Inquiring minds: impeachment’s next stage

Hi, this is Christy from Back to the Bar. You've probably heard about GLP1 weight loss medications and the side effects that can come with jumping in too fast. That's why I love Noom. Makes getting started easy. Their microdose GLP1 program begins with a smaller dose and gradually scales up based on how your body reacts. The Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m dot com Noom micro changes big results. Average weight loss eight pounds in first month meds and personalization based on clinical need and not available to all individuals. Medications are not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. Pricing based on first month only.

Hey Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Admit is still pre premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day. Yeah, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to 15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow 135 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence on Economist Radio. I'm your host Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping world. Two years ago, Daphne Caruana Galizia, an investigative journalist from Malta, was killed in mysterious circumstances. Last month there was a break in the slow moving case. Now high level government figures are being questioned about her death and we look back at the life of Raymond Poulidor, a renowned French cyclist who never quite won the Tour de France. He was beloved at home even more than the competitors who wore the winner's yellow jersey. But first. Today in America, impeachment proceedings roll into their next phase with the House Judiciary Committee's first public hearing. It comes after the House Intelligence Committee released a sweeping report of its findings yesterday.

It involves a scheme in which Donald Trump withheld official acts, a White House meeting, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military assistance in order to compel that power to deliver two investigations that he believed would assist his reelection campaign.

The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, said said Mr. Trump had tried to prevent Congress from investigating his actions.

If the Congress allows a president to so fully and blanketly obstruct the work of Congress, even involving an impeachment investigation into the president's own misconduct. Then we are begging for more of the same. We are signaling to any future president they can engage in whatever corruption, malfeasance or negligence. And they are beyond accountability.

The president has denied any wrongdoing and he's criticized the proceedings.

I think the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being.

Mr. Trump has declined to participate in the hearings. The Republican Party on Monday released a long rebuttal of the Democrat led investigation before the Intelligence committee released its 300 page report. In the Judiciary Committee's hearings starting today, a panel of legal experts will consider whether Mr. Trump committed impeachable offense.

The report is really quite comprehensive and it focuses on two broad areas. First, it argues that President Trump abused his presidential power by conditioning military aid to Ukraine, which desperately needs it to defend itself against Russian aggression, on that country's president Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announcing an investigation into Joe Biden and also into a discredited theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

John Fasman is the Economist's Washington correspondent.

The report really shows in great detail that this wasn't just a single phone call between the two presidents. It really was an extensive months long effort led by Rudy Giuliani. And it also argues, which I hadn't seen before, that Mike Pence was either a knowledgeable or active participant in that scheme. The second area it focuses on is obstruction. And here it argues that the president obstructed the House's investigative efforts and that he's the first president in history to really wholly reject every aspect of the impeachment process, every and to just entirely refuse to cooperate. And again, this section is also quite thorough. It details precisely which executive branch officials and departments refused to cooperate and when. And it's not just, you know, President Trump and Mick Mulvaney and other White House officials. It details refusals by the State Department, Defense Department and so on. And it explains why this is harmful, that it effectively nullifies Congress's oversight power. And that's really something that should worry everyone because if President Trump can do it, then so can President Sanders or President Warren.

And now it's in the hands of the House Judiciary Committee. What's the process?

So the first hearing is today and the committee will hear from four law professors who are going to discuss Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution, which is the basis for impeachment. And they'll also talk about what constitutes an impeachable offense. And I think Democrats are really trying to sort of set the ground rules here. Now, precisely what happens next, whether there will be more Judiciary Committee hearings, that's unclear. But eventually the committee will weigh whether enough evidence exists to draw up articles of impeachment, and if so, they'll be drawn up and sent to the floor for a, for a full House vote.

And why isn't Mr. Trump participating in all this? He had hinted that he might.

So the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, has called the inquiry baseless and highly partisan. He thinks the president isn't going to get a fair hearing. And I think his thinking is that even participating in the inquiry at all, even in his client's own defense, risks giving it an air of legitimacy that he would rather not give it.

And the proceedings are, at this point still focused only on the Ukraine allegations.

It is not just about Ukraine, though. Ukraine forms a large part of the inquiry. It is also about obstruction of justice and witness intimidation. And remember the articles drawn up against Richard Nixon but never voted on because he resigned? Those form the basis of two of them, allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of justice. So those are the two main areas. The Judiciary Committee has also asked investigators to send them findings of other Trump related misdeeds that they think are impeachable. So you may see parts of the Mueller report crop up again. So it's not just about Ukraine at this point.

And Republicans have already issued a rebuttal to the allegations. Is it convincing to your mind?

Right. Republicans also produced a lengthy document, and it argues what they've been arguing all along, which is that the president did nothing wrong and certainly nothing impeachable. It argues that President Trump had a well grounded skepticism of Ukraine, given its long history of corruption, which it certainly has, and that President Trump has, in fact, been quite supportive of Ukraine in its struggle against Russia, more supportive in terms of weaponry and lethal aid than the Obama administration was, which is also true. And it says that he didn't cover up his actions or obstruct justice, and that President Zelenskyy also felt no pressure. And I think that the thing here is the important question is not whether you or I find it convincing, but whether it provides adequate grounds for Republican congressmen to vote against the articles of impeachment should they come to the House floor, and also for Republican senators to vote to acquit President Trump in any Senate trial. And there I have to say that it probably provides adequate grounds for both of those, as things stand now and.

