Chris Hedges's Blog, page 142

U.K.’s Johnson Denies Wrongdoing as Personal Allegations Mount

MANCHESTER, England — U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson battled to fend off allegations of improper patronage and groping a woman as he prepared a final push Monday to fulfill his pledge to lead Britain out of the European Union in just over a month.

Johnson sought to energize Conservative members and lawmakers — weary after three years of gridlock over Britain’s stalled departure from the European Union — at the party’s annual conference, but he was forced to deny a journalist’s claim that he had grabbed her thigh at a private lunch two decades ago.

Sunday Times columnist Charlotte Edwardes said the incident took place when she worked at The Spectator, a conservative newsmagazine, while Johnson was its editor.

Asked if the allegation was true, Johnson said: “No.”

Edwardes stood by her story, tweeting: “If the prime minister doesn’t recollect the incident then clearly I have a better memory than he does.”

Johnson also is under scrutiny for claims that an American businesswoman, Jennifer Arcuri, received money and perks from London coffers while Johnson was mayor of the capital between 2008 and 2016.

He denies any wrongdoing involving Arcuri, who was given grants and places on overseas trade trips for her small tech startup, saying everything was done “with full propriety.” The case has been referred to Britain’s police watchdog, which will decide whether to investigate Johnson for misconduct in public office.

Johnson, who took over as Conservative leader and prime minister from Theresa May two months ago, has vowed that Britain will leave the European Union on the scheduled date of Oct. 31 with or without a divorce deal governing future relations with the bloc. His foes in Parliament — who include some longtime members of his own party — are determined to avoid a no-deal exit, which economists say would plunge Britain into recession.

Legislators have already passed a law that compels the government to seek a delay to Brexit if it can’t strike a deal with the EU by Oct. 19. But with Johnson saying he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than postpone Britain’s departure, opposition parties are seeking ways to make sure he complies.

Opposition leaders held a strategy meeting Monday in London, with no definitive conclusion. They ruled out an immediate attempt to topple the government with a no-confidence vote.

Jo Swinson, leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats, said the parties would continue to meet “to plan out different scenarios and different options, including the possibility of an insurance option of a government of national unity” if Johnson’s government was brought down by lawmakers.

The personal allegations against Johnson overshadowed the Conservative Party’s four-day annual conference in the northwestern England city of Manchester, where Johnson is trying to rally the party — and prepare for an election that could come within weeks — under the slogan “Get Brexit Done.”

Billboards around the cavernous Manchester convention center promised a bright future in which Britain is no longer consumed and divided by Brexit: “Get Brexit done — invest in schools and police.”

Johnson denied that the claims of misconduct were a distraction from the message he was trying to convey.

“I think what the public want to hear is what we are doing to bring the country together and get on with improving their lives,” he said.

The Conservative conference follows a tumultuous week for Johnson. Last week the U.K. Supreme Court declared that Johnson’s attempt to suspend Parliament for five weeks was illegal. He cut short a trip to the United States, racing home to face the House of Commons, where lawmakers greeted him with cries of “Resign!” He then lost a vote on a normally routine matter — a request to adjourn for a week so that Conservatives could attend their conference.

Johnson was also accused of inflaming tensions in Britain with populist, people-versus-politicians rhetoric. He branded an opposition law ordering a Brexit delay as the “Surrender Act” and said postponing the country’s departure would “betray” the people who voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the EU. He also dismissed the complaints of some opposition lawmakers who reported they have received death threats.

Johnson later claimed he had been “a model of restraint.”

The allegations cut little ice with many Conservative delegates, who cheered and shouted “Boris!” as Johnson walked into the conference center from a nearby hotel.

“Is your conference ruined?” a journalist shouted.

Johnson made no reply.

Treasury chief Sajid Javid said he had “full faith in the prime minister,” adding: “I don’t think it’s a good idea to get drawn into personal allegations.”

But some Conservatives expressed unease. Health Secretary Matt Hancock said he knew Edwardes and “I entirely trust what she has to say.”

And Justine Greening, a former Conservative minister who was expelled from the party in Parliament for backing opposition attempts to stop a no-deal Brexit, said the allegations were “deeply concerning.”

“They go to the heart of this question about character and integrity of people in public life and what standards the electorate have a right to expect,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Gregory Katz in London contributed.

___

Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit and British politics at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

Ralph Nader: Trump Can’t Be Impeached for Ukraine Alone

Donald Trump said he believes the Constitution lets him do “whatever I want as President.” In over two and a half years, Trump has been a serial violator of the Constitution, unmatched by any president in American history. Just about every day he is a constitutional outlaw.

Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein has documented twelve categories of major constitutional transgressions. Some are also statutory crimes. Many of these involve Trump overpowering the critical separation of powers that our founders rigorously established to assure that the president does not become a monarch like King George III.

Trump has been a serial violator of the Constitution, unmatched by any president in American history. Just about every day he is a constitutional outlaw.

The framers were very clear that Congress and only Congress can appropriate monies for the Executive branch to spend; that only Congress can declare war; that the president must faithfully execute the laws; and that the Congress has the full authority to investigate the executive branch for abuses, irregularities, illegalities, or the need for new laws. Trump totally defies Congressional subpoenas for documents and witnesses. That grave overthrow of constitutional government is alone enough for eviction from office.

When he is not openly violating the Constitution, Trump lies and commits impeachable offenses.

The most recent violation was in seeking from a foreign power—Ukraine—assistance in influencing our presidential election in his favor by investigating a major challenger—former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son. He dangled a $250 million military aid package (maybe more) to Ukraine by suspending it before speaking to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the telephone.

This “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s words, finally moved the reluctant House leader. After being AWOL on all the other serious, repeated flouting of constitutional behavior, she is now focusing on Trump and Ukraine.

Much has been reported about Trump’s chronic lying. He lies daily, sometimes hourly, with his tweets and public blather. The Washington Post has catalogued over 12,000 prevarications and false statements since January 2017. Not enough, however, has been made of the aggregate effects of such lying as a living. Trump creates illusions about himself, about his alleged achievements, and about conditions in the United States and world. He spreads constant lies and transmits the lies of others. Often these are monstrous lies, which slander innocent people and trick his supporters into believing him because they think no president could possibly lie like that to them. These are dangerous obsessions for a president.

Trump says he wants everyone to have “beautiful” health insurance, yet he pushes Congress to change Obamacare, stripping twenty million people of health insurance without any substitute program.

Trump brags about consistently defying Congressional statutes by dismantling federal agencies established to protect all Americans where they live, work, and raise their families.

Trump says we have the cleanest air and water ever, yet his henchmen are running these agencies into the ground and repealing or weakening life-saving pollution controls. The result is more toxic air in your lungs, more child asthma, and dirtier drinking water.

