同情特朗普

  • 主题发起人 主题发起人 ccc
  • 开始时间 开始时间
upload_2019-10-10_0-3-35.png


Washington (CNN) Even as the White House appears to settle on the legal tactics to stave off Democrats' impeachment demands, uncertainty and unease over Trump's messaging approach remains high among his Republican allies, who see the ever-growing inquiry consuming the White House.

Trump has offered scant indication he is turning his focus to governing, despite his lawyers writing in a letter to Democrats that "he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people."

Instead, the President has spent hours tweeting about the impeachment and lighting up the phone lines of his allies on Capitol Hill -- including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to whom he's stressed the importance of Republican unity.

In private, Trump is increasingly leaning on the Republican leader in the Senate. In a return to the President's panicked behavior during the height of the Mueller investigation, Trump is calling McConnell as often as three times a day, according to a person familiar with the conversations.

McConnell has told a small number of Republicans about the President's calls.

"This story, based on a single anonymous source, is categorically false. Leader McConnell never said anything like this," Doug Andres, a McConnell spokesman, said.

Trump has been lashing out at GOP senators he sees as disloyal, according to the person familiar with the conversations, telling McConnell he will amplify attacks on those Republicans who criticize him.

McConnell faces his own dilemma of having to preserve the Republican majority in the Senate, while also placating an erratic President who demands nothing short of total loyalty. That will become harder as more details about Trump's dealings with Ukraine trickle out.

Trump has already demonstrated his willingness to go after Republican defectors. After Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said it was "wrong and appalling" for Trump to suggest Ukraine and China investigate Joe Biden, Trump unloaded, calling Romney a "pompous ass" and suggesting Romney himself be impeached.

Trump has also been mistrustful of Republicans who are reticent to defend him publicly, often lamenting that Democrats are much better at staying in line with their party heads than his own.

Refusing to cooperate

A letter from White House lawyers on Tuesday made clear Trump plans to wage war on the impeachment effort, refusing to cooperate with what it described as an illegitimate effort to reverse the 2016 election. An announcement that Trey Gowdy, the former South Carolina congressman, was joining Trump's outside legal team was a signal of the growing recognition the President will require additional help combating the impeachment threat.

Trump had initially been resistant to the suggestion that he hire additional attorneys, believing he was well positioned to combat Democrats as they advanced their impeachment probe without outside help. But after a lengthy meeting with Gowdy in the Oval Office, and much wheedling from Gowdy's allies, the President was convinced he needed an aggressive fighter, such as the former House Oversight Committee chairman who led the Benghazi probe.

Trump's confidants had urged him for weeks to find another voice who could represent him on television, warning that his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was doing too much damage.

Trump's focus on the impeachment issue is plain, even as his allies encourage him to train his attention on other issues. On Wednesday, as former Vice President Joe Biden came out in favor of impeachment, Trump had responded on Twitter before Biden's speech had even concluded. And speaking in the Roosevelt Room, Trump went off-script to link a regulatory announcement to his ongoing predicament.

"No American should ever face such persecution from their own government," Trump said, reading from a script, before looking up from his paper: "Except, perhaps, your President."

Internal strife

Internal disputes, long rife in Trump's West Wing, have also heightened the sense of disorder at Trump's approach to impeachment. Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner is seen by many aides as leading the impeachment strategy efforts. A source close to the President's impeachment team said Kushner is playing a "growing role" in how the White House handles the response, though other officials said much of the response will be left to "Jay and Trey," a reference to Gowdy and Jay Sekulow, members of the outside legal team.

Others say the only real point person is Trump himself, who has tweeted furiously on the subject for the past three days.
Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, has remained largely under the radar as the impeachment proceedings unfold. But Gowdy's hiring is evidence that Mulvaney -- who is close friends with his former House colleague and advocated on Gowdy's behalf -- also has some leeway in overseeing the strategy.

In an effort to channel some of Trump's frustrations, campaign aides have scheduled a spate of campaign rallies over the next week, including one in Minnesota on Thursday and in Louisiana on Friday. Trump announced the Louisiana rally on Twitter as his campaign was still confirming the venue. They believe Trump's anger at Democrats and arguments against impeachment will be amplified when delivered before a receptive audience.

