Trump’s decision to make way for Turkey in Syria seen by critics as a Kurds betrayal - Fox News

FILE 2018: President Donald Trump, left, talks with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as they arrive together for a family photo at a summit of heads of state and government at NATO headquarters in Brussels. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

President Trump faced swift criticism early Monday after the White House announced its decision to move U.S. troops from northern Syria and give way for Turkey’s planned military incursion in the region.

Kurdish forces bore the brunt of the ground campaign against Islamic State militants but are considered terrorists by the Turkish government.

In December, Trump announced he was withdrawing American troops from Syria but was met with widespread condemnation for abandoning Kurdish allies to the Turkish assault.

The announcement prompted the resignation in protest of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and a coordinated campaign by then-national security adviser John Bolton to try to protect the Kurds.

As recently as January, Trump warned Ankara not to target the group, saying the U.S. would "devastate" Turkey economically if "they hurt the Kurds."

It was not immediately clear if Trump mentioned the Kurds in his Sunday phone call with Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan.

“Allowing Turkey to move into Northern Syria is one of the most destabilizing moves we can do in the Middle East,” tweeted former Iraq War veteran Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona. “The Kurds will never trust America again. They will look for new alliances or Independence to protect themselves.  Pompeo has failed again.”

Turkey views the People's Protection Units, or YPG, as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which has waged an insurgency against Turkey for 35 years.

“The Kurds betrayed by the US --- again,” wrote New York Times contributing writer Wajahat Ali. “Turkey has a brutal history of oppressing Kurds. Erdogan wants nothing more than to crack down on an entire group he sees as a ‘threat’ and whom he routinely refers to as ‘terrorists,’” he added.  “Kurds are US allies fighting ISIS. This is a win for extremists and authoritarians. Shameful.”

TURKEY ANNOUNCES INCURSION OF NORTHEAST SYRIA, US-BACKED KURDS HAVE VOWED 'ALL-OUT' WAR

Following the late Sunday announcement, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which has worked alongside U.S. troops to combat ISIS, warned against Turkey’s imminent incursion in a lengthy series of tweets.

“Based on our confidence in the #US efforts in the Security Mechanism agreement, we implemented all our commitments to remove military fortifications between Tal Abyad & SereKaniye, withdraw combat forces with heavy weapons, risking a security vacuum as a result of the agreement,” the group tweeted.

“But Erdogan's threats are aimed to change the security mechanism into a mechanism of death, displace our people & change the stable & secure region into a zone of conflict and permanent war.”

SDF officials argued Turkey’s presence in the region would result in the return of ISIS leaders, reversing successful efforts to defeat the terrorist organization, and lead to “long-term war in the region making #Syria a permanent conflict area.”

ERDOGAN THREATENS MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA, US-BACKED GROUP VOVWS 'ALL-OUT WAR'

Erdogan said his country has given enough warning and has “acted with enough patience.” Erdogan has expressed frustration with Washington’s support for Kurdish groups in Syria.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces said it is committed to the agreement between Turkey and the U.S. to preserve stability in the region.

"However, we will not hesitate to turn any unprovoked attack by Turkey into an all-out war on the entire border to DEFEND ourselves and our people," SDF spokesman Mustafa Bali tweeted a day earlier.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-turkey-military-syria-criticism

2019-10-07 06:32:49Z
52780401824835

Britons Demand Return of American Woman Who Fled After Fatal Crash - The New York Times

The mother of a British teenager who was killed in a crash in August has appealed to President Trump for help after the main suspect in the investigation, an American citizen, left Britain despite telling the police that she had no plans to do so.

Harry Dunn, 19, was killed after his motorcycle collided with a car traveling in the opposite direction in Brackley, a town in the East Midlands, on Aug. 27.

The police said their investigation into the crash had been complicated when the 42-year-old American woman who is the main suspect recently left the country. Sky News reported that the British police believe that the American was driving on the wrong side of the road when the crash occurred.

The woman is the wife of an American diplomat, and thus has diplomatic immunity, according to local media reports.