Trump lies about voter fraud, about not using his office to enrich his business, and about all the new factories coming to the U.S. He even lies about the weather, damaging the credibility of the National Weather Service. He denies his sexual exploits and hush money payments. He rejects without evidence ten serious obstruction of justice actions documented in the Mueller Report.

Trump denies that his cuts in food stamps will leave over half a million children without a free school lunch. He denies that his tax cut overwhelmingly benefited the super-rich and major corporations.

Trump says his nominees are extremely qualified. In reality, whether it is the EPA, the public lands agency, the Department of Labor, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Trump has chosen lawless people whose main qualification was urging the abolition or weakening of these federal law enforcers against corporate crimes and abuses.

Trump falsely says that climate disruption is not scientifically established, but a “Chinese hoax,” while our country in plain sight is being battered by record breaking heat waves, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tornadoes.

Trump says coal, oil, and gas are better for America than wind power (which he says causes cancer) and solar energy, which are cheaper and safer.

Trump is actually increasing deadly greenhouse gases as a result and worsening the climate crisis that the Pentagon calls a national security risk.

Trump regularly calls legislators investigating him “sick,” “treasonous,” “crooked,” and “low-IQ.” Truthfully these are descriptions of him.

Trump keeps promising to control soaring drug prices while refusing to get that job done.

Trump lies about the massiveness of his wealth, yet opposes any release of his tax returns.

Trump says brutal dictators are doing great for their people, ignoring the obvious facts.

Trump operates in a vast cocoon of falsity and refuses to read and consult with people who are not sycophants. This is an egomaniacal, narcissistic illusionist who could start wars, has his hand on the nuclear trigger, and believes he is about the law and Congressional controls.

Trump regularly calls legislators investigating him “sick,” “treasonous,” “crooked,” and “low-IQ.” Truthfully these are descriptions of him.

Trump, unlike Clinton who was impeached by the House in 1998, has successfully resisted testifying or being questioned under oath. He is a many sided fugitive from justice, one or more steps above of the law.

Pelosi is making a mistake if she doesn’t go forward with the full articles of impeachment against Trump. Relying on the Ukraine betrayal is not enough to counter the attack by Trump’s avalanche of lies, phony distractions, and possibly a “wag the dog,” desperation overseas.

The Democratic Party Couldn’t Care Less About Whistleblowers

All of a sudden, MoveOn wants to help “national security” whistleblowers.

Well, some of them, anyway.

After many years of carefully refusing to launch a single campaign in support of brave whistleblowers who faced vicious prosecution during the Obama administration—including Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden, and CIA whistleblowers John Kiriakou and Jeffrey Sterling—MoveOn.org has just cherrypicked a whistleblowing hero it can support.

“The stakes could not be higher for the whistleblower, who took a great personal risk to defend our democracy,” MoveOn declared in a mass email Sunday afternoon, referring to the intelligence official who went through channels to blow the whistle on Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president. “We need to have the whistleblower’s back.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

But what about Manning, Drake, Snowden, Kiriakou and Sterling, who also took great personal risks on behalf of democracy? With its digital finger to the wind, MoveOn refused to engage in a campaign to help any of them. Manning, Kiriakou and Sterling were railroaded into prison and remained there for years; Snowden has been forced to stay in exile and Drake endured years of persecution under threat of decades behind bars.

I experienced MoveOn’s refusal firsthand when, in December 2015, I wrote to the group’s campaign director with a request. After a sham trial, Sterling had gone to prison six months earlier for allegedly providing information to New York Times reporter James Risen that he included in a book. “Is there a way that MoveOn could use a bit of its list to promote this petition in support of Jeffrey Sterling?” I asked.

The answer that I received was disappointing—merely a suggestion that the petition be put on MoveOn’s do-it-yourself platform, where it would not be supported with distribution to any of MoveOn’s email list. After pressing further, I got an explanation from MoveOn that had a marketing sound: “It looks like we have definitely done a lot of testing on Snowden and Manning in the past, but unfortunately nothing quite reached the level of member support where we were able to send it out.”

That approach has endured. In the last decade, MoveOn—which says it has an email list of 8 million “members”—has refused to do any campaigns to help Manning, Drake, Snowden, Kiriakou or Sterling.

(Full disclosure: The organization where I’m national coordinator, RootsAction.org, has campaigned in support of all five of the above-named whistleblowers, with petitions, news conferences, protests, and fundraising.)

Now, the whistleblower initiative that MoveOn has started might seem like a welcome change of direction. But it’s actually worse than problematic.

The organization that MoveOn just teamed up with—Whistleblower Aid—explicitly does not support people like Snowden, Drake, Kiriakou, Sterling, and Manning, or the more recent whistleblower Reality Winner. The founding legal partner at Whistleblower Aid, Mark Zaid, has maintained a vehement position against the unauthorized release of classified information for many years.

“As a matter of law, no one who leaks classified information to the media (instead of to an appropriate governmental authority) is a whistleblower entitled to legal protection,” Zaid wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece in 2017. “That applies to Winner, Snowden and Chelsea Manning, no matter what one thinks of their actions. The law appropriately protects only those who follow it. Anyone who acts contrary does so at their own peril.”

According to Zaid and his organization—which MoveOn is now avidly promoting and helping to subsidize—if the White House whistleblower’s memo had been bottled up via official channels and then had been leaked to a news organization, the whistleblower leaking the memo would not be, and should not be, “entitled to legal protection.”

But, as Snowden has often emphasized, the official scenario of going through channels is a dangerous myth for “national security” whistleblowers. The reason Snowden didn’t go through channels is that he saw what happened to whistleblowers who did—like Drake, who was targeted, harassed, and then prosecuted on numerous felony counts. Snowden clearly understood that going through channels would achieve nothing except punishment, which is why he wisely decided to go directly to journalists.

MoveOn has not only refused to support courageous whistleblowers like Snowden, Drake, Manning, Kiriakou and Sterling—who’ve informed the world about systematic war crimes, wholesale shredding of the Fourth Amendment with mass surveillance, officially sanctioned torture, and dangerously flawed intelligence operations.

Now, MoveOn is partnering with a legal outfit that actually contends such brave souls don’t deserve any protections as whistleblowers. Despite its assertion that “protecting whistleblowers is critical for a healthy democracy,” MoveOn is now splitting donations with an organization that supports the absence of legal protections for many of them.

Could Washington’s Impeachment Drama Spark China Trade Deal?

WASHINGTON — The Democratic impeachment inquiry may do at least one thing for President Donald Trump: It could give him more incentive to resolve his trade war with China.

As the political heat rises in Washington, a deal with Beijing would allow Trump to claim a much-needed victory and divert some attention from an explosive congressional investigation into his dealings with Ukraine.

