U.S. military aid still a matter of survival in Ukraine amid impeachment battle

Odessa, Ukraine — “After agreeing to a ceasefire by year's end, Ukraine and Russia are one step closer to ending their five-year conflict. While U.S. military aid to Ukraine is at the heart of the impeachment battle in the U.S., it's vitally important to Ukraine's defense.

“In October, patrol boats that once served the U.S. Coast Guard were given a second life in the Ukrainian Navy, guarding Ukraine's Black Sea coast against incursions by Russia. Captain Damir Aulin said the ships are a game-changer, making it easier to patrol the coastline.

“A scandal over U.S. military aid to Ukraine triggered the impeachment hearings. But in Ukraine, American aid isn't about politics, it's about survival. Ukraine's been fighting a war against Russian-backed separatists since 2014 and the conflict has claimed more than 13,000 lives.

“Admiral Ihor Voronchenko, the commander of the Ukrainian Navy, told CBS News that Russia is like an octopus, spreading its tentacles everywhere. American military aid helps Ukraine protect itself against Russia. But it also discourages Russia from using the same tactics against other countries and, arguably, makes the world a safer place.

“U.S. military aid to Ukraine also includes anti-tank missiles and training for front line soldiers. But guns are only one of Russia's weapons. Liubov Tsybulska, an expert on Russian propaganda, said Russian media frequently portrays America as devious and hypocritical.

“President Trump's alleged wrongdoing undermines U.S. influence in Ukraine and makes other countries nervous, Tsybulska said. ‘They feel that the same thing can happen to them. They feel that their most reliable partner, the U.S., can abandon them in a crucial moment,’ she said.

“Whether the president's actions are impeachable or not in the U.S., the people impacted in Ukraine say the president's actions can have devastating consequences” (CBSNews).

Mitch McConnell Plans on Rigging the Impeachment Trial

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News Thursday night that while he has ‘no choice’ but to hold a trial if the House votes to impeach President Donald Trump, that does not mean the process will be in any way impartial.

“‘Everything I do during this I'm coordinating with White House counsel,’ said the Kentucky Republican. ‘There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this.’

“McConnell noted that with ‘typical’ legislative issues he has the power to simply block them from coming up for a vote, as he has done with a number of House-passed bills.

“‘We have no choice but to take it up,’ McConnell said of impeachment. ‘But we'll be working through this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president.’

“Democratic lawmakers viewed McConnell's comments as unsurprising confirmation that the GOP-controlled Senate has no plans to allow an objective impeachment trial.

“‘The Majority Leader proudly announcing he is planning to rig the impeachment trial for Trump,’ Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted Thursday night.

“Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told CNN that, ‘in other words, the jury—Senate Republicans—are going to coordinate with the defendant—Donald Trump—on how exactly the kangaroo court is going to be run.’

“McConnell's comments came after CNN reported Thursday that the Senate Majority Leader met behind closed doors with White House counsel Pat Cipollone ‘to coordinate closely for an impeachment trial.’

“‘While no final decisions have been made, McConnell and Cipollone agreed that when a trial begins, the House Democratic impeachment managers would have an opportunity to present, followed by the Trump's lawyers presenting the President's defense,’ according to CNN. ‘At the conclusion of the presentations, the White House may provide its own briefing to Senate Republicans about the next steps it would want to see in the trial, including possible witnesses it would like to be called.’

“McConnell and other Senate Republicans have reportedly expressed support in private for a rapid impeachment trial that calls no witnesses. ‘If Mitch McConnell goes through with his reported plan to hold a sham impeachment trial that acquits President Trump without calling witnesses, it will provide the perfect coda for the corrupt and farcical way Trump’s defenders have handled this saga all throughout,’ the Washington Post's Greg Sargent wrote Thursday.

“‘In so doing,’ Sargent added, ‘the Senate Majority Leader and other assorted Trump propagandists will be unabashedly enshrining their position as follows: We've already decided in advance that the full facts will not persuade us to turn on Trump, no matter how damning they are, so why should we listen to them at all?’”