“Harry Dunn’s family deserves justice, and in order to achieve this, a full and thorough investigation, with the assistance of all parties involved, needs to take place,” Superintendent Sarah Johnson, head of operations for the Northamptonshire police, said in a statement on Saturday. She added that the police had sought documentation “to allow for the arrest and formal interview of the subject.”

The police are also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ms. Johnson said, adding that they are “exploring all opportunities through diplomatic channels” to ensure the investigation’s progress.

Harry Dunn’s mother, Charlotte Charles, has been pushing the efforts to have the American woman’s immunity waived and have her come back to Britain.

“President Trump, please listen,” Ms. Charles told Sky News, the media outlet that first reported on the identity of the 42-year-old woman. “We’re a family in ruin. We’re broken.”

“We can’t grieve,” she said, adding of the woman, “Please, please let her get back on a plane.”

Though the Foreign Office did not formally confirm the identity of the American woman, Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, offered his condolences to the victim’s family and released a statement addressing the matter.

Britain transmitted a formal request for a waiver of immunity to the American Embassy in London on Sept. 5. The embassy declined the waiver eight days later.

“I have called the U.S. ambassador to express the U.K.’s disappointment with their decision, and to urge the embassy to reconsider it,” Mr. Raab said. The American Embassy could not be reached for comment.

After news of the woman’s flight from Britain emerged, the news media, the British government and social media users stepped up pressure on the American government to reconsider her immunity and allow the police to resume questioning her in Britain.

“We have to get proper justice for Harry and closure for his family,” Andrea Leadsom, the secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy, wrote on Twitter on Saturday. A day earlier, she had met Harry Dunn’s family, who, she wrote, is “heartbroken.”

“Harry & his family have been wronged,” Angela Rayner, a member of Parliament for the opposition Labour Party, said in a tweet.

The victim’s parents said they would continue fighting to get justice for their son’s death.

“We are not going to be swept under the carpet,” Ms. Charles told ITV, a British news channel. “If that becomes his legacy, then we are going to carry on fighting, we’re not going to give up, we’re not going to go away,” she said.

“We can’t let our son die and nothing be answered for,” Tim Dunn, his father, said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/europe/harry-dunn-crash-us-suspect.html

2019-10-07 06:05:00Z
52780402777412

Ignoring ban, masked Hong Kongers march in huge numbers - The Washington Post

Fazry Ismail EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks take part in a demonstration against a newly imposed law banning face masks in public in Hong Kong, China, Oct. 6, 2019. 

HONG KONG — Covering their faces with black surgical masks, Guy Fawkes disguises, dish towels and even paper bags, tens of thousands in Hong Kong marched in the territory’s two main districts in defiance of a government ban on face masks, despite fears of violence and pouring rain. 

The march, which until late afternoon continued to be overwhelmingly peaceful, underscored the depth of dissent over the new measures which many here believe to be an infringement of their basic freedoms. Despite a partial shutdown the city’s subway system, including stations close to the starting points of the rallies, participants included the disabled in wheelchairs, toddlers and the elderly. 

“To me, banning the masks is an erosion of our basic rights,” said 60-year-old Fred Wong, marching toward central Hong Kong in a green surgical mask. “We as the older ones should be ashamed of ourselves for not protecting our rights a long time ago, and we should be embarrassed if we don’t come out to fight for the future of the young.” 

[Hong Kong brought to a standstill as city braces for more unrest after ban on face masks]

The size and diversity of the marches also indicated that many remain undeterred and unwilling to give up on their goals for a more democratic Hong Kong, even as the risk of participation continues to increase. The Hong Kong government is under growing pressure from authorities in Beijing to quell the anger that has erupted on city streets and end demonstrations that are now in their fifth month. 

Starting at midafternoon, police attempted to disperse both marches, one in central Hong Kong and another in the Kowloon district close to Victoria Harbor. Before they started firing tear gas rounds, there had been no confrontations between police and protesters.

In Mongkok, a neighborhood in Kowloon, police fired rubber bullets and bean bag rounds at the crowd, which had also been peacefully marching. Police escalated to tear gas after protesters began shining laser lights and throwing things at a police station. 

