DOCSLIB.ORG

Josh Rogin on How Covid Has Forever Changed the US-China Relationship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Josh Rogin on How Covid Has Forever Changed the US-China Relationship WTH is going on in Beijing? Josh Rogin on how Covid has forever changed the US-China relationship Episode #93 | March 11, 2021 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Josh Rogin Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on this week? Marc Thiessen: Well, we are talking about China and we are talking about China's responsibility for the pandemic. And we're talking with Josh Rogin, a colleague of mine at the Washington Post, and a friend of both of ours who's got a great new book called Chaos Under Heaven, talking about Trump, Xi Jinping, and the Chinese challenge that we face. It's a terrific book, and it exposes a lot of issues that we really need to worry about when it comes to the future of the US-China relationship, which is literally the most important relationship for the future of world peace, future of public health, future of freedom on the world. What do you think, Dany? Danielle Pletka: Well, first of all, I don't want to spoil Josh's show. He's going to talk about some of the scoops he has in the book, which are absolutely fascinating, about Trump administration policy, about Biden, about what the Chinese were thinking, about the lies, all of that good stuff is up ahead. I think that part of the problem that we have right now, and it's not just about China, is that as the threat from Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party crystallizes, we have proven ourselves incapable of looking at this with anything other than political goggles. Marc Thiessen: Speak for yourself. Danielle Pletka: Well, okay. All right, I will. Unlike beer goggles, which are so awesome, political goggles just mean that Trump says bad, must be good. Biden says good, must be good. We are having a simplistic discussion while Rome proverbially burns over there. And the Chinese threat, not just to our health, but to the health of its own people, to international institutions, to our geo-strategic dominance, to the global commons through which trillions of dollars of trade go, all of this is getting worse with every passing day, and we're all busy just having some sort of sorority girl fight. Marc Thiessen: So, here's my frustration with that, which I agree with you. 2 Danielle Pletka: Wait, wait, wait, wait. What, what? You what? What'd you say? Marc Thiessen: Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, Dany. I agree with you. And here's the frustration, which is that this virus for the first time provided clarity to the American people on the threat posed by Communist China and the lack of freedom in China and the way the Chinese people treat their own people and the way they treat their neighbors, because it came to hurt us here at home. It meant that hundreds of thousands of Americans died. Half a million Americans died, millions of people died around the world, and millions more were infected because the Chinese government is a lying, corrupt, authoritarian/totalitarian regime. If this virus had broken out in Taiwan, it would not have spread around the world the way it did because the Taiwanese government, which is accountable and democratic, would have immediately swung into action and been transparent about what it knew and shared that information with the world. And we would have all rallied together to try and contain this virus before it spread like a wildfire. Marc Thiessen: And instead, the Chinese government lied. They denied that it was being transmitted through human transmission. They punished doctors who shared information about the virus with the world. They wouldn't let us have CDC researchers come to China to investigate. It was just pure obstruction and lying because they were afraid that they were going to get blamed for it. And instead, they let the small fire that started in Wuhan spread until it was uncontrollable. Marc Thiessen: The lesson of that is that the lack of freedom in China is the reason why for the last year, we've been locked in our homes, where people have lost their jobs, where people have lost family members to illness, it's a direct result of the lack of freedom in China. And for a moment we had this moment of clarity, and then politics took it over. Danielle Pletka: I think there's another aspect of this that we should talk about that gets no scrutiny. And one of our colleagues at AEI has done great work on some of the weird anomalies that we haven't talked about. For example, everybody says, "Oh, no. China has really beaten the virus." But they are still having lockdowns, they are still canceling holiday festivals, they are still canceling flights. So, in fact, there's something going on there. Marc Thiessen: It's almost like it's California. Danielle Pletka: Do not get me started. Marc Thiessen: Xi Jing-Newsom. Danielle Pletka: That's going to be a thing, people. Look for it in a column soon. So, on March 8th, Derek Scissors had a post on AEI's blog, and one of the things he talks about is that China supposedly had their Sinovac vaccine ready before us. They've got endless numbers of hands available to dispense it. And yet, they have inoculated fewer people than we have. That's number one. What's going on? What don't we know about this vaccine that they don't want to share? Then on top of that, why are they so focused on exporting the vaccine and not using it at home? Also, he goes through the data on this and says that they're going to hit 25 million AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 3 doses administered a week. That's the Chinese Communist Party's goal, but they've only administered 50 million doses so far. Again, what's going on? What don't we understand? I think there are a lot of those kinds of questions that aren't getting answered. Marc Thiessen: I'm going to throw it out there, Dany, and this is going to be a controversial statement, but the Chinese might be lying. Danielle Pletka: Yeah, but the question is this, okay? Everybody wants to compartmentalize, "Oh, well, yeah, of course. Maybe they lied to the World Health