Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
What We’re Watching: Argentine VP’s legal woes, angry Haitians, Pakistan’s Qatari cash push, Trump’s DOJ suit
Is Argentina's VP on the ropes?
An Argentine prosecutor wants VP Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to spend 12 years behind bars and be disqualified from public office for life for alleged corruption from when her husband was president (2003-2007) and her own two terms in the top job (2007-2015). Cristina — popularly known by her first name — is accused of fixing public works contracts in the southern Patagonia region. The verdict drops in December, but it can be appealed and the process would likely drag on until late 2023 — just in time for the next election. Even if she's convicted, the influential VP is unlikely to see a jail cell. Although she won't have immunity if she loses her Senate seat, the Supreme Court is unlikely to ratify a guilty sentence that would be a political bomb. Still, the trial will have big implications for Cristina and the ruling Peronistas. First, a conviction might compel her to shape the 2023 presidential race by picking a loyal candidate and not the incumbent, Alberto Fernández (no relation), whom Cristina famously doesn't get along with. Second, the legal troubles might help Cristina fire up her base, especially if she decides to run for president. "She views all of this as a conspiracy between the judiciary, businessmen, and the opposition to remove her," says Eurasia Group analyst Luciano Sigalov.
Haitians demand PM’s resignation
Ça suffit! So say thousands of demonstrators in Port-au-Prince. Fed up with sky-high inflation, deepening poverty, and the spread of deadly gang violence, protesters are taking to the streets of Haiti’s capital to demand the resignation of PM and acting President Ariel Henry. Kidnappings and murder are on the rise — more than 200 were killed in just 10 days last month — and Haitians are increasingly worried about their mere survival. Henry has been in power since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021, and many suspect that Henry was somehow behind the hit. At least one protester has reportedly died in this week’s demonstrations, and things could quickly grow worse. Some 50% of Haitians are living in poverty, struggling to keep up with inflation upwards of 30%, and saying: enough is enough.
Pakistani PM in Qatar, hat in hand
What would you do if you were staring down the barrel of default and your sworn enemy – who you’re trying to send to jail – was threatening mass unrest? Get out of Dodge, ask for money, and hope the political drama boils over before you return. That's what embattled Pakistani PM Shebhaz Sharif likely hopes to accomplish this week during his visit to Qatar. In Doha, Sharif will offer deals for Qatar to buy shares in Pakistani state-owned businesses like the national airline and — checks notes — the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, as well as opportunities to sell Pakistan more energy. More importantly, Sharif's trip comes ahead of next week's big meeting to secure a $1.2 billion IMF bailout negotiated in 2019 by ... his predecessor Imran Khan, Sharif's other big headache. Khan, who was ousted in an April no-confidence vote, has been charged with violating the anti-terror act for threatening the judiciary in a fiery speech. The former PM has been summoned to appear before the court to answer the charge on Aug. 31, and Khan's supporters have responded by surrounding his residence to thwart his potential arrest. If the former cricket star is convicted, he faces a prison term and lifetime disqualification from politics.
Trump sues DOJ over Mar-a-Lago search
Donald Trump is suing the Justice Department in a bid to stop the FBI from looking over documents taken from the former US president’s Mar-a-Lago home earlier this month. The materials were recovered as part of an investigation into whether Trump mishandled them — but he says he’s done nothing wrong and that the documents were declassified. The lawsuit requests that an independent lawyer review the documents to see whether any are protected by executive privilege. Since Trump is a likely presidential candidate for 2024, the suit warns that law enforcement “cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes." DOJ officials say that the search warrant was authorized by a federal court “upon the required finding of probable cause,” and they’ll get their chance to address the lawsuit in court. Meanwhile, the judge who approved the search warrant is still deciding whether to allow the evidence presented as justification for the search to go public.FBI Mar-a-Lago search could help Trump win 2024 GOP nomination
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here. It's the middle of August. I’ll spend a couple minutes telling you what I think. In particular, we are talking about the dysfunction in the US political system and the ramifications of the FBI carrying out a search warrant on President Trump's residence, Mar-a-Lago. Plenty of things to unpack here. On the one hand, it's very clear, lots of classified documents, some at the very highest levels. The unsealed search warrant made that apparent. I feel quite confident that describes what they actually were looking for and found there. It's inconceivable to me that they would've carried out and a judge would've approved that search if there hadn't been a very strong case to get those documents. Trump clearly shouldn't have had possession of those documents. There were efforts in the past to gain access to them by subpoena and it appears for all intents and purposes that former President Trump did not fully comply with those subpoenas.