Analysts say Trump’s conflict with Beijing, which has shaken financial markets and further darkened the global economic outlook, could be headed for some tentative resolution in the coming months. Talks between the two countries are set to resume in October.

Related Articles











The Problem With Impeachment



by Chris Hedges

















U.N. Chief Warns of a World Divided Between U.S. and China



by

















America Keeps Getting China All Wrong



by Robert Scheer

“The political mess may now encourage President Trump to accept an imperfect deal with China,” Hussein Sayed of the foreign exchange brokerage FXTM wrote in a report. “After all, he needs to prove that he’s the master of deal-making, and now is the right time to raise his approval rating higher.”

At the same time, however, the impeachment inquiry may have dimmed the prospects for other items on Trump’s trade agenda, including his push for congressional approval of a revamped North American trade agreement. That would require backing from the Democratic-led House, and relations between the two parties may now be more inflamed than ever.

The impeachment proceedings will likely dominate Washington for months, siphoning time and energy from the normal business of government — debating, compromising, legislating, policymaking. The likelihood of meaningful legislative gains was already slight. Now, it appears even more remote.

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham went so far as to assert that the House Democrats’ investigation “destroyed any chances of legislative progress for the people of this country.”

By contrast, a tentative resolution in Trump’s China trade war wouldn’t need congressional approval, one reason for some renewed optimism.

The world’s two biggest economies are engaged in the biggest trade war since the 1930s. The Trump administration alleges that Beijing deploys predatory tactics — including stealing technology and forcing foreign companies to hand over trade secrets — in its drive to surpass America’s technological supremacy.

Trump has imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion in Chinese imports and is set to raise the taxes on most of them next month. He plans to tax an additional $160 billion in Chinese goods Dec. 15 — thereby extending his tariffs to just about everything China ships to the United States. Beijing has retaliated by taxing $120 billion in U.S. imports.

The U.S. business community is eager for an end to the exchange of tariffs, which has raised costs and created uncertainty about where to situate factories, hire suppliers and sell products.

Even before members of Congress began pursuing an impeachment investigation, Chinese leaders were speculating Trump might want a deal to bolster his political standing, said Willy Lam, a politics specialist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

“Even though the likelihood of impeachment going through is low, the Chinese will think they hold some kind of advantage over the U.S., and Trump might tend to be more conciliatory given his domestic troubles,” said Lam. “He needs a triumph overseas to burnish his position.”

President Xi Jinping also might want at least a temporary agreement to strengthen his own political position as China’s ruling Communist Party’s Central Committee heads into a key meeting in October.

“Xi Jinping is anxious to have something to show the Central Committee members on the Sino-U.S. front,” Lam said.

It isn’t clear what Beijing might be willing to offer as a compromise. Lam said one possibility might be improved protection of foreign patents and copyrights, although Beijing in the past has resisted U.S. demands to write such commitments into law.

This week, Trump himself suggested that some sort of trade pact with China “could happen sooner than you think,” repeating his oft-stated assertion that Chinese leaders “want to make a deal very badly.”

Congress is meantime considering whether to ratify one of the Trump administration’s signature achievements: a pact reached last year with Canada and Mexico to replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trump’s trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, has been trying to address congressional Democrats’ complaints. Those include criticism that the US-Mexico-Canada agreement wouldn’t sufficiently protect American workers who must compete with lower-wage Mexican laborers.

Lighthizer is among the few Trump administration officials who enjoy good relations with House Democrats, and the two sides have stressed that they are working in good faith to address their differences over the agreement, known as the USMCA.

“Lighthizer has worked long and hard to keep it out of the realm of conflict over the broader Trump agenda,” said Rufus Yerxa, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and a former U.S. trade official.

But the impeachment proceedings threaten to poison the atmosphere. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, urged Democrats not to “use impeachment proceedings as a basis to not act on policy that will directly benefit Americans like the USMCA.”

Daniel Ujczo, a trade lawyer at Dickinson Wright PLLC in Columbus, Ohio, suggested that heightened partisanship has probably torpedoed any hope of a grand bargain in which, say, the administration agrees to some gun-control measures in return for the Democrats approving the USMCA.

“I don’t think USMCA is dead for 2019,” he said. “But it’s definitely on life support.”

Still, Ujczo said, “I don’t see anybody giving up on ratification” — though it likely will spill over into 2020. Lawmakers face intense pressure from business and farm groups eager to have the pact take effect and end uncertainty over U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico, which last year amounted to $1.4 trillion.

Asked whether the impeachment inquiry will keep Congress from approving USMCA, the Mexican undersecretary for foreign trade, Luz Maria de la Mora, told reporters Wednesday: “No. We really think the USMCA is in its own track and other issues are domestic political issues …. We feel that there is good support for USMCA.”

Even during the Watergate investigation into President Richard Nixon, Yerxa recalled, Congress managed to make progress on what became a major piece of legislation, the Trade Act of 1974.

Yerxa also said he thought that impeachment proceedings could weaken Trump politically and embolden Congress to reassert control over trade policy. The Constitution gives Congress authority over trade. But lawmakers over the years have yielded their power to the White House, allowing the president, for example, to tax imports that the Commerce Department declares to be a threat to national security.

Trump has used the authority aggressively. He has imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum and threatened to tax auto imports, too. Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Penn., and Mark Warner, D-Va., have introduced legislation to restrain the president’s ability to tax imports on national security grounds.

“Things like that are going to gain steam,” Yerxa said. “People in Congress are going to be looking for ways of reestablishing congressional control.”

___

McDonald reported from Beijing. AP Writer Luis Alonso Lugo in Washington contributed to this report.

With Vote Over, Afghanistan Faces Possible Political Chaos

KABUL, Afghanistan — Presidential elections are over, and Afghanistan now faces a period of uncertainty and possible political chaos. Saturday’s vote was marred by violence, Taliban threats and widespread allegations of mismanagement and abuse. It was the fourth time Afghans have gone to the polls to elect a president since 2001 when the U.S.-led coalition ousted a regressive Taliban regime.

The latest election seems unlikely to bring the peace sought by Afghans, tired of an increasingly brutal war, or an easy exit for the United States, seeking to end its longest military engagement.

The preliminary vote count won’t be known before Oct. 17 and the final tally on Nov. 7. If there is no clear winner, a second round of voting will be held.

Related Articles











Ending the Afghan War Won’t End the Killing



by

















Afghanistan May Never Recover From the U.S. Invasion



by

Initial estimates and observations at polling stations suggest a light turnout among 9.6 million eligible voters.

Afghanistan’s National Security Adviser Hamdullah Mohib said that those who turned up at polling stations “risked their lives to show that they want to be in control of their own future.”

THEN AND NOW

For Afghans, Saturday’s vote mirrored the deeply flawed 2014 presidential polls.

