December 13, 2019

Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain during a campaign event in London on Wednesday.

Conservatives Headed for Landslide in U.K. Vote: ‘Brexit Will Happen.’ Labour Faces Worst Defeat Since 1935.

The strong showing is vindication for Boris Johnson, who now has a chance to put his personal stamp on Britain, beginning with Brexit.
NY TIMES
LONDON — Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party appeared on course Thursday to win a commanding majority in the British Parliament, a striking victory that redraws the lines in British politics and paves the way for the country’s exit from the European Union early next year.
The Conservatives were projected to win 368 seats in the House of Commons, versus 191 for the Labour Party, according to an official exit poll. That would give the Conservatives an 86-seat majority, their largest since that amassed by Margaret Thatcher in 1987.
As the results began flowing in from individual districts, they pointed to a radical reconfiguration of Britain’s political map. The Conservative Party was projected to win dozens of Labour seats in the industrial north and Midlands, shattering the so-called red wall that has undergirded the Labour Party for generations.
Image
Credit...Tolga Akmen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
For Mr. Johnson, whose brief tenure has been marked by serial defeats in Parliamentlegal reversals and ceaseless upheaval, it was a resounding vindication. Defying predictions that he would be tossed out of his job, the prime minister now seems assured of leading Britain through its most momentous transition since World War II.
For Britain, which has lurched from crisis to crisis since the 2016 Brexit referendum, its future seemingly shrouded in perpetual uncertainty, the election provided a rare moment of piercing clarity.