In one particularly dramatic scene in Kowloon, a taxi driver appeared to deliberately drive into a crowd of protesters. The crowd retaliated and pummeled the man, leaving him bleeding all over his face before another group of protesters stepped in to end the attack.

Vincent Thian

AP

Police use tear gas to disperse protesters in Hong Kong, Sunday, Oct. 6, 2019. 

By early evening, a hard core of protesters geared up for clashes with police, now routine after large marches. Outside the city’s High Court building, demonstrators laid bricks down on the road along with traffic cones and metal railings. In what appeared to be a new tactic, they also tied trip wires made of fishing line across a road that has been the scene of charges by police during recent protests. 

Small groups also threw petrol bombs and other objects at police. 

Police soon began clearing the crowds with water cannons, more tear gas and began arresting protesters. A spokeswoman for the police department did not immediately have details on the arrests or whether any were charged under the new anti-mask laws. 

At the barracks of the People’s Liberation Army in the Kowloon Tong neighborhood, personnel on the roof raised a yellow flag warning those marching past that they were breaching the law and could be prosecuted — it was time protesters have elicited a reaction from the Chinese military. Protesters have previously avoided targeting PLA buildings. 

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam invoked sweeping emergency powers to enact the new law, a measure she hopes will stop the violence that has increasingly become the hallmark of the last five months of street protests. 

Protests were first sparked by a now-withdrawn proposal to allow extraditions to mainland China, but the unrest has now swelled into a movement seeking direct elections for Hong Kong’s leaders and an independent investigation into the police. 

Lam’s ban on face masks, however, has so far only has only sparked more anger. Violence on city streets swelled on Friday night, with dozens of businesses perceived as pro-Beijing vandalized and burned. Some of the same outlets were also targeted on Sunday, along with subway stations which were badly vandalized. 

The city was placed on an effective shutdown on Saturday as the entire subway network, shops and most supermarkets were closed. The subway reopened only partially on Sunday, but announced it would close all stations at 9 p.m. 

[How it got to this point: The evolution of Hong Kong’s protests]

Many are worried that the expanded police powers afforded by the law will only further a sense of impunity in the department, which is using increasingly harsh measures to suppress the demonstrations. In recent days, riot police presence has increased all over the city, with officers fully decked out in shields, helmets and sometimes, face coverings. 

Protesters have now added a new demand to their list of five: Now they are also calling for the complete overhaul of the police force.

Tyrone Siu

Reuters

Anti-government protesters take cover while riot police use rubber bullets to disperse them during a demonstration at Prince Edward, in Hong Kong, Oct. 6, 2019. 

“In Hong Kong, we are seeing the police now covering their faces with black masks, almost like they have unlimited rights,” said Yeung, 18, who only provided her last name citing the illegality of the march. The law, she added, “is being applied with double standards.” 

On Sunday morning, the High Court for the second time rejected a temporary injunction on the anti-mask law, this time filed by a group of two dozen pro-democracy lawmakers. The court however will still hear a judicial review of the law and the emergency powers used to implement it, and has expedited the case.

“The court obviously sees that there is an important constitutional principle at stake concerning our separation of powers, concerning the rule of law in Hong Kong. And that is why the court has agreed to grant us a very fast and quick hearing in the second half of this month,” Dennis Kwok, a pro-democracy lawmaker who represents the legal sector, said after the ruling. 

“We will do our best to fight whether it is in court, whether it is in [the Legislative Council] or whether it is out there with the Hong Kong people,” he added, referring to the city’s lawmaking body. 

Joy Luk, a blind protester in her 30s, was among those marching in central Hong Kong. She had a caretaker with her, and was listening to a local news live-stream of the protest over headphones connected to her phone.

She was also wearing a surgical mask. 

“I have not worn any face masks to the protest in the past, because I don’t think my identity would be concealed even if I wear them. I am probably the only blind person to go to the front-lines of protests,” she said, adding that she has participated in demonstrations “countless” times. 

“But now,” Luk said, “it is my means of expression against the government. They cannot stop us.”