For the article and video of McConnell, click here. 

Last night, Mitch McConnell appeared on Fox News to reassure viewers that Trump’s acquittal in the Senate was a lock:

According to McConnell: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this…There’s no chance the president will be removed from office.”

Someone should remind McConnell that the Constitution requires that the Senate act as an independent jury on impeachment. Imagine the foreman of a jury announcing before the trial that there will be no difference between the jury’s position and the defendant’s, that the jury will be working in lockstep with the defendant, and that the jury has already decided the defendant’s innocence!

Folks, I cannot understate how unprecedented and dangerous for our democracy this is. Senate Republicans have abdicated their duty to uphold the Constitution. I know I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the complete and utter self-destruction of today’s Republican Party never ceases to amaze me -Robert Reich.

Doesn’t McConnell have to state, “I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God” (Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the U.S. Senate)?  

TRS Hires Voya Financial to Administer New Voluntary Defined-Contribution Plan

SPRINGFIELD, IL – Teachers’ Retirement System Board of Trustees has selected Voya Financial to administer the new TRS Supplemental Savings Plan, a defined-contribution retirement vehicle that TRS members can elect to supplement their TRS pensions.

Voya Financial, of Windsor, Connecticut, will administer the SSP as a voluntary 457(b) style plan that allows participating members to contribute a portion of each paycheck to a savings account that is then invested on their behalf.

Voya is a national leader in administering defined contribution retirement plans for educators. Currently, the firm manages $568 billion in assets for more than 13.8 million clients. Voya manages existing retirement plans through teacher retirement systems in Indiana, Pennsylvania and California, among others.

A 2018 state law requires TRS, for the first time, to offer a defined-contribution (DC) plan to its active members “as soon as practicable.” The target date for implementing the new SSP is 2020.

The new SSP will be “an optional benefit to any member who chooses to participate” if the member is active in Tier 1 or Tier 2. Retired and inactive TRS members will not be eligible.

The SSP does not replace the existing pension for participating members. TRS members cannot opt out of the pension plan and place their DB contributions into the SSP. Participants in the SSP will effectively have two TRS sources of income in retirement – a pension that guarantees a specified benefit every month, and a “savings account” that they can draw on as they see fit.

The law requires participants to make contributions to the SSP. Contributions from employers are optional. No state funds will be contributed to the SSP.

The law also requires TRS to “offer investment options” to participants. All fees to private companies managing SSP investments, as well as the cost of administering the plan, will be paid by participant contributions.

Dave Urbanek

Director of Communications

Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois

P.O. Box 19253, 2815 W. Washington Street

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9253

Trump Jr, Trophy Hunter

“The rocky highlands of Central Asia, in a remote region of Western Mongolia, are home to a plummeting population of the largest sheep in the world, the argali. The endangered species is beloved for its giant curving horns, which can run over 6 feet in length.

“On a hunting trip this August, Donald Trump Jr. shot and killed one.

“His adventure was supported by government resources from both the U.S. and Mongolia, which each sent security services to accompany the president’s eldest son and grandson on the multi-day trip. It also thrust Trump Jr. directly into the controversial world of Mongolian trophy hunting — a polarizing practice in a country that views the big-horned rams as a national treasure. The right to kill an argali is controlled by an opaque permitting system that experts say is mostly based on money, connections and politics.

“Trump Jr. received special treatment during his summer trip, according to records obtained by ProPublica as well as interviews with people involved in the hunt. Listen to the episode.

“The Mongolian government granted Trump Jr. a coveted and rare permit to slay the animal retroactively on Sept. 2, after he’d left the region following his trip. It’s unusual for permits to be issued after a hunter’s stay. It was one of only three permits to be issued in that hunting region, local records show.