Organization. Maybe they're lying about the lab. Maybe they lied about the wet market. Maybe they lied about this." But actually, I think they're lying about everything. Marc Thiessen: Because that's what communists do, Dany. I mean, true. It is. And would you take the Sinovac vaccine? Danielle Pletka: No. I've been offered it. Marc Thiessen: Would you put that in your arm? Danielle Pletka: No, I would not. Marc Thiessen: From the people who brought you the virus, here comes the vaccine. Danielle Pletka: Well, also they will not share their efficacy data with anybody. They have not shared it. And if you want the link, we'll throw it in the transcript, go and read the piece because Derek hyperlinks every single one of his claims. He's a pretty serious economist, so he doesn't like all that airy fairy, national security stuff that we talk about, and start to think very seriously about this. If someone lies about one thing, they're probably lying about more than just one thing. Marc Thiessen: And it's probably true. They're probably lying about what they're doing with the Uighurs and freedom in Hong Kong and everything else. Danielle Pletka: So, we need a policy. Marc Thiessen: Exactly. So, what it comes down to is that this is all part of a whole. You're right. You hit the nail on the head when you talked about compartmentalizing. We can't compartmentalize it. The same regime that lies about its it's persecution of the Uighurs, the same regime that is suppressing freedom in Hong Kong, all those instincts are why this virus spread to the United States and why they weren't able to control it, because they lie, and they repress, and they use the power of government to protect a small cadre of elites and they don't give a damn about their own people. And they certainly give a damn about our people. Marc Thiessen: And so, if it's all part of a larger whole, then we need a larger whole of a policy to confront this. And as I alluded to at the beginning, we stopped criticizing China in the second half of last year, because it was seen as deflection from Trump. Trump was responsible for the virus. Trump was responsible for the pandemic AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 4 here. And so, if you blame China, you're just deflecting from Trump. You don't want to put the blame where it lies. But we all know, the election's over now. We can put the political talking points down. Of course, China's responsible. And now that Trump has gone and he's off the stage and we've got a new administration, let's put the blame where it belongs. Let's come up with a policy to confront the Chinese regime on all these fronts, because it's going to happen again.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'I-Bates (18577-18976)'
    CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WASHINGTON, D.C. 2D31IMl999 ACTION MEMO Clt-1232-03 30 September 2003 FOR: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE .L DepSec Action --~ FROM: General Richard 8. Myers, CJCs~C/(f'( SUBJECT: Service Deployment Force Ratios 1 In response to your inquiry . the following information is provided. 1 As you know. Services' Force Rotation Goals were discussed at length during ELABORATE CROSSBOW m, culminating in a brief to you on 15 September. As a result, a common method of force deployment ratio measurement has been agreed upon: number of months deployed versus number of months non­ deployed. • As \Ve have discussed, force ratios will continue to differ by Services for a variety of reasons, and each Service builds its force deployment ratio goals based on the competing demands of long-standing global contingency commitments, sustaining readiness and managing force tempo. , Current Service Ratio -Goals (by Service) are: • Navy I :3: 6 months deployed for every 18 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is each fleet unit. • Marines I :3: 6 months deployed for every l 8 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is a battalion. • Anny I :4: 6 months deployed for every 24 months nonwdeployed. Unit of measure is a brigade. • Air Force 1:4: 3 months deployed for every 12 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is the Air Expeditionary Force. • Recommend an upcoming session be set aside to meet with Service Chiefs to further explore underlying force rotation goal rationales. RECOMMENDATION: OSD and CJCS staffs coordinate meeting with Service Chiefs regarding force rotation goal rationales.
    [Show full text]
  • My Debate with Marc Thiessen
    David FraktProfessor Barry Law School Reserve JAG Officer and Former Guantanamo defense counsel Posted: September 18, 2010 01:40 PM My Debate with Marc Thiessen Earlier this week, I debated General Michael Hayden (USAF, retired), former director of both the CIA and NSA, and Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter and current columnist for the Washington Post, as part of the "Intelligence Squared" Debate series from New York. I was joined by Stephen Jones, an accomplished attorney best known for defending Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber. The specific proposition debated was whether terrorists (or more accurately suspected terrorists) should be treated as enemy combatants, as opposed to handling within the traditional criminal justice system, but the debate covered a wide range of issues in the conduct of the war on terrorism. According to the audience, Stephen and I won the debate handily. For those interested in seeing or hearing the debate, it will be televised on the Bloomberg News Channel starting Monday, and it will also be available soon as a podcast from NPR, or you can watch the unedited version of the debate here. For the most part, Thiessen and Hayden voiced the usual Bush Administration talking points. Thiessen is the author of the bestselling book "Courting Disaster: How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" which Jane Mayer of the New Yorker described as the "unofficial Bible of torture apologists." Thiessen's basic argument was that the detention and interrogation practices of the prior administration were effective, as proven by the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks domestically since 9/11.
