The challenges ahead (Biden's America)

[Frelga]

I Hernan Cain Twitter account is still posting tweets protesting coronavirus containment measures. Including a tweet about how not deadly the virus that killed Cain is.

[elengil]

I haven't heard about this before, and I didn't see any news articles at a quick glance, but this answer seems to know an awful lot so I thought I'd toss it here and get some input.

Is this true? Has anyone else heard about Trump having surveillance planes dismantled? I know I have heard of him pulling us out of this treaty (How is it Presidents can do that!? I thought treaties were acts of Congress??)

Originally Answered: Is it an act of Treason that Trump is ordering our fleet of Russia Surveillance aircraft dismantled and destroyed before Biden is sworn in? Is the goal to sabotage Biden, or to honor the request of Putin? Or is it both reasons?

He was required to work directly with Congress before making such a drastic decision, which of course, he didn’t. I think it’s quite obvious what’s going on here. Trump has so many ways to sabotage Biden’s presidency. And I’m certain that he is implementing as many ways as possible as we sit here discussing this.

But why this one act? Why this particular, long-standing and successful project? Why now? What was so urgent that this should happen now? This is a treaty called The Treaty on Open Skies and it affords (actually guarantees) all signatories, which include Russia and the U.S. along with over thirty other nations, the ability to fly surveillance flights over any other nations territory for the purpose of closely monitoring adherence to nuclear disarmament agreements, among other activities.

Here’s Wikipedia’s opening paragraph about this treaty:
“The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 party states. It establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. The idea of allowing countries to openly surveil each other is thought to prevent misunderstandings (i.e. to assure a potential opponent that one’s country is not about to go to war) and limit the escalation of tensions. It also provides mutual accountability for countries to follow through on treaty promises. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date promoting openness and transparency of military forces and activities.”

Here’s the full wiki link: Treaty on Open Skies - Wikipedia

There is absolutely no plausible reason for the United States to unilaterally withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty. It serves no obvious advantageous goal or objective. It cripples our intelligence. It harms our national interest and it props up Putin’s Russia and it’s interests. It is a one-way gift to Putin and a terrible loss for American security and the security of our allies as well as the global community in it’s entirety. This allows Russia to act in an unfettered manner, cloaked from scrutiny while it plots against its neighbors and calls in the promises Trump made to them over the last five years. If it smells like a fish and looks like a fish…it’s a fish.

The destruction of the surveillance aircraft, many of which are decades old, with irreplaceable technology aboard, guarantees that Biden cannot simply undo this decision easily. It is an act of total vandalism with no discernible purpose that benefits America and its allies but which greatly benefits Putin’s Russia.

With this being so, I think it is clear that Putin demanded this be done immediately and before Trump loses all power. He holds something very grand, some sort of Sword of Damocles, over Donald Trump’s head. And we all know that it is money.

Trump owes the Russians and Putin and his cohorts a lot of money.

It explains everything we’ve seen and been appalled by for so long now.

I do believe this is an act of treason. And the truth needs to be ferreted out to get to the bottom of it, hold Trump accountable and for Biden to deal as harshly as necessary with Vlad Putin once the facts emerge.

One comment on the above:

Its real possibility that Putin is planning to grab another chunk of land and he wants to make sure we can’t do anything about it. Maybe he’s going for the other half of the Ukraine but I think its more likely Belarus.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What are you quoting? I don't see any links in your post.

[elengil]

What are you quoting? I don't see any links in your post.

Sorry, it's from Quora, I ran across it but there was no article being quoted - usually that means people will basically tell the asker they're full of it, but sounds like there was enough justification for the question to warrant this particular reply, so I was wondering if there was any basis to it.

[N.E. Brigand]

I haven't heard about this before, and I didn't see any news articles at a quick glance, but this answer seems to know an awful lot so I thought I'd toss it here and get some input.

Is this true? Has anyone else heard about Trump having surveillance planes dismantled? I know I have heard of him pulling us out of this treaty (How is it Presidents can do that!? I thought treaties were acts of Congress??)

Yes, it was reported a few days ago (Wall Street Journal) that the United States has not only withdrawn from the Treaty on Open Skies but also is scrapping the two planes that were custom-fitted for that purpose. And the most recent defense authorization budget, which was originally supposed to have included funds to replace these planes with newer versions, had that funding cut at the request of the Trump administration, who said they had postponed that upgrade. This means that if the planes are scrapped, the Biden administration would be unable to replace them.

But Defense News reports that it could take months for the Air Force to decommission the planes, so the Biden administration may be able to reverse course.

