ended

A National Nightmare Is Ended . . . or Is It?

Leon E. Panetta, former chief of staff to President Clinton, is director of the Panetta Institute on Public Policy

The final votes are in. The trial is over. The long night of anger, frustration and disappointment has ended. Regardless of where one stood on the issue of removing the president, a collective sigh of relief went up from the American people when the gavel went down for the last time.

The nation must now move on. But can it? The answer lies at the core of impeachment itself and whether it was an isolated event or a symptom of something worse in American politics.

If we view the trauma as a singular and tragic phenomenon, hopefully not to be repeated in our lifetimes, then it may really be over. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and William Jefferson Clinton were all historical accidents, their troubles the result of unique and terrible personal judgments, mistakes and politics. They were tied together by nothing more than their own unfortunate fate. Like a political Halley’s comet, the bitter trail of Clinton’s impeachment, with all of its recrimination and divisiveness, hopefully will fade into historical cosmic dust.

But what if this is not just a passing crisis? What if it is a reflection of some deeper political and institutional problems in this country that cannot be easily set aside? The answer to those questions will tell us a where the nation is headed, not just in the next two years but into the next century.

It is clear that the impeachment process has left behind a terrible trail of wounded democratic institutions. What the president did and how he lied to the American people has diminished the respect and moral leadership of the office of the presidency. Add to that the legal challenges that have hurt the ability of the Secret Service to protect the president and the ability of staff to provide honest advice to the president in confidence, and it is obvious that the presidency has been greatly weakened.

Congress, locked in partisan gridlock, has lost even more credibility. Although it fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, it will have a difficult time dealing with other issues without getting trapped by the same old politics as usual. Our judicial system, now unfortunately symbolized by the independent counsel law, is viewed by the public as just another arm of political vengeance. And the press is now seen as willing to stoop to any rumor, leak or innuendo to get the first headline.

So the wake left by the impeachment process is not pretty. But it is also not new. We have been through national traumas in our past, from unpopular wars to depressions to riots to impeachments, each leaving damage to our society and national spirit. And yet, we survive and become stronger with each challenge, because we have been blessed with the right leadership to bind the wounds and move on.

These words of renewal are being heard again. We all want to believe them. But the last 12 months did not inspire confidence in our leadership.

There were so many missed opportunities to bring this matter to closure: if only the president had been honest in January; if only Ken Starr had been fairer and more objective in his investigation; if only the House Judiciary Committee had been less partisan; if only the House of Representatives had been less partisan; if only the House of Representatives had been given the chance to vote on censure; if only the Senate had brought this trial to bipartisan closure with an agreed-upon censure resolution. Rather, we had to return to the genius of our forefathers and our Constitution to rescue this nation from all of the lost opportunities.

For impeachment to be really over, the national interest must prevail over the passion for political survival. For things to change, elected leaders must decide to compromise, to rise above the partisan message and to do what is right for the nation.

That is not going to be easy. Time and time again a serious constitutional process became part of an ugly pattern of political life in Washington consumed by sound bites, scandals, investigations, fund-raising and attack politics. Political power too often in recent years has been built on the ruins of institutions, careers and reputations. Impeachment, in a very real sense, was part of that dark side of politics that began with Watergate and continued to Iran-gate, Gary Hart, Justice Clarence Thomas, Speakers Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich, Speaker-elect Bob Livingston and, finally, this president. Does it now end? Everyone is saying the right words. But can they really change partisan trench warfare into bipartisan cooperation?

Perhaps the greatest hope for renewal comes not from their words, but from the great common sense of the American people. Despite the roller coaster ride in Washington, the people have remained steadfast. They did not like the personal failings of the president, but they also did not believe that they justified removal from office. They wanted the nation to move on. No matter how strident the arguments and the attacks, they maintained a sense of proportion in their beliefs.

The elected leaders would do well to listen more to the heartbeat of the nation than to their political consultants. The people, as the voters of Minnesota made clear, are tired of attack politics from both parties. More important, if the public believes that those they elect are putting the interests of the nation first, there is a better chance that we can repair our spirit and restore our trust in those who govern our democracy.

Impeachment may be over, but the jury is out on whether we can bind the wounds and finally move on.

Source link

Angels among MLB teams that have ended their FanDuel Network deals

Nine Major League Baseball teams have terminated their deals with the FanDuel Sports Network to carry their local broadcasts, and Commissioner Rob Manfred said MLB is prepared to produce and distribute the telecasts.

