The New Moderate’s Guide to a Politicized World
I have a startling confession to make: I’m really not fond of politics.
Why, you ask (and I knew you would), do I take pains to write a political blog if I harbor an aversion to the very subject of that blog? I write it because a politically polarized society needs loud voices in the middle – reasonable loud voices to fill that vacuum, lambaste the extremists when they require lambasting, point the way out of our ideological divide, and build a bridge between the more accommodating folks on the right and left.
That’s the ideal. The reality is that the extremists have politicized our culture so thoroughly that we can hardly order a bucket of fried chicken without inadvertently declaring our allegiance to one political tribe or the other.
While the professional politicos have preoccupied themselves with President Trump’s impeachment hearings, I’ve been entertaining myself by compiling a list of formerly innocuous items that the ideologues have tainted with the unmistakable odor of politics. Both political camps have contributed to the mayhem, although I have to credit the left’s academic PC police for having done more than their fair share.
Come along while I guide you through today’s hyper-politicized landscape…
Pronouns. We use them to substitute for regular nouns when the reference is clear. Simple enough, right? But social justice warriors are increasingly rejecting the gender-specific nature of pronouns like he and she, opting instead for the formerly plural they. In some academic circles, using the wrong pronoun – especially when referring to a person of ambiguous gender – can get you shipped to the re-education camp or worse.
Western Civilization. The study of European history, art, literature, music and philosophy used to be the core of a liberal education. Now those who tout the achievements of Western Civilization risk being tagged as white supremacists. (Of course, it’s fine to tout the achievements of non-Western civilizations.)
Guns. Any talk of restricting access to semi-automatic firearms (or the ammo magazines intended to slaughter mass quantities of humans) will be met with sallies of outrage on the right. They need their assault weapons, the reasoning goes, to fight the government troops who come for their assault weapons. O-kay.
Songs, cartoons and movies from racially unenlightened times. Did the late Kate Smith sing “That’s Why Darkies Were Born” 90 years ago? Banish her memory! (No matter that black activist Paul Robeson sang the same song.) Did a flock of jive-talking crows help Dumbo gain the confidence to fly? Racist caricatures! Was the kindly Uncle Remus too happy working for the white folks? Pull the movie out of circulation! No matter how sympathetic the portrayals, the artifacts of the past are to be judged by contemporary “woke” standards.
Nature. The shocking report that 60 percent of the world’s vertebrate animal population (excluding humans, of course) has died off since 1970 doesn’t seem to have moved the Trump administration – except to accelerate the process by pulling out of the Paris climate accords and loosening restrictions on hunting and deforestation. (Take that, tree huggers!)
Climate change. As glaciers retreat, temperatures rise, and polar bears drown because the nearest Arctic ice floe is miles away, a staunch contingent of climate change deniers has hunkered down and refused to budge. It’s all a liberal plot to destroy private enterprise, right?
Facebook. What started as a lighthearted online platform for rediscovering lost friends, sharing photographs and chuckling over cat videos has morphed into a tool for separating us into mutually hostile tribes. When we read inflammatory cherry-picked news items that confirm our prejudices, we start hating the friends whose prejudices don’t align with ours.
Women’s bodies. Who would have guessed that such a pleasant subject could generate so much nasty political invective? The #MeToo movement sprang from just and reasonable impulses: no woman should tolerate being groped against her will. But does a hand on the shoulder constitute groping? And should that overly handsy man have his career and life ruined based solely on the woman’s account of events? Is flirting dead? Beware of good causes that turn extremist.
Abortion. Here’s a complicated ethical and medical issue that feminists have turned into a political slugfest. As they sound the rallying cry “Hands off my body!” they deliberately ignore the inconvenient truth that a pregnant woman’s body contains a second, genetically distinct body. The pro-choice faction insists that only the woman’s body has rights, while the pro-life faction favors the unborn baby’s rights. Nobody is backing down, so we need a King Solomon to declare abortion permissible during the first half of the pregnancy and off limits after the midpoint – except in rare cases. So let it be written… so let it be done!
Founding Fathers who owned slaves. Bad enough that they’re members of the white patriarchy, but I’m shocked – shocked! – that 18th-century Southern planters owned slaves. Even though George Washington freed his slaves in his will, I think we can expect the U.S. capital to be renamed for a less “offensive” individual – a gay woman of color, maybe? – in the not-too-distant future.
Identity. Speaking of gay women of color, how has the mere fact of racial, sexual or gender identity become such a political lightning rod? On the left, some identities (straight white “cis”-male, for example) are officially reviled while others are celebrated. Is turnabout fair play? Nope.
Holidays that recall mistreatment of natives. Goodbye, Columbus! Outta here, Pilgrims! Columbus Day and Thanksgiving have fallen into disfavor among those who still protest the European conquest of America. Maybe we should just roll back American history and let the continent return to the tranquility of buffalo-infested plains, Stone Age technology and warring tribes. Short of that, I think we can still celebrate our holidays while acknowledging that Western colonial settlement inflicted undue hardships on the native population.
Immigration. Every human being in the Western Hemisphere is the descendant of immigrants – even the so-called Native Americans whose ancestors migrated here from Asia during the Ice Age. Right-wing prejudice against immigrants – illegal or otherwise – dates back to the mid-19th century incursion from Ireland. Now that the primary incursion is coming from Latin America, race is a factor in anti-immigrant sentiment. No sane person favors open borders (sorry, lefties), but we all need to honor immigrants who work to arrive here through legal channels (that’s right, righties).
American flags. Funny, I thought the American flag belonged to all Americans. Some members of racial grievance groups seem to think it belongs to conservative whites – and especially white cops – which is enough to convince them that they can’t salute it or stand for the national anthem. The 13-star Betsy Ross flag is deemed just as oppressive because it dates from a time when blacks were held in bondage. The bottom line is that this alienation from American symbols keeps them from identifying as Americans, and that’s never a good thing.
Grammar. Say what? Yes, we increasingly hear multicultural academics rail against the restrictive rules (imposed by white males, naturally) that govern our language. Is grammar a tool of oppression used by the patriarchy? One never knows, do one?
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. His three collections of dark-humored essays are available in e-book form for just $2.99 each on Amazon.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Rick I’m sitting here at 4:00 am on a Sunday morning wondering when our society will completely collapse but when you bring it all back together and make it possible to face all the challenges at our doorsteps. I thoroughly enjoy your blogs and appreciate your humor. I feel social media will be our downfall but hopefully humor will pull us out of the quagmire we now find ourselves. Thanks it’s now 5:00 am and life goes on.
Thanks for the appreciative note, Bill. I’m convinced that humor not only relieves stress but puts current events in perspective so we don’t get bent out of shape obsessing over them. The fanatics on the far left and right could definitely use a humor transfusion.
Today’s moment of humor:
Jay love this, but I can’t send it to people I want to because they don’t have Twitter. Do you know how I can transfer this to a file that I can send in an email or locate the cartoon not in Twitter or Facebook.. All I get is a twitter link any way I have tried. Thanks Ron
Try this: It worked on a mobile device with touchable screen. But should be similar procedure on desktop.
Go to cartoon on twitter.
Press down on screen to enlarge it.
Press again for menu to pop up. (Might pop up on first press).
Choose “save”- that should save it as a jpeg file wherever photos are stored on your device or hard drive, etc.
Thanks. Tried evefything but that.
Almost funny. Pretty good for someone on the left.
But I always get a kick out of the assertion that people who beleive in CAGW, Still beleive the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, Believe Benghazi was a spontaneous attack over an internet video, beleive that regulating the cosmetics of guns will decrease mass shootings,
beleive that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election, Beleive Trump was not spied on.
…
Can accuse Trump of being a “flat earther”
But one thing the cartoonist has absolutely right – is Trump has YOU number. He can yank your chain at will, and you will yap.
Most of the country is not paying attention – because they understand – you have nothing to say.
Rick;
There are moments I share your depressed view of everything.
The messages we are getting from everywhere is – the world is going to hell, things are worse than they have ever been, pick anything – Trump, race, …. the doomsday clock is 30 seconds from midnight.
More recently my wife and I started watching Ken Burns Vietnam. I highly recommend it,
But honestly ANY historical documentary will do.
Life is not perfect, we have plenty to improve on. But we live in the best place in the world, in the best moment in human history – except tomorow.
In 1864 we were killing each other by the hundreds of thousands.
In 1917 by the millions. In 1944 we were exterminating people we did not like in gas chambers.
Burn’s reminded me that in the 60’s we were rioting, and looting and bombing, and the national guard was killing students on campus.
That mass protests took place everywhere all the time.
That we were the lease racist this country had ever been and 10 times as racist as today.
That Gay men were bullied and beaten – by the police.
That women were out of the house, but making much less than men.
In “Love Story” Oliver is attending Harvard – but Jenny must attend Radcliffe because Harvard only admits men.
There are moments I fear the country is being torn apart. That things can not go on.
But then I remember the 60’s – and in comparison today is peaceful and enlightened.
If you wish to understand the causes of the stress tearing our country apart right now, ask yourself:
What would happen – what would life by like, if legislation and regulation stopped dead now ?
If there were no UBI, no M4A, if we enforced the laws we have, but did not create any more ?
We would not bring about utopia, but the world would not end, and infact if we could just accept that government did not need to try to fix whatever irked some group, we would be better off.
Each year standard of living would rise – not alot, but over the years that adds up.
Absent big mistakes by government that rise is built in. Absent new regulation that increase is a little larger and faster than otherwise – not alot, but over the years it adds up.
I lobby constantly for less govenrment – MUCH LESS. But if the only thing we could accomplish is to freeze government as it is and move our efforts, debates, and discussions about how to change the world outside the realm of government, we would be much happier, much better off, the world would work fine. Not perfect, not utopia, but still the best that any human anywhere has ever been able to look forward to.
Are there things we can do to improve life – absolutely! Even if we can not agree on what those are.
But only one group pounds out a drum beat that we are all doomed but for changes that we must make right now.
There is no existential crisis facing us. Not Trump, not climate change, not the environment, not race, not gender, not the national debt.
It is POSSIBLE that SOME of these things will lower the rate of human improvement.
It is possible that some might result in a brief kick in the pants – like the housing crisis,
but none will truly ruin our future.
We can know for certain that our children – male or female – or something else, straight or gay or … will live in a better world in nearly everyway than we do.
While I beleive the apocalyptic drumbeat is coming almost entirely from one side of the political spectrum – you need not share than perspective, to grasp that wherever drumbeat comes from THAT is the force trying to tear the country apart.
Guns:
As I posted above – those looking to “change the world” have the obligation to prove that what they seek to do will be worth the cost.
You can rant all you want about the NRA or Gun nuts. The fact still are:
Nothing that anyone has proposed regarding Guns is going to do a damn thing and EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.
And if you are selling new laws, new restictions – large or small the burden is on you to demonstrate that they will do some good.
They won’t, you know that, this is nonsense about “feeling good”.
and IT MAKES YOU PART OF WHAT IS TEARING US APART!!!!!
Do not start a holy war – unless you really and truly can bring about nirvana.
The civil war and WWII were bloody brutal and horrid. But there is little doubt the world was better afterwords.
There is NOT alot of other things that government has done EVER that that can be said of.
Regardless, whatever the issue – lets get rid of the stupid appeals to emotion, the name calling, and slurs and insults. The pretense that those who do not agree with whatever changes we are demanding are evil or the puppets of rich masters.
If you want to change the world through force, the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that what you propose will meet at the bare minimum the utilitarian ojective of the greatest good.
IF you can not PROVE that – your DONE. GO AWAY.
If you are trying to force your will on the rest of us. If you are trying to restrict our liberty further for some benefit that you can not convincingly promise will come about – then STOP – YOU are the problem, not the solution. YOU are what is dividing us – whatever the issue.
Nature:
Rick,
Can you name a single Malthusian end of the world claim EVER that has proven true ?
One ? Even one that has been “a tiny bit true” ?
These claims that there has been some mass extinction going on have been debunked CONSTANTLY.
Julian Simon addresses mass extinctions and myriads of other fraudulent scientific claims in
“The Ultimate Resource II” which is now available online for free.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
This is nearly 1000 pages of facts, statistics data, as well as links and references and supporting documents that refutes the notion that the world is going to hell.
