.

Section III explores the ways in which an impeachment trial could be avoided or shortened, concluding that it would be inconsistent with both precedent and senators’ constitutional duties to avoid holding a full impeachment trial.

[...]

Senators have several mechanisms at their disposal that they might use to limit an impeachment trial. While avoiding a trial entirely would represent an abandonment of constitutional duty, senators could attempt to end a trial early by passing a motion to adjourn or a motion to dismiss.

In our view, the Senate’s failure to hold a trial would contravene senators’ constitutional oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States [and to] well and faithfully discharge the duties of the [senatorial] office.” [...] Such disregard for the House’s decision to impeach would also demonstrate lack of reverence for the House’s duty to bring charges against an official believed to have committed impeachable offenses.

[...]

[I]f senators were to abandon their constitutional duty by declining to hold a trial on articles of impeachment they would be ceding a core constitutional function of the Senate, as holding an impeachment trial is one of just four actions Article I, Section 3 specifically empowers the Senate to take.

[...]

The sixteen currently serving senators who previously voted in President Clinton’s Senate trial would find it particularly difficult to explain a contrary decision to forego their constitutional duty to conduct an impeachment trial this time. Finally, a decision not to hold a trial would also contradict prior statements by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the Senate will “take the matter up” and that the Senate intends to “do our constitutional responsibility. trial

Somehow I don't think Mitch McConnell cares what his prior statements might have been. Nor any of the various and plentiful congress critters who have been shown to reverse their positions depending upon which party is in the White House.

While a Senate majority could invoke the procedural tactics of adjournment or a motion to dismiss to cut short trial proceedings, it would be inconsistent with both Senate precedent and constitutional duty for senators to cut an impeachment trial short.

[...]

There is historical precedent for adjournment: during the trial of President Johnson, the Senate adjourned “after the president was acquitted on three articles of impeachment; no votes were held on the remaining eight articles” after it became clear that a two-thirds vote could not be politically achieved. But during the Clinton trial, the Senate did not adjourn and instead decided on both articles of impeachment.

[...]

The more likely path for the Senate to truncate the trial would be through a motion to dismiss, which White House lawyers may decide to bring forward. [...] During President Clinton’s impeachment trial, the motion to debate dismissal in open session failed on a vote of 56-44, and not along strict party lines.

At the time, the Republican Managers repeatedly argued that the motion to dismiss was inappropriate. House Manager Charles Canady, for example, explained that “adoption of the motion would be inconsistent with constitutional standards and harmful to the institutions of our Government.” Likewise, House Manager Asa Hutchinson asserted that “to dismiss the case would be unprecedented from a historical standpoint, because it has never been done before; it would be damaging to the Constitution, because the Senate would fail to try the case; it would be harmful to the body politic . . . .” Lead House Manager Henry Hyde, then Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, further argued, “this motion elevates convenience over constitutional process” and pushed for a bipartisan approach that would allow the country to move forward.

In the end, the Senate accepted the House managers’ arguments and rejected the motion to dismiss in a bipartisan vote. It has been reported that in the current proceeding, Senate Republicans have already told the President’s defense team to “prepare for a full Senate trial, stating that any motion for an early dismissal of impeachment charges likely won’t have the votes to pass.”

The procedures outlined in the memorandum are also interesting. And they specifically address the question of what constitutes bribery for impeachment purposes (Page 19).  If there is any honesty at all amongst Republican senators, they at least have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the charge of bribery in the articles of impeachment against Trump.  But that would automatically mean removal from office, so I don't expect to find enough honest Republicans to do it.

Check it out and be in the know when Mitch McConnell thumbs his nose at precedent and rules.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Next (likely) SecDef: Ashton Carter

Ashton Carter, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, appears to be the president's choice to replace Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon.

[...]

In addition to having served as the defense department's weapon buyer and a lead budgeteer, as Defense News points out, Carter "received his doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford in 1979, where he was a Rhodes Scholar."

Despite his understated presence, many are pointing to his [2006] call to bomb North Korea as evidence of his mettle.

  The Atlantic

Or his mania, perhaps.

So what to make of Carter, reportedly the next nominee for the job? At first glance, he seems an odd candidate: educated in medieval history and theoretical physics, a bit of a wonk, and more than a bit arrogant—a trait that, Michael Crowley writes in Politico, “could be a warning sign in an administration that has already burned through three defense secretaries who resented White House micromanagement of their affairs.”

He has also put in time as a consultant to defense contractors and when he went back to the Pentagon in 2009, he had to get a special waiver because of his work for companies like Mitre Corp., and Global Technology Partners, a defense consulting firm. As The Washington Times points out, that background seems to conflict with the president’s pledge to block the revolving door between federal employees and special-interest groups.

  Forbes

Yes, well, the president talks out of both sides of his mouth, and sometimes out of his ass.

At this point the defense secretary job is arguably the toughest in the administration, given the challenge of battling the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq and Turkey, managing the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, handling the nuclear negotiations with Iran and the conflict in Ukraine at a time when the Pentagon is supposed to implement further cuts. Three other top contenders for the job withdrew their names, including Senator Jack Reed, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, Michele Flournoy a former under secretary of defense and Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I should also mention that Carter gave up 20% of his salary when federal employees under him were subject to a furlough.  (Obama gave up 5% ; Nancy Pelosi - zilch)

So Long, Chuck

President Obama will announce the resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday in the first high-profile personnel move since Democrats suffered significant losses in this month's midterm elections.