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Are Deaths of Despair? Nobel Prize Winner Sir Angus Deaton on the Other Epidemic
    WTH are deaths of despair? Nobel Prize winner Sir Angus Deaton on the other epidemic Episode #52 | May 21, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Sir Angus Deaton Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on now? Marc Thiessen: We're talking about deaths of despair. Danielle Pletka: Oh, that's cheerful. Marc Thiessen: Well, you're right, it's not cheerful, Dany. I mean, look, we are now experiencing the worst economic devastation since the Great Depression. We have more than 33 damage is not being borne by the elites, who work in the information economy and who can telework and do everything by Zoom. It's being borne by those at the middle and the bottom of the economic ladder. For what Trump called the forgotten Americans. People, who were finally doing better under him for a while, and now, all of a sudden, that progress has been wiped out. Danielle Pletka: The phrase, deaths of despair, that we're using, comes from this new book out by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, two economists from Princeton University. It was actually Dr. Case who coined this term, deaths of despair, in talking about people who've really lost all hope. I think that our image of the Depression is one where we see people walking across the dust bowl with all their family belongings on the back of a cart and their ragged children, the iconic photos of this.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes
    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 a Message from the Founders
    LEADERSHIP | PUBLIC SERVICE | FELLOWSHIPS | SELF-SUFFICIENCY | FREE SYSTEMS | DIGNITY | LIBERTY ANNUAL REPORT 2015 A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDERS “WE ARE PLEASED TO REFLECT ON A YEAR OF CONTINUED GROWTH AND ADVANCES THROUGH OUR GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MANY IMPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND CAUSES. WE REMAIN DEDICATED TO OUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE YEARS TO COME. OUR THANKS TO PARTNERS, SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS OF THE FOUNDATION FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT, INTEREST AND SUPPORT.” -DON AND JOYCE RUMSFELD RUMSFELD FOUNDATION IN REVIEW 81 GRADUATE FELLOWS $3.9 MILLION + IN 135 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS MILITARY GRANTS FELLOWS 3 GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP $3.7 MILLION + IN 4 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS CONFERENCES MICROFINANCE GRANTS CONFERENCES Established in 2007, the Rumsfeld Foundation rewards leadership and public service at Mission home and supports the growth of free political and free economic systems abroad. REWARDING LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT HOME Effective leadership and dedicated public servants are essential for our country’s success. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS TROOPS Encouraging gifted scholars to Few have committed more in our serve the nation by pursuing a nation’s service than those who career in public service and have served and sacrificed in policy-relevant fields defense of our country ENCOURAGING THE GROWTH OF FREER SYSTEMS IN GREATER CENTRAL ASIA We believe free systems, economic and political, provide the most opportunities for their people. CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Is Going on with the Retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker On
    WTH is going on with the retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker on withdrawal, and the consequences for US national security Episode #115 | September 1, 2021 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ryan Crocker Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: I've never been more disgusted in my life with what's happening with what America is doing than I am right now watching the last planes leaving Kabul, leaving behind American citizens, thousands of Afghans who risked their lives to help us, the blood of 13 dead Americans and hundreds of Afghan civilians. It is the most shameful thing I have witnessed in my entire career in Washington. I'm shifting between absolute abject pain and rage as I watch this happen. Dany, what are your thoughts? Danielle Pletka: It is the worst thing in the world that a country like ours, we've suffered defeats, we've made mistakes, we've done terrible things. Never, I hope willfully, but by mistake, we've done terrible things. And we have betrayed allies before. We've not done enough for people who need us. We've let down the Kurds in Iraq, we've let down the Syrian people, but we have never actually gone in and rescued a group of people who in turn sacrificed all for us and for our security as Afghans did, because make no mistake, we were not in Afghanistan for the Afghan people.
