The outlook for Donald Trump appears grimmer by the day, but the systemic institutional problems that brought him to office and have now helped bring him to the brink of impeachment are of even larger concern on today’s BradCast. [Audio link to today’s program is posted below.]
First up, the latest in the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry, as the worm may — emphasis on ‘may‘ — be turning, following Trump’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s nationally-televised admission that the Administration withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in Congressionally-allocated military aide to Ukraine in an effort to strong-arm the former Soviet nation into investigating Democrats and the 2016 election. Mulvaney’s “confession”, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described it, of a pretty clear quid pro quo has knocked several Republicans off their footing, as they struggle to find ways to defend the President’s actions.
A number of Congressional Republicans in both the House and the Senate now appear troubled by the admission (which Mulvaney attempted to walk back just hours later) and it has led Ohio’s former Republican Governor John Kasich to concede on Friday that he now supports the impeachment and removal of Trump based on the latest information.
Then, we’re joined by BRENDAN FISCHER, Associate Counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) in Washington D.C., which filed a formal complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in July of 2018, detailing serious campaign fiance law violations by Rudy Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The Soviet-born Ukrainian-Americans were dramatically arrested and indicted at Dulles International Airport just over a week ago by federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, as they were attempting to flee the country with one way tickets to Vienna. Parnas and Fruman were charged [PDF] with using a fake shell corporation to illegally funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars from an unknown source to Republicans, including Trump’s America First Action SuperPAC, in a successful effort to gain political power.
They also paid some $500 thousand to Giuliani — who is working, for free, as Trump’s personal lawyer — and donated to Texas Congressman Pete Sessions, all in an effort to act on the conspiracy theories used by Trump and Giuliani to strong-arm Ukraine. As Fischer lays out in a piece at CLC detailing the backstory of the arrests of the two Trump donors, “Working closely with the president’s personal attorney, Giuliani, their efforts touched two branches of U.S. government, two presidential administrations in Ukraine, at least five countries, numerous individuals in and out of government, and, now, an impeachment inquiry into the U.S. President himself.”
“The big giving opened a lot of doors,” Fischer tells me. “It got them into political fundraisers where they rubbed shoulders with President Trump’s inner circle. That money allowed them to build and deepen a relationship with Giuliani. And they were able to leverage that relationship in order to advance this narrative about Ukraine — the same narrative about Ukraine that President Trump espoused in his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, which has now led to this impeachment inquiry.”
In other words, despite the ongoing mysteries behind the true source of their funding, they got a lot of bang for their campaign finance bucks used to buy influence with GOP officials and effect actual U.S. foreign policy in the bargain. But, as Fischer explains on today’s program, had they not used a phony corporation to do it with someone else’s money (and lied about that to the FEC), everything they did appears to be largely perfectly legal under U.S. campaign finance laws! Yes, apparently if you have enough money, you are allowed to use it to buy a major political influence operation that can directly effect U.S. foreign and domestic policy, even out of the White House.
Fischer explains how the dark money operation — which didn’t even include all that much money — is still being unraveled by federal investigators as the probe (which could even nab Giuliani) continues and, perhaps even more importantly, how it may represent just be the tip of a campaign finance iceberg that illustrates the dangers of our disgraceful campaign finance laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010.
“The indictment makes clear that the purpose of the political contributions that Parnas and Fruman made was to buy access and to build influence with powerful political officials in order to advance their own personal financial interests,” says Fischer. “But that is not what they are being indicted for. They were indicted because they laundered the funds through shell corporations and then lied about it.” So, had they actually been rich dudes who used their own money for this scheme, it would have been just fine? “Yes, it would have been just a beautiful expression of their First Amendment right to free speech.”
“This indictment of Parnas and Fruman is really an indictment of our big money political system. It lays out very clearly how powerful political figures operate on this cash-for-access practice. It’s become entirely commonplace for wealthy political actors to buy their way into Congressional offices and into the President’s inner circle. If you don’t have money, your voice does not get heard in our democracy.”
Finally, longtime good government watchdog Fischer also rings in on Mulvaney’s stunning announcement that the Administration has officially selected Trump National Doral resort in Miami, Florida as the location for next year’s G-7 Summit of world leaders, despite the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution which strictly bans payments to the President from foreign officials — a point that even Fox “News” (well, at least some there) appear to have a problem with as well…
“The outlook for Donald Trump appears grimmer by the day, but the systemic institutional problems that brought him to office and have now helped bring him to the brink of impeachment are of even larger concern…”
Yep (Bull).
Our institutions are infected with the despotic minority virus (How To Identify The Despotic Minority – 13).
Gosh, those 2 guys are “Soviet born”.
How pertinent is that detail (from corporate media)?
It’s very important because, if those guys had escaped back to the Soviet Union, we’d never catch them.