In 1965 Paul Ehrlich published the “population bomb”. claiming that if we did not REDUCE the world population immediately we would see mass starvation in just a few years.
55 years later – the population of the world is more than double what it was in 1965.
The average standard of living is more than double.
The amount of land we are using to produce food is LESS than in 1965.
The amount of food we produce is more than 4 times what it was in 1965.
There is no mass starvation. Not only can we feed the entire earth, but any nation or people who can not feed themselves today without outside help can not do so because of violent political conflict – war. There is no part of the planet today so poor so barren that it can not produce – even in the worst of times more than enough food to feed its own people.
NOWHERE.
We spew this political nonsense that one side of the debate is “anti-science”
But the fact is reality has confirmed that the “anti-science” crowd, is more likely to correctly understand reality – and REAL SCIENCE is the understanding of reality.
There are an enormous number of very smart people who STILL cling like DOGMA to beleifs that have been PROVEN not just by “science” but ultimately by reality to be FALSE.
And yet even today more very smart well eductated people beleive things that have been falsified often long ago – and these are the people accusing others of being “anti-science”
I consider BELIEF in “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” to be a litmus test – and IQ test of sorts.
In the 80’s ? Maybe you could beleive – though you would still have to get past the fact that no malthusian claim has ever materialized – EVER.
In the 90’s – from about 1974 through 1998 the earth warmed at a rate about 50% faster than the norm of the past 200 years. That exactly corresponded to the time period in which human CO2 emissions finally reached levels that MIGHT be large enough to effect climate – maybe. Yet from 1998 through to the present – 22 years. the rate of increase has either slowed or completely stopped such that the Trend sing 1974 is Below the trend of the prior 200 years.
The Earth is warming – slowly as it has for more than 200 years. Though there is good reason to beleive that warming is slowing, and may stop shortly.
But even if it has not – the likelyhood that 2100 will be more than .5C warmer than today is very small.
Polarization:
I do not care that we are polarized – we have been much more polarized in the past.
We were certainly more polarized before the Civil War, or during the Vietnam war.
The Civil war was really really bad, and if there was a less painful way to cleans this country of the original sin of slavery we should have found it. But in the end we did something nobel and necescary – and bloody.
We were much more polarized during the vietnam war than today.
We were rioting, at war with police, at war with each other. Blowing things up. Marching like crazy. And we survived.
The only danger of the current polarization is that the ballance of power will be such that one group can gain the upper hand and restrict all of our liberties by force.
To some small extent that is near certain anyway. We just need to keep it small.
So long as government grows slower than the economy – we will survive and thrive.
Shrinking government would be better, But merely constraining the rate of growth will leave our children with better lives than our own.
Social Media: Facebook, the explosion of information sources, and the death of the MSM.
While there are growing pains – and much to rant about, overall this too is a good thing.
There exists some evidence that we need to severely limit the social media use of teens – particularly girls from 13-16 as there is a very strong link between social media use in 13-16 year old girls and VERY serious anxiety and depression, But those same effect do not exist for kids who come to social media after 16.
Overall the death of the MSM is a good thing.
There is going to have to be a correction to social media censorhip but left alone the market will eventually correct.
#metoo
Sorry Rick. I do not see what you seem to see.
Absolutely we need to grasp that we can not “beleive all women” or all men or all anything.
We are going to have to ALWAYS weight each claim on the merits and the evidence.
And we are sometimes going to get it wrong.
But anytime we do not generally excercise judgement – we will incentivize bad conduct. Whether that is rape of false reporting.
Abortion: I am not going to weigh in. Except to note a couple of things,
You can view “One Child Nation” on Amazon for free.
This is a shocking and disturbing account of the One Child policy in China and its effects.
And yet the movie still underplays the effects.
Over the last 55 years there have been 338M abortions in China. Most of these were forced, Often they coincide with sterilzation, During the same period there were over 100,000 babies and young children abandoned each year. Between 60 and 70% of these were left to die.
There were more abortions in china ove the past 55 years than there are people in the US today.
Over 1 million chinese children have been adopted internationally over that time period.
more than 1/3 of them to the US.
The end of the one child policy has reduced the population chinese orphanages by 1/2 and all but eliminated abortions and sterilizations, and China’s population is not growing.
Immigration – Sorry Rick – false dicotomy.
This vast right wing undercurrent of xenophobes does not exist.
You can always find one screwball in 330M, but what you claim is a centrist view – is pretty much the standard view on the right.
Nor is this all about racism – unless we are somehow purportedly more racist against brown people than yellow people.
The immigration of “white people” to the US is almost non-existant.
The largest numbers of US immigrants come from Asia.
The next largest from south of the border, Followed by caribean, Sub Saharan Africa, and the mideast.
Rick, thanks for the reprieve from Trump, impeachment, corruption and Democrats in this article, but Dave and Jay will bring us back to that realm of reality in short order.
Most of these divisions you write about are a direct result of our political system. Our Founding Fathers did not anticipate or desire the existence of political parties, viewing them as “factions” dangerous to the public interest. The Founders’ republican ideology called for compromise for the good of the country at the expense of personal interest. Under republican ideology, politics was supposed to be rational and collaborative, not competitive. But once political parties developed, division occurred, grew and created tribes, not much different than actual tribes in third world countries. Special interest promoted by the parties created tribes that now divide us politically, socially, economically and regionally.
And those impacted the most are those moderates who view politics much like the founding fathers.
.
“Republican” used under the “Republic” idiology, not party idiology.
Mostly I think Rick’s article is pretty good – except the fatalism.
And by not addressing Trump or impeachment Rick’s makes it abundantly clear – Trump is not the problem.
Which circles back to the fatalism.
There is alot wrong.
Most of Rick’s complaints, or those of progressives and the left are valid.
BUT, we still live in the best moment of human existance, except tomorow.
The world will not come undone with the next Trump Tweet.
Our future will be less bright – if Bernie or Warren or Biden or …. get elected,
But it will not be disaster, and even if it goes badly – it will not for long.
As screwed up as many things are – ultimately within the past 500 years humans have come to terms with individual liberty, and the results have been spectacular.
Not only has standard of living spiked – but even our screwups are self correcting.
I keep trying to get yall to grasp – Trump is not the problem, he is the response to the problem.
I worry about most of the same things Rick does.
but I know that tomorow will be better. In every way ? No. But overall.
All the things that are screwed up – the amnesia of the benefits of western thought, the censorship the woke idiocy the naratives over fact – in the long run will self correct.
Our memories are not so short as to fail to understand that freedom got us where we are and if we screw it up, freedom will bring us back.
Dave “I keep trying to get yall to grasp – Trump is not the problem, he is the response to the problem.”
I grasped that long ago, about the time of the first debate and Trumps support was around 35%.
I also know that the world will not come to an end if Sanders or Warren are elected. The worst that will happen is MC4A, more carbon regulation, more labor regulations, higher taxes on the rich, progressive SCOTUS appointments, gun control and higher cost due to climate legislation. But overall little impact on middle America.
But no matter who is elected, the real problems will not be addressed. Trade will continue that negatively impacts American industries, prices for healthcare will continue to grow due to government’s control of the way providers are required to bill, drug prices will continue to rise due to the drug patent laws that provide for 17 years of patent and then additional years due to tweaking the drugs or the delivery mechanism, wages will rise, but so will cost because more money allows for increasing prices, so those in poverty will continue in poverty, the rich will still find ways to shelter their wealth regardless of taxes and the climate will continue to warm because that is what the climate does ,even without man. College cost will continue to skyrocket because student loans will continue to be easy to obtain.
However, even if the world does not come to an end, I suspect that due to many of the issues that Rick wrote about will make people much more unhappy with life than they are today. Just because the LGBTQ groups have more rights, manhole covers and mankind are referred to as maintenance hole covers and human kind, he and she are referred to as they, people will not become nicer to each other because government dictates it.
One only needs to look at the years before Trump and comments on social media to see Trump did not cause this problem. Its just that the liberals and left of center leaners like Jay did not disagree with the environment before Trump and now that their is much more conversation 180 degree from what was present before Trump, it just appears to them things have become much worse.
people will not become nicer to each other because of government involvement. What will happen is a continuation of the division in America. People will have friends of like political persuasion, avoid those that believe different. People will marry those with the same political views, avoid others that differ. City people will avoid rural America, while rural America will avoid the cities. Hunters will continue to support gun rights, while city folk will continue to oppse them. The rich will get richer, middle America will grow in their envy of those with money and the poor will continue to be avoided by both. Because that is what a divided country does no matter who the President.
“I also know that the world will not come to an end if Sanders or Warren are elected.”
Great, but an awful lot of politics today is this nonsense that
This is somehow the worst moment in history,
That we are more racist, xenophobic, evil than ever
and that Trump is the end of life as we know it.
Or from the right that We MUST live with Trump as he is or we will get totalitarian communism.
I will admit that at times I feel like we are coming apart at the seems and that we might even be approaching civil war.
But then I watch another episode of Burn’s vietnam – or some other documentary about other times and realize this is just CRAP!!!!
Absolutely we are highly polarized, but right or left (and mostly the histrionics are from the left)
WE LIVE IN THE BEST MOMENT OF HUMAN HISTORY – except tomorow.
“The worst that will happen is MC4A, more carbon regulation, more labor regulations, higher taxes on the rich, progressive SCOTUS appointments, gun control and higher cost due to climate legislation.”
Progressivism, socialism and big government in general are self defeating.
A major factor in the economic doldrums of the Obama era was the economic impact of PPACA. Though the other policies mattered too.
All of the things the left seeks to do – will help some people – though nearly always far less than claimed. The real goal of progressive reforms is to use government to emote caring, not to actually address an issue. Regardless, always the negative impact is greater than the positive.
If Warren or Sanders win – AND they actually get to do what they promise – the economy will tank – proportionate to the amount of what they want that they get to do. And the consequence of that will be a revolt of voters.
If they win and they only get to do what can be accomplished by the executive – we will have the same doldrums that we had under Bush and Obama.
There is a small amount of slack in this – because as the economy grows, as our standard of living rises we can actually afford more of the progressive socialist stuff and even though there is an economic drag to it, the drag is not as bad as if we had a lower standard of living.
If you beleive in individual liberty – then you do not beleive in Government involvement in foreign trade.
There is no difference between government deciding about Trade with China and NY deciding about Trade with CA, or NYC restricting Trade with Baton Rouge.
The laws of economics do not work differently between nations than they do between states or cities.
Economic works to most efficiently match production to consumption.
If China or Ghana can produce some item at a better value to cost ratio than americans – that is how it SHOULD be.
It is unimportant and stupid for americans to produce every single thing they need.
We should not be focused on keeping those jobs that are moving to china or mexico or Bangeledech.
We should be seeking to create jobs that create sufficient value to support higher wages.
Our standard of living RISES when low paying jobs leave the country and are replaced by higher value jobs.
There is no limit to jobs that can be created, and no limit to higher value jobs that can be created.
But there are limits in what specific people can do and how fast people can change what they do.
Regardless, government efforts to meddle with trade are mostly self defeating.
If you “wall” in the economy – you make us all less well off. That is the approach many developing nations took that trapped them in poverty, and it works no better for developed nations.
Dave “If you beleive in individual liberty – then you do not beleive in Government involvement in foreign trade.”
And there is one major difference in your much more libertarian positions than mine. You believe in open trade. I believe in fair trade. You believe that China can close their country to our products, but ours will be open to their’s. I believe if we open our nation to their junk, then they reciprocate. It is just that they way things are today after years of absolute moronic trade agreements, it takes much more resolve by the government to stick to a plan to get better trade agreements in place.
Everyone laughed at Ross Perot when he talked of the sucking sounds of jobs going to Mexico. Once it happened, they no longer laughed and now we have USMCA that is being proposed as a better alternative. Who knows, may be, might not be.
My level of Libertarianism is less than yours, but much more than 90% of the rest of the voters.
If you value “fairness” in any forum over freedom – the results will always be the same.
The American revolution was about liberty.
The french fixated on Egalitaire – equality, fairness.
Life is not “fair”, get over it. You can not make it fair.
You want to strive for fairness in your own life – go ahead. I am completely with you.
But when you involve government – the entire concept of fair needs shoved out the window.