Then, like now, the leading rivals for president were Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah; then, like now, allegations of widespread fraud and a deeply flawed and sloppy election process swirled over the voting; then, like now, violent attacks marred voting, even forcing the closure of some polls. This time roughly 468 polling centers were not opened because it wasn’t possible to secure them against Taliban attacks.

In 2014, the United States stepped in to cobble together a so-called unity government fearing the allegations of fraud could plunge the country into violence. President Ghani was induced to share power with Abdullah, who was made Chief Executive, a new post.

International observers say there will be no mediation this time around. Before Saturday’s polls the U.S. issued stiff warnings against fraud and even seemed to take direct aim at Ghani’s government refusing to pay more than $160 million in aid projects directly to the government saying it was too corrupt.

WHAT’S NEXT

The next step in the process is to bring the votes from across the country to the Independent Election Commission compound in the capital Kabul, where they will be counted again. The initial counting and recording was done at the site of the polling and then the ballots were transferred to district centers and finally to the capital.

In a country at war, Afghanistan’s security agencies say the exercise is a difficult and in some areas painfully slow process.

Abdullah said his biggest worry was ballot box stuffing. Controversial turnout figures could further tarnish the results.

WHAT’S AT STAKE

President Ghani steadfastly maintained the elections were necessary to give the next government legitimacy as Afghanistan’s representative to negotiate with the Taliban. During a year of talks between the United States and the insurgents, Ghani complained bitterly about being excluded from the talks. Taliban have refused to talk directly to Ghani’s government, while meeting with other prominent Afghans, saying Ghani is a U.S. puppet.

Just as a deal between the U.S. and Taliban seemed imminent, U.S. President Donald Trump on Sept. 7 — just weeks before presidential polls — declared the deal “dead” blaming Taliban violence.

A presidential election result that is hotly contested and overwhelmed with accusations of fraud could threaten any early attempt to restart the peace talks.

A contested vote result could also plunge Afghanistan into violence as supporters of the leading presidential contestants are heavily armed and have long-standing animosities that could erupt into violence.

More Violence Grips Hong Kong Ahead of China’s National Day

HONG KONG — Protesters and police clashed in Hong Kong for a second straight day on Sunday, throwing the semiautonomous Chinese territory’s business and shopping belt into chaos and sparking fears of more ugly scenes leading up to China’s National Day holiday this week.

Riot police repeatedly fired blue liquid — used to identify protesters — from a water cannon truck and multiple volleys of tear gas after demonstrators hurled Molotov cocktails at officers and targeted the city’s government office complex.

It was a repeat of Saturday’s clashes and part of a familiar cycle since pro-democracy protests began in early June. The protests were sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill and have since snowballed into an anti-China movement.

Related Articles











Understanding Hong Kong's Mass Movement



by Sonali Kolhatkar

















America Keeps Getting China All Wrong



by Robert Scheer

“We know that in the face of the world’s largest totalitarian regime — to quote Captain America, ‘Whatever it takes,'” Justin Leung, a 21-year-old demonstrator who covered his mouth with a black scarf, said of the violent methods deployed by hard-line protesters. “The consensus right now is that everyone’s methods are valid and we all do our part.”

Protesters are planning to march again Tuesday despite a police ban, raising fears of more violent confrontations that would embarrass Chinese President Xi Jinping as his ruling Communist Party marks 70 years since taking power. Posters are calling for Oct. 1 to be marked as “A Day of Grief.”

“So many youngsters feel that they’re going to have no future because of the power of China,” Andy Yeung, 40, said as he pushed his toddler in a stroller. “It’s hopeless for Hong Kong. If we don’t stand up, there will be no hope.”

Hong Kong’s government has already scaled down the city’s National Day celebrations, canceling an annual fireworks display and moving a reception indoors.

Despite security concerns, the government said Sunday that Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s leader, will lead a delegation of over 240 people to Beijing on Monday to participate in National Day festivities.

Sunday’s turmoil started in the early afternoon when police fired tear gas to disperse a large crowd that had amassed in the popular Causeway Bay shopping district. But thousands of people regrouped and defiantly marched along a main thoroughfare toward government offices, crippling traffic.

Protesters, many clad in black with umbrellas and carrying pro-democracy posters and foreign flags, sang songs and chanted “Stand with Hong Kong, fight for freedom.” Some defaced, tore down and burned National Day congratulatory signs, setting off a huge blaze on the street. Others smashed windows and lobbed gasoline bombs into subway exits that had been shuttered.

Police then fired a water cannon and tear gas as the crowd approached the government office complex. Most fled but hundreds returned, hurling objects into the complex.

Members of an elite police squad, commonly known as raptors, then charged out suddenly from behind barricades, taking many protesters by surprise. Several who failed to flee in time were subdued and detained in a scene of chaos.

The raptors, backed by scores of riot police, pursued protesters down roads to nearby areas. Officers continued to fire a water cannon and more tear gas, and the cat-and-mouse clashes lasted late into the night. Streets were left littered with graffiti on walls and debris.

The demonstration was part of global “anti-totalitarianism” rallies to denounce “Chinese tyranny.” Thousands rallied in Taipei, Taiwan’s capital, while more than 1,000 took part in a rally in Sydney.

The protracted unrest, approaching four months long, has battered Hong Kong’s economy, with businesses and tourism plunging.

Chief Executive Lam held her first community dialogue with the public on Thursday in a bid to defuse tensions but failed to persuade protesters, who vowed to press on until their demands are met, including direct elections for the city’s leaders and police accountability.

Earlier Sunday, hundreds of pro-Beijing Hong Kong residents sang the Chinese national anthem and waved red flags at the Victoria Peak hilltop and a waterfront cultural center in a show of support for Chinese rule.

“We want to take this time for the people to express our love for our country, China. We want to show the international community that there is another voice to Hong Kong” apart from the protests, said organizer Innes Tang.

Mobs of Beijing supporters have appeared in malls and on the streets in recent weeks to counter pro-democracy protesters, leading to brawls between the rival camps.

Many people view the extradition bill, which would have sent criminal suspects to mainland China for trial, as a glaring example of the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy when the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

China has denied chipping away at Hong Kong’s freedoms and accused the U.S. and other foreign powers of fomenting the unrest to weaken its dominance.

___

Associated Press journalists Ken Moritsugu in Beijing and Katie Lam and John Leicester in Hong Kong contributed to this report.

An Unlikely Weapon in the Fight Against Climate Change

Climate scientists say seabed carbon storage could be a new ally to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a volume greater than all the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere from the planet’s coal-burning power stations.

It is the biggest ally possible: the 70% of the globe covered by ocean.

In a detailed argument in the journal Science, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland, Eliza Northrop of the World Resources Institute in Washington DC and Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University outline five areas of action that could mitigate potentially calamitous climate change driven by profligate use of fossil fuels.

