USA

Tuesday July 17, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday July 17, 2017

Trump administration poised to reveal goals for NAFTA talks

United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is expected to release today his negotiating objectives ahead of talks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement next month.

April 20, 2017

The goals for the renegotiation, as well as the Trump administration’s rationale for how these objectives will lead to an agreement beneficial to the U.S., must be published on the USTR website, as required by Congress in accordance with the trade promotion authority granted to the White House for renegotiating a standing agreement like this.

Formal talks to revise NAFTA are expected to start next month. Such objectives must be published 30 days in advance.

The Canadian government is not required to publish its negotiating objectives ahead of the formal talks, expected to start on or shortly after Aug. 17. The location for these talks has not been finalized yet.

While Canada has been consulting formally and informally — an official consultation period expires Tuesday — politicians, officials and negotiators have been talking to affected industries for weeks to prepare Canada’s bargaining positions.

June 2, 2017

They’re expected to continue to do so throughout the process, although Parliament does not require the kind of transparency Congress does.

“The other NAFTA parties — Canada and Mexico … their position has been: the U.S. wanted to re-open this and modernize it. We’re just coming along,” International trade lawyer Dan Ujczo told CBC News last week. “So I think in some ways the U.S. is going to set the agenda.”

“If it comes out really short and sweet with a very narrow set of lists, that’s indicating that they want to get this done as quick as possible,” he said. But if it isn’t a deep dive, Ujczo expects Congress to demand more specifics. (Source: CBC News) 

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Friday June 9, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 9, 2017

James Comey says it’s ‘not up to him’ to decide if Trump’s ‘disturbing behaviour’ was obstruction of justice

Former FBI Director James Comey said it was not up to him to determine whether Donald Trump behaviour was obstruction of justice.

May 11, 2017

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Mr Comey said during his testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but added that Mr Trump’s behaviour was “concerning…and disturbing”.

Mr Comey, fired on 9 May, detailed in a written statement ahead of his ongoing testimony that Mr Trump said to him during a one-on-one White House dinner: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

The former FBI Director said his “common sense” said that it made him feel as if Mr Trump was “looking for something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job” of FBI Director.

December 17, 2016

Mr Comey, a prosecutor himself, said that the determination of obstruction of justice should be left up to the Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who was appointed as an independent counsel in the investigation into the alleged ties between Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russia and the country’s possible interference with the 2016 US election.

The former Director’s comment today, however, may mean that Mr Trump’s possible obstruction of justice or possible collusion with Russian officials is also under the purview of Mr Mueller’s investigation.

Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offence but is a tricky legal issue because it has to do with Mr Trump’s actions rather than his intent or how Mr Trump’s actions made Mr Comey feel.  As a lawyer, Mr Comey is aware of this and likely why he is leaving that determination up to Mr Mueller. (Source: The Independent)

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Friday June 2, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 2, 2017

Trump announces U.S. will withdraw from Paris climate accord

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change.

April 11, 2017

At a news conference in the White House Rose Garden on Thursday afternoon, Trump said the accord is “very unfair to the United States.”

“In order to fulfil my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.”

Trump said his country would either renegotiate its re-entry into the Paris agreement under different terms, or participate in the creation of a whole new climate deal.

March 8, 2017

White House officials had signalled withdrawal was likely to reporters, but Trump has been known to change his mind at the last minute on major decisions, as happened recently with the NAFTA trade deal.

Abandoning the accord was one of Trump’s principal campaign pledges, but America’s allies have expressed alarm about the likely consequences.

April 20, 2017

The Paris agreement was struck in 2015 and months later, the U.S. and China jointly said they would sign off on the deal. The agreement went into effect for the U.S. in November 2016.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has criticized Trump’s resistance to the deal, saying the U.S. president doesn’t understand the fine print of the agreement and that the process of formally withdrawing could take two to three years. (Source: CBC News)

 

Thursday May 18, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 18, 2017

Here’s how Trump could survive — even if we learn the worst

May 11, 2017

Washington is abuzz with what we might call “tipping-point talk” — the idea that this time, really and truly, Republicans are on the verge of breaking with President Trump. The latest revelation stoking that chatter is the New York Times’s report that a memo by former FBI director James B. Comey indicated that Trump privately asked him to quash the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s Russia ties.

Yes, some Republicans are speaking out more forcefully. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) now says that the scandals enveloping Trump are reaching “Watergate size and scale.” Other top Republicans are now calling for an independent commission or special prosecutor. And many analysts are discussing ways in which the latest Trump revelations — combined with Trump’s alleged demand for Comey’s loyalty — amount to obstruction of justice, a potentially impeachable offense.

April 25, 2017

But even if we do establish clear evidence that Trump obstructed justice, it is easy to discern, based on what we are already seeing, a way that Republicans ensure that Trump survives this.

The wiggle room in proving obstruction of justice could end up meaning that, even if we come a lot closer to establishing that Trump did interfere in the manner reports have indicated, we could still genuinely fall short of proving his clear intent. More cynically, even if that standard is reasonably cleared, Republicans could take refuge in this murkiness and then buttress this position by arguing that we should not re-litigate the election simply due to Democratic sour grapes.

February 3, 2017

Remember, Trump has been assaulting our democracy on multiple fronts since the beginning, and Republicans have mostly looked the other way. There is an unfortunate tendency to cover these various stories as separate from one another, but Trump has abused his power in multiple ways that, ultimately, all trace back to the same autocratic impulse. In addition to the Russia affair, there’s also the unprecedented, middle-finger-brandishing lack of transparency around his tax returns, even as he backs tax reform that would deliver his family a massive windfall ; the laughably substandard ethics arrangement for his businesses and the perpetuation of likely emoluments clause violations; and the continued use of diplomatic business to promote Mar-a-Lago and steer cash into his pockets.

All of these — taken along with the alleged interference in ongoing probes — add up to a level of autocratic, above-the-law contempt for our democracy that is larger than the sum of its parts. And Republicans have effectively shrugged off most of it for as long as possible. So it’s plausible that even if obstruction of justice were reasonably well established, they’d find a way to evade taking it to its logical conclusion. (Source: Washington Post)

 

Thursday May 11, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 11, 2017

Firing Comey won’t save Trump from the flames of the Russia scandal

“This is Nixonian” was the reaction of Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, to the news that President Trump had fired FBI director James Comey.

Casey, echoed by fellow Democrats, was referring to the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor and attorney general who were leading the Watergate investigation. The massacre did not derail the probe. It only fueled calls for Nixon’s impeachment.

We know that President Trump has a stunning ignorance of history. He recently flubbed the basics of the causes of the civil war and seemed to think the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglass was still alive and had “done an amazing job”. It’s certainly possible that President Trump doesn’t know the lessons of Watergate.

The most famous lesson is that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

We don’t yet know the full story of Russia’s meddling in the election, but the abrupt firing of the FBI director, who was leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, certainly reeks of a cover-up.

The firings did not save Richard Nixon from impeachment in the Watergate scandal and getting rid of Comey won’t save Donald Trump from the flames of the Russia scandal.

Comey’s abrupt removal as FBI director only brought calls for an independent prosecutor to a fever pitch. Senate minority leader Charles Schumer said unless such a prosecutor is appointed, “everyone will suspect cover-up.” (Continued: The Guardian)