Yet that dynamic is partly what concerns many of Trump's allies, who worry the President's obvious fixation on the impeachment matter is causing him to lash out in unhelpful and erratic ways.

In private, Trump has vacillated between telling confidantes the impeachment effort will benefit him politically to complaining it will stain his legacy. As Trump reflexively reacts to each development, many Republican lawmakers and others who the White House relies upon to defend the President have gone silent.

Others have expressed concern that Trump isn't taking the impeachment inquiry seriously enough, even as polls increasingly show Americans support it.

"I believe it's a mortal threat to the presidency. He should treat it that way," said Chris Ruddy, a friend of Trump's and the CEO of Newsmax, in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "The number of people saying the President should be impeached is increasing. Not significantly, but moving in a bad direction for the President. I think it should be treated very seriously."

'All bulls***'

A Trump ally who spoke with the President recently said Trump's view on impeachment is "it's all bulls***" and he believes he and his GOP allies are well positioned to fight back politically. Trump was "praising the (Republican National Committee) targeting those Trump-district Democrats," the source said. "He seemed in good spirits."

The RNC is targeting roughly 60 Democrats with a "stop the madness" campaign through paid media and earned media, including conducting press conferences, crashing town halls and holding demonstrations.

McConnell has said little publicly about impeachment since the inquiry began. He admitted last week in an interview with CNBC that he would "have no choice" but to take up a trial if the House voted to impeach Trump -- a point he's made to Trump in their phone conversations, according to one person with knowledge of the situation.

But on strategy, McConnell's said nothing more to the Republican conference, which has been in recess for two weeks. That, say multiple people with knowledge, reflects McConnell's "watch and wait" approach to all controversies, including impeachment.

While at home on recess the past two weeks, many Senate Republicans have stayed quiet on the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry. But some have already laid out messaging that could gain steam once everyone returns next week, including admitting that while Trump's call with Ukraine was perhaps inappropriate, it does not rise to impeachable conduct.
 
upload_2019-10-10_10-34-46.png

191010-donald-trump-al-0856_46f72dc20f60cc0325bee11a1134a305.fit-2000w.jpg

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they want the president impeached and removed from office, while 40 percent said they oppose his impeachment, according to a new poll. Win McNamee / Getty Images

Oct. 10, 2019, 9:37 AM EDT
By Allan Smith

President Donald Trump expressed his displeasure Thursday with a Fox News poll that found a majority of registered voters believe he should be impeached — a record high in the survey.

The poll came after House Democrats opened an impeachment inquiry into the president over his call to have his Ukrainian counterpart investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a top political rival.

"From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll," Trump tweeted. "Whoever their Pollster is, they suck. But @FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days. With people like Andrew Napolitano, who wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice & I turned him down (he’s been terrible ever since), Shep Smith, @donnabrazile (who gave Crooked Hillary the debate questions & got fired from @CNN), & others, @FoxNews doesn’t deliver for US anymore. It is so different than it used to be."

"Oh well, I’m President!" he added.

Of those surveyed, 51 percent said they want Trump impeached and removed from office, while another 4 percent say they would like Trump impeached but not removed. On the flip side, 40 percent of voters said they oppose impeachment. Support for Trump's impeachment and removal jumped 9 points from July, increasing 11 points among Democrats, 5 points among Republicans and 3 points among independents. Fox News found increased support for Trump's impeachment among white evangelicals, white men without a college degree and rural white voters.

upload_2019-10-10_10-37-11.png


Fox News also found that 66 percent of registered voters said it was "generally inappropriate" for Trump to ask a foreign leader to probe a political opponent. Just 25 percent said this was generally OK.

Most surveyed said Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy — in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a "favor" involving investigating a 2016 election conspiracy theory as well as Biden and his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas firm — was either impeachable (43 percent) or inappropriate but not impeachable (27 percent). Just 17 percent said it was appropriate.

