The state of American politics, according to the Jan. 6 hearings - The Globe and Mail | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

The state of American politics, according to the Jan. 6 hearings – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


A video of former President Donald Trump speaking during a rally, as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol holds a hearing at the Capitol in Washington, June 16, 2022.J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press

Three days of hearings on the Jan. 6 insurrection are done, two more are to come next week, but increasingly it is clear that the story of this investigation and the challenge the United States faces as a result of the Capitol riot boil down to a searing question from the distant past – and an alarm bell from the troubled present.

The question senator Howard Baker Jr. of Tennessee posed during the Watergate hearings has relevance and resonance today: “What did the president know,” he asked on June 25, 1973, “and when did he know it?”

And now we know how close Donald Trump came to defying more than two centuries of custom, an 1887 election law and the Constitution. That threat was summarized in blistering language uttered in eerie calm Thursday by a retired federal circuit-court judge with impeccable conservative credentials.

“[The] declaration of Donald Trump as the next president,” said J. Michael Luttig, who served on the country’s second-most-powerful bench after working in two Republican administrations, “would have launched America into what I believe would have been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis in America, which in my view would have been the first constitutional crisis since the founding of the Republic.”

Republicans have characterized the hearings as a partisan sham, some Democrats believe the committee still hasn’t sealed its case, and television critics have described the sessions as either too flat or too slick. But they have managed two substantial accomplishments.

They have given a Trump answer to the question posed of Richard Nixon and they have provided perspective on the real danger growing out of the Capitol riot – not the damage to the building, which was easily repaired, but the potential damage to the constitutional scaffolding of the United States, which when fragmented is not easily restored.

“Trump set out very deliberately to kill the spirit of a nation,” said former Republican governor William Weld of Massachusetts, who as a young man served as an aide to the committee that prepared impeachment articles against Mr. Nixon and who mounted a brief challenge to Mr. Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, in an interview. “That spirit – the idea that in America the ‘fix’ is not ‘in’ – is why people all over the world wanted to come to the United States. But Trump wanted to make sure that the ‘fix’ was always ‘in.’ Watergate was an isolated incident that people in the Nixon White House worked to cover up. The people in the Trump White House worked to foment a conspiracy.”

Now it is clear that the question Mr. Baker asked about Mr. Nixon has a clear answer when it comes to Mr. Trump: The president knew everything about the effort to overturn the election (though not so much about the Constitution and the responsibilities of his vice-president, Mike Pence, whom he badgered to deny the presidency to Joe Biden).

“To the day he died, Senator Baker was proud of asking that question,” said Tom Griscom, who for decades was Mr. Baker’s closest aide. “It became a question over time that many other people used in trying to find the truth.”

And as a result of Mr. Luttig’s testimony Thursday, it is clear that the danger was not confined to the 2020 election but instead was a threat to the entire political framework of the country.

His remarks, televised internationally and captured on tape, may be remembered when the Capitol rampage is as far in the past as Watergate is to us today. But his written statement, released ahead of his appearance before the committee, put the matter in even more stark and urgent terms: “paralyzing constitutional crisis.”

The element that ties the two marquee moments together – the Baker question and the Luttig statement – is what the hearings have shown in sharp relief: that Mr. Trump knew from the start what he was doing; that he knew the flying buttresses of his argument were weak and compromised; that he was told his plan was illegal; and that he pressed ahead anyway.

Some of the committee members’ remarks lacked subtlety, some showed little respect for the nuances, but all – two Republicans and seven Democrats – proceeded with gravity and a sense of history.

That sense of duty was best personified by a little-known congresswoman on the committee, Democrat Elaine Luria, a one-time Navy engineer whose nerves were tested while operating nuclear reactors on combat vessels, boarding ships commandeered by Iraqi oil pirates, launching fighter planes to attack terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and commanding 400 sailors in a combat-ready unit. She was elected to the House four years ago in a district that includes Virginia Beach and the Eastern Shore and that sided with the successful GOP gubernatorial candidate, Glenn Youngkin, in last November’s election. She faces a tough re-election battle in November.

