Showing posts with label extortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extortion. Show all posts

Saturday, May 06, 2023

Biden Should Not Give In To GOP Extortion On Debt Limit


 The Republicans are holding the American economy hostage to force drastic cuts to the budget. This is dangerous and crazy, and President Biden should not give in to it. Here is economist Paul Krugman's take on the situation:

The United States is barreling toward a debt crisis; the possibility of default on U.S. debt is already beginning to roil markets.

What’s odd about this potential crisis is that it has nothing to do with excessive debt. Maybe you think the federal government has borrowed too much over time. We can argue about such things. But they’re beside the point right now. America in 2023 isn’t like, say, Greece in 2009 or Argentina in 2001, cut off by investors because they have lost faith in our solvency.

Our looming crisis will, instead, be entirely self-inflicted — or, more accurately, Republican-inflicted. If it happens it will be because the party controlling the House refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a quirk of the U.S. budget process that lets Congress prevent the government from making payments that have already been approved through past legislation.

There are three things you need to know about this crisis.

First, whatever courts may say about the constitutionality of the debt ceiling, budget decisions should be dictated by votes over spending and taxing, not by hostage-taking in which the party most willing to destroy the economy gets what it wants.


Second, if the politics of extortion do lead to a debt default, the consequences will be catastrophic.

Third, there is no economic downside to the various ways the Biden administration might seek to bypass Republican extortion and continue normal governance. Contrary to a lot of misinformation out there, things like issuing premium bonds or minting a platinum coin would not be inflationary. They sound undignified, but creating a global depression because we’re afraid of looking silly would be utterly irresponsible.

Here’s how budgeting is supposed to work: Congress passes bills that set tax rates and determine spending, which become law if the president signs them. Much of the time the legislated spending exceeds revenue, so the government must borrow to cover the difference. So be it. But under a quirk of U.S. law, with complicated origins, Congress must vote a second time to authorize the borrowing required by its own previous votes.

What would it mean if Congress refused to authorize that borrowing, that is, refused to raise the debt ceiling? It wouldn’t be a way to restrain spending. It would, instead, amount to preventing the president from making payments Congress has already mandated. It would be like buying a bunch of home furnishings, taking delivery, then refusing to pay the bill.

And it would be hugely destructive.

A new report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers lays out potential costs from a default induced by Republican refusal to raise the debt ceiling. The analysis suggests that a protracted default could cost eight million jobs as a result of shocks to consumer and business confidence, increased interest rates on U.S. debt (which investors would no longer consider safe) and drastic forced cuts in government spending.


Even these projections may understate the likely damage. Until now, the world has viewed U.S. government debt as the ultimate safe asset; as a result, Treasury bills play a crucial role as collateral in many financial transactions. Make these bills unsafe — I.O.U.s that the U.S. may not honor — and the whole global financial system could freeze up.

In fact, this almost happened for a few days in March 2020, and it’s not clear whether a rescue could be engineered in today’s political environment.

So what can be done? Let’s not make a deal: Republicans are effectively engaged in a fiscal version of Jan. 6, using the threat of destruction in an attempt to exert total control even though voters gave them only one house of Congress. President Biden shouldn’t give in to extortion, let alone make any deal acquiescing to demands of the extremists who control the House G.O.P.

It’s possible that Biden could simply declare that he must implement duly enacted fiscal legislation and that a debt ceiling that prevents him from doing so is unconstitutional.

Beyond that, there are those gimmicks. Yes, they would be gimmicks. I don’t have space to explain premium bonds, but they would involve playing games with the definition of “debt.” As for the platinum coin, the law allowing the government to mint a trillion-dollar coin was never intended as a way to bypass debt-limit extortion — but the debt limit was never intended to provide a mechanism for extortion, either.


And there are no significant economic downsides to using these gimmicks. I’ve been shocked to see people who should know better, including mainstream media outlets, report as fact the myth that, say, minting the coin would be inflationary. It wouldn’t; it would simply be a backdoor way to continue normal financing, bypassing the letter of a debt ceiling that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

I’m not sure what specific approach the Biden administration will adopt. But the guiding rule should be to do whatever it takes to get through this — whatever it takes, that is, other than giving in to extortion.

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Sondland Says All Involved (Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Etc.)

(Cartoon image is by Ann Telnaes in The Washington Post.)

Ambassador Sondland (the man who gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration) testified before the House committee yesterday. Sondland is a Republican and a "Trumper". He cannot be accused of being a Democratic operative or a member of the "Deep State".

I think Republicans were hoping he would back up their alternate reality. He did not. He told the truth. He said that there was a quid pro quo (extortion/bribery) -- that the military assistance money and a trip to the White House were conditioned on Ukraine announcing they were investigating Burisma (and the Bidens) and interference in 2016 election by Ukraine (which has been thoroughly debunked). Even worse (for Republicans), Sondland said everyone was "in the loop" (Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, etc.).

Here's how Jennifer Rubin describes Sondland's testimony in The Washington Post:

Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a rich hotel mogul who gave $1 million to President Trump’s inaugural committee, provided devastating testimony Wednesday morning, implicating Trump, Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and numerous other people in a “quid pro quo” arrangement of a White House visit for an announcement of investigations, not the investigations themselves. The sequence of events he testified to eviscerates the defenses that Trump was not directly involved in the scheme, that there was no quid pro quo, that Ukraine did not know about the deal and that Sondland was a rogue actor.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of Sondland’s testimony was the degree to which he implicated Pompeo in the scheme. He pointed to emails sent to Pompeo and Pompeo aides that pointed to his ongoing effort to steer Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky into providing the assurances Trump was looking for. As The Post recounts: “‘I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place mid-Sept, that Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US,’ Sondland wrote in the Aug. 22 email, using an acronym for president of the United States. ‘Hopefully, that will break the logjam’ on funding.”