Vincent Thian

AP

Protesters throw back tear gas at police in Hong Kong, Sunday, Oct. 6, 2019.

Read more

Hong Kong leader invokes colonial-era emergency powers to ban masks, sparking more protests

Hong Kong protester shot as police disperse anti-China demonstrations on National Day

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ignoring-a-ban-on-face-masks-masked-hong-kongers-march-in-huge-numbers/2019/10/06/ea069c66-e78e-11e9-b0a6-3d03721b85ef_story.html

2019-10-06 12:30:00Z
52780402433211

2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney - ABC News

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396

2019-10-06 12:22:00Z
52780400888240

North Korea sees no way for U.S. to have alternative plans in two weeks - Reuters

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un meet at the start of their summit at the Capella Hotel on the resort island of Sentosa, Singapore June 12, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said on Sunday that there was no way United States would bring alternative plans for their stalled nuclear talks within two weeks after negotiations in Sweden between the two countries broke down at the weekend.

The United States and North Korea were holding working-level talks in Sweden but these were broken off on Saturday. The U.S. State Department said it had accepted Sweden’s invitation to return for more discussions with Pyongyang in two weeks.

North Korea said the ball was now in Washington’s court, warning again that it would only wait until the end of the year for the United States to change course.

“We have no intention to hold such sickening negotiations as ... happened this time (in Sweden) before the U.S. takes a substantial step to make complete and irreversible withdrawal of the hostile policy toward the DPRK,” KCNA state news agency cited a spokesperson for North Korea’s foreign ministry as saying, referring to the official name of North Korea.

North Korea reiterated the year-end deadline that leader Kim Jong Un set for the United States to show more flexibility in the talks, which fell apart in February during his summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.

In June, the two leaders then met again in Panmunjom, the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, and agreed to restart working-level talks.

But the North Korean foreign ministry said Washington had made no preparations for the talks in Sweden but only sought to serve its own political aims.

“The U.S. is spreading a completely ungrounded story that both sides are open to meet after two weeks...it is not likely at all that it can produce a proposal commensurate to the expectations of the DPRK and to the concerns of the world in just fortnight,” the foreign ministry spokesperson said.

Reporting by Ju-min Park and Josh Smith; Editing by Jane Merriman

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa/north-korea-sees-no-way-for-us-to-have-alternative-plans-in-two-weeks-idUSKCN1WL089

2019-10-06 11:59:00Z
52780400882838

Is It Ever OK for a President to Ask a Foreign Country to Investigate a Political Rival? - POLITICO

Edward B. Foley directs the Election Law program at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, where he also holds the Ebersold Chair in constitutional law.

Here’s the big question on which the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump could turn: Is it ever appropriate for a U.S. president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

Democrats seem to assume the answer is no, that this kind of request could never be proper, given the implications for our electoral system. “Smoking gun” is what they say about Trump’s urging Ukraine—and now also China—to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, contend that it is perfectly normal, and justified, for Trump as president to ask the Ukrainians to look into potential corruption that involves Americans and could, in theory, affect U.S. relations with that country.

Story Continued Below

“This is not about politics. This is about corruption,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

But the real answer to this question is more complicated. History shows that a president sometimes might be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including a former vice president. So, the mere fact of Trump’s request for an investigation into the Bidens, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not enough to impeach him.

In order prove that Trump abused his presidential powers to the point that he no longer can be trusted in exercising them—the constitutional standard for impeachment—Congress must establish Trump’s intent in making the request. Was it done in good faith, with U.S. foreign or domestic interests in mind, or in bad faith, merely for Trump’s personal and political benefit? To prove the latter, Congress can’t rely on Trump’s words alone; it must show that the charges of corruption against the Bidens are baseless and that Trump’s request to Ukraine is part of a pattern of bad faith demonstrating that the nation no longer can tolerate his incumbency.