It is possible to come up with a consensus understanding of liberty.
In fact it is trivial to come up with a near universal definition of liberty – if not an agreement on the extent or limits of permissibly liberty.
Government can make choices clearly weighing liberty interests against security, the common good, …
It may not make those choices correctly, but we will usually have a pretty good idea of what is being exchanged for what even if we are not agreed on the relative value of the tradeoff.
We can not possibly come up with even a majority defintion of “fair”.
In the context of “fair” trade – I think it is immoral for you to demand that US consumers must pay more for products that the chiese will produce “unfairly” according to you, in order to “fairly” according to you – protect US jobs.
To me that seems pretty unfair.
It is not important whether you argree.
What is important is that my perspective as well and myriads of others are just as valid as yours.
Liberty can be understood, We disagree only on the weight we give it, not what it is.
We do not agree on what constitutes “fair” we can not, and never will be able to.
Whenever you use fair, you are almost always talking about your highly subjective judgement, NOT anything close to a measurable criteria.
I can not keep the chinese from screwing their own people.
Where we part company is I am not prepared to screw americans to try.
If you think that Chinese products are “cheap junk” do not buy them.
If the majority of americans agree – they won’t either.
It is irelevant whether I agree or disagree with your judgement of chinese products.
So long as I am free to make my own choices.
Yes, I absolutely want the chinese people to have the same freedom – but I do not run the chinese government, nor have even a vote.
What I may not do is restrict the freedom of american consumers BY FORCE to benefit american workers – because in my oppinion that is more fair.
Can you make the same choice FOR YOURSELF ?
Absolutely.
But you are most defintely not talking about “fair” – you are talking about having government or yourself pick the winners and losers. Nothing more. And you are not even talking about amricans as winners over chinese as losers.
You are pitting the interests of one group of americans against another.
And deciding who to use force to favor.
The fact that I do not think what the Chinese are doing is wise does not mean I think we should compete with them in screwing our own consumers.
Dave “If you think that Chinese products are “cheap junk” do not buy them.”
How do you buy something when most of the time this is the only shit you can buy.
Next time I need something and can not find it other than Chinese crap, I will ask you to locate it for me since you seem to think we still produce everything here also.
“How do you buy something when most of the time this is the only shit you can buy.”
That is not true – you just have to pay more.
Further even if it was true – that just means – the market has spoken, those chinese goods you do not like have been determined by the overwhelming majority of consumers to be of greater value.
“Next time I need something and can not find it other than Chinese crap, I will ask you to locate it for me since you seem to think we still produce everything here also.”
Google is your friend. It is not that hard.
There is nothing of consequence that happened as a result of NAFTA that was not both predictable and predicted. And the net impact was strongly net positive.
Absolutely millions of jobs were lost to Mexico.
BUT 4 times as many new ones were created here. Better jobs.
Further both americans and mexicans were on the whole BETTER OFF.
Dave “Absolutely millions of jobs were lost to Mexico.
BUT 4 times as many new ones were created here. Better jobs.”
Documentation please.
Gauging the impact is difficult.
The US textiles industry was destroyed post NAFTA, while the expectation is that it would be saved.
Why ? Not job losses to Mexico, but job losses to china.
Now textiles are leaving china for cheaper countries.
Regardless the destruction of the us textile industry was inevitable.
There are arguments that US jobs gains were not as good as they should have been because of automation – but automation is also inevitable.
The economy boomed from 94-2001.
Some claim the job gains claimed by NAFTA proponents are the consequence of a growing economy not NAFTA.
Some claim the continued economic growth was atleast partly caused by NAFTA.
I believe the statistics that claim NAFTA job increases greatly exceeded losses.
Further the losses were only temporary. 75% of those who lost their jobs attributable to NAFTA had jobs 18 months later.
BTW that is NORMAL for all forms of job losses.
Your factory automates – you lose your job.
Forever ?
No. You go out and get another.
Whether it is china, mexico, automation … reduced consumer prices are a positive ENDURING benefit to consumers.
Job losses if they occur are temporary.
For 22 years I worked for one employer.
In the past 20 years I have worked for dozens.
I typically file 2 W2’s and 6-7 1099’s per year.
I have been fired twice – and rehired by the same person who fired me (and I still work for him).
My work changes constantly, I am self employed. I am 62 and I will be able to continue what I do now as long as I want, and slowly reduce my workload to suit my abilities and interest in continuing working.
Right now I am growing my businesses. I am looking for people to work for me.
I am having lots of trouble finding them.
We have a worker shortage today – not a worker glut.
BTW that is the NORM for a growing economy.
And trade grows economies.
There is no doubt mexico benefited more than the US from NAFTA.
But BOTH still benefited.
According to the Economic Policy Institute’s study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada.
Supporters of NAFTA estimate that some 14 million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico combined, and the nearly 200,000 export-related jobs created annually by NAFTA pay an average salary of 15% to 20% more than the jobs that were lost, according to a PIIE study
So 415,000 jobs lost and 200,000 export related jobs created at 15%-20% more is still a net loss of 215,000 jobs. And the total income is still less even with the premium on the new jobs.
That is one reason Trump wants USMCA to stop any further losses.
The period from 1993 to 2001 was the longest recorded economic expanision in US history.
There were many factors for that.
ONE of those was NAFTA.
The low end estimate is NAFTA was responsible for an additional .5%/year gain in GDP.
The high end estimate is 1%.
Either estimate produces a jobs gain from NAFTA that dwarfs any claimed losses.
The overwhelming majority of the job loses attributed to NAFTA were inevitable and were either lost to automation or to China – not Mexico.
But let me make it simpler. Economic growth from 1993-2003 averaged 4%.
THAT was a really strong economy. Trump would DIE for that economy.
I think all of us accept that some of that growth was due to NAFTA.
How much of that growth – and the jobs tied to that growth are you prepared to give up ?
In 2000 the US government ran a 200B SURPLUS and that would have grown but for Bush and endless wars.
There were 3M new jobs created EVERY YEAR.
1% of GDP during that period of time is 70B dollars/year
“My level of Libertarianism is less than yours, but much more than 90% of the rest of the voters.”
Who cares ?
We are not debating an issue of pure ideology.
We have an enormous amount of data on Trade. We know how all this works.
The actual laws of economics are not ideology – or to the extent they are they are ideology that works.
I would be a communist or a socialist – if it worked.
It does not.
I think USMCA is a better deal than NAFTA – for the US, for Canada, for Mexico, because it is a step close to true free trade.
I can support it as better than the status quo or better than the politically possible alternatives.
But ultimately as something like 95% of economists know – trade barriers are negative, and the country with the lowest barriers – even unilaterally lowest barriers ultimately has a more rapidly rising standard of living than the one that does not.
Look at the economy.
Within the economy – those places where we have the closest to an actual free market – create more and more value for lower and lower cost – they are inherently DEFLATIONARY,
In many cases the unadjusted price is LOWER than the past price.
In all cases the adjusted price is lower than the past price.
But the more heavily government is involved in ANY market then the price is always higher.
Education, Heatlh care, it does not matter what area. The more government is involved the higher the future price will be for the same value.
This “rule” is nearly a perfect binary – black and white.
You would think given how CLEAR it is that whenever government touches something the price rises and the value declines. we would have understood and learned.
This is one of the most crystal clear areas of economic information.
Pick ANYTHING – if government is heavily involved in it – the long term trend will be an increase in the amount of work you need to perform to buy it
If government is not the amount of work you need to buy it will trend DOWN.
UNIVERSALLY.
And yet we are blind.
I do not like our patent system – but our copyright system is MUCH WORSE, and arguably a 17 year patent on a drug is defendable.
The fundimental problems with drugs is not patents, but government.
Some of the most expensive drugs today had their patents expire decades ago.
You can not get FDA approval for a drug that somebody else makes whose patent has expired.
Dave “You can not get FDA approval for a drug that somebody else makes whose patent has expired.”
Please provide source for this statement. I have a good friend in the pharmacy business. I have never heard him say that. Looking at data, the FDA has increased the number of generic approvals over the past few years, not decreasing them.
My mother owned a business making bottle caps until she died in 2007.
She owned one of the few companies in the world that made 22mm screw on bottle caps.
She made a deal with a company to sell them millions of 22mm bottle caps for a generic nitroglycerin tablet
Nitroglycerin has been used as a vaso dilator to pretty close to halt a heart attack in its tracks for over 130 years.
There are no patents on Nitro Glycerin as a drug.
The bottle cap deal fell through because the company could not get FDA permission to sell nitro glycerin tablets.
There are no unknowns here. 1,2,3-trinitroxypropane was first manufactured in 1847.
There is nothing to approve, Anyone who wants should be able to use any also approved inert binder and standard amounts of NG to make generic NG tablets.
But the FDA requires anyone producing a new NG tablet to go through the same process as any other “new drug”.
This BTW is also true of epinephrine – also in use in medicine for 100+ years. No relevant patents. There is a patent on the “epi-pen” auto injector.
But it is trivial to create a new design that does not infringe.
But it is impossible to get FDA approval. Again it most go through the same process as a new drug.
A company tried selling predosed epinephrine syringes. Again a drug that has been available on the market for 100+ years. You can go to the hospital or your doctor and get epinephrine injected. You are allowed to inject insulin into yourself.
But if you are at risk of anaphalaxis as a result of allerigies – you can not buy a cheaper but less convenient predosed syringe. You must buy the epi-pen at significantly inflated cost, because the FDA will not approve alternatives.
This is quite common. It is also true of Premarin – again something patents expired long ago, but the FDA will not approve generics.
Further we actually have laws that require the FDA to operate differently.
But the FDA does not follow the law, and in practice can not be made to.
No one at the FDA will ever lose their job for being overly cautious.
But you could not get aspirin approved today without a black label to address its side effects,
and frankly you just could not get it approved.
No one is going to spend 2B dollars to get a generic epi-pen approved, or generic premarin, or generic nitro-glycerin.
Nor are they supposed to have to – the approval process for generics is supposed to be easier, but it rarely is.
I will further note that the problem is worst for older drugs.
Nitroglycerin, epi-pens, and premarin (or aspirin) did not EVER go through the modern FDA drug approval process. They never had the testing that modern drugs have. They predate the FDA or predate the more stringent laws passed after Thalidamide, and they are permitted because they were grandfathered. But generics of those grandfathered drugs are not themselves grandfathered, and no one at the FDA is going to approve a generic nitroglycerin.
Also politics quite often comes into play – which companies donate to which politicians, or is the company trying to bring a generic NG to market a US company or foreign owned.
Generic approvals should be damn near automatic – they are not even close.
If the FDA wants to – and quite often they do, they can make a generic go through testing as a new drug.
What is “poverty” ?
I recall a government minister in the UK testifying before parliment that poverty in the UK stubbornly refused to budge no matter what they did to aleviate it.
No matter what 16% of britons lived in poverty.
Duh ? Poverty in britian was DEFINED as the bottom 16% of wage earners.
The minister was an idiot.
In the US we have not defined poverty so rigidly – but we still have the same problem.
Most of my tenants are near poverty. All of my tenants have more and live better than I did as a child – and my family was upper middle class.
Americans in poverty as the top 1% of the world. And even globally those in poverty are far far better off than 40 years ago.
Ron,
A liberal is someone who prizes individual liberty.
I am a liberal. One of the things happening today is many older ACTUAL liberals are getting divorced from the Left.
Alan Derschowitz is being shunned by the left – because he remains a “liberal” not a progressive.
Well the Democrats chose that term years ago when the party was left of center and progressives were the far left of center.
So they chose it, let them live with it.
Democrats did not choose the term liberal.
Long ago the term libertarian did not exist. 19th century liberals were what today are called libertarians.
In the late 19th and early 20th century they OPPOSED progressives. In fact at that period of time progressives had more support from conservatives and even republicans than democrats and liberals.
But progressivism proved disasterous – eventually the label became disparaging.
Progressives started calling themselves liberal and over time succeeded in taking ownership of the term. Now they have besmirched the term liberal and are reverting to the label progressive which has lost some of its tarnish over the past century.
I am entirely in favor of that.
I would further refer to my rants over language.
Most of use have a pretty good idea what it means to be marxist, communist, socialist.
Even progressive is relatively well defined.