At least, not without a time machine.
Call Rod Taylor!
Those 2 guys were like 20 years old when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Someone needs to explain to me the relevance of the Soviet Union to this story, on any level.
A little quick research:
Lev Parnas was born in 1972, and was brought by his family to the US when he was THREE (3).
How is the Soviet Union a factor here?
Igor Fruman came to the US at a later date I have not been able to find. But he’s of similar age and made his money in a “freed” Ukraine, in the late 90s, years after the fall of the USSR.
As far as I can see, the use of the word, “Soviet” is just a gratuitous smear, since most people have a negative impression of the SU.
I saw that over a week ago in a corporate media article, and it has since spread around.
Just feedin’ the new Cold War, I guess.
But the actual relevance to the story seems nil.
Don @2, @3, & @4 noted:
I think that’s a fair critique. While I can’t speak for others, let me defend my own use of phrase above.
The direct involvement of Lev and Igor in the Ukraine affair begins with Trump’s interest in blaming Ukraine (not Russia) for tampering in the 2016 election. Evidence strongly suggests Russia took a strong interest in helping Trump win. He would like the world to believe that he won on his own, but Ukraine on the other hand (currently at war with Russia) did the actual meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
Lev and Igor were charged with using a straw donor to give hundreds of thousands to Trump’s SuperPAC and other GOP interests. We still do not know where they got the money they used, other than it was not theirs.
Meanwhile, Putin is, in fact, reclaiming Cold War status to expand the power and interests of Russia and encroaching on former Soviet countries (like Ukraine). Not saying that’s good or bad, just noting the facts.
Thus, the allegiance of the Ukrainian born Russians Lev and Igor could very well play a part in this story, as the New Russia transforms back into Soviet-style Russia, with a Cold War era KGB veteran now firmly ensconced as “President for Life”.
While I absolutely agree that much of the attacks on Russia in recent years is shamefully “Red Baiting” — and I can’t speak to others use of that phrase — but that explains my us of it, and I think, at least for now, it is appropriate in this context.
(I’m very welcome to hearing why I’m wrong about that.)
Brad,
Thanks for the response.
I just keep seeing the word “soviet” used more and more in media, and I see its use in most cases as a gratuitous cheap shot.
I’m certainly not arguing that the 2 men aren’t very suspicious, and potentially sinister, in their activities.
But Russia ain’t “commie” anymore. Russia has an oligarch-driven unregulated form of “wild west” Capitalism, much like the system America is evolving into.
Just for perspective the dictionary defines “soviet” as:
“An elected local, district, or national council in the former Soviet Union.
2.
a citizen of the former Soviet Union.
adjective
of or concerning the former Soviet Union.”
Just sayin’.
One of the broader questions here is,
Are any other countries allowed to impose “Monroe Doctrine”-type policies over other countries in its sphere?
The US has abused this power many times in many SA and Central American countries. So we have not been angels in our own hemisphere.
Our meddling in Ukraine would be like Russia meddling in Cuba.
And we know how America feels about that.
The infamous 2014 Victoria Nuland phone call to Ukraine indicated heavy US involvement in the Flipping of the Ukrainian gov’t to the present extreme rightwing gov’t who are more friendly to the US and resistant to Russia, as we prefer.
What if Russia were to do this to say, Honduras?
I know BradBlog is not heavy into foreign policy, so I won’t push this further.
I guess I’ve just been around long enough to be suspicious of American Exceptionalism, and this relentless drive of the Democratic Party and miliutary establishment towards a new cold war, which will make progressive policies far harder to achieve.
IMO, a new cold war is an avoidable tragedy, that the Democratic Party and military have decided to embrace.
Tragic, IMO.
Let’s stop saying soviet and start saying “all roads lead to Putin.”
Dredd,
Does that also mean “all roads lead to cold war”?
If so, we can kiss any hopes for a renewed social safety net or social-democratic polices goodbye.
I do fully agree Trump ain’t the one to negotiate anything, much less new treaties with Russia or anyone else.
IMO, somebody’s’ got to at least TRY to have a dialogue and negotiations somewhere down the road.
But most Democrats (DNC-centrists esp) in the race don’t seem likely to even want to attempt that if they got elected.
It should be noted that even the mostly noxious Reagan (not 1 of my heroes) had the gumption to talk to the Ruskies. And they got results.
A new cold war, replete with massive cyberwar provisions and a new generation of missiles and other weapons, will push-aside most other budgetary considerations (Green New Deal, infrastructure, lowering college costs, better healthcare, etc etc.).
I know the MIC wants it, VERY bad (and probably MSNBC too). Raytheon just loves the idea.
Maybe it’s just me, but as a Progressive who has already lived through one very stupid cold war already, the thought of a brand new one makes me sad for America.