Mediaboss Marketing

By ANN BROWN

The day before the Independence Day holiday last summer, local progressivesfiled a petitionironically named Alaskans for Better Elections, which would destroy the integrity of Alaskas elections. If passed, the ballot initiative would bring us ranked-choice voting. The petition was sponsored, in part, byformer District 22 Rep. Jason Grenn.You may remember that Mr. Grenn wassoundly defeatedby now-Rep. Sara Rasmussen in 2018. Are sour grapes on the menu here?

In a ranked-choice general election, voters would rank their choice of four candidates for a given office. Candidates garnering more than 50% of the vote in the first ranking would win office immediately. If no one person wins a majority, candidates are whittled away and ranking continues until one individual is declared the winner.

This initiative is backed nearly entirely by Outside donations; its major supporter is a Colorado-based organization thatgave $500,000 in one pop last month.

Progressives will say this election system brings more moderate voices to the Legislature. Perhaps that is the way Mr. Grenn sees himself. When viewed in practicality, however, this initiative can largely be seen as a plan by progressives to take control of Alaskas political system. Ranked-choice voting has been implemented in Maine, as well as in municipalities in California and Michigan, locations which can hardly be considered strongholds of conservative political thought.

Perhaps what is probably most appealing to Mr. Grenn and his initiative supporters is, however, that ranked-choice voting enables candidates with limited voter support to win elections. Maybe Mr. Grenn believes he could have defeated Rep. Rasmussen in 2018, even without support from his constituents, under this system. All Mr. Grenn would have had to do to continue to be considered is not be the candidate with the lowest votes received; he could have persisted in the race long after his expiration date.

Consider this a 2015 study of four local elections in Washington and California using ranked-choice ballots found that the winner in all four elections never received a majority of the votes. This is because voters usually do not rank all possible candidates.

For the sake of expediency and their own sanity, voters typically only list their top two or three candidates. If those candidates are eliminated, then so are the votes of these individuals. Under a ranked-choice system, ballots that do not include the ultimate victors are summarily cast aside.

While this creates the appearance of a majority of votes in favor of the winner, it obscures actual voter choices; its a system that fundamentally disenfranchises voters.

In Maines2018 federal congressional race, the conservative incumbent was thrown out, despite receiving a plurality of votes in the initial election. Maines Secretary of State eliminated more than 14,000 ballots that didnt rank the remaining candidates and handed the win to the liberal challenger.

Australias 2010 election had a strikingly similar outcome; the liberal party took over the House, despite receiving 38% of the initial vote. The conservative party received 43% of the vote, but was somehow denied victory.

One can see why progressives are so excited about this proposal. It reeks of elitism and is engineered to pad the fortunes of liberal candidates. Alaskan voters, dont let yourselves be taken in. If this initiative reaches your ballot next year, vote it down.

Ann Brown, formerly of Fairbanks, now lives in Anchorage. She is an experienced trial lawyer who was the managing partner of her firms branch office, with a focus on labor and employment law. Currently retired, she is the vice chair of the Alaska Republican Party.

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:
Ranked choice voting? Why progressives want it here - Must Read Alaska

All the while their representatives in the House of Representatives endured a marathon debate coming after painstaking, months-long investigations through various committees before voting for impeachment, their arguments coming in impassioned bursts about this "solemn day" and Trump's "travesty of law".

To be fair, Trump's six-page stream-of-consciousness letter to Nancy Pelosi, proclaiming his looming impeachment a declaration of war, was an atypical display of sustained exertion. But back in Congress his unwavering Republicans reverted to the less-is-more template the sort that countered Hillary Clinton's deluge of forgettable policy offerings in 2016 with pledges to build a wall and make things great again. They rose briefly to their feet for a moment's silence to honour the Americans who voted for Trump at that election. These voters being dead, apparently.

To the Democrats' claims that Trump's dealings with Ukraine and Congress undermined the rule of law, the Republicans effortlessly flip the accusation to allege with genius timing that even Jesus enjoyed more due process before he was nailed. Some might see this assertion as a metaphor for Democrats killing Christmas. For at the same time the Democrats in Congress were opening their veins in defence of the constitution:Trump was in Michigan addressing the very much alive blue-collar workers he lured into his camp in 2016, bearing a cheerful message for them and for the roughly half of the population still in his camp Merry Christmas! (And, OK, a rather lengthy, "I did nothing wrong.")