Going back to America’s early days, there have been occasional instances in which presidents would have been justified had they sought foreign investigations into political rivals. In 1804, Aaron Burr contacted the British government, apparently to peddle a plan for severing part of the United States to form a new country in western territory. In response, President Thomas Jefferson had Burr prosecuted for treason, and he was found not guilty. We can stipulate that Jefferson was excessively involved in the treason trial. But had he instead simply asked for Britain’s assistance in gathering more information about Burr’s involvement in this plot, that would have been entirely appropriate given the high stakes for the country.

This is true despite the fact that Jefferson was seeking reelection at the time and Burr, an incorrigibly ambitious politician, might still have coveted the presidency. It was unlikely that Burr would have been a serious rival to Jefferson’s reelection; the Federalist party, which opposed Jefferson, hated Burr for having slayed its hero, Alexander Hamilton. But Burr was still active politically and could not be discounted completely. Whatever the circumstances of the electoral rivalries at that moment—and campaigns back then were, of course, very different from today—Jefferson as president would have been acting responsibly if he had requested Britain’s assistance in the investigation of Burr.

For a more recent example, look to 1968, when Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee attempting to wrest the White House from Democratic hands. During the campaign, Nixon went so far as to encourage an emissary, Anna Chennault, to intervene with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s peace talks to end the Vietnam War. Johnson by then had dropped out of the Democratic primary, but his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, would end up the party’s nominee—making Nixon, in effect, a political rival. Even so, it would have been completely legitimate if LBJ, who did get wind of what Chennault was doing, had decided to ask South Vietnam for information about whether Nixon was directly involved in this ploy.

Sometimes, there is an inevitable tension between the president’s obligation to defend the nation as commander-in-chief and the president’s role as a candidate for reelection. But presidents, unlike subordinates, cannot recuse themselves from their commander-in-chief responsibilities. Rarely, but occasionally, acting in good faith as commander-in-chief might require an incumbent president to seek foreign assistance in pursuing an investigation of a former vice president—like Burr and Nixon—who is opposing the president’s reelection. As long as the president indeed acts in good faith, critics reasonably can question the soundness of the president’s decisions, but there would be no grounds for impeachment and removal of office.

What about Trump’s very real requests for foreign investigations of former Vice President Biden? Can they be defended from an impeachment charge on the ground that Trump was acting in good faith?

Maybe good faith wouldn’t be an adequate defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking a “thing of value” from foreign governments in support of his reelection campaign. But I would argue that some presidential conversations with foreign leaders must be considered beyond the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of commander-in-chief responsibility in pursuit of the national interest should not get caught up in the interpretation of regulations that fundamentally are designed to protect American elections from foreign money.

Nor is a quid pro quo offer—if that is what Trump made to Ukraine when asking for an investigation—necessarily a sign of bad faith. Such an offer could be considered legitimate if it is in the service of a valid foreign policy objective, as Michael McFaul, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia, recently observed.

These points are not to suggest that Trump was justified in requesting foreign investigation of Biden. Rather, they help point the focus of the inquiry where it belongs: on Trump’s motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a good-faith basis for believing that Biden engaged in any impropriety, comparable to Nixon’s or Burr’s, that could justify the kind of requests Trump made to Ukraine and China. From all the available evidence right now, it strains credulity for Trump’s defenders to claim he is acting in good faith, but Congress must make an official judgment as part of any formal impeachment proceedings.

How can Congress establish that Trump’s motive was nefarious? For starters, the House of Representatives will need to show that the Biden allegations are so spurious as to be necessarily made in bad faith. That will open the impeachment inquiry to whatever contrary evidence Trump can muster, unavoidably making Biden a focus of the inquiry—something Democrats presumably would prefer to avoid.

Members of Congress also will need to draw on their assessments of Trump’s character and behavior generally. For representatives in the House deciding whether to impeach, as well as potentially senators deciding whether to convict, if Trump is viewed as regularly acting in bad faith, then it is easier to rule out any defense of good faith as exonerating his conduct with regard to Ukraine.

Impeachment advocates will need to decide how much general character evidence they wish to pursue as a formal part of the process. Because impeachment is not a conventional criminal prosecution, they could rely on more of it than would be permitted in a courtroom. But doing so would go against the strategy of keeping impeachment proceedings narrowly focused.