None of the excuses or explanations that have been offered by Trump's lawyers or by various Trump supporters so far have been particularly credible. And again, not surprising that you just kind of throw enormous amount of chaff at the accusations, and then you see what arguments seem to get the most traction and those are the ones you basically run with. And that has been true in a target-rich environment for Trump investigations. Some of which have been very serious, some of which have been not so serious and it is not yet clear exactly where on the scale this falls. It is certainly a real issue and for those that discount it as politicized and meaningless and illegitimate, we can dispense with that.
Chris Wray runs the FBI. He was appointed by Trump and Trump considered him exceptionally credible at the time. Not that Trump would have a very strong view of who's going to be a great FBI director or not, but certainly not someone that you'd have any reason to believe would have wanted ill for President Trump or his administration. So, I mean, doesn't mean he's a full confederate, but at the very least you got to say this guy is apolitical. And if to the extent that he has political orientations, they'd be more aligned with Trump than not to get that position. And the fact that he has said nothing about in casting aspersions and offering his resignation in any leaks saying that this was somehow this decision for the FBI to go into Mar-a-Lago was wrong, tells you a lot. It means if you're opposing it, you're clearly a very strong partisan on one side.
Also, Merrick Garland as Attorney General. Interesting to say, first of all, this is someone who clearly to the extent that he has political sympathies, unlike Wray, for Garland those sympathies run center left as opposed to center right, and a professional. Now, Biden has said in the past that he wasn't going to interfere, but we've also seen stories, that are credible stories from White House sources, that Biden has himself been frustrated that there haven't been open investigations under Trump. I find it completely credible that Garland would've read that would've been affected by it and would've felt some level of political pressure to ensure that he was adequately looking into and pushing for anything that was seen to be breaking the law.
So do I think that Garland would not do his job, would undermine rule of law? No. But I think that he would make sure that he would focus on those issues, that he would prioritize those issues. So the fact that we have Garland and Wray engaging in support for an investigation that clearly involves what are believed to be misdoings by former President Trump and now have led to a search warrant being affected against his personal residence in Mar-a-Lago is a big deal and is unprecedented for a former president that is indeed intending to run again.
Now at the same time, I want to say that at base level, on the basis of what we know now, this does not come close, this investigation does not come close in my view to the level of misdoing around the two separate impeachments. In other words, a phone call by President Trump to the Ukrainian president, telling him, “I want you to open an investigation into my erstwhile rival for the presidency, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, or else I will not provide the military support that has been voted through Congress.” Everything I would see so far, that is a significantly greater breach of the duty of a president of the United States than what we've seen around his mishandling of classified documents. As well as everything we've seen around the second impeachment and his efforts to overturn a legitimate election, his efforts to get legitimate elected officials in states like Georgia and Arizona to find votes that didn't exist to ensure that Trump would be able to win as opposed to Biden. And then his role around January 6th. I would say that those are significantly greater dereliction of duty and indeed actions that from my perspective involve illegality. And no one is guilty until proven such in a court of law and that has not happened for Trump. So at this point, all we have to say is suspected of committing these crimes as opposed to proven guilty.
But I still would consider both of those that led to two impeachments, but no convictions, because, again, the impeachment process in the US has become completely partisan, to be greater than what we've seen so far from the FBI and the DOJ. And that doesn't mean that we aren't going to see more come out. If we were to find that not only was he mishandling that classified top secret SCI information, but that he was attempting to use it for his personal advantage, either commercial or political or strategic, that would be a different story. Not only do we not have proof or evidence of that, we don't even have suspicion of that at this point. No one is making that case.
So what we've seen so far, doesn't rise to either of these impeachments. And if that continues to be the case, then I would say not only does Trump get through this, but in fact it probably makes him stronger in terms of his hold on the Republican Party. Not in his ability to win the presidency, but his ability to secure the nomination. Most meaningful is the GOP leadership through this process in the last week has stayed with him almost 100%, indeed, many ways more firmly with him. There have been a few people in Congress for example, we've seen saying that defunding calling for defunding the FBI is fundamentally unserious and the Republican shouldn't do that. There's been McConnell on the Senate side, the Minority Leader, demanding answers from the DOJ and the FBI, but holding fire in terms of not opposing the process until he actually learns more. That strikes me is a much more sensible position. But generally the Republican position has been this is a witch hunt, the FBI is politically motivated. What about Hunter? What about Hillary? And of course, all of that plays to Trump's control of the Republican Party.
So on balance so far, I would argue this helps Trump with the nomination. And of course it will, if that's true, hurt the United States in terms of the legitimacy of the DOJ, the FBI, and the ability to have a peaceful transfer of power with the upcoming national elections in 2024. Fundamental to the ability of the United States to exist as a damaged, but still representative democracy. Becoming less representative, unfortunately. By the day, that's what I'm most concerned about from a country risk perspective of the United States. And I'm sure we're going to be following that very closely.