Main Street Sports Group, which operates the FanDuel networks, did not make its December payment to the St. Louis Cardinals. It also carries games of Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Kansas City, the Angels, Miami, Milwaukee and Tampa Bay, along with 13 teams in the NBA and seven in the NHL.

The termination by the MLB teams was confirmed to The Associated Press by a person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decisions had not been announced.

“No matter what happens, whether it’s Main Street, a third party or MLB media, fans are going to have the games,” Manfred said Thursday.

Teams that terminated their contracts could reach new deals with Main Street, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

MLB took over broadcasts for San Diego in May 2023 after Diamond Sports Group missed a payment to the Padres and added Arizona that July.

Colorado joined MLB’s distribution in 2024, and Cleveland and Minnesota in 2025. Seattle is being added this season and possibly Washington, which is leaving the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network.

Diamond was renamed Main Street Sports Group as it emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings last year and its networks were rebranded as FanDuel.

“Our focus, particularly given the point in the calendar, is to maximize the revenue that’s available to the clubs, whether that’s MLB Media or third party,” Manfred said. “The clubs have control over the timing. They can make a decision to move to MLB Media because of the contractual status now. I think that what’s happening right now clubs are evaluating their alternatives. Obviously they’ve made significant payroll commitments already and they’re evaluating the alternatives to find the best revenue source for the year and the best outlet in terms of providing quality broadcasts to their fans.”

Manfred said local media provides more than 20% of industry revenue.

MLB and the players’ association for 2024 allowed discretionary fund distributions of up to $15 million each to teams whose local media revenue had declined since 2022 or 2023, but they did not reach a similar agreement for 2025.

“We are not providing financial assistance right now,” Manfred said.

Manfred spoke at a news conference to announce an initiative that includes Foster Love and envisions 250,000 volunteer hours to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States. At the news conference, MLB staff assembled duffel bags with goods for foster care children.

Blum writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Have Russian claims of Ukraine attack on Putin home ended hopes for peace? | Russia-Ukraine war News

Russia has threatened to retaliate against Ukraine after alleging that nearly 100 drones had targeted one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences.

The threat on Monday was made as United States President Donald Trump tries to broker a peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine, which will enter its fifth year in February.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

What has Russia claimed?

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alleged that Ukraine had launched the attack on the Valdai residence, one of Putin’s residences in the Novgorod region in northwestern Russia. The property is 360km (225 miles) north of Moscow.

Lavrov told reporters that Ukraine had launched 91 drones towards the residence. He added that air defence systems shot down the drones and no one was injured.

The Russian Ministry of Defence said 49 of the drones were shot down over the Bryansk region, one was shot down over the Smolensk region and 41 were shot down over the Novgorod region while en route.

“Such reckless actions will not go unanswered,” Lavrov said. “The targets for retaliatory strikes and the timing of their implementation by the Russian armed forces have been determined.”

Russian officials accused Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of carrying out the strike to derail the prospects of a peace agreement.

In an apparent reference to Zelenskyy, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev wrote on X: “The stinking Kiev b**tard is trying to derail the settlement of the conflict. He wants war. Well, now at least he’ll have to stay in hiding for the rest of his worthless life.”

Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said the strike took place on Sunday “practically immediately after” talks were held in Florida between Trump and Zelenskyy on ending Russia’s war on Ukraine.

After that meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy had voiced optimism, saying a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine was “close”.

Putin has not publicly commented on the attack yet. It is unclear where Putin was at the time of the attack, but he was holding meetings in the Kremlin on Saturday and Monday.

How has Ukraine responded?

Zelenskyy has strongly denied Russia’s allegation that Ukraine attacked one of Putin’s residences.

“Russia is at it again, using dangerous statements to undermine all achievements of our shared diplomatic efforts with President Trump’s team,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post on Monday.

“This alleged ‘residence strike’ story is a complete fabrication intended to justify additional attacks against Ukraine, including Kyiv, as well as Russia’s own refusal to take necessary steps to end the war.”

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also condemned Moscow’s claims, saying they were designed to undermine the negotiations.

In a post on X, Sybiha said the claim was intended “to create a pretext and false justification for Russia’s further attacks against Ukraine, as well as to undermine and impede the peace process”.

In another post on Tuesday, Sybiha wrote: “Almost a day passed and Russia still hasn’t provided any plausible evidence to its accusations of Ukraine’s alleged ‘attack on Putin’s residence.’ And they won’t. Because there’s none. No such attack happened.”

How has Trump reacted?