If someone says they are progressive – you have a pretty good idea what their political values are.
But if they call themselves – or someone else calls them liberal – their values are unclear.
Alan Derschowitz is a liberal, David Rubin is a liberal, Eric and Bret Weinstein are liberals, Stephen Pinker is a liberal, Johnathn Haidt is a liberal, Jordan Peterson is a liberal.
All of these people share reasonably close political values – values that are completely at odds with the modern left. Values that are also at odds with modern conservatism.
I call myself libertarian – because to some extent many people actually know what that means.
But in reality I am a liberal – like John Stuart Mills, like Thoreaux, like Adam Smith, like Franklin, like John Locke, all self identified liberals. All with values very close to mine.
Further there are myriads of texts, and history from then and now that calls these giants of history liberals – because they were.
But the modern left is NOT their intellectual heirs – though quite frequently they have claim to be – though nowadays all 18th and 19th century thinkers are evil white men, so having the left claim ownership of my intellectual heritage is less of a problem today.
Regardless, in the end any word can mean anything.
But it is actually important for words – especially important words to hold the same meaning for long periods of time. It is important for the same reasons that originalism is so important regarding the constitution and law.
In a perfect world we would not have originalism. The meaning of words especially the words of the law and constitutiuon would not change over time.
Some changes are natural and evolutionary and there is little we can do to stop them.
Or even more commonly words drift out of common use and get reporposed.
But sometimes – and quite frequently today we – particularly the left deliberately destroy the meaning of words, as part of the effort to destroy the thoughs and values and principles they represent.
This is the lesson of 1984 – and newspeak.
Liberal is one of the very first words than I know of historically that was DELIBERATELY coopted and ultimately changed to mean very nearly the opposite of what it actually means.
I can live with natural languange changes,. Deliberately deceptive ones are a bigger deal.
I want “liberal” back.
Today we see – the left especially, do this with most everything.
You can call anyone a nazi, a russian asset, as racist, a mysoginist, a homophobe, but god forbid you refer to someone by the wrong pronoun. Or that you should not be completely up to the moment on the politically correct word for someone’s particular minority or victim status.
Nor is this new. We see exactly the same thing in the USSR, or Mao’s china
Use the wrong words at the wrong time – and you are a political criminal. You must be re-educated, and of course the words meaning change practically daily.
Again Both animal farm and 1984 rely on the ability to play games with the meaning of words to bring about dystopia.
Trump is likely to be impeached for “bribery”. It is irrelevant that bribery has a real meaning that has no resemblance to what Trump is alleged to have done.
Bribery tested well in focus groups. It is not important that we accuse someone of something they have done. What matters is that we accuse them of something people beleive is bad.
We have played the same nonsense with emoluments – an old word that was not used for almost 2 centuries, but since there are two emoluments clauses in the constitution – neither of which apply under any definition of emoluments, mangling the meaning of emoluments has become a cudgel to beat on Trump.
Words have meaning – if you want to play with the meaning – write poetry,
When you are using them in the context of government they must be used with precision.
Because it is immoral to use force to infringe on the liberty of others when the words of the law are not clear.
My complaint about your use of liberal raises another issue that Rick dances arround.
Words and meaning.
Orwell’s dystopia’s make it clear how incredibly important it is to control language – words.
And we are watching 1984 happen quite litterally in front of us.
I really do not give a damn what bathroom someone uses – so long as my children are not involved.
Run your own life however you wish – so long as you are not forcing me to do the same.
I do not give a dam whether a round metal plate in the road is called a manhole cover.
But the near infinite manipulation of language, as well as the fixation on Triggers, and so called hate speach, the intersectional offence driven and victim focused world we have, and the massaging of language to re-inforce that the fixation on feelings rather than facts – especially in our language. The fixation on emotional truth and “narratives”.
IS DESTRUCTIVE.
The attempt to use government to control language to change how people think is right out of 1984 and extremely destructive.
We are not merely trying to silence views we do not like by censorship. We are seeking to deprive them of the language needed to express those views.
One of the most fundimental problems we have today is the inability to agree on basic facts in enormous numbers of areas.
And the primary reason we can not agree on facts has to do with manipulation of words.
Not only do those on the left seek to alter the meaning of words – they also seek to unmoor meaning.
Every conflict I have with Jay could be easily resolved if Jay would agree to a fixed meaning to words. It does not matter what meaning, just one that is not maleable.
If Trump and Obama both did X – whatever X is, then if it was wrong for Obama it was wrong for Trump and visa versa.
But we can not agree on that. We can not hold Trump and Obama or Clinton or Biden to the same standards. Worse we do not even use the same words in the same way when talking about either of them.
I am fixating on Trump at the moment – when the problem is much larger than Trump.
But the left makes it so glaringly obvious regarding Trump.
We are told everything Trump does is ahistorical, unusual, deviant, abnormal, extreme,
Yet by any standard that is constant, Trump is only unusual in his style and rhetoric.
Absolutely we are becoming more polarized – but WHO is trying to polarize us ?
I find editorials on new sites about how to austicize your Trump supporting relative at Thanksgiving.
Study after study show that TODAY conservatives tolerate a wide variety of viewpoints.
But those on the left punish deviation from dogma – especially of their own.
I saw this in christian fundimentalists in the 70’s where one minister would send the congregation next door to hell because the baptized twice forward and once backward.
Look here at TNM – if your posts, if your arguments are nothing more than insults – you are driving people apart not bringing them together.
Saul Alinsky has had an enormous impact on american politics – because his tactics WORK – to a point. But fundimentally Alinsky is deliberately about polarization, About creating divisions about amplifying differences, The broad use of Alinsky tactics by any significant perspective will drive us apart rather than bringing us together.
Our founders, our constitution – are not sacred, they are not the end, the pinacle the epitomy.
They are just a monument a way point on the path from slavery to a utopia we can never reach – but get closer to all they time.
I do not care so much about faction or free speach or the 2nd amendment – but about freedom.
“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.Reagan
There is no pivital moment, there is just a path that inexorably leads to greater freedom and greater prosperity.
You can start at Lexington and concord, or with the magna Carte, or Hamurabi’s code.
There is no real start and no end. just the better life that comes with more freedom, and the lessor one without.
WE do not face an existential conflict. Just a speed bump along the way.
The election of Trump is a reaction, to the woke demands for conformity, to being censored, badgered and bullied into silence.
There is an editorial today that identifies the lefts attacks as Trump’s secret weapon.
We see this today and here especially with Jay.
He can not help but point a shot gun at half the country whenever he takes aim at Trump.
Anyone who does not share his views is deplorable, stupid – a hateful, hating hater.
That is why the left lost in 2016, and why they will lose in 2020, and even if they do not, why they must lose ultimately.
Hatred is poison.
Wonderful synopsis of what ails us politically and culturally, Rick.
I have nothing to nitpick, nothing at all.
But I’m not optimistic moderation will triumph.
Hope I’m wrong.
Time (always slip sliding away) will tell.
Thanks, Jay. I’m not an optimist. either. I just hope the bitterness at both ends of the political spectrum resolves itself without bloodshed. Maybe we could use an alien invasion to reunite this country. (I mean space aliens, of course — although I assume they’d be undocumented.)
I have been harping on Ken Burns Vietnam more recently.
I highly recommend watching it. It is depressing as heel and incredibly uplifting at the same time.
In the past decade we have been growing ever more bitterly divided. It is easy sometimes to fear that violence and even civil war are just around the corner.
This is particularly disconcerting as we truly do live in the best place and the best moment of human history.
But Burn’s unintentionally rams that home.
We are fighting about the state at the moment. We are being sold that those in the state – in the CIA, DOD, State department FBI, … are the good people saving us from tryanny.
Yet these same “good people” are in no way consequentially different from the “good people” who got us into vietnam, and relentlessly continued to make it worse and the worse it got the more committed they were to somehow “winning” even though winning was impossible and they new it.
We feel like we are more bitterly divided than ever. In the 60’s national guardsmen were shooting peach marchers, the police and protesters were beating each others skulls in, there were 100 politically motivated bombings a year. Protests and riots were nearly synonymous.
We are told that racism is on the rise that we are in the most racist moment in US history.
In the 60’s we had the summer of rage. We had most of our cities burning.
There were actual KKK members marching.
While I share many of your fears Rick. and I find myself worrying that all this will get out of hand. I am heartened by Vietnam.
Regardless, ultimately we know how this ends.
History repeats itself – first as a tragedy and then as a farce.
I do not know whether the left or right wins the next election.
But I know that while we can not ever kill of the totalitarian left, that it will constantly kill itself off, though it is inevitably reborn, and we start again.
Is there anyone who thinks Venezuela remains “socialist” ?
The only question is when does socialism die ?
In 2020 we have two choices – Kill the extreme left by electing Trump or elect the extreme left and suffer as its own actions drive us to destroy it in 2024 or 2028.
Obama was a small step towards socialism – and 2016 was a backlash against that.
Nothing is more effective in destroying the left than for them to actually gain power.
The problem is that too quickly we forget what the left gaining power means.
Are there all kinds of problems with the right ? Certainly.
Is there some existential threat from the right ? Not a chance.
You talk about the extreme right. What even is that ?
Are the Pat Robertson social conservatives on the rise again ?
Is the KKK marching by the 10’s of thousands ?
Is Cliven Bundy about to stage a million man march in the DC mall ?
What is the extreme right you are afraid of ?
Donald Trump ? Ted Cruz ? You have got to be kidding ?
There is no meaningful extreme right of any consequence.
What if republicans took over the house and senate and whitehouse in super majorities
What would they do that would be as disasterous as PPACA, M4A, Free College, ….. ?
I can complain about some things that some republicans want to do, but the most dangerous thing I can think of coming from the right at the moment would require #neverTrump neo-cons to return to the GOP.
It would require the Chenney’s and Mattis’s and Boulton’s to regain power, it would require a return to the neo-con foreign policy of US beleigerance and the US as policemen of the world.
That is highly unlikely.
You do not have to agree with ALL of this, but much of it is stuff we all already know.
I would further note this connects, democrats, Neo-Cons, never Trumpers, into a gigantic if disorganized conspiracy running over decades to cover their own asses regarding their own incompetent handling of foriegn and particulary mideastern affairs.
The story is simple – the US had a legitimate interest in destroying the Taliban post 9/11 and that is pretty much the only thing we have attempted to do in the mideast since 2001 that was legitimate, and even that was not successful.
Removing Saddam Hussein was a predictable geopolitical disaster that has had the US playing wack-a-mole throughout the mideast afterwords. This disaster sucked in an unified establishment republicans and establishment democrats.
There is a reason that Candidate Obama quietly repudiated the promises to get the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq and to Close Gitmo – because if he had not he would have had the same problems with the “deep state” that Trump is having now.
You can reject (maybe) the notion of some grand conspiracy.
But you can not escape the fact that our military and inteligence and diplomatic core have spent the past 3 decades F’ing up badly in the mideast. AND that much of this was entirely predictable.
While those testifying in the House impeachment inquiry were not the leaders responsible for this decades long foreign policy debacle that has cost the US $7T and got nothing in return.
they were all the foot soldiers in this strategy.
Trump was not supposed to win in 2016. And these people were terrified of Flynn as NSA, as Flynn was intent on exposing their disasterously bad choices over the prior 2 decades.
Once elected Flynn had to go, and Trump had to be reigned in – like Obama was or destroyed.
Unlike Obama Trump refused to be reigned in, and continues to grasp that nothing the US has done in the mideast in over 20 years has been anything short of disasterous, and that there is little or nothing to salvage and we are engaged in a sunk costs fallacy of epic proportions. Unlike most politicians, Trump as a highly successful businessman understands that when something has failed you GET OUT. That pumping more treasure in does not make it any better.
But Getting out leaves almost the entire us intelligence apartus, military, and foreign service with egg on its face.
Lets put this a different way – we have spent the past 20 years replicating Vietnam with the intention of winning this time, and all that can be said is that improvements in our military have resulted in far less dead americans. Otherwise the outcome has been much the same.
Our Military, our Intelligence services, Our Foreign Service have failed us in the same way they did in vietnam. Except that while that failure has been on a larger scale it has not acheived the same degree of public recognition as vietnam.