How is Trump able to withdraw? I'm not sure that Congress ever approved it, so it would be just like his withdrawal from the Paris climate accords and the JPCOA agreement regaring Iran's nuclear capabilities.

It's not treason (as the Quora inquirer wondered) because the U.S. is not in a declared state of war. Is Trump doing it to please Putin? Maybe. But even if Trump's primary goal is to mess things up for Biden, that still has the effect of helping Putin.

[elengil]

Thank you. Yeah, I didn't think that it was technically treason, but just wondered how accurate the information and commentary was.

[RoseMorninStar]

Rachel Maddow /MSNBC reported about having the planes dismantled several days ago as well.

[elengil]

Just like the mail sorting machines

[RoseMorninStar]

All for no purpose but his own petty, vindictive spite.

[Túrin Turambar]

Not entirely topical, but an example of how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's 32-year-old Senator Joe Biden taking questions on the challenges of campaign finance reform (and on being told he was too young to run for federal office):

[elengil]

Wow.

[RoseMorninStar]

That's quite a blast from the past.

Tom Bourdeaux is going for the Gregory Peck/To Kill A Mockingbird/Atticus Finch look.

[N.E. Brigand]

I wonder if President Biden should appoint a special counsel to investigate John Durham's and Jeffrey Jensen's investigations of the Russia investigations.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm sure that Bill Barr's announcement today that the Justice Department found no signs of election fraud that would change the results of the 2020 election was a cover for his quiet announcement that he had converted Dunham's appointment to a special counsel in October without telling anyone ("in order to not intervene with the election"). This was done, of course, to make it harder for Biden and whoever his attorney general will be to end or direct the investigation (in other words, make sure that Dunham doesn't do anything whacky).

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm sure that Bill Barr's announcement today that the Justice Department found no signs of election fraud that would change the results of the 2020 election was a cover for his quiet announcement that he had converted Dunham's appointment to a special counsel in October without telling anyone ("in order to not intervene with the election"). This was done, of course, to make it harder for Biden and whoever his attorney general will be to end or direct the investigation (in other words, make sure that Dunham doesn't do anything waacky).

To be fair to Bill Barr, by not telling Congress about Durham's newly reconfigured investigation prior to the election, for once he acted more appropriately than Jim Comey, who had to know that informing Congress he'd reopened the Clinton email investigation would result in that news becoming public before the 2016 election.

I actually wonder if Barr's announcement about Durham today is intended to throw some red meat to a base that's angry about his no-election-fraud statement. He could have informed Congress about Durham at any point after the election, per his explanation that he kept it quiet so as not to interfere in the election. In a way, it makes sense that today he would both announce that there was no fraud, which effectively means DoJ think that only now is the election over.

(As for why he would state there was no fraud, it may be a way of protecting himself from future prosecution. According to Barr himself in testimony to Congress, issuing (or even merely dangling) a pardon can be a crime if it's done in exchange for certain things. One of those things is obstructing an investigation. But another might be interference in an election, as for instance by having your lawyer make a bunch of phony charges of voter fraud. That means that not only Trump but whoever wrote the pardon for Trump risks being implicated if the pardon turns out to be part of a deal. So it behooves Barr to say: That pardon I wrote (or ordered written) can't have been part of an illegal quid pro quo on my part because I never claimed there was fraud.)

And I wonder if both announcements were meant to distract from the news about an FBI bribery investigation that apparently involves Trump aides. Barr was at the White House for more than two hours today. The initial reaction was that Trump was calling him on the carpet about the no-fraud statement. Now I wonder if he was telling Trump that this investigation was about to become public.

[elengil]

So, how vague exactly can a pardon be?

I ask because... if Trump attempts a self-pardon, and it is struck down as outside of his authority, can the contents of the pardon be considered essentially an admission of guilt in then prosecuting him for whatever it was he attempted to pardon himself for?

[N.E. Brigand]

Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the Senate will only confirm the nominee for Attorney General if that person won't prosecute Donald Trump.

That's of course a hugely unethical thing for him to say; it's no different from saying the Senate will only confirm a nominee who *will* prosecute Trump.

(And could it be obstruction of justice? I mean, it's generally believed that the statutes of limitation on crimes committed by the president tolls while he's president and thus can't be prosecuted. But does it still toll if the Senate prevents the Dept. of Justice from moving forward with those prosecutions?)

But no nominee would ever say in advance who they will and won't prosecute. Even Bill Barr would never have done so.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Lindsey Graham has become a parody of a U.S. Senator.

[elengil]

Honest to god I feel like the only hope for this country right now is that Georgia run-off.

[River]

Let's hope a critical margin of GOP voters take Powell and Lin's calls for a boycott seriously.