“If I don’t get re-elected because of this,” Ms. Luria, 46, told The New York Times, “that’s OK.”

In displaying her willingness to lose to do what’s right, she provided a stark contrast to Mr. Trump’s determination to win.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Gould calls Poilievre a ‘fraudster’ over his carbon price warning

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Liberal House leader Karina Gould lambasted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a “fraudster” this morning after he said the federal carbon price is going to cause a “nuclear winter.”

Gould was speaking just before the House of Commons is set to reopen following the summer break.

“What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature, and something that only a fraudster would do,” she said from Parliament Hill.

On Sunday Poilievre said increasing the carbon price will cause a “nuclear winter,” painting a dystopian picture of people starving and freezing because they can’t afford food or heat due the carbon price.

He said the Liberals’ obsession with carbon pricing is “an existential threat to our economy and our way of life.”

The carbon price currently adds about 17.6 cents to every litre of gasoline, but that cost is offset by carbon rebates mailed to Canadians every three months. The Parliamentary Budget Office provided analysis that showed eight in 10 households receive more from the rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, though the office also warned that long-term economic effects could harm jobs and wage growth.

Gould accused Poilievre of ignoring the rebates, and refusing to tell Canadians how he would make life more affordable while battling climate change. The Liberals have also accused the Conservatives of dismissing the expertise of more than 200 economists who wrote a letter earlier this year describing the carbon price as the least expensive, most efficient way to lower emissions.

Poilievre is pushing for the other opposition parties to vote the government down and trigger what he calls a “carbon tax election.”

The recent decision by the NDP to break its political pact with the government makes an early election more likely, but there does not seem to be an interest from either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to have it happen immediately.

Poilievre intends to bring a non-confidence motion against the government as early as this week but would likely need both the Bloc and NDP to support it.

Gould said she has no “crystal ball” over when or how often Poilievre might try to bring down the government

“I know that the end of the supply and confidence agreement makes things a bit different, but really all it does is returns us to a normal minority parliament,” she said. “And that means that we will work case-by-case, legislation-by-legislation with whichever party wants to work with us. I have already been in touch with all of the House leaders in the opposition parties and my job now is to make Parliament work for Canadians.”

She also insisted the government has listened to the concerns raised by Canadians, and received the message when the Liberals lost a Toronto byelection in June in seat the party had held since 1997.

“We certainly got the message from Toronto-St. Paul’s and have spent the summer reflecting on what that means and are coming back to Parliament, I think, very clearly focused on ensuring that Canadians are at the centre of everything that we do moving forward,” she said.

The Liberals are bracing, however, for the possibility of another blow Monday night, in a tight race to hold a Montreal seat in a byelection there. Voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun are casting ballots today to replace former justice minister David Lametti, who was removed from cabinet in 2023 and resigned as an MP in January.

The Conservatives and NDP are also in a tight race in Elmwood-Transcona, a Winnipeg seat that has mostly been held by the NDP over the last several decades.

There are several key bills making their way through the legislative process, including the online harms act and the NDP-endorsed pharmacare bill, which is currently in the Senate.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

NDP caving to Poilievre on carbon price, has no idea how to fight climate change: PM

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the NDP is caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre when it comes to their stance on the consumer carbon price.

Trudeau says he believes Jagmeet Singh and the NDP care about the environment, but it’s “increasingly obvious” that they have “no idea” what to do about climate change.

On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but wouldn’t say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.

Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.

Poilievre responded to that by releasing a video, pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.

British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Quebec consumer rights bill to regulate how merchants can ask for tips

Published

 on

 

Quebec wants to curb excessive tipping.

Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister responsible for consumer protection, has tabled a bill to force merchants to calculate tips based on the price before tax.

That means on a restaurant bill of $100, suggested tips would be calculated based on $100, not on $114.98 after provincial and federal sales taxes are added.

The bill would also increase the rebate offered to consumers when the price of an item at the cash register is higher than the shelf price, to $15 from $10.

And it would force grocery stores offering a discounted price for several items to clearly list the unit price as well.

Businesses would also have to indicate whether taxes will be added to the price of food products.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version