You mentioned the long history of corruption in Ukraine. Do you think the report offers anything more recent, more specific, to justify Mr. Trump's skepticism?

One of the other things it says, it points out, is that Ukrainian politicians attacked President Trump during the 2016 election. And they're right that the former Ukrainian ambassador wrote an op ed criticizing the president's statements about Crimea, and there were some stray social media comments. And that, I think, has formed the basis of one other argument the Republicans have been making, which is that Ukraine and Russia both meddled in the 2016 election. And that I think, is not convincing at all, at all, because it requires you to equate these public comments, just comments about an election with Russia's extensive covert meddling in the 2016 election. And the two things really are not the same at all.

Okay, so what's the timeframe now? Is the House Judiciary Committee likely to reach its conclusions by the end of the year?

That is the conventional wisdom. But, you know, one of the things that struck me in the Intelligence Committee's report is that it said in the preface, you know, this is the evidence we've gathered thus far. It directly said thus far, which leaves open the possibility of more fact witnesses appearing. And, you know, a District Court in D.C. just ruled that Don McGon, the former White House counsel, has to respond to a congressional subpoena. And I can't imagine that the Democrats would decline to hear from John Bolton, the former National Security advisor, should he want to turn up. But if the Democrats decide they want to get this over with sooner rather than later, there's a path to doing that.

How is this playing politically for the Democrats and the Republicans? Do you think either side has the upper hand at this point?

That's the million dollar question, right? You have both sides bases locked in, and for the past couple of months, you've seen around 50% of the electorate who wants to impeach and remove the president. And his approval ratings are still in the low 40s where they've been for months. Impeachment is still not terribly popular in swing states, but what polls also show is that impeachment is a pretty low priority for most voters. So the argument for impeachment isn't, you know, immediately one of political utility. I don't think there's some secret combination of words and evidence that will convince uninterested voters that it matters. The argument, I think, is merit based. If Democrats really believe that President Trump did something so dangerous to the Republic that it warrants the most severe punishment possible, then that's the reason to plow ahead, not because it might help them next year.

John, thanks very much for joining us.

Jason, always a pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

Foreign. Hi, this is Christy from Back to the Bar. You've probably heard about GLP1 weight loss medications and the side effects that can come with jumping in too fast. That's why I love Noom. Makes getting started easy. Their microdose GLP1 program begins with a smaller dose and gradually scales up based on how your body reacts. The Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m dot com Noom micro changes big results. Average weight loss eight pounds in first month. Meds and personalization based on clinical need and not available to all individuals. Medications are not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. Pricing based on first month Only.

Last week a political and financial firestorm erupted in Malta. The island state just south of Italy is the European Union's smallest member. The crisis follows the arrest of two senior government officials and the announcement on Sunday that the Prime Minister will step down in the new year. At the center of the upheaval is a brutal and as yet unsolved murder.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was Malta's best known investigative journalist. In fact, she was Malta's best known journalist full stop.

John Hooper has been reporting on the inquiry for the Economist.

She was relentless in her pursuit of anything that had the whiff of corruption about it. In October 2017, Caruana galicia was driving away from her home in a rural part of the main island in Malta. A bomb placed under the seat of her rental car exploded.

Shocking news. A Maltese investigative journalist who exposed the.

Island nation's links to offshore tax, killing her instantly. And it was inevitably widely assumed that the murder had been commissioned by someone that she was investigating.

And what fed those suspicions?

At the center of the suspicions that surrounded her death was a mysterious Dubai based company called 17 Black that it had been alleged was going to make large monthly payments to secret Panamanian companies owned by figures in the Maltese government. I actually spoke to Daphne not long before she died and she was extremely depressed. She felt that all that she had done had been to no avail, that the corruption on the island was rampant and that she was making no impression on it. Whether she also feared for her life, I don't know. But certainly over the years she had many threats.

So how did the investigation into her death play out.

The police arrested three men who they charged with being responsible for the bombing. That was in December of 2017. The case has dragged on since then. They are still only at the pre trial stage right now. However, there was a widespread perception in Maltese society that someone else was behind the conspiracy to murder Daphne Caruana, Galicia.

Did the investigators find anything to back up that perception?