“It’s a remarkable victory,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “Boris Johnson now has five years in power. Brexit will happen. Labour faces an existential question about its future — yet again.”
Image
Credit...Andrew Testa for The New York Times
As news of the Conservative victory began to circulate, the pound surged in trading against the dollar and euro, reflecting relief that British politics is likely to stabilize and Britain is more likely to have an orderly departure from the European Union.
The exit poll, conducted for three major British broadcasters, is not a definitive result; the numbers could shift, particularly in closely fought districts. But it has proved generally reliable, predicting, for example, that Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, would fail to win a majority in 2017.
The news for Conservatives on Thursday was far better, with the party projected to gain 50 seats, in excess of what most polls predicted. The Labour Party lost 71 seats, its worst showing since 1983, and one that seemed likely to lead to the resignation of the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
The results, with their seismic shift in the parliamentary power balance, indicated that Mr. Johnson had won his bet that by calling another general election and throwing the question of Brexit back to the British public, he could break the stalemate in Parliament and win a mandate for his policy of a swift withdrawal from the European Union.
Image
Credit...Andrew Testa for The New York Times
There were, however, some red flags for Mr. Johnson, who will lead a Britain still deeply divided over Brexit.
The Scottish National Party was projected to win 55 of Scotland’s 59 seats, a gain of about 20 seats, though analysts warned that the exit poll data there was particularly volatile and subject to revision. The party has stridently opposed Mr. Johnson’s drive for a swift Brexit, and its powerful performance could renew calls for a referendum on Scottish independence, which the prime minister opposes.
The Conservative Party’s gains among working-class voters in the Midlands and the north could also affect Mr. Johnson’s freedom to negotiate a trade agreement with the European Union. Those voters will push for a revival of Britain’s manufacturing economy and protection from imports, a vision that is at odds with the free-market, deregulatory ethos of Mr. Johnson and his aides.
One of Mr. Johnson’s top aides, Priti Patel, the home secretary, said Thursday evening that the new government would introduce legislation to complete Brexit before Christmas, a lightning fast schedule. But Britain’s departure would still not be likely to happen before Jan. 31, the date agreed upon with the European Union.
Many in Britain grumbled about having to go to the polls again so soon, especially in the weeks leading up to Christmas, when the weather is cold and the days are short.
But the stakes this time could not have been higher. Unlike the 2017 vote, this election clarified Britain’s immediate future for the first time since a narrow majority voted to leave the European Union in 2016.
Image
Credit...Mary Turner for The New York Times
Mr. Johnson’s victory extinguishes the possibility of Britain’s reversing that decision, a dream that has been nurtured by millions who believe that the referendum was a catastrophic error and should be rerun. Polls show a slim majority of people would now favor remaining in Europe, though campaigns for a second referendum have consistently fallen short in Parliament.
For the Labour Party, which had lagged the Conservatives in the polls throughout the campaign but seemed to be narrowing the gap in the past few days, it was a devastating defeat. The party struggled to shift the focus during the campaign from Brexit to social issues like health care, which play more to its benefit.
But one of the most senior Labor Party officials, John McDonnell, acknowledged that Brexit had dominated the campaign, keeping his party on the defensive.
Labour had promised to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement with Brussels and then put that to a popular vote. That message was less straightforward than Mr. Johnson’s rallying cry of “Get Brexit Done.”
Neither Labour’s stance on Brexit nor its hard left manifesto of nationalization, tax increases on the rich and huge public spending increases resonated with an electorate that appeared above all to to be ready to turn the page, even if the post-Brexit future is a minefield of uncertainties.
Adding to Labour’s problems was the deep personal unpopularity of Mr. Corbyn, who could never recapture the cheerful aura that seemed to surround him in 2017. Nor could he respond effectively to accusations of deep-rooted anti-Semitism in the party.
Image
Credit...Thanassis Stavrakis/Associated Press
Other smaller parties suffered as well, particularly the Liberal Democrats, which campaigned to reverse the results of the Brexit referendum. The party was projected to win only a single seat over what they won in 2017, and saw its total number of seats, which had grown because of defections from other parties, reduced by eight. The party’s leader, Jo Swinson, seemed in danger of losing her seat.
It is difficult to overstate the shift in Mr. Johnson’s fortunes from a year ago, when he was briefly a back bencher. As a fledgling prime minister in September, he had faced a mutiny from nearly two dozen members of his own party over his threat to leave the European Union without a deal. Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that his decision to suspend the Parliament for five weeks — to squelch its ability to debate his Brexit policy — was illegal.
He purged the party dissidents and has largely recast the Conservatives as a band of hard-line Brexiteers.
In the campaign, Mr. Johnson stuck to a disciplined strategy, forswearing the clownishness that has characterized his political career. He avoided scrutiny from the news media, declined to be drawn into debates about issues aside from Brexit and conducted his campaign largely on photo opportunities — like when he drove a backhoe through a Styrofoam wall emblazoned with the word, “Gridlock.”
Every single Conservative candidate signed a pledge to support Mr. Johnson’s withdrawal agreement, guaranteeing that if his party won even a one-seat majority, Britain would depart the bloc under the terms of that deal.
Once Parliament gives its approval to the withdrawal deal, Mr. Johnson’s first order of business will be to negotiate a trade agreement with the European Union, a task that many experts predict will be arduous and all but impossible to complete before Britain’s next deadline, Dec. 31, 2020.
That sets up another potential battle over extending the deadline — something that Mr. Johnson has sworn not to do — or leaving with no deal.

December 12, 2019


How Trump Weaponized the Justice Department’s Inspector General

The president and his allies have turned investigations into a political tool for use against their enemies.





JAMES STEWART, NY TIMES


We Just Got a Rare Look at National Security Surveillance. It Is Ugly.

A high-profile inspector general report has served as fodder for arguments about President Trump. But its findings about surveillance are important beyond partisan politics.
NY TIMES








Report Details Interactions Between F.B.I. and Dossier Author

The inspector general provided a close look at what seemed at times to be a bungled relationship between Christopher Steele and the bureau.
NY TIMES





December 11, 2019

Key Takeaways in Newly Released Documents Detailing Failures of War in Afghanistan Some of the findings were already known. But they are sure to fuel a debate over when, and how, to end the American-led war.


American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2011.