Sondland also made clear the degree to which Pompeo is participating in the obstruction of the investigation. Sondland said he was directed by the State Department and the White House not to testify, and further, he stressed that the State Department and White House refused to make documents available to him and the committee. This undoubtedly was raised to account for his changes in testimony, but it also clearly hammered home Pompeo’s self-interest in preventing incriminating documents from surfacing.

The stunningly candid testimony made clear that, in a May 23 meeting with Trump, Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker were told “talk to Rudy,” meaning Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. From there on out, his communications with the Ukrainians, with Trump and with other State Department officials made clear no White House visit (an official act) would transpire without an announcement of investigations that we know would smear the former vice president and help Trump’s reelection campaign. Sondland explicitly testified that he understood there was a quid pro quo — a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation of the 2016 debunked conspiracy theory and Burisma, which he later learned meant the Bidens. (Throughout he maintained he did not understand this was about the Bidens, although news accounts of and TV appearances by Giuliani made clear this was about the Bidens.)

Sondland also confirmed that in a July 26 call Trump brought up the investigations, something he had been hearing all along from Giuliani. He does not dispute telling the State Department official who overheard the call that Trump did not care about Ukraine, only the “big stuff,” meaning investigations.

Asked by House Intelligence Committee counsel if he figured out the aid was conditioned on the announcements because “two plus two equals four,” Sondland said though the connection between an announcement of investigations and the aid hold was not specifically communicated from Trump, it was the only logical explanation and “everyone” understood this by September.

The impact of Sondland’s account cannot be covered up, obscured or spun. If Republicans continue to insist Trump did nothing wrong or that he did not sacrifice our national security for political gain, it will be because they willfully reject facts that demonstrate Trump violated his oath. As for the public, anyone who cares to can see that the Republicans who do so are simply enablers in a corrupt scheme that harmed our national security.

Monday, November 18, 2019

Was Trump's Crime With Ukraine Extortion Or Bribery?

I am happy to see the Democrats are no longer using the term "quid pro quo". While it may be somewhat accurate, it doesn't reflect the true nature of the seriousness of Trump's conduct.

The truth is that Trump committed a serious crime -- a crime for which he should be impeached. But what was that crime? Was it bribery or was it extortion? I've heard Democrats use both terms.

After thinking about this, I've come to the conclusion that he committed both bribery and extortion. How can this be? Bribery and extortion are not the same thing. They are very different crimes. Extortion is trying to force someone to do something with threats. Bribery is trying to get them to do something by offering something they want.

It is both because Trump didn't commit a single crime. He committed two distinct and separate crimes.

When he withheld the military aid from Ukraine to force them to announce an investigation of the Biden's, that was extortion. Ukraine desperately needed that aid, and withholding it was a definite threat.

When Trump offered a White House visit to the Ukrainian president if he would announce an investigation of the Bidens, that was bribery. He was offering something Ukraine wanted to get something he wanted (help in smearing his political opponent).

Trump badly wanted foreign help to smear a political opponent, and to get that help he committed both bribery and extortion. Both are serious crimes, and he should be impeached and removed from office.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Quid Pro Quo? Call It What It Is - Bribery & Extortion!

Quid Pro Quo. It literally means "this for that". If you give me this, then I will give you that.

Many people don't know that. It's just some fancy-sounding Latin to them. For many others, it sounds innocuous. It doesn't carry the seriousness of what Trump's actions really were.

Donald Trump broke the law. He tried to pressure the president of Ukraine into announcing that his government was investigating Joe Biden and his son for wrongdoing (even though they had no knowledge of any wrongdoing).

That's not innocuous. It is a criminal act. It's is either Bribery or extortion (or both) -- serious crimes. If an ordinary American did either of those crimes, they would spend time in prison.

Since the Justice Department has decided they won't accuse a sitting president of a crime, the only recourse is to impeach that president if he commits a crime -- like bribery or extortion to help his own political ambitions.

It's time to use plain language -- language the public will understand. The words for the crime Trump committed are BRIBERY and EXTORTION.

The following is a letter to the editor of The New York Times from 33 writers. They understand that words have meaning, and it's time to use the correct words for Trump's criminal behavior. They wrote:

To the Editor:
A plea from 33 writers: Please use language that will clarify the issues at hand.
Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record. 
That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” — as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead.
Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act.
Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations. Instead, please use the more formal, direct and powerful phrase “create false evidence,” or “find incriminating evidence” or the simpler “tell lies about.”

Words make a difference.
These are parlous times, and we look to public voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas. Please use precise and forceful language that reveals the struggle in which we now find ourselves. It’s a matter of survival.
Roxana Robinson
New York
The writer is former president of the Authors Guild. The letter was signed by 32 other writers:
Karen Bender
Rachel Cline
Martha Cooley
Angela Davis-Gardner
Alex Enders
Pamela Erens
Barbara Fischkin
Lynn Goldberg
Lisa Gornick
Masha Hamilton
Jessica Keener
Fiona Maazel
Celia McGee
Edie Meidav
Susan Merrell
Sue Miller
Mary Morris
Elizabeth Nunez
Maureen Pilkington
Elissa Schappell
Debra Schupack
Christine Schutt
Lynne Sharon Schwartz
Andrea Scrima
Alix Kates Shulman
Jane Smiley
Lee Smith
Terese Svoboda
Amanda Vaill
Katharine Weber
Paula Whyman