These include renewable energy, shipping and transport, protection of marine and coastal ecosystems, fisheries and aquaculture and – perhaps in future – carbon storage on the sea bed.

“Make no mistake: these actions are ambitious, but we argue they are necessary, could pay major dividends towards closing the emissions gap in coming decades, and achieve other co-benefits along the way”, they write.

“For far too long, the ocean has been mostly absent from policy discussions about reducing carbon emissions and meeting the challenges of climate change”

The argument was deliberately timed to coincide with a major new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the oceans and the cryosphere.

If the world’s nations pursue ocean policy ambitions in the right way, they could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 4 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030 and up to 11 billion by 2050.

And this could tot up to 21% of the reductions required in 2050 to limit warming to the declared 1.5°C target favoured at the Paris climate summit in 2015, and up to a fourth of all emissions for the formal 2°C target identified in the agreement.

“Reductions of this magnitude are larger than the annual emissions from all current coal-fired power plants worldwide,” they argue.

The first step is to set clear national targets for getting renewable energy from the restless seas, in terms of offshore wind, tidal and wave energy,  by 2030 and then by 2050.

Other benefits

Then the trio want nations to think about ways to reduce or eliminate carbon from the world’s shipping fleets. That means alternative fuels and a revolution in shore-based supply chains. Fuel efficiency in existing technologies could be improved, and hybrid power systems – including fuel cells and battery technologies – should be explored.

And, they point out, the sea itself is a carbon consumer. Mangrove swamps, seagrass meadows and salt marshes could be considered as “blue carbon ecosystems” in the way that terrestrial forests are considered “sinks” for atmospheric carbon.

These coastal and submarine “forests” make up only1.5% of the area of the land-based forests and woodlands, but their loss and degradation are equivalent to 8.4% of carbon emissions from terrestrial forests now being destroyed by human intrusion. So it would pay to restore and protect such marine habitats.

There would be other benefits: harvested seaweed could be turned into food, cattle feed, fertiliser, biofuels and bioplastics. Some seaweeds could help in even more dramatic ways.

Experiments with a red alga called Asparagopsis taxiformis, they say, “can reduce methane emissions from ruminants by up to 99% when constituting only 2% of the feed, and several other common species show potential methane reductions of 33 to 50%.”

‘Daunting’ change needed

The scientists urge a diet shift towards fish and seafood in pursuit of sustainable low-carbon protein; they also want to see the fishing industry worldwide pursue lower emissions while optimising the sustainable global catch.

“Such large-scale shifts in food policy and behaviour are daunting,” they concede. But there would be considerable climate benefits.

And, they admit, there are “considerable challenges” to the idea that carbon dioxide captured at source could be safely and cheaply stored on the seabed for many thousands of years. But they say “the theoretical potential” is very high.

“For far too long, the ocean has been mostly absent from policy discussions about reducing carbon emissions and meeting the challenges of climate change,” they conclude.

“Ocean-based actions provide increased hope that reaching the 1.5°C target might be possible, along with addressing other societal challenges, including economic development, food security and coastal community resilience.”

Bernie Sanders Is Tied With Joe Biden in Crucial State: New Poll

New CNN polls from two key early states released Sunday solidify the notion that the Democratic Party presidential primary has largely become a three-way race between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

The new polling figures show that Sanders and Biden are tied for first place in Nevada (both receiving 22%), while a third-place Warren trails slightly at 18% — just four points behind and within the margin of error. In Nevada, the state survey (pdf)—coupled with national demographic trends—suggests Sanders first-place finish has much to do with his strong support from Latinx voters and the working class.

In Nevada, notes CNN,  Sanders “does about twice as well among whites without a college degree in our sample than whites with a college degree. That matches what we see nationally.” With Warren surging in other recent state and national polls, CNN political analysis Henry Enten said “our Nevada poll is the best news for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by far” over the last couple of weeks.

In South Carolina, meanwhile, the poll (pdf) shows Biden with 37% — a more commanding lead over Warren’s spot in second place with 16% and Sanders’ 11% which landed him in third place. Both in Nevada and South Carolina, no other candidate escaped low single digits.

New CNN poll of likely Dem primary voters in SC:

Biden – 37%

Warren – 16%

Sanders – 11%

Buttigieg – 4%

Harris – 3%

Steyer – 3%

And NV caucus goers:

Biden – 22%

Sanders – 22%

Warren – 18%

Harris – 5%

Buttigieg – 4%

Steyer – 4%

Yang – 3%https://t.co/I4SnWj9O8o @jennagiesta

— Dan Merica (@merica) September 29, 2019

According to Enten’s review of the South Carolina data:

Perhaps the biggest question of the Democratic primary race is whether Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren can extend her appeal beyond her white well-educated base. Specifically, can she earn the support of black voters, who are the base of the Democratic Party?

Our South Carolina poll suggests the Massachusetts senator has a lot of work to do. She gets only 4% of the black likely primary voters. That looks quite similar to the 2% Warren was earning amongst this group in previous polls by Fox News and Monmouth University.

For comparison, Warren’s at 28% among white voters in our South Carolina poll.

While Biden received the support of 45% of black voters in the South Carolina poll, Sanders was at 13% compared to Warren’s 4%.

“Black voters, of course,” notes Enten, “make up a majority or near a majority of Democratic primary voters in southern primaries such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Warren’s going to run into some major problems in southern primaries if she can’t do better with this bloc of voters.”

As Vox‘s Dylan Scott detailed last week, there is much evidence now to support the idea that the primary has become a three-way race:

The three leading candidates have pulled away from the rest of the field. Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have enjoyed moments of strong polling, but they haven’t been able to sustain it. Others — Sen. Cory Booker, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Sen. Amy Klobuchar — are still languishing in the low single digits after months of campaigning. They are starting to confront the real possibility of getting cut from future debates, as the Democratic National Committee raises its standards.

Biden still enjoys a decent polling lead in national polls, according to the Real Clear Politics average, but Warren has been steadily rising behind him, and Sanders still carries a lot of support.

With announcement this week of an official impeachment inquiring into President Donald Trump by House Democrats, the stakes of the 2020 elections continue to rise. One thing national polls have repeatedly shown is that Biden, Sanders, and Warren all beat Trump in hypothetical general election matchups.

American History for Truthdiggers: A Once, Always and Future Empire

Editor’s note: The past is prologue. The stories we tell about ourselves and our forebears inform the sort of country we think we are and help determine public policy. As our current president promises to “make America great again,” this moment is an appropriate time to reconsider our past, look back at various eras of United States history and re-evaluate America’s origins. When, exactly, were we “great”?