In the near future, Senate Republicans will almost certainly embrace simplicity when, after a trial and formal deliberation, they'll carefully consider the articles of impeachment and on each and every one of them declare: Nyet.

Whatever his outsize flaws, Boris Johnson does not deserve to be lumped with his so-called conservative counterpart across the Atlantic. But as a rallying cry, "Get Brexit Done" rendered with faint backing vocals about raising spending on services has that pared-down Trumpian quality.

As journalist Andrew Sullivan observed in New York magazine, Johnson plotted a course that might actually bring the UK out of the "epic, years-long, once-impossible-looking mess he helped make." What more did Johnson need than three plain words?

Well, he was helped immeasurably by a Labour "Opposition" that responded with a mammoth utopian manifesto. Corbynites being so remote from a cynical and jaded public, it never occurred to these apparatchiks that the very idea of policy volume would be enough to send terrified workers into the arms of an avuncular toff.

To "Get Brexit Done", Labour answered: "Hail the new Green Industrial Revolution, free full-fibre broadband for everyone, the workers collectively owning 10 per cent of companies, nationalisation of rail, mail, water and energy, giving the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed."

In Australia, after its shock election loss in May, Labor finally embraced brevity in a 500 word post-mortem that acknowledged "a cluttered policy agenda", and the "size and complexity" of its spending announcements contributed to the party's defeat. To its shopping list of promises on negative gearing, childcare, education, franking credits (I still have no idea what that was about), Scott Morrison responded, broadly speaking, with tax cuts. Tax cuts and a lump of coal. Tax cuts and religious freedom.

I can only agree with those who warn that conservative and right-wing populism is likely to keep winning in the near future. Not because the "workers" are dumb. Not even because their would-be saviours are too clever, though they are too energetic. Too optimistic. The broad left correctly diagnoses societal ills such as economic inequality and wage stagnation; it just can't offer a credible cure.

Loading

So while presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders gives himself a heart attack blitzing America's trailer parks, perhaps America's left-behinds would be better helped by progressives finding a few choice words to swing an election. Say: "Crooked Donald." And: "Merry Christmas."

Julie Szego is a Melbourne writer.

Original post:
Sorry, progressives, we can expect the right to keep marching onwards - Sydney Morning Herald

Progressivism in the United States today is defined by political partisanship, and has wrongly become synonymous with a a single party. The reality is that true progress requires disparate groups to come together in honest debate. At a time when members of one party have co-opted progressivism, let us recall that the successful progressive movement of the early twentieth century started with Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, and ended with Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

As a progressive Republican in New York, that issue is close to my heart.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Progressives agree that in the United States nobody should lack food, housing, education or healthcare. At the same time, an essential American ideal is the freedom to aspire for choice in all areas of life and the ability to achieve it through hard work and innovation. While both sides might agree on a forward-looking initiative, they may seek to achieve it in different ways.

Progressives do not easily disqualify individuals. We look for the common ground. We are happy to work with members of the other party on matters that are beneficial for the local constituents they represent. And we are eager to work with anyone who shares a vision for a future in which the United States is a global leader, never subject to the values of other countries and their leaders.

A progressive Republican like me knows that aspiration flows from capitalist forces that unleash incentive, growth and progress. Republicans know that only American-style wealth allows us to talk about food, healthcare, education and housing as human rights. American-style wealth only exists where there is American-style democracy. As a nation, we were the first progressives, revolting against monarchy and embracing democracy. The United States served as a model for other nations with respect to democracy in the nineteenth century. Then, in the twentieth century, we funded and facilitated successful democracies in Europe and around the world.

The socialist twitch in Europe would not have been made possible without American intervention in the Second World War, and continued American funding and protection through the end of the century. Republican progressives reject the notion that American-subsidized European socialism is a relevant model for our country.

As progressive Republicans, we appreciate the potential impact that laws and legal systems have in the lives of people. We believe that the law distinguishes us from animals, facilitating peaceful resolution. And progressive Republicans want law to err on the side of compassion. It is not a weapon to be wielded by for-profit lawyers. We support strong enforcement of laws meant to curb prosecutorial misconduct, and legislation where it is not enough. We also support reforms that reduce legal fees and that compel lawyers to work in their clients legal and financial interests.