Trump appeared to accept the Russian version of events on Monday when he told reporters: “It’s one thing to be offensive. It’s another thing to attack his house. It’s not the right time to do any of that. And I learned about it from President Putin today. I was very angry about it.”

But when reporters asked Trump if US intelligence agencies had evidence of the alleged attack, Trump said: “We’ll find out.”

Congressman Don Bacon, a member of Trump’s Republican Party, criticised the president for accepting the Russian account of events without assessing the facts.

“President Trump and his team should get the facts first before assuming blame. Putin is a well known boldface liar,” Bacon wrote in an X post.

How have other world leaders reacted?

Like Trump, other leaders appeared to accept the Russian allegations.

In a statement released on Monday, the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote: “The United Arab Emirates has strongly condemned the attempt to target the residence of His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and denounced this deplorable attack and the threat it poses to security and stability.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote in an X post on Tuesday: “Deeply concerned by reports of the targeting of the residence of the President of the Russian Federation.”

Modi added that the ongoing diplomatic engagement being led by the US is the “most viable path” towards achieving peace. “We urge all concerned to remain focused on these efforts and to avoid any actions that could undermine them.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also condemned the alleged attack.

“Pakistan condemns the reported targeting of the residence of His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation. Such a heinous act constitutes a grave threat to peace, security, and stability, particularly at a time when efforts aimed at peace are underway,” Sharif wrote on X.

“Pakistan expresses its solidarity with the President of the Russian Federation, and with the government and people of Russia.”

Have Putin’s residences previously been attacked?

Russia has made previous claims of Ukrainian attacks on Putin’s residences, including on the Kremlin, Putin’s official residence and main workplace.

In May 2023, Moscow alleged that Ukraine had deployed two drones to attack Putin’s residence in the Kremlin citadel but said its forces had disabled the drones. Kyiv denied any involvement.

On December 25, 2024, Russia alleged that it had intercepted and destroyed a Ukrainian drone also targeting the Kremlin. Kyiv again denied responsibility.

Conversely, Ukraine has alleged that Russia has attacked Kyiv and other government buildings in Ukraine.

In September, the Ukrainian military said a Russian drone attack damaged a government building in Kyiv that is home to Ukraine’s cabinet. Plumes of smoke were seen emerging from the building. Russia said it had targeted Ukrainian military infrastructure only.

What has Russia now threatened to do?

While Russia has not outright threatened to end the peace talks, Moscow said it would realign its position in the talks.

“The diplomatic consequence will be to toughen the negotiating position of the Russian Federation,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday.

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow’s response “would not be diplomatic”. Indeed, it has warned that it plans to hit back militarily but has given no details of how or when it might do this.

Will this derail the US-led peace talks?

Speaking to reporters after his “terrific” meeting with Zelenskyy on Sunday at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump told reporters that Moscow and Kyiv were “closer than ever” to a peace deal.

But Trump has made this claim several times before. In April, Trump said Russia and Ukraine were “very close to a deal” after Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow.

On December 15, Trump also said Russia and Ukraine were “closer than ever” to a deal after talks in Berlin involving Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and NATO.

However, observers and analysts said the issue of territorial concessions remains a major sticking point. Trump’s 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, which he unveiled in November, involved Ukraine ceding large amounts of land that Russia has occupied during nearly four years of war. Zelenskyy has stated on numerous occasions that this is a line Ukraine will not cross.

Most analysts are sceptical that any progress has been made on this point and said the latest accusations against Ukraine will probably have little effect. “I don’t think there is anything to derail at this point,” said Marina Miron, an analyst at King’s College London.

The peace process “is not going well due to disagreements on key issues between Ukraine and Russia”, she told Al Jazeera.

“Trump has repeatedly claimed that a peace deal is close without sustainable agreement,” Keir Giles, a Russian military expert at the London think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera this month.

Russia has occupied nearly 20 percent of eastern Ukraine and has been slowly gaining territory as Ukraine’s military has been weakened by desertions, casualties and dwindling military aid. Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

INTERACTIVE-WHO CONTROLS WHAT IN UKRAINE-1766588523
(Al Jazeera)

“It’s probably impossible that Ukrainians will voluntarily withdraw from these territories unless we will also see a withdrawal of Russian forces on the other side,” Nathalie Tocci, director at the Rome-based think tank Istituto Affari Internazionali (Institute of International Affairs), told Al Jazeera.

Giles said there are still parallel negotiation tracks, however – one involving the US and Ukraine and another between Ukraine and European nations. He added, however, that there is no clear evidence that these efforts are fully coordinated or aligned in terms of strategy.

Source link