Both Obama and Trump were “managed” by the assorted agencies, by Selling them a nixonian – peace with honor pig in a poke with the implicit alternative of going to war with the “deep state”
Trump gave “the generals” and Ambassadors and Spooks a chance, and they have failed, and unlike Obama he appears to be done playing games.
Ukraine is a sideshow. It is another F’up of the “deep state” over the past decade.
But it is significant for Trump because Democrats actually did collude with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election. Neither the Ukrainian effort, nor the hugely overhyped Russian effort had any real impact on the election – though the russian witchhunt has tried to suck everything out of the Trump presidency.
Regardless, having survived the Russian witch hunt Trump was preparing to take revenge on the “deep state” and this ukraine nonsense is just their effort to strike first.
But Ukraine is NOT the real focus. The failures in the mideast are the real issue.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/not-a-bad-spy-novel-but-a-national-nightmare/
Sounding awfully lefty
I think you might have missed the irony. When I wrote “Goodbye, Columbus!,” for example, I was mocking the leftist viewpoint. If anything, I thought my latest column tilted a little too conservative — but that’s because the social justice warriors on the left give us so much material to work with.
When I discuss my views on gun control, that is that I actually encourage women and the elderly to own a gun and be proficient in its use but that I also support such things as universal background checks, holding someone criminially responsible if they failed to secure their gun and that gun was used by someone else in a criminal activitiy, and banning weapons that exceed a specific capacity, I am hated by both the pro and con advocates of gun control. There is no mean between the extreme. .
Savannah, what you believe is something many in the middle believe, but support for some like capacity clips fails, not because we dont think that a good idea, but because of government “creap”. Once government gets a foot in the door, they dont stop there. So today, they ban anything over 12 cartridges, then something happens and they ban anything over 8. Finally after instances of violence, they ban a class of weapons and keep going where most guns are banned. It might take 20 years, but it can happen.
Ron,
There are large numbers of reasons to disagree with magazine size limits.
All of those reasons are not determinative – a law can survive if it is imperfect,.
It should not survive if it is not an ACTUAL improvement on the status quo.
Just “sounding” reasonable, does not make something effective.
There are many criteria a proposed law must meet to be moral and effective.
Not being easily circumvented is one of those.
Government should NEVER make laws that increase the number of criminals.
It does not make sense to even Start the process.
None of this at the edges stuff will have any effect.
None at all.
We can debate whether an outright gun ban will have any effect.
The evidence is weak, but what of it we have says that an absolute ban would have a negative impact on safety.
But even that is irrelevant – because it is NOT going to happen.
There are 300+m guns in the US,
There are 10+m ar-15 or equivalents.
Confiscation of those is just not ever going to happen.
I can argue the tremendous spike in violence that would occur if you tried,
But even that is irrelevant – because it is not going to happen.
If you are discussing, thinking about, contemplating a world without guns, you are in some mythical utopia. It is just not happening.
There is absolutely no sane reason to discuss mythical worlds.
In the real world you have a choice of options – none of which have the slightest chance of doing any good, and will do nothing beyond virtue signal.
If that is what you are after – go do it inside your own life. Using the force of government to engage in ineffective virtue signally in highly immoral.
Dave Today SCOTUS debated a law that was repealed by the state of new York that basically prohibited individuals from carrying a gun outside their homes. Basically handgun owners were banned from carrying their pistols anywhere other than seven firing ranges within the city limits. That meant that pistol owners could not carry their guns to a second home, or to shooting ranges or competitions in other states nearby. The lower courts upheld the regulations as justified to protect safety in the most densely populated city in the country.
I have no problems with additional gun laws like background checks, tightening gun show sales, etc. Its a feel good change for the anti gun lobby that will have little impact and only law abiding individuals will follow that, But if that makes them feel good, fine.
But anything that has to do with the gun itself or the rights to carry I am against it because this repealed law is exactly what governments do. I hope that SCOTUS does not bail on it and say it is moot because NY repealed the law, but that might happen.
We already have background checks for all commerical gun sales – that is something like 99% of all sales.
Even the “gun show loop hole” is thoroughly misrepresented. You can find others who will explain better than I, but as I understand – if you are a gun dealer at a gun show, you are not exempt from background checks. If you sell more than some small number of guns a year – you must have a dealers license.
Closing the “gun show loophole” is not about “gun shows” – I do not think a weapon used in a mass killing has ever been bought at a gun show. It is about preventing private individuals from selling (or giving) guns to each other.
That is a REALLY BIG DEAL.
I completely oppose government infringement on the liberty of businesses to do anything that does not involve force or fraud or actual harm to others.
But however bad commecial regulation is, when we foreclose private action that is far worse.
Mostly this just points out something I have said before – there is no such thing as a pure commercial transaction and no such thing as a pure noncomercial transaction.
All human exchange is part of a chain whose tails are ALWAYS private persona gains like comfort, affection, time with family and friends, romance. all the things government should NEVER regulate. The regulation of anything including comerical transactions is ALWAYS regulation of non-commerical conduct and values.
Background checks.
Just about all of us oppose “family separation”.
But there is a reason that family separation started under Obama.
Long enough ago illegal immigrants were mostly men seeking jobs.
They would send money home, or eventually bring them families north.
But we passed laws that made it possible to detain an illegal immigrant captured within 100 miles of the border – hold them until a hearing (usually 30-90 days) and then deport them.
As opposed to releasing them and then spending 18+ months not finding them.
Immigrants adapted to the new law by bringing their families – because we would hold lone males, but we would release families so families got the benefits of the old system.
Obama started “family separation”. but got a political bloody nose.
The families must be separated – because to detain an immigrant until hearing requires charging them with a crime – the crime of illegally crossing the border. We can not charge children only adults, and we can not jail children with their parents. So they have to be placed until their parents are deported.
Trump is more immune to criticism. He has stick mostly to familiy separate and enforcing the laws at the border.
The results – illegal border crossings are DOWN more than 500%.
Family separation is unpleasant but it works.
the point is incentives matter.
The more we expand the number of reasons you can deny someone a gun, the more they will fight or avoid those things.
Many states require people who have a Protection order against them to turn in their guns.
This sounds like common sense but in practice it is STUPID.
Most protection orders are civil and voluntary.
We want the courts – family courts and the like to be able to easily look at one or both parties and say – STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.
Typically PFA’s require no finding. And that is what we want.
But if you tell someone that if their girlfriend, or spouse requests a PFA, they will have to turn in their guns – now they will fight the PFA – and that is NOT what we want.
WE do not want a PFA to be – “you have been found guilty of abusing someone, you must stay away from them” We want it to be “can you just stay away from your ex while we get through all this ?”
Well PFA’s are now a criteria that background checks are considering checking,
As is the no fly list, as is psychiatric treatment.
Do we want people who have mental health issues not to seek treatment because they might lose their guns ?
Laws often incentivize behavior quite distant from the law itself.
Every gun control law has massive unintended consequences.
I do not even support background checks – they have had no measurable statistical impact.
Any law that does not have a demonstrable positive effect towards its purpose should not exist.
We should never be restricting a few peoples liberty to make others feel good.
A law that does not accomplish its avowed purpose should not exist.
Hi Ron, I like to use the simile between gun control and the restrictions that we place on driving. I am all for people owning cars but i don’t want them to be allowed to drive 100 mph except on some type of race track. I don’t want them driving without a license or insurance. I want that license to require passing a test. I don’t want them driving if they are drunk. I want them to ignore stop signs or red lights. I don’t want children driving cars. Yes there are many restrictions on driving a car. This does not mean that the government will eventually confiscate our cars. Rights are limited and without them we have anarchy. You may reply that the Constitution protects our right to own a gun and that it forbids all restrictions. The Constitution does not forbid restrictions. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers they were concerned with the excesses of government, but equally if not more so with the excesses of the passions of the people. They never would have agreed with the notion that rights should be unfettered. Nor would they have agreed to the notion that limitation of our rights means totally cessation of them. If anything, it protects them.
Lastly, I have heard it argued that the right to own guns is protected under the constitution whereas the right to own a vehicle is not. Actually, the right to own a vehicle is protected under the Constitution. When the passage of the Bill of Rights was being debated, James Madison argued that it would be an extreme hindrance to our liberty because it was implying that our rights were limited to the freedoms listed in those 10 amendments. He argued that our rights were much more extensive in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. The Bill of Rights passed but with the caveat that there were more rights than those delineated in the first 10 amendments. The Preamble of the Constitution states one of its purposes is to “promote the general welfare”. What would be more injurious to our general welfare – the government confiscating our guns or the government confiscating our vehicles.
Savannah, nice to have a new person here to communicate with. First, I agree the government does not have the right to restrict ownership of a car, but each state has the right to restrict the way you drive. It is not specific in the bill of rights.
And you look at the constitution as a living document, evolving as years pass. I view it as static, interpreting the words as written.
But what I fear is creeping government. I know few instances where laws were written to cover a few things and they did not grow into complete control. The fear I have with any foot in the door gun control is complete control in the future.
I would expect that the regulation of driving would meet the same criteria as regulation of guns – and visa versa.
That whatever restrictions on our freedom with respect to automobiles is necescary, minimally infringing and effective.
I have never heard anyone propose that if you seek mental health serivces you should be deprived of your drivers license. Yet we seek to do that with guns.
I have never heard of anyone proposing that if you are on the no fly list, you should be barred from driving, yet we have proposed to do that with guns.
Changing the speed limit to 25mph would save 30,000 lives a year.
We do not do that – because we are wise enough to understand that the cost – even in human life would be even greater.
If you seek help from a therapist – should you lose your drivers license ?’
I have a 25 year old car that is essentially junk. I can not get rid of it – because I can not find the title. Laws that seemed to make sense for property valued at half my income make no sense at all for property that is valued at less than a couple of hours work.
We have empiracle evidence that child car seats are at the very best only equal to ordinary seat belts in protecting Children more than 24 months old, and likely actually worse.
Yet we are constantly increasing the age and weight of requirements to place children in car seats.
We know that the strongest correlation between accidents and injury in motor vehicles is drugs and alcohol – approaching 100%. And there is almost no correlation between most other motor vehicle law violations and highway safety – yet we have massive law enforcement efforts targeting motorvehcle law violations that have no impact on safety ?
I hear add campaigns targetting so called “agressive drivers” – yet statistically you are more likely to be in an automobile accident if you drive 5mph below the average speed of traffic than 15mph above it. We actually know that it is MORE DANGEROUS for all traffic to travel at the same rate.
Further it is your comparison that scares the hell out of gun rights advocates.
We are MOSTLY not yet tying all kinds of unrelated things to drivers licenses,
but we are tying them to other licenses.
If you fail to make child support payments or student loan payments or an ever growing list of other unrelated conduct, you can lose your business license, your professional license, your ability to make a living.
There is alot wrong with our licensing system and our automobile laws.
They are NOT a good model for licensing guns.
Madison is far from the only one arguing that our rights exceed those specified in the constitution – in fact the constitution says precisely that – repeatedly.
The priviledges and immunities clause was intended to protect nearly infinite rights from government infringement, But when SCOTUS recognized that the priviledges and immunities clause taken as written would have made slavery unconstitutional, they neutered it.
The 14th ammendment DELIBERATELY echos and gives teeth to the priviledges and immunities clause specifically to add teeth to it.
The reconstruction republicans added the priviledges and immunities clause for many reasons. One of which they spoke EXPLICITLY on – the priviledges and immunities clause was specifically intended to create an individual right for former slaves to own guns.
The evidence of this was one of the driving factors behind Heller and its progeny.
Even more important – the application of the bill or rights and the other portions of the constitution to the states has never been clear. The priviledges and immunties clause of the 14th ammendment explicitly applies to THE STATES.
Nor is the priviledges and immunities clause the only broad bar to govenrment action – the contracts clause – through to the 1930’s prohibited almost all government (federal and state) regulation of voluntary private transactions. Wickard V Filburn effectively erased the contracts clause from the constitution
The 9th and tenth ammendments essentially say what you attribute to madison and were added specifically to counter madisons as well as antifederalist opposition to the bill of rights. They were specifically to address the false perception that the bill of rights lists all our rights.
Madison and the founders would have been as vigorously opposed to govenrment regulation freedom of movement as they were of govenrment regulation of firearms.
