9(MDAxODM0MjQzMDEyMTY4NDQwNDM4ODU3OA004))
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
For less than the third time in U.S. historical past, the Home is poised to question a president.
NOEL KING, HOST:
That is proper. The vote is predicted on Wednesday, and lawmakers are planning for a trial within the Senate after that. Home members would current their case, and senators would function the jury. Now, many lawmakers aren’t even pretending they’ll hold an open thoughts. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell guarantees, quote, “whole coordination with the president’s protection staff.” And Democratic chief Chuck Schumer desires witnesses to be referred to as.
INSKEEP: Everyone right here is assuming that the Home will, actually, vote to question the president this week, which can arrange the trial in January.
NPR nationwide political correspondent Mara Liasson is on the road. Mara, good morning.
MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Hello, Steve.
INSKEEP: Who’s it that Schumer desires to listen to?
LIASSON: Effectively, Chuck Schumer has requested for 4 witnesses who would have direct information of what Trump stated and did across the holding up of help to Ukraine and the requests for investigation of the Bidens. And these are Mick Mulvaney, the appearing White Home chief of employees; John Bolton, the previous nationwide safety adviser, and two different officers.
Keep in mind – Republicans complained that throughout the Home Judiciary Committee hearings, there weren’t sufficient witnesses that would testify with direct information. And Democrats stated, nicely, certain; that is as a result of Trump refused to let any direct witnesses testify. He had a form of blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for witnesses and paperwork.
We do not know but how Mitch McConnell will reply to this letter. However we do know that it appeared as if President Trump had been accepting the need of Senate Republicans that there be no witnesses. Mitch McConnell had as soon as stated that calling witnesses could be, quote, “mutually assured destruction.”
INSKEEP: Oh, why would that be?
LIASSON: Effectively, as a result of should you – if, as an illustration, the president desires Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to testify, nicely, then you must get all these different witnesses – those that Chuck Schumer is requesting – and perhaps the president does not need that.
INSKEEP: It may very well be greater than a bit of awkward for the president…
LIASSON: Sure.
INSKEEP: …Who refused to ship witnesses to the Home…
LIASSON: Proper.
INSKEEP: …Saying it was an unfair partisan course of to refuse when the chief justice, John Roberts, is presiding over a trial in a Republican-controlled Senate.
LIASSON: Proper.
INSKEEP: Now, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican chief, promised, quote, “whole coordination with the White Home,” which is an uncommon factor, I suppose, to listen to from a jury member. One other jury member, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, informed CNN he isn’t making an attempt to fake to be a good juror right here. And simply in case anyone missed him there, he stated it once more the following day on CBS. Let’s hear.
(SOUNDBITE OF CBS BROADCAST)
LINDSEY GRAHAM: However I feel what’s finest for the nation is to get this factor over with. I’m – clearly made up my thoughts. I am not making an attempt to cover the truth that I’ve disdain for the accusations and the method, so I do not want any witnesses.
INSKEEP: Mara, is that this uncommon? – as a result of Republicans have stated all alongside, Democrats had their minds made up, have all the time been on the lookout for impeachment. I feel Lindsey Graham himself might have stated that; different Republicans actually have. If that is unfair, why is it honest for them to say they’re completely on the facet of the president?
LIASSON: Effectively, I do not assume something – neither facet thinks something is honest right here. However regardless that senators do should take an oath to provide, quote, “neutral justice” when they’re sworn in as jurors in a Senate trial, does not imply that an impeachment trial goes to be neutral.
Senators who sit as a jury should not the identical as a jury in a daily trial as a result of impeachment is a political train, and I feel all Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell are doing is saying the quiet half out loud. You understand, this is not a jury in a homicide trial. They do not get picked from a pool. And it is a political course of, and that is what you simply heard.
INSKEEP: It brings to thoughts a little bit of historical past that each different presidents to be impeached, Andrew Johnson and Invoice Clinton, on the face of it pretty clearly did the issues they had been accused of. However in each circumstances, sufficient senators determined it was not politically sensible to take away them from workplace.
LIASSON: Proper.
INSKEEP: Mara, thanks a lot.
LIASSON: Thanks.
INSKEEP: That’s NPR nationwide political correspondent Mara Liasson.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
INSKEEP: College students in India are protesting a brand new citizenship legislation. That is what it appeared like final evening in New Delhi when police stormed a campus firing tear gasoline at protesters.
(SOUNDBITE OF WEAPON FIRING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: They’re firing into the campus, see.
KING: These protests began final week in northeast India, after which they have been spreading. The brand new legislation that Steve talked about was handed final week, and it presents citizenship to undocumented migrants who enter India from three neighboring international locations – Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh – however not if these migrants are Muslim.
INSKEEP: NPR’s Lauren Frayer has been following this story from our bureau in Mumbai. Hello there, Lauren.
LAUREN FRAYER, BYLINE: Hello, Steve.
INSKEEP: Would you remind us once more how this legislation is meant to work? Does it particularly say no Muslims allowed?
FRAYER: So the legislation is an amnesty for undocumented migrants from these three international locations that you simply talked about. And to qualify for it, you must have arrived in India earlier than 2015, and you must be a persecuted spiritual minority – so a Buddhist, a Christian, a Hindu, for instance – and never a Muslim.
And this was a key election promise by the Hindu nationalist authorities of India. And the reasoning – the federal government’s reasoning goes one thing like this. These three international locations are Muslim-majority international locations the place minority faiths may face discrimination, and so India ought to welcome these individuals.
INSKEEP: OK. On the face of it, that seems like it could be affordable. However clearly, protesters see bias in opposition to Muslims right here.