    [Show full text]
  • Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program
    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Robert E. Ebel E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org March 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-600-1 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066001zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program author Robert E. Ebel March 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decision- makers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka Is Senior Vice President for Foreign And
    Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka is senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she oversees the Institute’s work on foreign and defense issues. Ms. Pletka writes regularly on national security matters with a special focus on Iran, the Middle East (Syria, Israel, ISIS), and South Asia. She is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Before joining AEI, Ms. Pletka was a longtime senior professional staff member for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where she specialized in the Near East and South Asia as the point person on Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. Ms. Pletka has authored, coauthored, and coedited a variety of studies, monographs, and book chapters, including the report “Tehran Stands Atop the Syria-Iran Alliance” (Atlantic Council, 2017); the chapter “America in Decline” in “Debating the Obama Presidency” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016); “America vs. Iran: The Competition for the Future of the Middle East” (AEI, 2014); “Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan” (AEI, 2012); “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran” (AEI, 2011); and “Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats” (AEI, 2008). A regular guest on television, Ms. Pletka appears frequently on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Her broadcast appearances also include CBS News, CNN, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. She has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, and Politico, among other outlets. She has an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Transcript Here
    WTH is going on with Trump's cyberattack on President Episode #63 | July 16, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Ellen Nakashima Marc Thiessen: Hi, I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: And I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: n? So, Dany, what the hell is going on? Danielle Pletka: Well, people may notice that there's a little bit of a role reversal here today, because I'm usually the one asking you what the hell is going on. Danielle Pletka: Anyway, and you actually have something exciting going on, which is that last week you went in and interviewed Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States, just you and he, sitting in the Oval Office. And you broke some pretty exciting news that we've heard about but that the President, for the first time, confirmed. Tell us. Marc Thiessen: So, I asked the President about news reports that he had carried out, in 2018, a cyberattack on Russia to defend the 2018 presidential election. And he confirmed it, on the record. Said he did it, said he was proud of it, and said it was part of a broader strategy of being tough with Russia, which we'll get into in a minute. But this is a big, big news item that I think is the biggest, under-reported story of the Trump presidency. Because, we spent two years of the Mueller investigation, right, investigating the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election. And it turned out that wasn't true.
    [Show full text]
  • Olin Foundation in 1953, Olin Embarked on a Radical New Course
    THE CHRONICLE REVIEW How Right­Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education By Jane Mayer FEBRUARY 12, 2016 ​ If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to try to wrest control of higher ​ education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents’ weekend at the Ithaca, N.Y., campus, some 80 black students marched in formation out of the student union, which they had seized, with their clenched fists held high in black­power salutes. To the shock of the genteel Ivy League community, several were brandishing guns. At the head of the formation was a student who called himself the "Minister of Defense" for Cornell’s Afro­American Society. Strapped across his chest, Pancho Villa­style, was a sash­like bandolier studded with bullet cartridges. Gripped nonchalantly in his right hand, with its butt resting on his hip, was a glistening rifle. Chin held high and sporting an Afro, goatee, and eyeglasses reminiscent of Malcolm X, he was the face of a drama so infamous it was regarded for years by conservatives such as David Horowitz as "the most disgraceful occurrence in the history of American higher education." John M. Olin, a multimillionaire industrialist, wasn’t there at Cornell, which was his alma mater, that weekend. He was traveling abroad. But as a former Cornell trustee, he could not have gone long without seeing the iconic photograph of the armed protesters. What came to be ​ ​ known as "the Picture" quickly ricocheted around the world, eventually going on to win that year’s Pulitzer Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • Marc Thiessen: Why Trump Impeachment Dreams Are Just a Liberal Fantasy
    Marc Thiessen: Why Trump impeachment dreams are just a liberal fantasy WASHINGTON — Michael Cohen’s decision to plead guilty for making hush- money payments on Donald Trump’s behalf has raised the prospect that if Democrats take control of Congress, they might try to impeach the president over a matter completely unrelated to a perceived criminal conspiracy with Russia. Good luck with that: Even if Democrats win back both the House and Senate, there is zero chance a two-thirds majority of senators will convict President Trump for paying off an adult-film star. It would be the height of hypocrisy if Democrats tried to remove the president over allegations of illegality relating to extramarital affairs. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, congressional Democrats told us the private sexual conduct of a president does not matter, and that lying under oath to cover up a “consensual relationship” is not an impeachable offense. Then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer, D- N.Y., said President Bill Clinton’s lies under oath about his sexual relationship with a White House intern might have been illegal, but declared the scandal “a tawdry but not impeachable affair” — right before heading off to a fundraiser with Clinton. At the time, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declared that the Starr investigation “vindicates President Clinton in the conduct of his public life because we’re only left with this personal stuff” and that Founding Fathers “would say it was not for the investigation of a president’s personal life that we risked our life, our liberty, and our sacred honor.” But now that a Republican president is accused of covering up an affair, suddenly Democrats are channeling their inner Kenneth W.
    [Show full text]