“Afterward, Trump Jr. met privately with the country’s president, Khaltmaagiin Battulga, before departing the capital of Ulaanbaatar back to the U.S., according to Khuantai Khafezyn, a local government official in the region where Trump Jr. hunted the argali and a former government official with knowledge of the meeting. It isn’t clear what was discussed. Trump Jr. wouldn’t answer questions about the meeting. Representatives for Battulga haven’t responded to requests for comment.

“‘What are the chances the Mongolian government would’ve done any of that to someone who wasn’t the son of the United States’ president?’ asked Kathleen Clark, a professor specializing in legal ethics at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. She said that though Trump Jr. is not a government employee, he’s nonetheless politically influential, incentivizing foreign officials such as the Mongolian leader to treat him favorably out of a ‘desire on the part of a foreign government to curry favor with the president’s family.’”  

For the article, click here.

National Strike in France Shuts Down Cities Over Macron's Pension Reform Plans

"...Transport workers, hospital employees, firefighters, teachers and others who play key roles in society are taking part in the strike, sending a warning to Macron to preserve their pensions under France's national system despite growing economic challenges..." (NPR).  

To listen to NPR audio, click here. 

"What Trump's Cruelty Looks Like"

“The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it has finalized a plan to tighten punitive work requirements for food stamp recipients, a move that would strip nutrition assistance from an estimated 750,000 low-income people by mid-2020.

“‘Pay attention. This is what cruelty looks like,’ tweeted the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in response to the completed rule, which would be the first of a series of proposed food stamp cuts to take effect.

“The rule change, which was first unveiled earlier this year, would restrict states' ability to exempt people without dependents from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's work requirements. The rule is set to take effect April 1, 2020.

“‘For able-bodied adults without dependents, U.S. law limits SNAP benefits to three months, unless recipients are working or in training for 20 hours a week,’ the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. ‘States can waive those limits in areas where unemployment runs 20% above the national rate, which was 3.6% in October.’

“The Trump administration's proposal to curtail states' ability to waive work requirements sparked a flood of outrage from aid groups, Democratic lawmakers, and ordinary people. During the rule's 60-day public comment period, tens of thousands of people decried the measure as an immoral attack on the most vulnerable by an administration that has worked tirelessly to fatten the pockets of the rich.

“‘The comments make it clear that most Americans not only oppose but are utterly repulsed by this plan to punish the poorest among us by denying them help to feed themselves,’ Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said in a statement in April.

“According to an Urban Institute study (pdf) published last week, the Trump administration's three proposed SNAP changes combined would strip federal food aid from 3.7 million people.

“‘The basics of the situation are clear,’ Rolling Stone's Patrick Reis wrote Tuesday. ‘When it came to tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, Trump and Republicans felt the nation's finances were firm enough to give up more than $1,500,000,000,000. When it's time to spend a fraction of that to help poor people eat, that's when the well has supposedly run dry’” (What Cruelty Looks Like: Trump Finalizes Plan to Strip Food Aid from 750,000 Low-Income People by 2020 by Jake Johnson, Common Dreams). 

“To guard against another authoritarian president we can’t impeach, we need to reform our constitution” by Chris Edelson

“…Some observers describe what we are seeing as a crisis. In fact, what we are living through is constitutional failure. The system created by the framers is not doing the job it was designed to do, particularly in the current circumstances: We are faced with a corrupt president who rejects the very idea of legal limits on his power.

“Our constitutional democracy is based on free and fair elections, individual rights, independent courts, and the rule of law—the idea that no one is above the law. Trump rejects all of these bedrock principles. He has tried to undermine free and fair elections (most recently demonstrated in the Ukraine scandal.) He threatens his critics with prosecution and lawsuits, disdaining the notion of First Amendment speech and press protections. He seeks to delegitimize judges who rule against his policies. He rejects the idea that ordinary rules and laws apply to him and his allies, declaring (erroneously) that under Article II of the Constitution, ‘I have the right to do whatever I want as president.’

“Trump poses an existential threat to our system of government—and yet he remains in office. In a functioning system, Republicans would have already joined Democrats in taking action to remove Trump from office—just as Republicans stood against Nixon in 1974. In our failed system we are reduced to waiting to see how far Trump will go before congressional Republicans will act—if they ever do.