Fox News also found that 66 percent of registered voters said it was "generally inappropriate" for Trump to ask a foreign leader to probe a political opponent. Just 25 percent said this was generally OK.

Most surveyed said Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy — in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a "favor" involving investigating a 2016 election conspiracy theory as well as Biden and his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas firm — was either impeachable (43 percent) or inappropriate but not impeachable (27 percent). Just 17 percent said it was appropriate.

more ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...fox-news-poll-shows-majority-support-n1064556
 
upload_2019-10-10_22-56-53.png


Oct. 10, 2019, 7:37 PM EDT
By Josh Lederman, Carol E. Lee and Kristen Welker

WASHINGTON — Fiona Hill, who was until recently President Donald Trump’s top aide on Russia and Europe, plans to tell Congress that Rudy Giuliani and E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland circumvented the National Security Council and the normal White House process to pursue a shadow policy on Ukraine, a person familiar with her expected testimony told NBC News.

Hill’s appearance next week before Congress has stoked fear among people close to the president, said a former senior White House official, given her central role overseeing Russia and Ukraine policy throughout most of the Trump administration.

Her plans to testify also pose a key test for whether congressional committees pursuing an impeachment inquiry can obtain testimony from other former officials who have left the administration, given the possibility that the White House may try to assert executive privilege to stop them from testifying.

Hill plans to say that Giuliani and Sondland side-stepped the proper process for accessing Trump on Ukraine issues, the person familiar with her expected testimony said, including circumventing John Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser until September.

Text messages recently released by Congress showed Sondland, Giuliani and former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker working to facilitate Trump’s goal of getting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to commit to investigate the president’s political opponents — and making a White House visit for Zelenskiy contingent on such a commitment. Official notes from Trump’s call with Zelenskiy released by the White House showed Trump asking the Ukrainians to work directly with Giuliani, and NBC News has reported that Sondland was also in direct contact with Trump about Ukraine. Sondland’s attorney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Giuliani and Sondland’s attorney didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Hill, through her attorney Lee Wolosky, declined to comment.

A Russia hawk and one of the U.S. government’s foremost experts on Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hill had wound down her role overseeing Russia and Europe policy at the National Security Council in July shortly before Trump’s call with Zelenskiy. So it’s unclear how much she would know about that call, although she would have had deep knowledge of events leading up to the call.

At the White House, Hill was not viewed as a Trump loyalist, leading those close to Trump to worry that she can’t be controlled or pressured not to reveal potentially damaging information about the president, the former senior White House official said.

Congressional committees this week requested that Hill testify on Oct. 14, according to a letter obtained by NBC News, and she agreed. She has not been subpoenaed by Congress.

So far, the White House has not contacted her to assert privilege and try to prevent her from testifying, the person familiar said. But given the prospect that may occur, it’s possible that Hill may ultimately testify under subpoena from Congress, which would compel her to testify and serve as a powerful argument for her to comply with the request from Congress even if the White House does try to stop her.

The White House has told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that it won’t cooperate with the impeachment inquiry as it currently stands. But while the White House can assert executive privilege— the right of the president to withhold some deliberative information from other branches of government— over current officials, the law is far murkier when it comes to private citizens who no longer work for the government.

If Hill does testify as planned, it could strengthen House Democrats’ hand to pursue testimony from many other former White House officials who would have insight into activities central to the impeachment inquiry— including from former officials who may be disgruntled. That could include Bolton and his former aides at the National Security Council who also departed when Trump fired Bolton last month.

Current officials are employed by the executive branch, so an assertion of privilege is essentially an instruction that employees would be hard-pressed to ignore. Private citizens have no similar obligation and the assertion of privilege could run up against their First Amendment rights.

Earlier this year the White House tried to assert the privilege over former White House Counsel Don McGahn, and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion arguing the privilege applies to former officials. But the argument has rarely been tested in court and remains an unsettled legal issue. In August, the House Judiciary Committee sued to try to compel McGahn to testify.
 
upload_2019-10-10_23-0-26.png



Two Florida businessmen tied to U.S. President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have been arrested on allegations of campaign finance violations resulting from a $325,000 US donation to a political action committee supporting Trump's re-election.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Rudy Giuliani, were arrested Wednesday night trying to flee the country with one-way tickets at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, according to Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. No destination was disclosed.