FRAYER: Yeah. They’re protesting for quite a lot of causes. Within the various northeast of the nation, persons are fearful that these new residents will change the demographics, compete for his or her jobs. Among the protests right this moment on faculty campuses are in solidarity with the scholars in Delhi that you simply heard on the high of the phase acquired roughed up by police. However then many protesters are marching as a result of they see this legislation as discriminatory in opposition to Muslims as a result of it excludes Muslims from this citizenship provide.
And so this actually goes to the center of what India is. The Indian Structure defines this nation as a secular democracy, however now we have a Hindu nationalist authorities in energy that is more and more inserting faith into politics. In reality, final evening we noticed protesters carrying portraits of Mahatma Gandhi, India’s freedom chief. And so the message there may be this new legislation, to some, violates the values of secularism and equal rights that Gandhi stood for.
INSKEEP: I wish to pause to notice one thing you simply informed us there, Lauren. Some persons are upset as a result of this legislation would exclude Muslims. However it seems like different persons are upset as a result of anyone’s getting citizenship in any respect, which is fascinating to notice. However that is one thing that’s intently recognized with the Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi. What does he say in protection of this legislation?
FRAYER: Effectively, he tweeted this morning that these protests are deeply distressing and that debate and dissent are, after all, a part of democracy. However he additionally made a remark at a rally final evening. He accused his political rivals of arson – that was in reference to a bus that was set on hearth in Delhi – however he additionally stated that these behind the violence in these protests can, quote, “be recognized by their garments.” And that is a attainable reference to Muslim apparel. It might sound innocuous, however some persons are calling {that a} canine whistle remark in opposition to Muslims. He may very well be suggesting that anybody in Muslim gown is suspicious.
And you must keep in mind India has one of many world’s largest Muslim populations; we’re speaking about 180 million individuals. And lots of fear that Muslims in India have gotten second-class residents underneath Modi’s Hindu nationalist authorities.
INSKEEP: Lauren, thanks on your insights – all the time admire it.
FRAYER: You are welcome.
INSKEEP: That is NPR’s Lauren Frayer.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
INSKEEP: Historical past’s longest ever United Nations local weather convention ended yesterday with little or no to point out for it. Delegates from virtually 200 nations postponed a choice on international carbon markets till subsequent 12 months.
KING: One factor that turned clear on this convention, if it wasn’t clear already, is that there is a actual disagreement between developed and rising international locations on what to do about local weather change. U.N. Secretary-Common Antonio Guterres referred to as the result disappointing, and he referred to it as a missed alternative.
INSKEEP: Let’s discuss this extra with Kalina Oroschakoff, who joins us from Madrid by way of Skype. She is Politico Europe’s local weather, emissions and power reporter. Welcome to this system.
KALINA OROSCHAKOFF: Good morning.
INSKEEP: So why was there no actual deal right here in any respect?
OROSCHAKOFF: Effectively, as you already stated earlier than, it was a tough COP. I imply, you had been saying disappointment throughout. I feel one factor that it confirmed is, initially, that tackling local weather change and lowering emissions is a really tough factor. And over the past two weeks, you may inform how international locations had been going through off with one another about how to do this and the way a lot they wish to be required to do this.
INSKEEP: What’s the divide that Noel simply talked about between developed and rising international locations? How is it that they see the world in a different way?
OROSCHAKOFF: Effectively, we have to return a bit about what the Paris Settlement actually did. The Paris Settlement was meant to make sure that each nation – not simply the wealthy and industrialized nations however each nation – would say, sure, we are going to do one thing to battle local weather change.
Now the problem is, after all, that industrialized nations, just like the EU, the bloc – the European Union in addition to the U.S. and others, they have been driving up emissions over the past a long time. Now rising economies – be that China, India and others – they are saying, nicely, we’re nonetheless rising. So allow us to develop and allow us to do our financial growth and look after our individuals.
INSKEEP: Oh, they’re nonetheless saying – wait a minute – it is our flip to pollute; we get a flip to pollute identical to you had.
OROSCHAKOFF: No, not likely – as a result of they did conform to the Paris Settlement. So everyone stated, sure, now we have to battle local weather change. However now the query is – who has to do extra to battle it over the following years? And that is the place the problem is available in as a result of, after all, wanting on the emissions information, many international locations that can drive emissions sooner or later are rising economies. And so now, simply as we’re on the eve of the Paris Settlement taking drive in 2020, we see that battle taking part in out.
After which after all, international geopolitics and a really tough worldwide surroundings do not assist as a result of the U.N., in spite of everything, is – I imply, it is a membership of nations. And so even in a local weather convention, it is bigger politics at play.
INSKEEP: In fact, the US pulled out of the Paris Settlement and has taken a really totally different view of local weather change – the fact of local weather change underneath President Trump. How has that affected negotiations?
OROSCHAKOFF: Effectively, you possibly can really feel that the U.S. is not there. As you’ll keep in mind, the U.S. and China, their cooperation earlier than the Paris Settlement was essential. With the U.S. gone – a minimum of, like, the massive administration, the muscle being gone, you let international locations that wish to push again, they’ve far more area to maneuver and push again. And that is one thing you noticed at this convention.
INSKEEP: Kalina, thanks a lot – actually admire it.
OROSCHAKOFF: Thanks.
INSKEEP: That is Politico Europe’s Kalina Oroschakoff. Transcript supplied by NPR, Copyright NPR.
The post News Brief: Impeachment, India’s Citizenship Law, Climate Summit appeared first on Down The Middle News.
source https://downthemiddlenews.com/news-brief-impeachment-indias-citizenship-law-climate-summit/
No comments:
Post a Comment