Below is the 38th and last installment of the “American History for Truthdiggers” series, a pull-no-punches appraisal of our shared, if flawed, past. The author of the series, Danny Sjursen, who retired recently as a major in the U.S. Army, served military tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and taught the nation’s checkered, often inspiring past when he was an assistant professor of history at West Point. 

Part 38, the final installment of “American History for Truthdiggers.”

See: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11; Part 12; Part 13; Part 14; Part 15; Part 16; Part 17; Part 18; Part 19; Part 20; Part 21; Part 22; Part 23; Part 24; Part 25; Part 26; Part 27; Part 28; Part 29; Part 30; Part 31; Part 32; Part 33; Part 34; Part 35; Part 36; Part 37.

* * *

There is a widespread belief that American history is best viewed in a linear context. The United States, the narrative goes, began as a flawed experiment in democracy—replete with slavery and bigotry at the start—but has gradually and consistently improved into a more perfect union, a millenarian nation on its way toward serving as an example for the world, a “city on a hill.” Minorities, according to this notion, may have once been oppressed but have gained equal rights and equal protection under the law; America might have conquered Indian and Mexican land but has long since set aside its imperial ways. As such, both at home and abroad, the U.S., though still imperfect, is a force for good in the world.

It’s a comforting narrative, but inconsistent with reality, with the facts and arc of our history. Progress, such as it is, has been wildly inconsistent and halting since the Anglo colonization of the eastern coast of North America. Take the plight of African-Americans. Theirs has been a history of false starts, dreams deferred and hopes enlivened only to be dashed. Consider, for example, that more blacks were U.S. House members and senators in 1877 than in 1967. In the wake of the Civil War, the reforms of Reconstruction launched African-Americans into positions of power they would not regain for nearly a century. During this time, Northern whites abandoned them to the whims of Southern bigots, and the result was Jim Crow—systemic segregation, a parallel apartheid system in the American South. A further example is that blacks finally saw their voting rights protected by the 1965 Voting Rights Act—which required the federal government to carefully review electoral procedures in the former Confederate states—only to find many of those protections stripped away by a reactionary Supreme Court early in the 21st century. Clearly, there’s very little that is progressive or linear in the journey of black Americans.

Taking such a broad view of American history further, one can cogently argue that the U.S. couldn’t even be considered a true democracy until 1965, when many blacks finally received the right to vote more than 240 years after slaves first arrived on these shores and almost two centuries after the Declaration of Independence was written. Still, few citizens think in or frame their country in those terms. Furthermore, America still runs a parallel system of governance for its remaining colonies, which Washington euphemistically labels territories. In the conquered islands of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and many others, the residents have no representation in Congress or say in the election of the presidents, who hold the power to send them off to fight and die in foreign wars. These people, in fact, represent the victims and refuse of America’s second empire.

That, indeed, is the key point. The U.S. was imperial from the first, the very moment when a band of English aristocrats in search of precious gold landed at Jamestown in what is today Virginia. Since that day in 1607, America has never ceased to be a settler-colonial empire in the vein of czarist Russia, British South Africa and modern Israel. Its manner of empire may well have changed, but its reality never meaningfully altered as the U.S. proceeded through three distinct phases of imperialism. First, from 1607 to 1897, British colonists, and then self-styled Americans, displaced and destroyed countless native peoples, eventually spreading a (perceived) superior way of life from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, another take, indeed, on the phrase “from sea to shining sea.” America’s relationship with conquered native peoples proceeded through phases of displacement, genocide, containment and finally confinement on often barren reservations. This legacy system remains today in what must be considered a series of internal colonies similar to South African “bantustans” and to Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In addition to overrunning outmatched natives, the U.S. also drummed up a war on false pretenses and proceeded to conquer the northern third of Mexico (1846-1848), even occupying its capital and forcing a regime change of its government.

In phase two (1898-1945), with the frontier “closed,” Native Americans safely confined and a truncated Mexico firmly in its place south of the Rio Grande River, expansionist Americans sought colonies across the seas. After starting another war under false pretenses in 1898, this time with imperial Spain, the U.S. snatched the massive Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico and a slew of Pacific islands. Finding the strange inhabitants of these lands too brown and too “barbaric” to integrate into coequal states, the U.S. ruled them first as direct colonies and then as unequal territories and commonwealths. It is instructive, indeed, that occupying American troops took to calling the indigenous peoples of these islands “niggers,” borrowing this slur from the nation’s original sin of slavery, racism and internal colonization and apartheid. That transition was seamless and continued well into the next, third, phase of American empire, in which Arabs and Muslims were quickly labeled “sand niggers” by many Americans sent to fight wars in the Greater Mideast.

After emerging from the Second World War relatively unscathed—at least in comparison with war-ravaged Europe and Asia—the U.S. sought global hegemony in phase three (1946 to the present) of its imperial journey. Rather than retreat behind its ocean boundaries, America remained militarily deployed abroad while politicians crafted a veritable national security militarist state at home. Although technology, particularly in transportation, obviated the need for physical control and direct governance of old-style colonies, the U.S.—far from eschewing empire—spread its imperial tentacles over the world. In the name, alternately, of fighting communism, spreading democracy and protecting human rights globally, the U.S. military constructed, occupied and operated from an “empire of bases.” Two decades after the 9/11 terror attacks had justified ever more blatant expansion, the U.S. military counted 800 bases in 80 countries, on every inhabited continent. The U.S. warfare state had unashamedly divided every square inch of the globe into discrete military commands overseen by generals and admirals who often serve in the manner of Roman proconsuls. At the time of writing, America, rather than offering a peaceful example to the world, is at war in at least seven countries. Post-World War II justifications and enemies may have changed from “Red” communists to brown terrorists, but the outcomes have remained remarkably consistent.

In all phases of American imperialism the empire has, inevitably, come home, often poisoning any hope for meaningful democracy, meritocracy or equality within U.S. borders. The racism and white supremacy necessary to wage wars of conquest, plunder and extermination against Indians and Mexicans not only stemmed from but added to existing currents within the expanding nation’s borders. Anti-immigrant nativism and xenophobia catapulted back to the homeland from American occupation and colonial suppression across the seas. Systems of mass surveillance perfected in the Philippines set the stage for a similar program meant to squelch dissent during the world wars and morphed into today’s tech-savvy digital “bugging” of American life. In another example, imperial counterinsurgency abroad informed the internal repressive tactics of the later “war on drugs,” waged mostly within America’s internal colonies of impoverished black and brown neighborhoods and native reservations.

During phase three of the American empire, the results of this imperial “coming home” have been immense. Permanent “terrorist” detention at Guantanamo, torture, prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, illegal rendition and National Security Agency wiretapping, unthinkable to many Americans before 9/11, are modern outgrowths of a consistent American imperial structure and history. Perhaps the most disturbing outgrowth of late-stage U.S. empire is the phenomenon of militarized “warrior cops,” equipped with surplus Army equipment and clothed in camouflage fatigues, policing poor communities of color like occupied territory. These law enforcement personnel, which include a disproportionate number of military veterans, have transported counterinsurgency and conventional warfare tactics into the internal colonies of America—forgotten spaces full of forgotten, and forsaken, people.