We want to craft government so that it is compatible with our most ambitious plans for the future and that involves rethinking our federal agencies and bureaus. We cannot wait until the markets compel governmental change, or until it is too late. There are certain areas where markets are paralyzed and where government must take the lead in order for investments to follow. Consider twentieth-century federal regulation, the type which even the most conservative people would agree is necessary. Without air traffic control, commercial airliners would not be possible. Without government regulation of radio frequencies, there is no investment in broadcast radio, television, cellular phones and satellites.

Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clintons deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.

EPA

Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.

Getty

The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.

Getty

Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trumps personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the presidents enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a shadow foreign policy.In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trumps behalf and has called himself a hero.

AP

The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the favour he was asked for.Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.

AFP/Getty

The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.However, Trump announced that Pence had had one or two phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trumps actions.It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.

AP

Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didnt even want to.The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.

Getty

The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trumps opponent in the 2020 election.Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Bidens son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.

Reuters

Joe Bidens son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Bidens lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.

AP

The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trumps preoccupations with the Bidens and the Clinton emails.Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a cover-up of a cover-up.

AP

The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.

AFP via Getty

The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Getty

Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a parody of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.The Washington Post awarded Schiff a four Pinocchios rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.

Reuters

Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.

Reuters

The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff later identified as diplomat David Holmes overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about investigations the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trumps opponents, saying: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support."

Getty Images

A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trumps personal lawyer, of leading a campaign of lies against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.

Getty Images

One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack very intimidating. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: Shes going to go through some things.Yovanovitch said she was shocked, appalled and devastated by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.

REUTERS

A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trumps 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.

Getty Images

A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it unusual because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.

Getty Images

The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraines reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.

Getty Images

An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake.

Getty Images

In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: Was there a quid pro quo? Yes, said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the presidents political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his evidence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr Trump who went from calling Sondland a great American a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him.

AP

A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August undermining a Republican argument that there cant have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didnt know that aid was being withheld.

Getty Images

The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.

EPA

Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was being involved in a domestic political errand.She said: I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up. And here we are.

AP

The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald Trump. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line because his voice was so loud and distinctive and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear asking about the investigations and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate.

REUTERS

Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clintons deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why.

EPA

Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable.Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret.

Getty

The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower.

Getty

Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trumps personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the presidents enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a shadow foreign policy.In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trumps behalf and has called himself a hero.

AP

The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House.With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation.He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the favour he was asked for.Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin.

AFP/Getty

The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later.However, Trump announced that Pence had had one or two phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trumps actions.It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow.

AP

Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didnt even want to.The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year.

Getty

The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trumps opponent in the 2020 election.Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Bidens son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done.However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant.

Reuters

Joe Bidens son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Bidens lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong.

AP

The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trumps preoccupations with the Bidens and the Clinton emails.Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a cover-up of a cover-up.

AP

The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works.Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president.

AFP via Getty

The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Getty

Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry.He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a parody of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call.He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint.The Washington Post awarded Schiff a four Pinocchios rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement.

Reuters

Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October.Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts.

Reuters

The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff later identified as diplomat David Holmes overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about investigations the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trumps opponents, saying: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support."

Getty Images

A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trumps personal lawyer, of leading a campaign of lies against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats.

Getty Images

One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack very intimidating. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: Shes going to go through some things.Yovanovitch said she was shocked, appalled and devastated by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation.

REUTERS

A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment.One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trumps 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank.

Getty Images

A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it unusual because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents.

Getty Images

The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraines reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest.

Original post:
As a progressive Republican, I want to work with Democrats but this partisan impeachment makes it hard - The Independent

Ankara is pitting itself against several regional states through its actions in the Mediterranean and its offer to become more involved in Libyas conflict.

Turkeys memorandum of understanding on Mediterranean maritime jurisdictions with Libyas UN-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) late last month infuriated Egypt, Cyprus, and Greece, all of which stress the deal violates international law.

The deal between Ankara and Tripoli carves out a slanting sea corridor of maritime boundaries at the closest points between Libya and Turkey, potentially clearing the way for oil and gas search there, Reuters said.

Turkey has already angered regional states and the European Union by sending drilling ships inside Cypruss Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Ankara insists it has the right to drill offshore of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an entity only recognised by Turkey.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlt avuolu stressed last week that Turkey would of course use military force if any other nation conducted drilling in the waters his country claims.