With respect to your car analogy – though there are lots of claims – often in state and local courts to the countrary, Driving is actually recognized as a constitutional right.
That has never been an issue. The issue is the level of scrutiny.
There are 3 levels of review that are implicated when a right is infringed on by government.
Strict Scrutiny is the most difficult for government to pass.
As the constitution is actually written – it is the standard that any law or regulation of any kind infringing on a right was required to pass.
Under strict scrutiny very very few restrictions on speech are constitutional permissible.
Currently the only acceptable restrictions on content are those regarding incitement to violence, and the danger must be clear, present and imminent.
Intermediate scrutiny ultimately allows most regulation.
Rational basis review – the lowest level of scrutiny essentially means you have to have a reason – it does not have to be a good reason. Nor does it have to work.
I would suggest reading Randy Barnet’s “Restoring the last constitution” for an excellent examination of the views of our founders as well as the authors of the reconstruction amendments on the breadth and depth of our rights.
Put simply they deliberately intended that individual rights be nearly infinite – and actually said that, and that government powers be narrowly constrained and always requiring justification.
I do not “hate” anyone, based on their perspective on gun control.
Nor do I know opponents of gun control that are hatemongers.
Most everyone I know who is a big 2nd amendment advocate thinks that gun control advocates are just people who have not learned enough yet.
For me the issue is not GUNS, it is about liberty, freedom.
If you beleive – as our founders did, as we have learned over milenia is the only effective way to govern, that government is force, and force can only be used when it can be justified,
Then the questions regarding gun control are straightforward and simple.
Is there an actual proveable benefit that exceeds the cost of whatever you are proving.
The burden of proving that rests ALWAYS with those wishing to use force to constrain others.
All uses of force – as individuals, and through government MUST be justified.
No exceptions.
I do not want to hear your “ideas” regarding Gun Control. I want you to hear a compelling argument – with proof that what you seek to do is the least infringing means of addressing the problem AND that it WILL have a proveably significant beneficial impact.
Those are NOT the criteria for gun laws. That is the criteria for ALL laws.
There are an infinite number of “ideas” regarding solving problems – and so long as you are not using force – aka government – you may try whatever idea you wish.
But where you seek to use force/government – having an idea that “sounds good” or as other posters here sometimes say – is “common sense” is NOT good enough.
What you seek to do MUST provably work, it MUST be minimally infringing, and it MUST not only solve the problem but not create other problems.
I will support any gun control measure that meets those criteria.
I am not away of any that meet those criteria.
Nor is this merely about Guns. If you wish to restrict the cloths I can buy, or the food I can eat or where I can live – you must meet the same criteria.
Savannah, your position on guns is probably too reasonable to be accepted by either camp. I’m with you, of course.
Why is it reasonable EVER to propose anything that if fully adopted WILL NOT have any measurable positive benefit and we KNOW that up front ?
Why is “moderate” fixated on compromise and the “center” not what works and what does not ?
Who cares whether some idea is “left” or right, or moderate if it can not possibly work and we know it ?
Whoever is proposing more government – left or right should ALWAYS at the very barest minimum be obligated to demonstrate that what they are doing will be effective.
If you think something is a good idea – because it sounds good, because it makes you feel good, because it is a compromise. or any of myriads of other purportedly centrist sentiments,
But you have no idea whether it works, but you are ready to do it anyway,
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
And I do not care what your ideology is.
Rick, like I have comment other times, I can accept limited controls. However, can you clarify one issue.
Do you believe in creeping government or do you believe government stops and goes no further once they get their foot in the door?
Do you believe once a crack in the wall of gun rights has been achieved that the progressive government will not continue to chip away at rights when further murders take place?
Creep is not an issue if you START with the requirement that when you wish to impose your will on others by force – which is what government does, the first hurdle is that what you wish to do must demonstrably work.
there should be no disagreement on that. It should not be a left/right/libertarian issue.
If you can not demonstrate that the law you are passing has a high probability of at the very least accomplishing your objective – and hopefully with minimal disruption elsewhere, then left, right, center, libertarian we should all agree – you should not do that.
I am honestly tired of explaining why This ban or that ban is not going to work.
I am not the one proposing the law. It is those of you who want more laws that are obligated to demonstrate they will work.
Sounds good, is not enough.
Dave “I am honestly tired of explaining why This ban or that ban is not going to work.”
Then the solution is stop trying. Some dont agree, some ignore and some dont care. And why not just do the comment on word, then just copy and paste to wordpress. Would save time if you want to continue trying to convince the unconvincable.
Why am I not going to stop ?
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
You worry about going from tiny infringements slowly to large ones.
I think that is the wrong question.
An unjustified infringement is morally wrong – regardless of scale.
A fully justified infringement is right – regardless of scale.
So when do democrats grasp that Faux impeachment has been a disaster ?
I read numerous editorials by left leaning outlets all critical of either Schiff or Nadler.
For the most part the criticism is for failure to get results – the end was assumed.
They are nearly litterally selling Beria’s “show me the man and I will show you the crime”.
All the democrats hearings have been disasterous. According to left media – because they allowed Republicans to run roughshod over them.
What does it take to grasp that republican leverage comes from only one of two places – the facts do not favor democrats, and you either provide a a process that is perceived as reasonable or you face attacks over the process. This is the same whether Republicans or democrats are in power. Both parties tend to obstruct the efforts of the other. Those efforts to obstruct are effective only when there is a real perception that the majority is abusing its power. Republicans have that in spades. When the GOP controlled the house, democrats normallized committee obstruction. But they were ineffective at anything beyond delay – because the facts did not support them, the law did not support them, and republicans gave democrats a process that enabled them to make – or fail to make, their points.
Democrats now find themselves on the opposite side. Having normalized obstruction they have no credibility in dressing down republicans – especially when republicans are bemoaning a lack of due process that has been traditional. And that americans not owned by the left expect as part of processes that seek the facts and justice.
“Do you believe once a crack in the wall of gun rights has been achieved that the progressive government will not continue to chip away at rights when further murders take place?”
Well, Ron, I’m not Rick, but I think that Beto O’Rourke made clear where “gun control” activists are going.
1) blame gun deaths on guns, not people 2) identify guns, not as defensive weapons, but assault weapons 3) anyone who owns a gun therefore becomes a potential assailant 4) public safety requires the confiscation of all firearms, by force if necessary, in order to protect society from these gun-owning assailants.
Once the government has “saved” us from these dangerous weapons, it can better tell us how to be obedient citizens, and rid us of the scourge of fossil fuels, among other things…..
With the following modifications, I agree with your list, Annie Oakley…
1)blame gun deaths on people who use them
2) identify guns as defensive or assaultive weapons, and ban the latter.
3) anyone who owns a gun therefore becomes a potential assailant, as anyone who owns a car becomes a dangerous force – regulate both with rigorous testing and frequent relicensing.
4) public safety requires the confiscation of some firearms, by force if necessary, in order to protect society from the dangers of assault weapons in the hands of dangerous people
2)
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
That requires Assaultive weapons.
From our founding individual gun ownership was intended as a threat against government tyranny.
It is necescary for the people to be sufficiently well armed that government is constrained in infringing on liberty.
That does not require that the people are armed as well as the military.
It requires that the people are armed as well as the largest possible portion of govenrment that would actually use force against them in a conflict with the people of an abusive government.
In east germany in 1989 we learned that 2m protestors against a tyranical government that did not have the support anymore of the police or military could non-violently over through the government.
But it is not always possible to resist tyranny non-violently.
3) NO!
You are no more a potential assailant with than without a gun.
What you are is a more dangerous defender and a more dangerous assailant.
But the odds of your violating the law do not increase with gun ownership.
Regardless, you fail the first test of the justification of the use of force.
You make a false presumption.
The fact is gun owners are statistically more law abiding.
Particularly those “assault weapon” owners. There are about 15M AR-15’s in the US, There are about 160 killings with all long guns – of which AR-15’s are a subset/year.
Of those 160 MOST are justified.
Put simply the proprtion of AR-15 owners who engage in criminal violence is orders of magnitude lower than the ordinary population.
Based on the “evidence” if you want to require licensing and training to reduce violence – you need to target the low hanging fruit – those who do NOT own guns – particularly assault weapons.
BTW who said I thought that our automobile laws were justified ?
4). Absolutely – the government can where actually justified confiscate weapons.
No one is debating that.
I have never seen anyone say that convicted terrorists should be allowed to own assault weapons after their release.
Most states bar felons from owning guns.
Public safety is a justification for restricting rights.
But “public safety” is not a magic incantation
You are still REQUIRED to prove in EVERY INSTANCE that the infringment on liberty is justifed.
Minimally that means you will actually improve public safety as you claim.
You are NOT entitled to assume it.
And thus far the evidence says that most gun restrictions do not accomplish any public safety goals and many make things worse.
Priscilla, after weapons will come speech. We see that on university campuses today after my generation finally opened universities to anyone who wanted to speak. We see that in mass media where more and more opposing views are not covered. Each time and new law is written, drip, drip drip……..
Yay! Finally! Trump talking about something he knows about: toilets!
Hey guys, if you are going to take about anything other than “The New Moderate’s Guide to a Politicized World”, take it back to George W Bush . We don’t need the pissing contest between Dave and Jay with their crap about nothing clogging up this article .Reading there shit storm between each other is like watching are pornographic episode of Steinfeld.
Jay can silence me trivially.
He can say things that make sense.
Dave, my request was so others did not have to put up hundreds of pissing contest e-mails clogging their in boxes. If you and Jay want to slap each other around endlessly like two punch drunk fighters, fine, but can we keep this new blog by Rick on target?
Yes, you are free to post wherever you want if Rick does not say anything. Jay is free to slap back at you. But have you not been taught consideration of others in public or semi-public settings?
I would like to see what a few have to say about moderates thoughts on a “Politicized World” without having to navigate pages of shit you and jay sling at each other hourly.
So don’t read them.
If Jay wants to move this to GWB, or even to private email. That is fine with me.
I’m not reading the damn things. I have to sort through them just to delete them. Being considerate to others is not one of your better traits is it? Why is it so hard to chose one blog over another?
If Jay wishes to move his posts to GWB, that is where my replies will be.
He also has my email if he wishes a private exchange.
I have made alot of comments on “politicized world”.
I know I sound like a broken Drum – but Watch Ken Burns vietnam if you have not already.
It will make you feel much better about the world we live in today. Promise.
I would also suggest searching Youtube for Johnathan Haidt. Particularly his stuff about modern youth.
The current political culture is as it is for a reason. It is heavily driven by changes in parenting and education a couple of decades back. And it is relatively narrowly confined – not merely by age, but even by affluence, our modern nerousis is mostly confined to young white middle and upper middle class.
Do not get me wrong – there are plenty of Jay’s – there have always been SOME people like this. But there has been a massive explosion of anxiety and depression among the younger generation, and that is massively impacting our public culture.
If 10% of the population is normally suffering from anxiety and depression and you boost that to 30-40% in on generational cohort you will radically alter public discourse.
Further you will reinforce the anxiety in the baseline 10-20%
Think about it – we grew up with “duck and cover”. My wife and I did not even think about having kids until we were in our 40’s. We expected the world to end in nuclear winter.
We had vietnam. We had LBJ and Nixon – possibly the most corrupt politicians that ever were. We had the bomb, the pentagon papers, Martin, Robert and John. We had Kent State, We had the weatherman and the summer of rage. We had the chicago Democratic national Convention.
There is nothing that the current generation of young adults faces that comes close to what we had to be anxious and depressed about – and yet they are MORE – MUCH MORE anxious and depressed than we were.
That is at the root of our intense hyper politization today.
Couple that with the fact that while our schools have NEVER done well at teaching civics, logic or critical thinking, but they are far worse today than ever.
So these young adults do not have the skills needed to mitigate their own anxiety and depression.
So if you wish to look at causality – look for WHY young adults are anxious and depressed.
And that is NOT a function of the body politic – at worst that is much better than in the 60’s and 70’s. So why do we have a rising generation of anxious and depressed kids ?
Trump is not the reason.
Healthcare is not the reason.
Politics is not the reason.
The outside world is not the reason.
Our parenting and education are the reason.
The bad news – we are only barely into this, it is going to take a while to understand how we have F’d kids up and change.