The men made a brief federal court appearance in Alexandria, Va., and were remanded in custody, as they were deemed a flight risk.

Parnas and Fruman were arrested on a four-count indictment that includes charges of conspiracy, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsification of records.The men had key roles in Giuliani's efforts to get government officials in Ukraine to investigate business dealings by former vice-president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the war-torn former Soviet republic.

While the indictments do not suggest wrongdoing by the president, they are likely to add fuel to the burgeoning House impeachment inquiry, raising additional questions about whether those close to Trump and Giuliani sought to use their influence to affect U.S. foreign policy decisions.

House Democrats subpoenaed Parnas and Fruman on Thursday for documents they have so far refused to produce to three House committees. The panels have previously subpoenaed Giuliani.

Records show Parnas and Fruman used wire transfers from a corporate entity they controlled to make a $325,000 US donation to the America First Action committee in 2018. But wire transfer records that became public through a lawsuit show the corporate entity reported as making the transaction was not the true source of the money.


yovanovitch.jpg

Marie Yovanovitch, centre, is shown in March meeting with officials in Kyiv from the government of then-president Petro Poroshenko. Yovanovitch, recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in May, is scheduled to give a deposition in House of Representatives committees on Friday. (Mikhail Palinchak/Presidential Press Service Pool Photo via AP)

Berman also alleged the two men urged a U.S. congressman to seek the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie (Masha) Yovanovitch, at the behest of Ukrainian government officials. That happened about the same time Parnas and Fruman committed to raising more than $20,000 for the politician.

Yovanovitch, born in Montreal but a U.S. citizen and diplomat for three decades, is scheduled to appear Friday in a closed session before three House committees.

The congressman wasn't identified by name in court papers, but the donations to "Congressman 1" in the indictment match campaign finance reports for former congressman Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who lost his re-election bid in November 2018. In May 2018, Parnas posted a photo of himself and his business partner, David Correia, with onetime attorney general Jeff Sessions in his Capitol Hill office, with the caption "Hard at work !!"

John Dowd, a lawyer for the men, hung up on an Associated Press reporter calling about the case.

Giuliani said he couldn't comment on the case and that he didn't represent them in campaign finance matters.

The men, who were arrested at Dulles International Airport, were expected to appear later Thursday in Federal Court in Virginia.

Illegal foreign contributions alleged
Correia, an American businessman, and Andrew Kukushkin, a Ukrainian-born U.S. citizen, were also charged.

The indictment says Parnas and Fruman "sought to advance their personal financial interests and the political interests of at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working" and took steps to conceal it from third parties, including creditors. They created a limited liability corporation, Global Energy Producers, and "intentionally caused certain large contributions to be reported in the name of GEP instead of in their own names," according to the indictment.

Prosecutors charge that the two men falsely claimed the contributions came from a liquefied natural gas business. At that point, the company had no income or significant assets, according to the indictment.

Prosecutors allege that Parnas and Fruman conspired to make illegal contributions in an effort to skirt the limit on federal campaign contributions. The men are also accused of making contributions to candidates for state and federal office, joint fundraising committees and independent expenditure committees in the names of other people.

The political donations were made "for the purpose of gaining influence with politicians, so as to advance their own personal financial interests and the political interests of Ukrainian government officials, including at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working," the indictment charges.

The commitment to raise more than $20,000 for the congressman was made in May and June 2018. The lawmaker had also received about $3 million in independent expenditures from a super political action committee that Parnas and Fruman had been funding. A super PAC can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in support of a candidate, but isn't allowed to directly co-ordinate with the official campaign.