The police investigation really seemed to be running into the sand until last month. In November, a taxi driver was arrested as part of an entirely different investigation and he offered information on the murder in exchange for immunity. As far as we know, he is still collaborating with investigators now, whether by coincidence or not, the very next day, one of Malta's wealthiest businessmen, Jorgen Fenwick, was arrested as he was putting out to sea in his luxury yacht. Fenwich had been identified by that time as the owner of 17 Black, the company that we now know Daphne Caruana Galizia was investigating before she died. Her son Paul said it was going to be her next big story. Since then, two senior government figures, the Minister of Tourism and the Prime Minister's Chief of staff, have stepped down. And as the investigation has continued and Mr. Finnich has been arrested but then released, the same is true of the Prime Minister's Chief of staff, his right hand man. He too was arrested and has since been been released. All those involved, I should stress, deny any wrongdoing. But the whole investigation has moved uncomfortably close to the Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat. And On Sunday evening, Mr. Muscat announced on television that he would be resigning.

So is there any suggestion that the Prime Minister is implicated in these crimes?

No, there's been nothing to date. Just to reiterate, Mr. Muscat denies any wrongdoing and has done so throughout this whole affair. But the fact that his Chief of staff, a man who was at his right hand, has been taken in for questioning, under arrest, albeit then released, has brought the whole affair so much closer to him and it's put him into a very compromised position.

And so what do you expect to happen in the next few weeks? How do you think this story will develop?

Well, the story is moving fast. The Prime Minister has said that he will stay on to mind day to day business until his successor as the leader of the ruling Labour Party is elected sometime in January. But that's not enough for many of his critics. There have been protests in the street and on social media calling on him to resign as soon as possible because there is clearly a fear that he will be able to arrange things while he remains as Prime Minister.

Well, it's clear that Malta faces a scandal of huge proportions. What do you think that means for the country? Will anyone still back Mr. Muscat's Labour Party?

Oh, yes. The Labour Party has delivered astonishing economic growth similar to that in China. One recent year it touched almost 10% the growth in its GDP. And I think that because of that, a lot of people are reluctant to ask too many questions. A lot will depend on the way that the investigation. I mean, if it is proven that people actually within the government were responsible for this journalist's death, well, that I think will change people's outlook. But the Labour Party has a good record in government of securing economic growth. And as the old saying has it, is the economy stupid.

Thanks very much for your time, John.

Not at all.

The yellow jersey of the Tour de France is the greatest prize in cycling. It's in the mountains where the race is won and lost. As the ascent begins, the main body of riders, the peloton, fragments. Lonely competitors struggle up the brutal climbs, gasping in the thinning air. The winner claims his place in history. But valiant losers are also remembered.

Raymond Boulidor, very oddly, in a way, became the most popular cyclist in France for always failing to win the Tour de France.

Anne Rowe is our obituaries editor.

He cycled in the Tour de France 14 times. He was second three times, he was third five times. So he stood on the podium eight times, but he was never on the top step. There are all kinds of reasons why he failed to win. He once had a broken finger. He still came in third. There was one in which he was sideswiped by a motorbike, another where he had a pothole puncture in the Pyrenees. There was always something that came between him and the Maillot Jaunes, the yellow jersey. People often called him unlucky. He didn't think himself that he was, because he felt he was extremely lucky to be cycling at all. He hadn't gone into that from an easy background. He had a farming background. He was a peasant from the Creuse region of France, a very rugged, difficult region where his parents were trying to eke out a living and he suddenly got bitten by cycling when he was about 16. So on a bike which a local shopkeeper had actually given to him, he raced round the mountainous roads and discovered what his purpose was in life. His great rival was a man from Normandy called Jacques Anquetil, a rather lean looking, spectral high, cheekboned blond man, looking the reverse of what Bolidor was. Bolidor was rather chunky and windburned from his farm work, had a gap toothed smile, looked in every way as a more relaxed and cuddly person than Anquetil, who was so focused when he rode that he seemed to be just riding for himself and had no charisma at all. So that even though he won the Tour and won it five times, he never had the popularity of Poo Poo, as the French called him. The man the spectators were cheering for and loved madly was the one who came second was Poulidor, and not himself. The time when his great rivalry with Anquetil became most prominent, most visible to people, was in 1964, when they had a tremendous cycling duel as they were going up the Puy de Dom in Auvergne, very steep route. And as they were struggling up with Pulidor on the precipice side, on Quetil, on the mountainside, they came to so close that they actually knocked elbows and they could feel each other's hot breath on their bare arms. And that image of them both struggling, almost interlocking on that slope became the quintessential image of their rivalry. I think the French love for him came from the knowledge that he was always the underdog and the feeling that any one of them who'd tried and tried for some goal that was actually unachievable, but kept on trying, could find a model in Poulidor. They didn't have to worry about coming first. Coming second was fine. Coming second never really bothered him. I expect it did bother him a little bit at the time, but then afterwards he just thought, well, I'll try again. He was not always, after all, a loser. He did actually win 189 races, including very big races like the Paris Nice and the Monaco San Remo. They were just not the Tour de France, though. And that was always in his head as something it would be nice to get, but if he didn't get it, how lovely it was just to be cycling along these roads at all, to be in this company of tremendous cyclists and be doing what he most enjoyed doing.

Amro on Raymond Poulidor, who's died aged 83. That's all from us on the intelligence, but we'd like to know more about you and what you think of the show. Do us a favor and head over to economist.com podsurvey and see you back here tomorrow.