The vast, vast majority of this imperial history unfolded long before Donald Trump arrived on the national scene. It is a legacy of empire bequeathed to generations of Americans by their forefathers across the centuries. Men (and the top leaders have always been men) from each and every major American political party have built, expanded and maintained this dual structure of internal and external imperialism. Empire is perhaps the only truly bipartisan national endeavor. Furthermore, class, that most unspoken of American maladies, has often been at the root of American systems of oppression. The division of the working class along ethnic and religious lines, and then the suppression of the remaining class-conscious activists, helped make the imperial machine palatable in the first place. That an outspoken, buffoonish, billionaire businessman came to rule, to serve as de facto emperor, of the American imperial complex on the back of his claims to represent working-class people and “Make America Great Again” is indicative of the power of class cooption and racial subjugation. Supporters of Donald Trump, “deplorable” though they might be in the eyes of their opponents, when viewed in context are inherently American.

Trump in Context: Reflections of America’s Dark Side

President Trump is no aberration. No doubt the election of a shady real estate magnate, tabloid playboy and reality-TV-star-turned-xenophobic-populist was a profound matter. That said, much of the Trump effect is a modern-day reflection of America’s historical trends and baggage. In fact, with just a touch of difference, the coalition that elected Trump is a standard alliance of four distinct interest groups (and peoples) that put Republicans in office for decades and maintained American imperialism and internal oppression long before that political party had even been founded. These are anti-taxation (usually hyper-wealthy) libertarians, foreign-policy hawks with imperial proclivities, intolerant brands of evangelical Christians, and racist xenophobes. The genius of Trump, then, was not unlike that of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon before him. All managed to appeal to these wide and seemingly dissimilar and contradictory groups and pull them under a big tent, despite subsequently governing mainly in the interests of wealthy elites. The main glue, of course, was in racial appeals to white identity that held together, first, the Southern Democrats (1830s-1950s) and then a transformed Southern-dominated Republican Party (from the 1960s to the present).

In the area of domestic policy, Trump’s defense of white supremacist violence, harsh oppression of immigrants and refugees, reflexive support for militarized cops and refusal to act to tamp down a national epidemic of gun violence seemed to many progressive-minded Americans to be uniquely heinous. In reality, Trump and his supporters have simply rebranded older forms of racism, nativism and homegrown militarism that had long been crucial links in American society. Furthermore, as in earlier administrations, lines between what constitutes domestic and foreign policy are blurred under Trump. As such, barbed wire along the southern border with Mexico has a direct link with the walling and wiring off of adjacent neighborhoods by the U.S. military in Baghdad.

Trump’s massive tax cuts, statistically highly skewed to benefit the very rich, were far more consistent than anomalous. The massive income inequality that results from this tax revision and regular cuts to social welfare programs may be reaching record levels but is a standard aspect of American economics and not unlike the prevailing situation during the Gilded Age (1877-1914). The president’s call for a “Muslim ban,” which finally morphed into a “travel ban” against a select group of Muslim-majority countries, also has plenty of historical precedent. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1924 Immigration Act (which limited migration from Slavic, Jewish and Asian communities) and massive internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II are only a few of the antecedents of Trumpian policy and procedure.

In the realm of foreign policy, Trump has, it must be said, spoken and tweeted in ways that are out of step with the traditionally expansionist foreign-policy-hawk wing of his coalition’s quartet. His calls for the end of “dumb” wars and missions in the Middle East no doubt appealed to many in a war-weary public and demonstrated an earthy (if uniformed) commonsense. Still, his lack of follow-through on this front—whether due to his own dishonesty or the influence by the wildly hawkish advisers surrounding him—demonstrates the prevailing power of the national security structure, or what his supporters term the “deep state.” In practice, Trump has only increased the scale of U.S. bombing and worldwide military deployments, and even brought America to the brink of war with states as separated and diverse as Iran and Venezuela.

Nevertheless, one should not let self-styled liberals or Democratic partisans off the hook. Their manufacturing of and obsession with “Russiagate”—the so-far-unsubstantiated claim that the Trump campaign colluded with Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence to win the 2016 U.S. presidential election—has heightened a new Cold War and, given the long, sordid history of American meddling in foreign elections, illustrated the obtuseness of the “liberal” class. Trump then expanded Cold War 2.0 to include a growing China by waging foolhardy economic warfare against Beijing. Finally, Trump’s right-wing authoritarian ambitions have not only spread to a number of foreign countries but built upon the precedents set by former American Presidents Nixon, Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley and even Andrew Jackson. Taken as whole and in proper context, then, Trump is an all-American president, and his promise to “Make America Great Again” is little more than a recasting of regular calls to return to the whiter, more oppressive, less equal United States of the past.

The American Future: Republic or Empire, Democracy or Oligarchy

In the light of the correct, if discomfiting, facts, one must conclude that America carries the baggage of four dark historical themes. These are genocide, racism, hypercapitalism, and empire. Today’s Thanksgiving myths to the contrary, English colonists and later self-branded Americans never seriously considered coequal coexistence with indigenous peoples. Through the spread of diseases (sometimes purposefully), wars of conquest, policies of confinement and cultural attacks on native ways of life, the U.S. devastated American Indians. By 1890, these First Peoples were nearly extinct.

Racism, which began in the form of “original sin” color and caste-based chattel slavery, not only poisoned but pervaded the American experiment. For more than half of its history, Anglo-American society built itself largely on the literal and figurative backs of black slaves. When the obscenely bloody American Civil War brought de jure slavery to an end, de facto slavery (both economic and social) continued for a century in the guise of a structural system of apartheid segregation. Even today, black poverty and a massive black-white wealth gap, as well as police suppression and institutional racism, continue to maintain a permanent African-American underclass. Furthermore, regular appeals to “law and order” throughout American history ensured that black and brown people have filled the nation’s prisons, culminating in today’s structure of mass incarceration in which more blacks are in some phase of the modern correction system than were slaves in 1861.

Capitalism, which reached its most extreme form on America’s shores, also characterized the development and progress of the United States. Generations of historians, pondering the socialism and social democratic and labor parties that developed in the Old World of Europe and across the global south, have been befuddled by the question of why there has been no widespread socialism in America. Though there are no easy answers, some have noted that a peculiar American strain of hyper-individualism, purposeful racial and ethnic divisions of the working class and pervasive attacks on labor unions combined to halt the influence of even mild forms of collectivism and social welfare in this country. Gilded Age wealth inequality mirrored colonial-era aristocracy and set the stage for today’s record degree of income disparity. American taxation has always—with one brief exception, from the 1930s to the 1960s—been exceptionally low and regressive, slanted from the first to benefit the super rich.