The good news – mostly I think anxious and depressed young adults will grow out of it.
Though it may take many years.
The world will not come undone.
The most important wisdom that comes with age is that most things we think are criseses – arent’.
Ron, does my post about Trump flushing toilets equate in your mind with pissing contests?
What does it have to do with a “moderates view of a politicized world.
Its just more of your and Dave’s broken record of I hate Trump, I love Trump.
How many different ways can one make that comment?
Negatives for Trump = infinite ♾. 😏
Some part of what Trump said you have a problem with ?
Do you actually think it is a good idea to have EPA standards that result in more consumption of water as the unintended consequence of trying to reduce water consumption ?
Trump did not address this – but what is the use of water governments business at all.
Water is infinitely recycled. But there are localized limits to how much can be consumed.
We have a system that historically has been the only one ever that converts scarcity into abundance – that is free markets and free exchange.
If for some reason water (or anything else) is scarce in a free market – its price will rise until:
a) Demand declines to meet supply
b) higher prices cause supply to rise to meet demand.
Or more commonly Both.
If water saving appliances make sense – the free market will provide them.
And historically it has,
If the benefits of saving water are NOT greater than the inconvenience – then in a free market water saving devices will fail – as they should.
This is a difference between values and principles.
Free will is a principle. It is immutable. You can infringe on it by force but you can only take it away by the constant and certain application of force.
Efficient use of water is a value – it competes with many other values – like convenience.
And the free market price system is what allows US to rank our values.
How important is water conservation in comparison to convenience, or sanitation, or safety or fire ?
We resolve that through prices. Humans pay more for what is more valueable.
And each human does not share identical values. So some will pay even more for convenience.
In fact one of the reasons we strive to earn more is so that we can pay more for greater convenience. A higher standard of living is by definition MORE free time and greater value delivered.
If we conserve water more than we would naturally do at its market price – we make ourselves POORER, LESS well off, we are harmed by the regulations.
Adam Schiff has just dumped on the world the phone records of Gulliania, and Rep. Nunes.
He has used the power of his office in the house to attempt to do harm to political rivals.
There is no philosophical or legal difference between Schiff’s actions and those of Trump.
Trump and Schiff sought an investigations with political as well as other motives.
Trump used government power to seek that investigation.
Schiff used government power to actually investigate.
Nunes and Schiff are clearly bitter personal and political rivals. There is long record of ethics complaints each have filed against the other.
Innarguably Schiff is seeking to effect the outcome of 2020 elections.
If the mere fact of having a political motive is sufficient to remove Trump – then Schiff must go too.
But most of us grasp that is not enough.
Trump was seeking investigation of actual alleged misconduct.
Schiff is seeking investigation of actual alleged misconduct.
Schiff’s and Trump’s actions are legitimate if:
They have the actual authority to excercise the power of government as he is doing
Trump is the head of the executive – he is the top law enforcement officer in the country, he is the top prosecutor in the country. He clearly has the constitutional power to investigate.
Schiff is the head of the House Intell committee.
That has some oversite power regarding the executive branch, as well as some investigative power with respect to impeachment.
We can argue whether alone he has sufficient power to act, but lets presume that for the moment. That power is still LIMITED to government – specifically the executive branch.
Schiff has no power to investigate Gulliani, or Nunes.
When discussing investigating government – there are no questions of rights – the 4th amendment does not apply. Government is not a person, it has no rights.
It has powers and priviledges. And that is why house excercises of power – such as subpeona’s of the executive when disputed are arbitrated by the courts.
There are no rights involved.
Conversely Nunes and Gulliani are not part of the executive.
Gulliani can not be investigated by government without meeting the same standard – reasonable suspicion that Trump had to meet. And Gulliani can not be investigated by congress at all.
Nunes is a private person and/or a member of congress – not the executive.
This is likely to develop over time – but it is near certain that subpeonaing the records of a fellow congressmen is an egregious ethical violation.
Schiff had better hope that the GOP does not retake the house, because he could find himself the target of the next impeachment hearings run by Devon Nunes.
It is both a crime and an impeachable offense to violate the fourth amendment rights of a person.
And that is one other difference.
Trump asked for an investigation – the standard to investigate is reasonable suspicion – a very low bar.
Schiff issued a subpeona. The standard for a subpeona of a private person is probable cause. Schiff is not even close to that.
“but it is near certain that subpeonaing the records of a fellow congressmen is an egregious ethical violation.”
Snore. Get the facts right. Nunes phone records weren’t subpoenaed. The Dems targeted the calls of Giuliani and Parnas. Bungling dishonest Nunes calls showed up there. Why didn’t lying deceitful Nunes notify the impeachment committee he sub-chairs he was in contact with people who he knew were under investigation????????????
I am glad you know all of this for certain. But given that Schiff is reporting calls about people you claim he did not subpeona to people you claim he did not subpeona – you are wrong about atleast one.
Regardless, it does not matter.
The 4th amendment applies to ALL private parties – that is Parnas, Gulliani, Solomon, and many others. Gulliani is a lawyer. You have a serious attorney client priviledge problem. The 4th amendment arguably applies to Nunes – though oddly there is a court case where a subpeona of the phone records of a congressmen were quashed because of the speach and debate clause. The decision was that your can not investigate a congress person so long as they are presumptively acting as a congress person – i.e in congressional investigations and/or legislation. I think that is a serious overreach. But that is the state of the law. And when that does not apply – the 4th amendment does.
In the case of solomon – the 1dt amendment also applies.
In the case of the executive branch no rights are involved, but priviledges are.
Turley was unaware of this when he testified last week, but he covered it perfectly.
If you act as you are claiming Trump acted – you are committing abuse of power.
If you act as if there are only two branches of government and that you get to proceed unilaterally against the other – you are abusing power.
So far no one has found a precedent where this has happened before – ever.
When you are seeking to do something this unusual – you go through the courts.
The 4th amendment dictates that a search can not be conducted without a sworn warrant.
It is trivial for me to connect the dots here – this is not merely an abuse of power – it is a crime.
A warantless search is according to the US constitution a prohibited use of government power – it is abuse of power. Searches require Warrants. Warrants are not subpeonas. Subpeonas are much more limited ( and usually require court approval). Warrants REQUIRE court approval. Schiff is a lawyer – Schiff clerked for a federal judge and served as a Federal Prosecutor – he KNOWS that warrants are required for searches.
Abuse of government power under color of law is a federal crime – it is also an action that you can sue for – Section 1983.
Get your facts straight. The calls between Nunes and Guliani are from April and May.
There was no impeachment active at the time. In fact nothing being investigated was happening at that time.
Regardless – Schiff can not get records of either Nunes or Gulliani without a warrant – a subpeona is NOT a warrant. Warrants require the requestor to assert that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed AND that the requested search will provide evidence.
Nunes is a clearly a political rival. Schiff’s animosity to Nunes is incredibly well known.
Further Schiff knows better as HE filed unfounded ethics claims against Nunes for allegedly similar conduct.
Gulliani is covered by both the 4th amendment and attorney client privildege.
You can not go after records on ANY attorney without involving the courts – you should already know that from the Cohen case. Not only do you have Trump as a client of Gulliani, but you do not know who Gulliani’s other clients are.
Parnas is a US Citizen – thought SCOTUS has ruled that the 4th amendment applies to anyone being investigated by government.
Solomon is both a citizen and a journalist. Even Obama felt it necescary to get a warrant to search Rosen’s phone records.
As of this moment you STILL do not have probable cause of any crime – you have reasonable suspicion. That gets you an investigation. But without probable cause, you can not search and you can not spy one others.
So far THIS abuse of power is the only crime.
I am not sure what the fallout from this will be.
Personally I think Trump should direct Barr to appoint a Special Prosecutor – that is a start.
Unfortunately I suspect that will not happen.
Regardless, this is something that has never been done before. If there are no consequences, it is going to become the norm in the future.
Should Sen. Graham Subpeona Schiff’s or Pelosi’s phone records ? There are allegations that both had contact with the WB before the complaint was filed.
Or why can’t Barr subpeona Schiff’s phone records ?
Once again the proper standard is NOT politics – though that should drive us to heightened scrutiny. The standard is reasonable suspicion.
My speculation about Schiff’s contact and motives with the WB DOES NOT constitute evidence, not even reasonable suspicion. Just as your speculation about Trump’s motives in an otherwise legal act do not create reasonable suspicion.
Mostly democrats have accepted that – there is no crime in Trump’s actions and a proceeding on the basis that impeachment does not require a crime.
But absent a crime – there are severe limits to any investigation – including Congress.
You can not get a warrant without probable cause of a crime. Subpeona’s require public notice of who you are subpeoning and require that they have the oportunity to quash the subpeona in court.
If this has no consequences – then you are saying the constitution does not apply to congress.
Major timeline problem – these subpeona’s are for records from march april and may.
NO ONE was under investigation at that time. Further the Zelensky call had not occured – Zelensky was not yet elected.
Schiff went on an illegal fishing expedition.
Elon Musk Wins Defamation Suit.
“The victory by Tesla Inc’s outspoken chief executive over a Twitter message describing a British cave explorer as “pedo guy” has raised the bar for what amounts to libel online, according to some legal experts.”
“defendants in modern defamation cases are likely to point to the vitriolic no-holes-barred nature of modern social media, cable TV, and political discourse, in contending that many words and accusations formerly considered defamatory are now understood only as mere opinions, not factual assertions.” Reuters
I beleive in near absolute free speech – even vicsious raw free speech.
I do not beleive there should be defamation laws at all.
I beleive that if we understood there could be no legal consequence for vile hateful lies – we would be less likely to beleive them.
I experienced a version of this myself.
My father died – exactly as predicted by his doctors 18 months prior of complications due to vascular dimensia.
two of my siblings who refused to beleive the doctors claimed just before he died that his MPOA and POA(me) were killing him.
They made this claim to the courts. And the courts intervened – slightly hastening his death and making him miserable.
There was a criminal investigation an autopsy drug tests, and the claim was actually proven false – which is rare.
But the court was not aware of that, and many people who heard the false allegation were not aware of that.
Unfortunately you can not claim defamation based on police reports or court filings.
And claiming that you had been defamed by siblings is a losing battle.
But lots of people are influenced by outrageous claims.
The court never quite beleived the allegations.
But they never quite disbeleived them either.
After all who alleges murder when there is not some hint of something wrong ?
And when does a brother accuse another brother of murdering their father if it is not true ?
I think the Court decision was WRONG on the law.
While I think 190M in damages is egregious. This was defamation.
But I also think the law is wrong, so this outcome is correct.
But I would prefer to see is revoke defamation laws – because they are a bad idea, rather than play games like this.
Pence Coverup: VP hides the bacon Under faux security claim:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/473472-schiff-asks-pence-to-declassify-more-material-from-officials-testimony
The courts get to decide if a national security claim warrants quashing a subpeona – not Adam Schiff.
Take the issue to court.
I am proponent of a very limited scope for national secutity claims and records classifications.
Probably 10 times what ought to be is ultimately marked as classified.
But, Schiff is NOT asking to receive information that is unavailable to him.
Williams testified on whatever this is before – in the House Sciff. The members of the Intelligence committee have already heard it. Any member of congress with a security clearance can be provided with a copy. The house has some unilateral means of declassifying information.
This is purely a battle about making some bit of information public, that is all.
Again lets the courts sort it out.
Generally I do not think that National Security or classification is EVER a legitimate basis for the executive to refuse information to the legislative.
In this case that information was provided. Congress still has not received much of what the house Intel committee requested prior to 2019 – Rosenstein refused to turn it over – for national security reasons
I do not think there is ever a National Security basis for depriving the “Gang of eight” of classified information.
But that is not what we have here. ‘
We have a request by congress to make public something that was previously considered secret. By default the executive should prevail on that.
BTW I am not aware of any unilateral declassification authority of the VP.
Only the president may declassify at whim.
We have a separate game going on here – one which Trump and his lawyers strageized years ago.
They cooperated fully with Mueller. They are fighting everything with the House.
I expect that Trump will lose some of these in court – eventually, if this nonsense continues that long. That is what the courts are there for.
I think there is a snowballs chance in hell of losing this one – Schiff already has the information. This is all about making it public.