The indictment also charges that Kukushkin conspired with the three other defendants to make political contributions, funded by a foreign national, to politicians seeking state and federal office "to gain influence with candidates as to policies that would benefit a future business venture."


trump-impeachment.jpg

Rudy Giuliani has come under scrutiny for his interactions with Ukraine on behalf of President Donald Trump, which did not occur in an official State Department or national security capacity. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/The Associated Press)

An unnamed foreigner wired $500,000 from a bank account overseas through New York to the defendants for political contributions to two political candidates for state office in Nevada, the indictment alleges. Foreigners are not permitted to contribute to U.S. elections.

The indictment accuses the four men of also participating in a scheme to acquire retail marijuana licences through donations to local and federal politicians in New York, Nevada and other states. In September of last year, the indictment says, Correia drafted a table of political contributions and donations that was subsequently circulated to the defendants and an unidentified foreign national.

The PAC donation in May 2018 was part of a flurry of political spending tied to Parnas and Fruman, with at least $478,000 US in donations flowing to GOP campaigns and PACs in little more than two months.

The money enabled the relatively unknown entrepreneurs to quickly gain access to the highest levels of the Republican Party, including face-to-face meetings with Trump at the White House and Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

The AP reported last week that Parnas and Fruman helped arrange a January meeting in New York between Ukraine's former top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, and Giuliani, as well as other meetings with top government officials.

Giuliani's efforts to launch a Ukrainian corruption investigation were echoed by Trump in his July 25 call with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That conversation is now at the heart of a burgeoning congressional impeachment inquiry.

A whistleblower complaint by an unnamed intelligence official makes reference to "associates" of Giuliani in Ukraine who were attempting to make contact with Zelensky's team, though it's not clear that refers to Parnas and Fruman. That could put the two men squarely in the middle of the investigation into Giuliani's activities.
 
Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.

A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.

8ff3ab71-1.png

Since July, support for impeachment increased among voters of all stripes: up 11 points among Democrats, 5 points among Republicans and 3 among independents. Support also went up among some of Trump’s key constituencies, including white evangelical Christians (+5 points), white men without a college degree (+8), and rural whites (+10).
 
upload_2019-10-11_12-54-37.png


Oct. 11, 2019, 10:35 AM EDT
By Pete Williams and Dartunorro Clark

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's accounting firm must turn over financial records requested by a House committee, a legal blow to the administration's efforts to block congressional investigations of his finances.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee sent a subpoena to Mazars USA, in April asking for documents related to Trump's accounts going back to January 2009. His lawyers sued to block the subpoena, arguing that Congress had no legitimate legislative purpose for getting the materials.

But in a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the committee "possesses authority under both the House rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply."

The appeals court put a seven-day hold on the legal effect of its ruling, which will give Trump’s lawyers time to appeal. The president's lawyers could fight the ruling before the full appeals court or by going directly to the Supreme Court.

“While we are reviewing the court’s lengthy decision, as well as Judge Rao’s dissent, we continue to believe that this subpoena is not a legitimate exercise of Congress’s legislative authority,” Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow told NBC News.

House Democrats said they needed the documents to investigate whether the president accurately filled out the required financial disclosure forms. Trump's former longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, told Congress in February that Trump "inflated his assets when it served his purposes" and deflated his assets in others.

Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Cohen's testimony and other documents "raise grave questions about whether the President has been accurate in his financial reporting."

In a statement Friday, Cummings called the appeals court's ruling "a fundamental and resounding victory for Congressional oversight, our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and the rule of law."

"For far too long, the President has placed his personal interests over the interests of the American people," Cummings said, adding that the committee must "fulfill our stated legislative and oversight objectives and permit the American people to obtain answers about some of the deeply troubling questions regarding the President’s adherence to Constitutional and statutory requirements to avoid conflicts of interest."

Trump's lawyers went to the appeals court after a federal judge in Washington ruled that the accounting firm must turn over the materials sought by subpoena.

"Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the Committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable," the appeals court said Friday, adding, "Disputes between Congress and the president are a recurring plot in our national story."

Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett, who were appointed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively, voted in favor of the committee. In her dissent, Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by Trump, said the House exceeded its authority in issuing the subpoena.

