For the first time in his tweet-driven presidency, Trump wasn’t able to employ his preferred method of communication to stoke or incite supporters. He wasn’t able to launch at leaders of his party his usual mob-boss loyalty tests. And he wasn’t able to distract and divert and defend himself in the telltale ways to which Americans have grown so accustomed.
Read Here | Politico
Historians who study impeachment tend to treat it as a domestic political affair: the bloody combat of partisan politics taken to its extreme, threatening the very survival of a presidency. But when the commander in chief must fight for his political life, the repercussions inevitably ripple around the world.
The House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on charges of abusing his power and obstructing congressional investigations, a historic rebuke in a political era that has threatened to upend the nation’s constitutional order. The nearly party-line vote to recommend Trump’s removal from office and label him a national security threat was met by a defiant president who vowed to prevail in a Senate trial overseen by his Republican allies — but whose presidency will be forever blemished by an impeachment.
Also Read: Impeachment Day For Trump: A Bruised Ego, A Twitter Eruption And A Winding Rally
For the left, the consummate conservative has revealed himself to be an utter poltroon: weary of a would-be dictator president, but unwilling to officially cross him. For some on the right, he’s a potential traitor in their midst. Bolton “is THE witness for the prosecution.” a former senior administration official told me earlier this impeachment autumn.
President Donald Trump urged Ukraine’s president to work with Attorney General William Barr on a potential investigation into Joe Biden, according to a White House readout of a July call, adding a damaging new dimension to the scandal that is engulfing Trump’s presidency.
Also Read: Why Trump Relishes The Upcoming Impeachment Battle
And: Inside Trumpworld, Public Defiance Vs. Private Anxiety Over Impeachment
International attention on Sri Lanka has focused recently on a devastating report from the United Nations reviewing its own failure to protect civilians during the humanitarian catastrophe of the final months of the island nation’s civil war in 2009. Yet as many in the international community have been looking back, a new, quieter crisis is threatening Sri Lanka’s battered democracy – and the chances of lasting peace – with the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa moving to impeach the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Should the impeachment effort succeed, it will complete a constitutional coup begun in September 2010 with the 18th amendment to the constitution, which ended presidential term limits and removed the independence of commissions on the police, human rights, judiciary, bribery and other areas of governance.
What some have framed as a battle for power between the judiciary and executive is in fact a one-sided assault on an already weakened legal system, which has for decades, but particularly under President Rajapaksa, routinely done the executive’s bidding.