“Every system needs a way to protect itself, and our constitutional system provides (in theory) all the tools needed to deal with the direct threat Trump poses. Congress is fully empowered to remove a corrupt president from office. But congressional Republicans, by refusing to act, render those tools useless. 

“James Madison believed that the constitutional system would prevent the accumulation of too much power in any one branch of government. If one branch exceeded the limits of its power, it would be reined in by the others. In order for this to work, Madison famously wrote, ‘Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.’ In other words, if the president engaged in a power grab, members of Congress would use constitutionally available tools to check him or her —not out of moral rectitude but because legislators would be worried about ceding their own power to an ambitious president.

“The system is failing because Republicans are placing partisan concerns—their own loyalty to Trump or fear of the political costs of defying him—ahead of their constitutional responsibilities. The system Madison helped design cannot function properly under these circumstances.

“It is important to forthrightly describe the reality of constitutional failure for two reasons. 

“First, it emphasizes the emergency we face. If he does not face consequences, Trump will feel emboldened to do precisely as he chooses, without regard to ethical or legal limits. We’re seeing this, for instance, with Trump’s moves to undermine the rule of law within the U.S. military by pardoning the Navy SEAL convicted of taking a ‘selfie’ with the corpse of a teenage boy who fought for ISIS.

“We can’t count on his removal from office by election as a foolproof safeguard, especially when Trump’s misconduct in the Ukraine scandal was focused squarely on an illicit attempt to tilt the electoral scales in his favor.

“Second, describing what has occurred as failure points out that we need a new constitution, one that will be designed to strengthen our democracy against future existential threats. No system is guaranteed to succeed, but a failed one demands replacement. 

“Today’s Republican Party is an anti-democratic, authoritarian party that seeks to gain—and has gained—power without winning a majority of votes. To this end, it pushes voter suppression measures and takes advantage of structural defects in our system. Gerrymandered districts can allow the GOP to win a minority of the votes and still control the House. The Electoral College gave Trump the presidency 2016, even though he lost the popular vote—a feat he stands a realistic chance of repeating in 2020. And though deeply unpopular, he enjoys majority support in a Senate that does not reflect political preferences of the majority of Americans, but instead allows a minority in sparsely populated states to wield power. 

“Making the electoral system more majoritarian could force the Republican Party to abandon its anti-democratic approach if it wishes to win. There is no guaranteed way to prevent would-be authoritarians from gaining power. After all, a very popular authoritarian could easily win the popular vote. But clearly, the authoritarianism of our current president is not popular with Americans: Trump’s approval ratings are consistently in the low 40s. Constitutional change would strengthen liberal democracy against an authoritarian party. It is worth trying.

“With this goal in mind, a new constitution could address some of the anti-democratic features of our current system, including:

§  ending the Electoral College.

§  reforming or replacing a Senate that gives the 435,000 voting-age people in Wyoming as many votes as the 17,524,000 in Texas.

§  eliminating partisan gerrymandering.

§  protecting the right to vote against voter suppression efforts.

§  dealing with the corrupting influence of our current campaign finance system.

“A new constitution could also be aimed at shoring up the rule of law, including by protecting the independence of the Department of Justice and replacing the current impeachment process with something capable of actually holding a lawless president to account. One idea to explore would be expressly giving the DOJ independent prosecutorial authority over the president. Another would be providing a process for triggering new presidential elections—say, based on a three-fifths vote in the House and Senate. 

“Obviously, these kinds of changes are not politically plausible at the moment, but they need to be on our agenda—unless we are willing to risk another attack on the system from a future president. We need to begin talking about how to create the conditions needed for a new constitution, one giving us better odds of warding off the next authoritarian threat—assuming we survive the one posed by Trump.”

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. He has written two books on presidential power, and recently wrote a book chapter describing the problem of constitutional failure in the United States.

For the entire article, click here.