Empire, by now, should speak for itself. Throughout its history the United States has maintained a dual-track system of imperialism. Black urban ghettos and Southern sharecropping communities, to say nothing of Indian reservations, served and serve as monuments to internal empire. Conquered native and Mexican lands in North America and captured Spanish Pacific and Caribbean colonies personified external empire for centuries. Since the Second World War, expeditionary U.S. military basing and historically unprecedented interventionism characterized modern foreign empire. This legacy of empire has always “come home to roost,” in varying forms of nativist xenophobia, militarized policing and the squelching of internal dissent and civil liberties. Empire, for America, has always been a way of life.

In spite of it all, hope—however weakened—for a truly democratic, inclusive and peaceful America remains. The immense power of the military-industrial complex and corporate oligarchs and their misguided xenophobic and racist foot soldiers has, no doubt, only made that American dream seem more distant than ever. Nonetheless, history has consistently demonstrated the potential power of motivated people to shut down the system and force positive change. That change, that progress, however, is more unlikely than ever to come from the three foundational institutions formed by the U.S. Constitution.

The executive branch has seized so much power—especially in foreign affairs—that presidents (sometimes not even elected by a plurality of the voters) operate more like dictators than servants of the people. The legislative branch, the Congress, is stalemated by tribally partisan division, is veritably owned by well-funded lobbyists and long ago ceded its constitutionally mandated duty to declare war and oversee foreign affairs. As such, the people’s purported representatives cannot be counted on to roll back empire either at home or abroad. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, have become highly politicized and increasingly dominated by archaic, reactionary, conservative “originalists” who interpret the Constitution as though it and they were in an 18th-century time capsule. After a brief spell of progressive, activist decisions (1954-1971), the courts have rolled back minority protections and affirmative action and even—in the infamous Citizens United decision—handed over political power to the wealthiest slice of Americans. Furthermore, these unelected judges have refused to weigh in on the legality of U.S. imperial policy and presidential war-making abroad.

Change, reform, revolution even, must explode from the grass roots, from organized people power. The precious, highly lauded institutions of American representative democracy have failed the people yet again. Only new collectivist bodies, egalitarian citizen groups, can wield the power to demand a new path for the nation. The odds are stacked against them, no doubt. Those who control the current system count on citizen apathy, reinforce it even, and know they cannot continue indefinitely to hold the reins without it. The owners of this country—the corporations and their proxy politicians—fear a cross-class, multicultural movement by poor and working people more than anything. Power rightfully belongs to the people, was promised to them by America’s very founding document. After all, the preamble to the Constitution stipulates that the government exists to serve not the states, the rich, the corporations or the military, but the American people. They can seize control of their collective destiny if they have the courage and the will to take it.

* * *

To learn more about this topic, consider the following scholarly works:

• Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer, “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974” (2019).

• Jill Lepore, “These Truths: A History of the United States” (2018).

Danny Sjursen, a regular contributor to Truthdig, is a retired U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, “Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.” He lives in Lawrence, Kan. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet and check out his podcast, “Fortress on a Hill,” co-hosted with fellow vet Chris “Henri” Henrikson.

Impeachment Firestorm Scorches William Barr

WASHINGTON—As Washington plunges into impeachment, Attorney General William Barr finds himself engulfed in the political firestorm, facing questions about his role in President Donald Trump’s outreach to Ukraine and the administration’s attempts to keep a whistleblower complaint from Congress.

Trump repeatedly told Ukraine’s president in a telephone call that Barr and Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani could help investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden, according to a rough transcript of that summertime conversation. Justice Department officials insist Barr was unaware of Trump’s comments at the time of the July 25 call.

Related Articles











The Problem With Impeachment



by Chris Hedges

















The Ominous Implications of William Barr’s Testimony



by Bill Blum

















The Case for Impeachment Goes Way Beyond Ukraine



by

When Barr did learn of that call a few weeks later, he was “surprised and angry” to discover he had been lumped in with Giuliani, a person familiar with Barr’s thinking told The Associated Press. This person was not authorized to speak about the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, often appears in rambling television interviews as a vocal defender of the president. Giuliani represents Trump’s personal interests and holds no position in the U.S. government, raising questions about why he would be conducting outreach to Ukrainian officials.

Barr is the nation’s top law enforcement officer and leads a Cabinet department that traditionally has a modicum of independence from the White House.

Yet to Trump, there often appears to be little difference between the two lawyers.

“I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it,” Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, according to the memo of the call that was released by the White House this past week.

Since becoming attorney general in February, Barr has been one of Trump’s staunchest defenders. He framed special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in favorable terms for the president in a news conference this year, even though Mueller said he did not exonerate Trump.

Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said Trump is treating the country’s attorney general as if he’s just another personal lawyer.

“I think it represents a larger problem with President Trump,” she said. “To him, it appears Giuliani and Barr both have the same job.”

Trump has frequently lauded Barr and his efforts to embrace the president’s political agenda. That’s in stark contrast to Trump’s relationship with his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, whom the president repeatedly harangued in public.

Trump’s frustration with Sessions made clear how the president views the Justice Department — as a law enforcement agency that exists to carry out his wishes and protect him. Despite a close relationship during the 2016 campaign, Trump never forgave Sessions for withdrawing from the government’s investigation into 2016 election interference, a move that ultimately cleared the way for Mueller’s investigation.

Barr has come under the scrutiny of congressional Democrats who have accused him of acting on Trump’s personal behalf more than for the justice system. Democrats have also called on Barr to step aside from decisions on the Ukraine matter. Those close to Barr, however, have argued there would be no reason to do so because he was unaware of the Trump-Zelenskiy conversation.

The department insists Barr wasn’t made aware of the call with Zelenskiy until at least mid-August.

Barr has not spoken with Trump about investigating Biden or Biden’s son Hunter, and Trump has not asked Barr to contact Ukranian officials about the matter, the department said. Barr has also not spoken with Giuliani about anything related to Ukraine, officials have said.

Trump has sought, without evidence, to implicate the Bidens in the kind of corruption that has long plagued Ukraine. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at the same time then-Vice President Joe Biden was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Ukraine. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. There is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation in Ukraine.

The Justice Department was first made aware of Trump’s call when a CIA lawyer mentioned the complaint from the unidentified CIA officer on Aug. 14. Other Justice Department lawyers were later also made aware of the accusations after the whistleblower filed a complaint with the intelligence community’s internal watchdog.

The watchdog later raised concerns that Trump may have violated campaign finance law. The Justice Department said there was no crime and closed the matter.