"The Constitution and our historical practice draw a consistent line between the legislative and judicial powers of Congress," Rao wrote. "The majority crosses this boundary for the first time by upholding this subpoena investigating the illegal conduct of the President under the legislative power."

"When the House chooses to investigate the President for alleged violations of the laws and the Constitution, it must proceed through impeachment, an exceptional and solemn exercise of judicial power established as a separate check on public officials," she wrote.

New York case
Friday's decision came in a case separate from other efforts by Congress and a prosecutor in New York to get access to the president's tax returns. That legal battle is still working its way through the courts.

In the New York case, the president is seeking to block prosecutors from obtaining his financial records related to hush-money payments made ahead of the 2016 presidential election to two women who claim to have had extramarital affairs with Trump. Trump has denied the affairs.

Trump’s attorneys argued that he was immune from criminal investigations as president, but on Monday, Manhattan federal Judge Victor Marrero rejected that lawsuit, arguing that it was "unqualified and boundless."

Trump swiftly appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a stay on the subpoena until it considers all of the arguments.
 
upload_2019-10-11_12-58-7.png


I am not a political person but a medical professional. Yet because of my field of expertise, I unexpectedly became an academic whistleblower. I have been compelled to blow two whistles: first, by publishing a book to alert the public that Donald Trump was more dangerous than perhaps any president in history, for psychological reasons; and second, on the American Psychiatric Association's actions that have effectively silenced those of us trying to fulfill our professional responsibility to society as outlined in its own code of ethics.

Politics never interested me previously. In fact, throughout my career when I was consulted on policy issues relating to my area of violence prevention, I strictly refrained from commenting on or getting involved in political matters.

But the dangers of the current U.S. president changed everything. I had to ask myself: If I devoted my career to studying and preventing violence, do I turn away from confronting the greatest potential violence we could ever face? What called me was a medical need, not politics.

President Trump is dangerous
Soon after the inauguration, I organized a conference around the ethics of speaking up about a public figure, and from it came a public-service book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President," a collection of essays from some of the most prominent psychiatrists and psychologists.

Our message was simple: The president was more dangerous than people suspected, would grow more dangerous with time, and could ultimately become uncontainable. Much of what we predicted in the book has come to pass: Trump's rhetoric has clearly incited violence, cruel policies against children that could lay the groundwork for future violence, enhancing a culture of violence both domestically and abroad, and the weakening of institutions that might have contained him.

Whereas law enforcement generally looks at committed deeds, mental health experts look at patterns of behavior to try to prevent dangers based on predictable characteristics and evidence. Trump's recent reference to his “great and unmatched wisdom,” which is supposed to reassure us in his decision to let Turkey loose on the Kurds in Syria, is only the latest manifestation of the dangerous lack of capacity.

In response, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has effectively gagged an entire profession, thus protecting a destructive government.

The organization's ethical guideline includes an affirmative obligation: to "contribut(e) to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health." In the midst of this political moment, the APA emphasized only one part of this guideline, the do-not-diagnose part, known as the so-called Goldwater Rule. Rather than take on a leadership role that acknowledges our profession’s societal responsibility at a critical time, the APA released statements that appear to suppress the educate-to-better-public-health part.

Goldwater Rule is far from bulletproof
Before this presidency, the psychiatric community had been grappling with the implications of the Goldwater Rule and softening it. For instance, diagnostic practices have changed from accepting interviews to observations, so any assertion that a personal interview is mandatory for a valid professional opinion does not hold.

In one influential journal article, a review of the rule's history found that "it contradicts regular psychiatric diagnostic practices, and its reach seems to include" everything from "legitimate academic pursuits" to "self-promoting pseudoscientific statements." Therefore, the Goldwater Rule should be considered a matter of "etiquette rather than ethics."

This is not 'armchair psychiatry': On Trump's mental fitness, the experts are silenced and the public's in the dark

Instead, during the Trump administration, the APA expanded the Goldwater Rule and used this guideline to openly denounce professionals who would speak up as “unethical” and engaging in "armchair psychiatry." A former APA president even released a video message warning that speaking out might be "political partisanship disguised as patriotism."