NY TIMES
WASHINGTON — The war in Afghanistan has cost American taxpayers more than $1 trillion, but has produced at best a faltering democracy and — most tragically — has resulted in the deaths of nearly 115,000 civilians, military forces, humanitarian aid workers and journalists.
New documents reveal extraordinarily detailed warnings of failure from officials at the highest levels of the United States government about the 18-year war.
Obtained by The Washington Post, the documents are part of an investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that sought to identify lessons learned in the war so that they might not be repeated in future American conflicts.
Some of the broad strokes of the findings were well known. But they are sure now to fuel a simmering debate over when, and how, to end the United States’ war in Afghanistan. American and Taliban negotiators are trying anew to broker a peace agreement that would see the withdrawal of the 13,000 forces currently in Afghanistan, as President Trump has pledged.
The inspector general’s office eventually handed over more than 2,000 pages of notes and transcripts, as well as audio recordings of interviews with some of the most senior American officials involved in the Afghan strategy. The investigation was conducted between 2014 and 2018.
Here are eight key findings:
What began with a 2001 military invasion to push the Taliban from power and rout Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks grew into a broader mission that has lurched from goal to goal.
Over the years, the priority shifted from fighting extremist militants to helping stabilize the government in Kabul and back again.
At times, some American officials wanted the focus on installing democracy in the tribal culture; others wanted women’s rights to be firmly ensconced before the United States stepped back. And some officials saw the American role in Afghanistan as an opportunity to reshape a larger strategy for regional security.
“What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking,” Douglas Lute, an Army lieutenant general who advised both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama on the war effort, told investigators in 2015, according to the documents.
A blurred understanding of the Taliban’s relationship with Al Qaeda led to questions about who — or which — was Enemy No. 1.
The United States confronted a dizzying array of potential adversaries in Afghanistan and, according to the documents, could not decide who among them were foes.
Assistance was needed from leaders in neighboring Pakistan, but American officials didn’t trust them. Money was thrown at Afghan warlords who, in any other circumstance, would be considered adversaries. And an array of foreign militants — including the Islamic State — rushed to the battlefield to prove themselves.
Image
Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
The confusion was evident early on: “I have no visibility into who the bad guys are,” Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, wrote in a memo Sept. 8, 2003.
For years, the strategy for when American forces should leave largely became a chicken-and-egg debate.
A military withdrawal before Afghan troops were able to defend their own country could result in the United States’ return years later, after losing all the gains that have been made since 2001. (Witness the Islamic State’s rampage in Iraq after American troops left in 2011.)
“We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave,” Mr. Rumsfeld told aides in 2002.
But military officers also reported widespread failures in training Afghan security forces — a necessary step, officials believed, in helping stabilize the country.
Many Afghan troops were seen as inept or lazy or. In some cases, they were nonexistent; their commanders had padded the ranks with so-called ghost soldiers and kept the extra pay they received from American trainers. Other Afghan troops were believed to be drug addicts, thieves and even Taliban sympathizers.
Some estimates put the spending total in Afghanistan by the United States since 2001 at approximately $2 trillion. The bloated bottom line was in part caused by what one official at the United States Agency for International Development described as “lost objectivity.”
“We were given money, told to spend it, and we did — without reason,” the unidentified official told investigators in a 2016 interview. An unidentified contractor reported being told to give out $3 million each day for projects in a single Afghan district.
With that much money flowing into Afghanistan, it was perhaps inevitable that some of it would line local leaders’ pockets.
The documents describe American officials ignoring widespread skimming by the Afghan government that, ultimately, undermined the war strategy. One retired Army colonel who advised three American generals said that the problem persisted not just among judges and security officials, but became a “kleptocracy” throughout the government of former President Hamid Karzai.
“The kleptocracy got stronger over time, to the point that the priority of the Afghan government became not good governance, but sustaining this kleptocracy,” the retired American colonel, who was later identified as Christopher Kolenda, told investigators in 2016.
The American vision for Afghanistan’s future was largely rooted in fostering democracy, modeled after the United States. Not only was that unrealistic in a culture based on tribalism and Islamic law — not to mention a history of a monarchy followed by communist rule — it was all but impossible to do within the time American officials had hoped.
Image
Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
“The time frame for creating a strong central government is 100 years, which we didn’t have,” an unidentified former State Department official told investigators in 2015.
American officials also sought to end Afghanistan’s opium trade — a major source of income for poor farmers — and, at points, tried to cultivate pomegranate crops as a replacement for poppies.
But the documents show that no single agency was in charge of the Afghan drug strategy, so officials at the State Department, Pentagon, Drug Enforcement Administration and others constantly clashed. Afghanistan remains a leader in global opium production, according to the United Nations, despite billions of dollars spent by the United States to stop it.
The United States invaded Afghanistan as a direct result of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, seeking to capture or kill Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden. It took nearly 10 years for American intelligence officials to track down Bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Eight years later, United States troops remain in Afghanistan — leaving many Americans to wonder why.
“After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan,” an unidentified official told investigators in 2015. The official was later identified by The Post as Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL who oversaw Afghanistan and Pakistan issues on the White House National Security Council during the Bush and Obama administrations.
Officials in Washington sought for years to assure the world that the American-led war in Afghanistan was succeeding — despite rough patches along the way.
John F. Sopko, who runs the inspector general’s office, told The Post that the documents reveal that is not true.
“The American people have constantly been lied to,” Mr. Sopko said.
In June 2006, a retired Army general, Barry R. McCaffrey, who had just returned from a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, warned that the situation was so tenuous that the entire effort could “collapse again into mayhem” without American support.
But that’s not how the United States government portrayed the campaign. Time and again, military officials, diplomats, cabinet secretaries and presidents have voiced optimism about the war in Afghanistan and urged the public to continue supporting it.
In fact, the “truth was rarely welcome,” an unnamed retired Army colonel told investigators in 2016. He was later identified as Bob Crowley, an American military adviser in Kabul.