The Jerusalem Post reported the Turkish Navy forced an Israeli research vessel of the coast of Cyprus to turn back two weeks ago. Turkish warships last year blocked a drilling ship leased to Italian energy company Eni southeast of Cyprus, despite being authorised by internationally recognised government of the island. Cyprus, France, and Italy began a joint naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean this month.

Levent zgl, a Turkish defence analyst and Partner at BlueMelange Consultancy, pointed out that, unlike Turkey, the allied forces in the Mediterranean are economically stable and fully supported by international law.

France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, the Gulf states, Russia, the United States, Britain, Israel and even Qatar, which has a licensed company operating in the Cypriot EEZ, all have plans that conflict with Turkeys goals in areas across the eastern Mediterranean, zgl told Ahval.

These, he said, include offshore Cyprus, the Republic of Cyprus EEZ, the Israel-Lebanon Leviathan basin, Crete and offshore Crete, along with the Herodotus basin and offshore and onshore Libya.

Turkeys deployment of drones to northern Cyprus is also an important message to the EU that Turkey is serious, he said.

zgl anticipates military confrontation in the eastern Mediterranean and identified Libya and Crete as the most obvious sites for Turkey, rather than fighting with Israel in Cypruss EEZ.

But the capabilities of the Turkish Navy and Air Force are too limited to exercise this kind of overseas operation, he said.

The Turkish military, he said, lacks an aircraft carrier, modern fighter jets as well as area defence missile systems like the Aegis or Aster-30 and long-range fighter jets capable of conducting combat air patrols far from Turkeys shores. The countrys air tanker fleet is also ageing and its drones are short-range, he said.

On top of that, Turkey doesnt have any long-range air-to-ship missiles like the Harpoon or Exocet.

It only possesses 30-35 km range Penguin anti-ship missiles and domestically-built SOM missiles, zgl said. These are all bottlenecks for Turkey.

Turkey also signed an agreement with the GNA under which the Tripoli government can request Turkey to deploy troops.

The deal came as General Khalifa Haftar, the leader of the Libyan National Army (LNA) that is besieging Tripoli, announced he was launching what he called the decisive and final battle for the capital. Turkey has supplied Tripoli with armed drones and armoured vehicles to help the GNA fend off the attack.

Mohamed Eljarh of Libya Outlook, a research and consulting firm based in eastern Libya, believes Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan is serious and should not be underestimated.

Libya is now part of the Turkish foreign policy strategy to expand its sphere of influence in the Mediterranean, the region, and the world, Eljarh told Ahval.

Pro-government media in Turkey and Libya are preparing public opinion for the possibility of greater Turkish involvement in the conflict, he said.

With its military capabilities, greater Turkish military involvement in Libya would be significant and would most certainly tip the balance of power in favour of the GNA unless Haftars foreign backers increase their support, Eljarh said.

Haftars sees the anger of regional and international powers at the deal between Turkey and the GNA as a golden opportunity to escalate his military operations against Tripoli, he said.

Haftar can do so without risking condemnation from the EU, due to European opposition and anger over the MoU, or the United Nations Security Council, given that Russia and France are ready to water down any statement or resolution that would lead to direct condemnation of Haftar for the escalation in violence, Eljarh said.

Second, Haftar seems to be taking the Turkish threats seriously, and he understands that the only way to stop the Turks from coming is to capture Tripoli, he said.

But, he said, the only thing that could stop Erdoan from going to Libya is the real threat of force, or even war, from countries threatened by the MoU, such as Greece and Cyprus supported by France, Egypt, and Italy Only then would Erdoan abandon the edge of the abyss approach in favour of a more pragmatic one.

Tom Cooper, a military aviation expert, pointed out that Turkey already has personnel in Libya operating the Bayraktar TB2 unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).

Indeed, the recent series of nocturnal air strikes on GNA air bases all flown by Emirati-operated UCAVs and AT-802U planes were specifically targeting Turkish control stations for UCAVs, Cooper said. He said that on Dec. 13, the LNA also targeted a cargo aircraft that had arrived from Turkey.

The real question is if Erdoan is going to deploy additional troops to Libya, Cooper said. I do consider this within realms of possible, but also unlikely.