Many in the news media have even adopted the APA's line.

advising and consulting with the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of the government." Obtaining a mental health consultation is not the same as allowing it to overtake a political process or supersede the public’s authority to decide. Rather, proceeding without being properly informed risks turning our political process into a partisan process that manipulates rather than serves the public.

After the inauguration, we spelled out what was to happen. Our track record should reveal that we were not speaking frivolously. My colleagues and I risked our reputations and careers to speak out. There are many more who wish to blow the whistle. There is still time, but we fear that the worst is yet to come.

Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine and president of the World Mental Health Coalition, is editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” Follow her on Twitter: @BandyXLee1


bbe62eca-6c9d-4b84-9cb1-e42be4b6de5d-10-11-19ThompsonStableGeniusWeb.jpg


The cartoonist's homepage, www.usatoday.com/opinion/ Mike Thompson, USA TODAY
 
upload_2019-10-12_0-6-57.png


WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s financial records must be turned over to the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that lawmakers should get the documents they have subpoenaed from Mazars USA. The firm has provided accounting services to Trump.

Trump went to court to prevent Mazars from turning over the records. He could appeal to the Supreme Court.

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed records from Mazars in April. They include documents from 2011 to 2018 that the House wants for investigation into the president’s reporting of his finances and potential conflicts of interest.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court batted away Trump’s legal claims.

“Contrary to the President’s arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply,” Judge David Tatel wrote, joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Millett is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Trump says voters ‘didn’t care’ that he didn’t release tax returns in 2016

The case is one of several working its way through courts in which Trump is fighting with Congress over records. The House Ways and Means Committee has sued the Trump administration over access to the president’s tax returns. In New York, Trump sued to prevent Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with House subpoenas for banking and financial records. A judge ruled against him, and Trump appealed. Trump also is in court trying to stop the Manhattan District Attorney from obtaining his tax returns.

Trump had argued that Oversight committee seeking the records from Mazars is out to get him and lacks a legitimate “legislative purpose” for its request. His lawyers have argued that congressional investigations are valid only if there is legislation that might result from them.

The committee, for its part, has said it is seeking the Trump financial statements, accounting records and other documents as part of its investigation into whether the president has undisclosed conflicts of interests, whether he has accurately reported his finances and whether he may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his time in office.

The committee says the House is considering legislation related to government conflicts of interest and presidential financial disclosures, among other things.

© 2019 The Canadian Press
 
浏览附件861487

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s financial records must be turned over to the House of Representatives.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that lawmakers should get the documents they have subpoenaed from Mazars USA. The firm has provided accounting services to Trump.

Trump went to court to prevent Mazars from turning over the records. He could appeal to the Supreme Court.

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed records from Mazars in April. They include documents from 2011 to 2018 that the House wants for investigation into the president’s reporting of his finances and potential conflicts of interest.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court batted away Trump’s legal claims.

“Contrary to the President’s arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply,” Judge David Tatel wrote, joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Millett is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Trump says voters ‘didn’t care’ that he didn’t release tax returns in 2016

The case is one of several working its way through courts in which Trump is fighting with Congress over records. The House Ways and Means Committee has sued the Trump administration over access to the president’s tax returns. In New York, Trump sued to prevent Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with House subpoenas for banking and financial records. A judge ruled against him, and Trump appealed. Trump also is in court trying to stop the Manhattan District Attorney from obtaining his tax returns.

Trump had argued that Oversight committee seeking the records from Mazars is out to get him and lacks a legitimate “legislative purpose” for its request. His lawyers have argued that congressional investigations are valid only if there is legislation that might result from them.

The committee, for its part, has said it is seeking the Trump financial statements, accounting records and other documents as part of its investigation into whether the president has undisclosed conflicts of interests, whether he has accurately reported his finances and whether he may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his time in office.

The committee says the House is considering legislation related to government conflicts of interest and presidential financial disclosures, among other things.

© 2019 The Canadian Press
赞美国的民主法治,贵为任性的总统也会丢官司。
 
后退
顶部