CONGRESS UNVEILS TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT:






Trump ‘Ignored and Injured’ the National Interest, Democrats Charge in Impeachment Articles
Democratic leaders unveiled articles of impeachment charging President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
House Democrats said President Trump’s pressure on Ukraine, and his efforts to stymie oversight, violated the Constitution.
The move will bring a sitting president to the brink of impeachment for the fourth time in American history.


House Democratic leaders on Tuesday formally called for President Trump’s removal from office, asserting that he “ignored and injured the interests of the Nation” in two articles of impeachment that charged him with abusing his power and obstructing Congress.

In nine short pages, the draft articles accused Mr. Trump of carrying out a scheme “corruptly soliciting” election assistance from the government of Ukraine in the form of investigations that would smear his Democratic political rivals. To do so, Democrats charged, Mr. Trump used as leverage two “official acts”: the delivery of $391 million in security assistance and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president.

“In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit,” according to a draft of the first article. “He has also betrayed the nation by abusing his office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

A second article charges that by ordering across-the-board defiance of House subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the Ukraine matter, Mr. Trump engaged in “unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance” that harmed the House’s constitutional rights.

Democrats unveiled them on Tuesday ahead of a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee as soon as Wednesday, where the panel will debate and vote on the charges. The panel could vote by Thursday to recommend them to the full House of Representatives for final approval. If the House follows through as expected next week, days before Christmas, Mr. Trump could stand trial in the Senate early in the new year.

Less than a year before the 2020 election, the action sets up a historic and highly partisan constitutional clash between Mr. Trump and congressional Democrats — one that is likely to have broad political implications for both parties and exacerbate the divisions of an already polarized nation.

But Democrats argued that the political calendar made their endeavor even more urgent, given the nature of the charges against the president, which they called part of a pattern of behavior that began when Mr. Trump welcomed Russia’s help in the 2016 election and would continue into 2020 if they did not act to stop it.

“The argument ‘Why don’t you just wait’ amounts to this: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?’” Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee who oversaw the House’s Ukraine investigation, said at a news conference steps from the Capitol dome to announce the charges. “Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?”

In announcing a pair of charges that was narrowly focused on the Ukraine matter, Democrats made a careful political calculation designed to project unity and protect moderate lawmakers who face steep re-election challenges in conservative-leaning districts. They left out an article that had been the subject of internal debate among Democrats in recent weeks that would have charged Mr. Trump with obstruction of justice based on his attempts to thwart Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russian election interference in 2016.


It had been championed by progressives including Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but moderate lawmakers, many of them freshmen, had long signaled they would not support impeaching Mr. Trump based on Mr. Mueller’s report.


Mr. Trump responded angrily to Democrats’ announcement, taking to Twitter to proclaim their charge that he pressured Ukraine “ridiculous.”



Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump


Nadler just said that I “pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 Election.” Ridiculous, and he knows that is not true. Both the President & Foreign Minister of Ukraine said, many times, that there “WAS NO PRESSURE.” Nadler and the Dems know this, but refuse to acknowledge!
53.7K
9:56 AM - Dec 10, 2019
25.5K people are talking about this


The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, accused Democrats of “manufacturing an impeachment inquiry and forcing unfounded accusations down the throats of the American people.” Their goal, she said, was to try to use the House’s impeachment power to weaken Mr. Trump’s chances of re-election.

“The announcement of two baseless articles of impeachment does not hurt the president, it hurts the American people, who expect their elected officials to work on their behalf to strengthen our nation,” Ms. Grisham said in a statement. “The president will address these false charges in the Senate and expects to be fully exonerated, because he did nothing wrong.”

The introduction of formal charges was a major milestone in a more than two-month impeachment inquiry and the long, slow-building partisan showdown that has defined Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Speaking earlier in Tuesday morning from a wood-paneled reception room just off the floor of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and leaders of six key committees said that Mr. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine, and his efforts to block Congress’s attempt to investigate, had left them no choice but to pursue one of the Constitution’s gravest remedies. The move will bring a sitting president to the brink of impeachment for only the fourth time in American history.

“Our president holds the ultimate public trust,” Mr. Nadler said. “When he betrays that trust and puts himself before country, he endangers the Constitution, he endangers our democracy, and he endangers our national security.”

While individual lawmakers will be able to propose amendments to the articles during this week’s debate and potentially force a committee vote on additional charges, they are not expected to substantively change.

Though the details differ substantially, the articles of impeachment Democrats outlined on Tuesday echo those the Judiciary Committee approved in 1974 charging President Richard M. Nixon with abuse of power, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Mr. Nixon resigned before the full House had a chance to vote on the articles, amid clear indications that the charges had broad support from members of both parties.

There is less overlap with the other modern presidential impeachment. In 1998, the House approved impeachment articles charging President Bill Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. Two other counts, of perjury and abuse of power, failed in votes on the House floor. It was that kind of split decision that Democratic leaders are determined to avoid this time around.

With all but a handful of House Republicans firmly united behind Mr. Trump, the charges Democrats have settled on are all but certain to face monolithic Republican opposition. If that does not change, and Mr. Trump continues a defiant defense, the impeachment vote against him could take place strictly along party lines, save for one independent, Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, who has signaled he will join Democrats.

Representative Peter T. King, a moderate New York Republican who is retiring and sometimes crosses the aisle to work with Democrats, echoed other members of his party when he decried the articles as “shameless, baseless abuse of Congressional power by House Democrats.”

The impeachment effort would also face an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Senate, where it would take the support of two-thirds of the chamber to convict Mr. Trump and remove him from office — a highly unlikely scenario, particularly in an election year.

Democratic lawyers for the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, which carried out the Ukraine inquiry, argued for the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges during a hearing on Monday.

Citing testimony from senior diplomats and White House officials, they accused Mr. Trump and his agents of pressuring Ukraine’s president to announce investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unsupported claim that Democrats conspired with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election. As part of the scheme, they asserted, Mr. Trump withheld a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in security assistance for the country as leverage.

They also said that Mr. Trump had systematically sought to halt their investigation by ordering government officials not to testify and refusing to hand over documents subpoenaed by the House related to the Ukraine matter.

Republicans pushed back against both conclusions, arguing that Democrats had manufactured a scandal to satiate their hunger to impeach Mr. Trump, a president whose policies they despise. They argued that the evidence gathered by the House had not proved Mr. Trump was acting to benefit himself politically when he pressed Ukraine to announce investigations into his political adversaries.

The decision to forgo a vote on an article of impeachment based on obstruction of justice was not entirely unexpected. Since the public release of Mr. Mueller’s report in the spring, House Democrats have debated whether the behavior detailed in it — including 10 possible instances of obstruction — warranted such action. The issue never unified their caucus in the way the Ukraine allegations have.

Progressive lawmakers including Mr. Nadler pushed repeatedly to include an article on obstruction of justice in the final impeachment case against Mr. Trump. But the resistance by moderates would have risked splitting the party in a vote on the House floor.



Nicholas Fandos is a national reporter based in the Washington bureau. He has covered Congress since 2017 and is part of a team of reporters who have chronicled investigations by the Justice Department and Congress into President Trump and his administration. @npfandos