So that's it for me. Hope everyone's doing well. I'll talk to you all real soon.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com
- Trump's 2024 outlook: more vulnerable after Jan 6 hearings ... ›
- Trump FBI raid: Defund the FBI is the new stop the steal - GZERO ... ›
- Trump Mar-a-Lago affidavit: who accessed top secret documents? - GZERO Media ›
- Will the DOJ charge Trump after Mar-a-Lago raid? - GZERO Media ›
- Biden vs. MAGA Republicans - GZERO Media ›
- Behind Trump’s public theater: real attacks on US standing - GZERO Media ›
Opinion: 5 key takeaways from the FBI search of Trump's home
On Monday, the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, one of former President Donald Trump’s homes. The justification of the warrant has not been confirmed but is reportedly linked to a federal criminal investigation of Trump’s handling of classified documents related to national security, allegedly in violation of the Espionage Act (among other statutes).
Here are my five big takeaways based on what we know so far:
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
- This is unprecedented. While investigations targeting active or potential national candidates such as the one into Hillary Clinton in 2016 have happened before, an investigation targeting an ex-president who will likely run again is a first and crosses an important rubicon in American politics. Having said that, Trump was an unprecedented president in many ways, and his unprecedented behavior has had unprecedented consequences (think January 6, two impeachments, etc.). At the end of the day, Trump is a private citizen subject to the law of the land. As the National Review’s Kevin Williamson put it: “If we really believe, as we say we believe, that this is a republic, that nobody is above the law, that the presidency is just a temporary executive-branch office rather than a quasi-royal entitlement, then there is nothing all that remarkable about the FBI serving a warrant on a house in Florida.”
- There must have been strong probable cause for the raid. The FBI took 11 sets of documents out of Mar-a-Lago, including from Trump’s safe. We don't know what the full scope of the federal investigation is, but we do know that Trump was being investigated for removal or destruction of records, obstruction of justice, and violating the Espionage Act. We also know that the Justice Department must have made a very strong argument in court to get to this point. Otherwise, no federal judge would have issued a warrant to search the ex-president's home as opposed to just going for a grand-jury subpoena.
- Republican charges of “witch hunt” are nothing more than partisan BS. There is no evidence to suggest the FBI and DOJ are acting directly on the orders of President Biden for political reasons. The head of the FBI, Christopher Wray, was appointed by Trump. Nobody inside the bureau—known as one of the most conservative-leaning federal agencies—or the DOJ has quit over this investigation, and there have been no leaks to suggest it is in any way politically motivated or illegal. And in 2016, most Republican officials and Trump himself supported an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material. Of course, Trump and his allies in the Republican Party now have an incentive to scream foul play to score political points—much as they have for Trump’s two impeachments as well as the Jan. 6 investigation. But that says nothing about the merits and legitimacy of the Mar-a-Lago search and investigation against Trump.
- This is going to strengthen Trump politically within the GOP. While the raid and the related investigation will not change many voters’ minds on Trump, it does offer Trump an opportunity to revitalize his slipping standing in the party and reiterate claims of persecution by the “deep state.” The narrative that this is a partisan witch hunt against not just Trump but anyone the Democrats and Biden oppose will resonate deeply with Republican voters, who were already inclined to believe the deck is stacked against them and the rule of law and institutions in the US are broken. They and Republican leaders are going to rally behind Trump and Trump-aligned politicians. Even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who clearly doesn’t want Trump to be the nominee for 2024 and who might otherwise have been inclined to distance himself from him, will be forced to publicly support Trump in this environment.
- This is going to damage American democracy. Trust in our legal and judicial institutions has been eroding for a long time. But the Republican impetus to delegitimize this incident and any investigations of Trump as inappropriate partisan witch hunts further undermines the rule of law. This will make the upcoming midterm elections uglier and raises the odds of civil unrest or a dangerous constitutional crisis in 2024. It also all but ensures that a likely Republican House majority will focus on partisan investigations of the DOJ, White House, and Biden family above all else.
A police car outside Trump's residence in Florida on August 8.Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images
My personal view on all of this is that Trump should be investigated if the Justice Department has evidence that he has broken the law. I would say that about any other former president as well, Democrat or Republican.
“What about Hillary Clinton/Hunter Biden?” many of you will ask. Well, Hillary has already been investigated a number of times and exonerated, but if the DOJ finds new evidence of criminal behavior, by all means it should investigate her. I also think Hunter Biden should be investigated for leveraging his relationship with his father to conduct business in Ukraine and China, just as I believe that Ivanka Trump should have been investigated for using her relationship with her father as well as her official position in the White House to secure business licenses from China. I see both cases as being equivalent and deeply problematic.
Still, this is the former president of the United States we are talking about. That’s someone that I hold to a higher standard and someone who should not be above the law. If Trump committed a crime, he should be treated like a criminal.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.