[...]

A senior administration official praised Hagel, the only Republican in Obama's Cabinet, as "a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] to Ebola."

  The Hill

Yeah, so why’s he being dumped?

The New York Times, which first reported Hagel's departure, suggested the Defense secretary was being forced out over concerns over his ability to lead the campaign against ISIS.

We have had a defense secretary who is unable to lead a campaign?

An administration official told the Times that “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus" than he was able to provide. Hagel was originally expected to focus primarily on winding down the Afghanistan War and cuts to the Pentagon's budget under sequestration.

Apparently, we've had a defense secretary who was only capable of “winding down”, not “winding up”. Why was he ever put in charge of defense in the first place?

Last month, CNN reported that Hagel wrote a memo to national security adviser Susan Rice sharply critical of the White House’s strategy on Syria.

That couldn't have helped his cause.

His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

  NYT

Seriously? Chuck should have stopped Ebola at the border?

He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful.

A junior varsity basketball squad…and yet now they tell us ISIS is the most evil thing on the planet (except for brief moments when Khorasan takes that role). So maybe Mr. Hagel embarrassed Mr. Obama, who claimed he could take ISIS on a court any day. And maybe by giving back 20% of his salary when Obama furloughed federal workers and only gave up 5% of his own.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Get Out Much?

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has expressed regret to a professor of Indian descent after he appeared to jokingly ask if the academic was a member of the Taliban.

[...]

After discussing prospects for talks with the Taliban insurgency at the event and waiting for another question, Hagel pointed to the back of the hall, and said: "OK, so who has a - way up in the back there. You're not a member of the Taliban are you?"

  

The guy should have asked Hagel how Hagel got permission to leave his cave.

Hagel's spokesman said on Friday that the off-hand remark, which came after a speech by Hagel at the University of Nebraska on Wednesday, was not meant to refer to anyone in the audience or to the professor's heritage.

Oh, no. Of course not. How could anyone have thought it?

Hagel only asked the guy directly if he were a member of the Taliban. How can that not be meant to refer to him? Oh, by ME, you don’t mean ME, you mean some Talib in Afghanistan.

Hagel's apparent attempt at humour appeared to fall flat, judging by the long pause that followed, according to a video of the event broadcast by the Pentagon channel.

"This was an off the cuff remark not directed at anyone in particular in the audience, and he recognises that even though it was a joke that it was perhaps off-key," press secretary George Little told reporters on Friday.

Perhaps.

"I would emphasise it was completely unintentional and not directed at anyone in particular."

Yeah. Yeah. We got it. In fact, so did the professor. Especially after a phone call from Hagel.

"I was able to ask a question, and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing his answer. Before I rose to ask a question, there was apparently some confusion that did not involve me," his statement said.

And That Is Just Insulting

President Obama will return 5 percent of his salary, retroactive to March 1, in a move intended to symbolize solidarity with federal workers being furloughed as part of the sequester, a White House official said Wednesday.

[...]

The president's salary is $400,000 per year -- a 5 percent pay cut over 10 months represents just under $17,000.

  The Hill

Who thought this was a good idea?

“The president has decided [...] to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester."

Sacrifice. $17,000 one time. Out of $400,000.   His share's a little lighter than theirs, I'm guessing.

Earlier this week, the White House announced that 480 staffers who work at the Office of Management and Budget have received furlough notices requiring that they take unpaid days off due to the sequester. Employees were also told to curtail travel and limit the use of office equipment and mobile wireless Internet cards.

But press secretary Jay Carney would not confirm whether members of the West Wing staff would also receive notices.

So, that’s a ‘no’, then.

Even some senators are giving up 20%. Okay, five senators.

The Senate last month passed a measure urging members of the upper chamber to forgo 20 percent of their salary during sequestration. Most senators, however, are keeping quiet on whether they will follow through.

  The Hill

So that’s a ‘no’, then.

[I]n a survey of Senate offices by The Hill, only [Lindsay] Graham [who’s idea it was] and Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) have indicated they would give up some of their take-home pay.

[...]


Senators make $174,000 annually. To fully comply with the Graham measure for a complete calendar year, members would return $34,000 to charity or the Treasury.
[...]

Several other senators said they already donate generously to charity.

Kind of misses the point, doesn’t it?

Graham mentioned the example of Ashton Carter, the deputy Defense secretary who told a Senate committee in February that he would voluntarily forgo 20 percent of his salary if his employees were subject to furloughs because of sequestration.

The Pentagon on Tuesday announced Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will also follow suit by writing a check to the Treasury.

Who advised Obama to give up only 5% when everybody else, making a good deal less than he does, seems to be forking over 20%. Sure makes him look cheap. But not as cheap as Nancy Pelosi.

“I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters in February. “I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”

What a twat. I’m sorry. I can’t think of a nicer name for that. And, if they were rewarded according to their dignity, they would be working for free.

And this guy is…

An aide to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he has never accepted a Senate salary and instead gives his pay to the Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga, which distributes it to local charities.

As he should.

Corker is worth at least $19.6 million, according to financial reports from 2011.

Okay. But most of them are millionaires, and they take the salary anyway. Because they should be rewarded out of respect for the work they do, if you ask the twat.