This puts impeachment advocates in something of a procedural bind. They can limit their evidence solely to facts that directly relate to the president’s request for foreign investigation of the Bidens, like the recently revealed text messages among U.S. diplomats working on the issue. This strategy might end up being enough, but it risks leaving wiggle room for those in Congress inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the Ukraine matter. Conversely, impeachment advocates could widen the range of evidence—pointing to all the ways that Trump has arguably abused the powers of the presidency for personal gain throughout his time in office—but this approach risks the accusation that Democrats are just relitigating matters that the voters want to decide for themselves at the ballot box.

The Goldilocks approach to impeachment evidence might be to focus on facts that demonstrate a specific form of bad faith and why it necessitates impeachment. This evidence would show not merely that Trump acted for reasons of personal electoral advantage in his dealings with Ukraine and China, but that he can never be expected to exercise his presidential powers on behalf of the public, as his oath of office requires, in the midst of a reelection campaign when his own interests are at stake. Proof of his incapacity to elevate national over self-interest can help persuade the public that impeachment truly is about the future, not the past—and, even more importantly, that the remedy of impeachment is necessary, because voters’ power to choose their president without improper interference cannot be safeguarded otherwise.

Of course, Trump might end up, in a sense, impeaching himself, if he continues to act in ways that only can be construed reasonably as bad faith. And evidence of U.S. envoys saying things like “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” would go far in demonstrating that Trump’s sole motive is (and will continue to be) an improper desire to secure an electoral advantage. Yet impeaching Trump for seeking a foreign investigation of Biden will require the conviction to be based not on his words alone, but on what was in his heart when he uttered those words. That is a tricky—but not impossible—bar for Congress to clear.

This article tagged under:

Show Comments

More from POLITICO Magazine

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341

2019-10-06 10:54:00Z
52780399935508

Key GOP senators split with Trump on Biden investigation push | TheHill - The Hill

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump criticizes supposed second whistleblower North Korea missile test raises fears of new capabilities Window narrows for Trump trade deals MORE is pushing hard for an investigation of former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump criticizes supposed second whistleblower North Korea missile test raises fears of new capabilities Trump told House Republicans that he made Ukraine call because of Perry: Report MORE and his son, but the prospect of using the Oval Office to go after a political rival is prompting some GOP senators to speak out.

Sens. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyCollins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' Trump compares his impeachment to Clinton email server Trump calls for Romney's impeachment MORE (Utah), Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsCollins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman McConnell signaling Trump trial to be quick, if it happens MORE (Maine), Ben SasseBenjamin (Ben) Eric SasseCollins: Trump's call for China to probe Biden 'completely inappropriate' GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Trump slams 'ass' Romney for criticizing Ukraine dealings MORE (Neb.) and Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Graham defends Trump's calls with foreign leaders: He sounds like a 'normal person' Trump says House Democrats 'unfortunately' have the votes to impeach MORE (S.C.) have raised concerns, to varying degrees, about launching a politically motivated probe into the Bidens.

ADVERTISEMENT

Romney on Friday said Trump's call for China to investigate Biden was "wrong and appalling."

"When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated," Romney said in a statement, which he also tweeted.

A day later, Collins said it was "completely inappropriate" for Trump to urge China to investigate Biden and his son.

"I thought the president made a big mistake by asking China to get involved in investigating a political opponent," Collins told the Bangor Daily News. "It’s completely inappropriate."

The Maine Republican has at times broken with her party on key votes in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority.

Graham said earlier that he has no interest in conducting an investigation into the Bidens’ business dealings.

ADVERTISEMENT

He told reporters before the two-week October recess that any investigation of Biden and his son should be conducted outside the sphere of politics.

“We’re not going to do anything,” Graham said when asked what action he was going to take as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman regarding Hunter Biden's dealings with Ukraine. “I have no interest in opening up that front.”

“I don’t want to turn the Senate into a circus,” said Graham, who is considered one of Trump's strongest allies on Capitol Hill. “I want somebody to look at the conflict of interest outside of politics.”