As in Syria, he said, Erdoan had a preference for using surrogates to avoid exposing Turkish troops to casualties This is leading to the conclusion that the option of Turkey providing additional military hardware to its allies in Libya is far more likely, indeed certain.

Even if Turkey does deploy troops in Tripoli, Cooper does not see any serious short-term ramifications.

Both sides, Turks and Emiratis, have already suffered casualties, including fatalities, he said. As long as the number of casualties remains minimal, nothing is going to change.

Cooper also doubts that Haftar will make much progress in his latest push to capture Tripoli.

Even if commanded by Russian officers, Haftars LNA remains a disparate mixture of forces, and he controls very little of Libyas population, despite controlling more than two-thirds of the country, he said.

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that anything will significantly change on the frontlines.

Originally posted here:
Turkey biting off more than it can chew in Mediterranean and Libya - Ahval

Hande Frat - ANKARA

The main opposition partys leader, Kemal Kldarolu, has urged the Turkish government to take lessons from the Syrian conflict and not to deploy troops to Libya as Ankara and Tripoli have agreed on a comprehensive security and defense deal.

What are we in Libya for? For what were we in the Syrian marsh? The government has to take lessons from what happened in the Syrian marsh, the chairman of the Republican Peoples Party (CHP) told the daily Hrriyet in an interview on Dec. 16.

Kldarolus warning came after Turkey and the United Nations-backed Libyan government inked a memorandum of understanding on security and defense cooperation which would constitute a legal framework for the deployment of the Turkish troops in Libya.

The memorandum was approved at the Parliaments Foreign Affairs Commission on Dec. 16, but the opposition parties voted against it on the grounds that it would make Turkey a party to an ongoing civil war between the two factions in the oil-rich country.

CHP officials expressed their support to another memorandum signed between the two parties that provides the delimitation of the maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean Sea. But they say they wont approve sending troops to Libya as it would put the lives of the Turkish soldiers in danger. The government needs to get the consent of the parliament for the deployment of troops to other countries, and it requires a simple majority.

Montreux Convention should not be amended

CHP leader has raised his concerns over the governments plans to merge the Black Sea with the Marmara Sea through what it calls the Canal Istanbul project and its impacts on the 1936-dated Montreux Convention that regulates the free passage from the Turkish straits.

For Kldarolu, Canal Istanbul is a project that can not materialize and it serves for the government to distract the public attention from socioeconomic problems.

I am of the opinion that it has been brought back to the agenda in order to remove key issues like unemployment, the economic crisis from the agenda. With which resources will it be done? Kldarolu asked.

Those who are discussing the project should be scientists, experts and not politicians, the CHP leader said, describing Canal Istanbul as being a completely irrational plan.

Kldarolu also touched on discussions to what extent the 1936-dated Montreux Convention would be affected in the case that Canal Istanbul would be constructed and function as an alternate seaway.

Even opening a discussion on the Montreux Convention in the context of the Canal Istanbul is against Turkeys interests. We should stand against even probable efforts that would put Turkeys delicate gains over the Bosporus on the table, Kldarolu said. Breaking the Montreux Agreement would lead to a series of negative developments in regard to Turkish-Russian relations.

The government says Canal Istanbul will reduce the sea traffic of the Bosporus and therefore avoid major accidents that would endanger the safety of Istanbul with its 16 million people.

Turkey-US should refrain from sanctions language

Upon questions, Kldarolu evaluated the current state of ties between Turkey and the United States in the wake of the latters attempts to sanction Ankara for its unilateral military operations into Syria and the formers threat to shut down U.S. bases on its soils.

Our wish is to see the reconciliation of ties between Turkey and the U.S., he said, urging both sides to follow common sense and a mature understanding. Sanctions would lead to further strain in ties and to an irreversible break-off. Both sides should refrain from it, he stressed.

On a question about whether Turkey should bar the U.S. from using the key military bases, ncirlik base and Krecik radar site, in retaliation, Kldarolu advised the government to engage in dialogue with Washington instead of threatening it.

Using this language in almost every incident is against the interests of Turkey. Instead, an approach that prioritizes diplomacy through keeping dialogue channels open should be embraced.

Kanal Istanbul,

See the original post:
Main opposition CHP objects to sending troops to Libya - Hurriyet Daily News