No Images? Click here 2 OCTOBERAnother presidential phone call causes US-Australia angstUS President Donald Trump’s conversation with Prime Minister Scott Morrison, seeking Australian co-operation with a US Justice Department investigation of the Mueller inquiry, is "procedurally routine, yet politically extraordinary", according to United States Studies Centre CEO Simon Jackman. The fallout over the September phone call between the two leaders, as well as Attorney-General William Barr's investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign, has seen the impeachment and whistleblower scandals spread beyond Ukraine and the United States, to Australia, Italy and the United Kingdom. “[The call was] not about contributing with defence for an operation we might be doing together, or for a trade matter,’’ Professor Jackman told The New York Times. ‘‘This was: ‘What were the circumstances under which Australia felt compelled to pass on this intelligence about election interference that helped me become president?’ We’re in a whole new category.” "This story casts a real shadow over what has been a very special relationship. It has the potential to cheapen people's perceptions of it and that is very unfortunate... I feel terrible that Australia is being sucked into this vortex." Co-chair of Congressional Friends of Australia Caucus Rep. Joe Courtney (D) ANALYSISUSSC experts on impeachmentPelosi had no choiceNancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership group have long feared that impeachment will play into Donald Trump’s hands. Trump will almost surely survive trial in the Senate (removal from office requires a two-thirds majority). Hence the fear that impeachment will be portrayed as a partisan stunt, a la 1998, enlivening the Republican base and making an “obstructionist” Democratic House majority a rallying cry for Republicans in 2020 (and never mind the irony in that). But after last week, House Democrats faced a different risk: the rage of their base and possible retribution in primary elections should they not move ahead with impeachment. Pelosi had no choice, her leadership was at grave risk if she did not move. Trump’s removal from office will remain fanciful, but the facts that emerge might see Democrats picking up more votes from impeachment than not. What the US Constitution saysDr Charles Edel Fearful of the potential for unlimited, arbitrary, or tyrannical exercise of power by an unprincipled president, the US Constitution’s authors allowed Congress to remove a president before the completion of his term if a sufficient number of lawmakers concluded that the president had committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. But what exactly constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” was left ambiguous. The Constitution also provides no legal standards for the process by which a president should be tried, or the standard of proof required for removal from office. This was intentional, as the process was designed to be rare, difficult, and wholly political. Instead, the Constitution's writers left it to the judgement of the House and Senate to determine when, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “the abuse or violation of some public trust” amounted to “injuries done immediately to the society itself”, and required removing the president from office. The only certainty: more divsionDr Gorana Grgic Since stepping back into the role of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has tried to fend off the calls from some of the most vocal and popular fellow Democrats to impeach the president. Pelosi maintained that such a strategy could be perilous and had the potential to backfire. The only thing that could make her change her mind, she said, would be the unearthing of something truly compelling and overwhelming – the whistleblower’s complaint proved to be just that. It changed the tides within the Democratic Party – even the more moderate members of the caucus became convinced there was no alternative but to begin an impeachment inquiry. Despite the prolific punditry that is filling the airwaves and news columns, no one knows who is going to benefit the most from the impeachment inquiry. However, the potential for all the involved parties to suffer great political damage is huge. The only certainty is that the next 13 months are going to bring more mess and division within the American body politic, on top of what was already poised to be a contentious election campaign. Democrats need to go back to the drawing boardMia Love House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got it wrong this time. The premature move to open an impeachment inquiry into President Trump based on hidden, second-hand charges leaves me, like so many other Americans, doubting the inquiry's legitimacy. Pelosi's failure to wait for the evidence to be released signalled to many Americans that this is just another attempt to drive a political opponent from office. We have learned from past experience to wait for the dust to settle. In this case, as in previous cases, the evidence has not lived up to the hype. As a frequent critic of the president, I find myself forced to defend him. There is no crime here. Democrats are unlikely to succeed in removing the president because there is zero Republican support. The Senate has already indicated they have no interests in entertaining an inquiry. However, the noise and friction generated by an impeachment effort will have a devastating impact on our political discourse. It will likely expose and exacerbate the ugly divisions that undermine the US government. Democrats need to go back to the drawing board until they have actual evidence of a crime. A need for truth above tribalismAssociate Professor Brendon O'Connor Trump’s phone conversation with the Ukrainian president is ample reminder of the conspiratorial circles Trump moves in. He starts out asking a question about a mythical Democratic Party internet server that is part of a widely discredited theory that Ukrainians rather than the Russians actually hacked the DNC. Then Trump moves on to discuss Joe Biden apparently helping his wayward son Hunter Biden out by getting Viktor Shokin, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, sacked. The problem with this argument is that Shokin was a disappointment to a number of European governments because he was not doing enough to investigate corruption and they wanted him sacked and replaced by a more aggressive anti-corruption Prosecutor General. The best antidote to Trump’s lies and narcissism is to focus on policies and political details. In the weeks ahead, as impeachment proceedings are undertaken, truth and evidence will hopefully be valued by the Congress above tribalism. Dangers beyond the presidencyDr David Smith Trump doesn't want investigations into his conduct, which could potentially involve investigations into his businesses. All of his behaviour so far suggests that he has quite a lot to hide in that respect. An impeachment inquiry potentially brings dangers for him that go beyond his presidency. Trump supporters will see it as an attack on a democratically-elected president, an attack on his legitimacy. The broader worry for Democrats is that the American public doesn't seem to like to see the government at war with itself in ways that completely bring the government to a halt. Admittedly, we don't really know how this will play out. Bill Clinton was quite a divisive figure for his time, but nowhere near as polarising as Trump is now. So, even though most voters, for example, didn't support impeachment when it came to the Russia investigation, it's possible now that proceedings have actually begun that a lot of Democratic voters will actually get behind impeachment proceedings. Impeachment by ChristmasBruce Wolpe Democrats in the House of Representatives will vote to impeach President Trump before Christmas. The best way to explain it for Australians: Imagine if Prime Minister Morrison called China's President Xi and said, "I want you to investigate – and report to me – all the ties between the Australian Labor Party and Chinese institutions". The PM would have to resign. The real driver for impeachment is the endless efforts by the White House to obstruct the House from its work; instructing witnesses not to appear in hearings and refusing access to documents showing what Cabinet officers are doing. House Democrats have concluded that the only accountability of Trump is in fact through impeachment. On the politics, many House Democrats sense a new calculus: given the gravity of the alleged crimes, the House must act, and that voters could punish those in Congress who support Trump, even if the Senate acquits him. DIARYThe week ahead
EVENTFilm Screening: Sunset Boulevard (1950)Please join the United States Studies Centre for a special screening of the 1950 film noir classic Sunset Boulevard, directed and co-written by Billy Wilder. William Holden and Gloria Swanson star in the acclaimed critique of the film industry, described as taking the "tinsel out of Tinseltown" with its look behind the curtain at Hollywood. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards following its release, winning three. Non-Resident Senior Fellow Stephen Loosley AM (whose expertise combines presidential politics and Hollywood history) will host an audience discussion following the screening of the film. Ticket includes the film, discussion and refreshments. Tickets are non-refundable but transferable. DATE & TIME LOCATION COST Manage your email preferences | Forward this email to a friend United States Studies Centre |