The remarks were the latest example of occasional friction between Trump and Graham, who in September criticized the president's approach to Iran.

Romney's sharp remarks about Trump's effort to enlist China in a Biden investigation came a few days after he warned at a closed-door meeting of GOP senators that pushing for an investigation of Biden’s son Hunter was treading on dangerous ground that could boomerang on the party.

Romney made the point to lawmakers before the October recess that he’s not intimately familiar with the business dealings of his own children, suggesting that politicians should not be attacked because of the private employment of family members, according to a GOP senator in the room during the meeting.

“He said, ‘I don’t discuss my son’s business dealings with them,’” the GOP senator recounted, referring to Romney’s comments that he doesn’t vet the business and financial conduct of his five sons.

The implied message was that once Republicans go down the path of attacking political rivals over their family members, they open themselves up to the same types of criticisms.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGOP searches for impeachment boogeyman Overnight Defense: House Dems subpoena White House for Ukraine documents | Pence pulled into inquiry | GOP senator says he confronted Trump over Ukraine aid | Iran hackers target 2020 campaign Trump says House Democrats 'unfortunately' have the votes to impeach MORE (R-Ky.) has already come under scrutiny for the business dealings and personal wealth of his father-in-law James Chao, the founder of a shipping company worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Forbes.

And Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntSunday shows preview: Republicans on defense as new reports emerge on impeachment GOP searches for impeachment boogeyman McConnell signaling Trump trial to be quick, if it happens MORE (R-Mo.), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, has family members who have worked as lobbyists for a variety of corporate interests, according to McClatchy News. His wife Abigail has lobbied for Altria, which recently bought a major stake in e-cigarette maker Juul.

Democratic strategists say Trump’s attacks on Hunter Biden, whom the president called “stone-cold crooked” at a nationally televised press conference with the president of Finland, make his eldest sons, Eric TrumpEric Frederick TrumpThe Hill's Campaign Report: Warren, Sanders overtake Biden in third-quarter fundraising Trump campaign, GOP raise M after Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry Schiff introduces bill to require agencies report spending at Trump properties MORE and Donald Trump Jr.Donald (Don) John TrumpOcasio-Cortez says woman who suggested 'eating babies' was Trump supporter Ocasio-Cortez hits Trump after he calls her a 'wack job' Hillicon Valley: Barr targets Facebook's encryption plans | Social media platforms dragged into 2020 fight | EU court says Facebook can be ordered to remove content | FBI warns of 'high-impact' ransomware attacks MORE, fair game to similar attacks.

“What the hell are Trump’s kids doing all around the world right now? It’s a minefield for Trump in many ways to me, attacking somebody’s family given what he does himself and what he has his family do,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist.

“I just don’t see this as some kind of golden bullet that’s going to hurt Biden and take him out in the primary process,” he added.

Trump’s second-eldest son, Eric, who is helping run the president’s business empire as executive vice president of The Trump Organization, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday that media outlets would be all over him if he engaged in some of the same deals as Hunter Biden.

“If the situation were reversed, I would have been front page news in every newspaper, online publication, and cable news outlet for the rest of my life,” Eric Trump wrote.

“Reporters would be camping outside of my door, my family would have been picked apart, my name would have been smeared in the news every single week, and my father arguably would not even be president of the United States today,” he wrote.

But while some Republicans would like to see the media comb through Hunter Biden’s business dealings, others like Romney have expressed reluctance about making him and his father the target of official probes — a practice associated more with totalitarian regimes than the United States.

Trump, however, has ignored those concerns and instead doubled down on his calls for the Bidens to be investigated.

On Thursday he caused an uproar when he declared “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

That statement sparked pushback from Sasse, who Trump has endorsed for reelection in 2020.

“Americans don’t look to Chinese commies for the truth. If the Biden kid broke laws by selling his name to Beijing, that’s a matter for American courts, not communist tyrants running torture camps,” Sasse said in a statement to the Omaha World-Herald.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464476-key-republicans-split-with-trump-on-biden-investigation-push

2019-10-06 10:00:12Z
52780399935508