The other possibility is that Trump just makes it public – and you have the same mess you had with the Zelensky call.
Jay, I’m curious ~ do you believe that Congress has supremacy over the President?
FYI, it does not, nor does the President have supremacy. The Constitution outlines the powers of each branch, and the methods by which each can check the abuse of power by the other.
The House Democrats are trying to claim otherwise. They’re essntially saying that our system is a parliamentary one, and any demand by Congress for classified or personal information from the President should be obeyed immediately, and with no concern for these Constitutional checks.
Of course, when Obama was asked for documents pertaining to Fast and Furious, a stupid gun-running program concieved in the Bush administration, and expanded in the Obama adminstration, President Obama refused to provide them, citing executive privilege, and that ended the investigation. Just one of many examples of the extremely partisan behavior of this impeachment charade.
The issue is that the Democrats are trying to get this impeachment show on the road, so that they can campaign on it, so allowing the Executive branch any due process or executive privilege, which might slow down or expose their sham impeachment effort is out of the question. As their show goes on, they are losing support, and they seem desperate to wrap it up.
The President asking the courts to decide whether Congress demands are unconstitutional is absolutely appropriate. Why do you think that Democrats are hellbent on preventing that?
What specific documents are Dems asking for that you are referring to?
I do not care much about the details.
It is not obstruction of justice to fail to cooperate with the house.
It would be to refuse to provide what the final court decision requires.
I expect the President to ultimately LOSE on almost every demand of congress for information from the executive branch.
I expect Donald Trump to WIN on almost every attempt by congress to demand information that is from private parties NOT government.
Expect the process might be tedious.
These decisions should NOT be made lightly, at the whim of Schiff.
With respect to the core contention.
It is quite OBVIOUS that politicians act on political motives.
Every egregiously stupid thing that Democrats and Schiff does PROVES that and undermines the case for impeachment.
Schiff’s subpeona of phone records is not distiguishable from what Schiff CLAIMS the president did.
He sought to use the power of OUR government for political reasons against a political opponent.
It would be hard for him to have defended Trump better.
His efforts to thwart due process – exactly the same, arguably within his power,
but not any different from what he is accusing Trump of.
This impeachment is obviously political – and obviously legitimate (though the subpeona for phone calls was a crime).
Just like what Trump is accused of.
If you want the people to support impeachment – beyond those who were ready to impeach on Nov. 9, 2016, you need something to distinguish the two, from merely political jousting.
And you are losing, because Schiff’s conduct is more reprehensible and more criminal and more obviously politically motivated than Trump’s.
Good post.
Much of this is simple.
Congress and the president are almost ALWAYS sparring over their relative power.
The controlling authority is the constitution and the law.
The courts resolve that.
Congress has made some ludicrously broad claims of authority.
So has Trump.
Congress is likely to lose on some of their demands, Trump is likely to lose on some of his claims that he need not comply.
I am not likely to agree with how the court sorts it out.
Probably no one will.
But that IS how we resolve this.
It is NOT abuse of power by the president to claim more privildge than he actually has.
It is NOT abuse of power by congress to claim more oversight power than they actually have.
It is however a crime AND abuse of power to use the power of government to conduct a search and seizure of a private party without a warrant.
Schiff has done that.
The power to issue a subpeona is NOT the power to legitimately subpeona anyone for anything.
The courts have NOT in the past appropriately confined congresses subpeona power to oversight and legislation.
But I think Schiff is highly likely to have problems with the subpeona of phone records of private parties.
Schiffs biggest advantage is that DOJ is unlikely to want to open a criminal investigation of a house member for what is clearly a political act. Even though it is ALSO a crime – unlike Trump’s phone call.
There is actual reasonable suspicion of a crime involving VP Biden in the Ukraine. At the bare minimum there is a huge ethics violation. Biden’s demand to fire Shokin was NOT just bad optics. It was a violation of ethical standards and probably a violation of the law.
The same is NOT true of Trump’s request for an investigation to the Ukraine.
There is reason for heightened scrutiny, but there is not a clear ethics violation, an abuse of power or a crime. Every action that seems questionable IS NOT a crime.
Every action that seems questionable is not even automatically wrong.
Let me clear up your murky misunderstanding about the LEGAL right of authorities (including police) to collect the phone call records of any US citizen.
That means the record list of who-called-who – but not the CONTENT of the call. IT’S LONG ESTABLISHED LAW!
“In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the court said Americans did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information showing who they spoke to on the telephone because the phone company possessed that information. With no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, the court concluded police didn’t need a warrant to obtain it.”
And what is your objection to Americans knowing about that call information?
And you never answered this: why didn’t Nunes advise the committee he was in private conversation with a witness?
I thought you believed in open transparent government? Were you in favor of Trump trying to block public access to White House visitor records (it took a lawsuit settlement to get him to release them as part of a settlement with groups that had sued to obtain them)?
If Trump has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard to hide so much?why is he stopping witnesses to testify?
I thought you were smarter than you turned out to be.
Trump is detrimental to our nation’s future.
Time will show I’m right.
I hope your descendants don’t suffer from the results of his perfidy,
Smith was a 5-4 decision. Further though it has NOT been overruled, the more recent Cellphone location data case is the actual controlling case is Carpenter v. United States,
That was decided last year – all 4 liberal justices signed on to it.
Carpenter is NOT about content, it is about the meta-data – the same thing as the Sciff Subpeona’s.
Further Neither Smith nor Carpenter are about “subpeona’s”.
They are both instances where there were real crimes that were committed and being INVESTIGATED by law enforcement.
Even Ginsburg felt there was enough of an issue regarding the Trump bank subpeona’s to grant a temporary injunction. I suspect Trump may lose that. Though we will see.
Regardless, the most fundimental point is that this still had to go through the courts to get blessed.
“And what is your objection to Americans knowing about that call information?”
That is trivally – the plain language of the 4th amendment is that neither americans nor their government are entitled to know whatever they want to know about anyone else.
Where is it that you get the idea you are entitled to know who Gulliani called or Parnas called or Solomon called or I may call ?
Your wish to know things, is not a right. Nor is Schiff’s.
“And you never answered this: why didn’t Nunes advise the committee he was in private conversation with a witness?”
I fully addressed that – your claim is false. The calls were in March and April of last year.
There was no proceeding at the time.
Beyond that, Nunes is still looking into this.
He is denying ever talking to Parnas. He says there are numerous errors int he call records Schiff made public. He can not swear that Parnas or his wife or someone representing him never called his office – he has no control over who calls his office. But he did not speak to either Parnas or anyone representing them.
With respect to Gulliani, he does nto recall the specific calls – and none of us trust Schiff.
But Gulliani is a personal friend and has been for over a decade and they talk periodically.
Nunes talking to Gulliani in March, April or may would not be unusual.
Though Nunes says he has never talked to gulliani about Ukraine.
Even if he did – that is meaningless.
You still do not have a crime. Without a crime – you do not have a criminal investigation, you do not have witnesses – because we do not impose all those legal standards about dealing with witnesses on ordinary relations to people where no crime is alleged.
Talking to Gulliani about Ukraine is no more offensive than talking to him about Baseball.
This is one of the reasons I have completely rejected the argument that the fact that there is no QPQ matters.
If Gulliani had the conversation Schiff pantomined Trump had done – it would be perfectly legal.
Anyone can ask anyone else to investigated anybody.
It is NOT a crime to talk to Ukraine about investigating Joe Biden.
It is NOT a crime – even if Joe Biden is a political rival.
If it were a crime – then Clinton needs to be in jail many times over.
It is not a crime to seek dirt on political opponents.
There is only ONE case in which there is a crime.
That is when you have the legitimate government power and authority to force an investigation AND there is not reasonable suspicion to do so.
We have numerous democratic members of congress demanding that Ukraine NOT investigate 2016. No one has moved to impeach them. No one has subpeona their phone records.
“I thought you believed in open transparent government?”
GOVERNMENT. I beleive in damn near absolute OPACITY of private conduct absent probable cause that a crime has been committed.
Parnas, Gulliani, Solomon are NOT part of government.
I have not touched the possibility that Schiff subpeona’d the phone records of the Whitehouse or Treasury. To the extent there are any issues there – they are completely different. Though there is one part that is consistent – the 4th amendment requires the permission of the courts to conduct a search. BTW that is a HIGHER legal hurdle than asking for an investigation from a foreign country.
You can game this however you wish – but it is INARGUABLE that Schiff was politically motivated. It is INARGUABLE that he would benefit politically and that he was going after political rivals.
What is the difference ?
Schiff ACTUALLY used government power to conduct a SEARCH. The legal standard to conduct a search is PROBABLE Cause.
Schiff STILL does not have a clear allegaton of a crime.
Trump as president ASKED for an investigation. The legal Standard to start an investigation is REASONABLE SUSPICION
Trump has a clear crime he sought investigated.
If Trump’s action is wrong Schiffs is several times worse.
If as you claim Schiff’s is not – then neither is Trump’s and what are we doing here ?
There is no provision in the law or constitution that only democrats can use the power of govenrment to investigate political rivals.
“Were you in favor of Trump trying to block public access to White House visitor records (it took a lawsuit settlement to get him to release them as part of a settlement with groups that had sued to obtain them)?”
I do not know what Trump actually did – nor do I trust you to report that correctly.
As I rule I strongly favor transparency. I would radically expand the transparency of govenrment – both executive and legislative.
But that is not the world we live in.
“If Trump has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard to hide so much?why is he stopping witnesses to testify?”
Why did Obama do precisely the same thing – on steroids ? Why did Rosnestein do exactly the same thing ?
I can BOTH beleive that government should be more transparent AND grasp that it is NOT a crime for Trump to do what Obama did ten times over.
Get the matter infront of the courts.
Presuming that these document requests do not become moot, I expect that Trump AS PRESIDENT, will lose most of his fights with congress over witnesses – though I beleive it is likely that SCOTUS will not give Congress carte blanche – i.e. that administration witness must be told in advance what they will be questioned on. Must be allowed not to answer questions they were not given notice of and that administration lawyers must be available to them during their testimony.
Conversely Trump as an individual – should prevail against congress. Subpeona’s etc. for tax returns and bank records and …. must meet the requirements of the 4th amendment.
Probably cause must exist of a crime AND probable cause that the search will yield further evidence of that crime.
“I thought you were smarter than you turned out to be.”
More ad hominem.
Grow up. I am not interested in dick measuring contests with you.
“Trump is detrimental to our nation’s future.”
Because you say so ?
So far the key evidence says that he is better for the country than the prior two presidents.
A low standard, but one he has crushed.
And I did not hear this total outrage from you about them.
“Time will show I’m right.”
Time has been very unkind to you so far.
There was no Trump/Russia collusion.
The Steele Dossier was a fraud.
Trump and his campaign were “wiretapped”
Trump and his campaign were “spied on”.
Russian interference in the 2016 election was inconsequential and ineffectual.
Ukraine also interfered in the 2016 election AND democrats “colluded” with Ukraine to do so.
The impact was small – though it clearly cost Trump Manafort’s services.
Even on things I do not care about – you have been wrong.
So far there is no evidence of linkage or a QPQ or a crime.
Pretty much everyone has confirmed that “the call” was exactly as the transcript reads.
As time passes – more and more damaging information about Biden comes out.
And lots of americans can not understand why a congressman can have the phone records of anyone he pleases, But the president can not ask for an investigation into a number of very dubious acts in Ukraine in 2016.
So according to you there is something “suspicious” about Parnas communicating with Nunes. Aparently there is a single short call. Parnas’s wife Called Nunes not the other way arround. Nunes claims she was refered to staff and nothing ever happened.
No one actually spoke to Parnas.
HOWEVER, Adam Schiff has had numerous communications with Parnas.
And Schiff has a long history of meeting with witnesses way outside Washington.
Further Parnas is aparently the source of the false story that Nunes met Shokin in Vienna.
I do not care if Nunes met with Shokin. I do not care if Nunes talked to Parnas.
I do not care if Nunes tried to get an ambassador fired, I do not care if Nunes was digging into Ukraine with Rudy Gulliani.
But while none of those would be a crime or even immoral if true.
None of them is true.
What we appear to have is another version of the Steele Dossier – lots and lots of political dirt being leaked for political purposes – that is FALSE.
And by engaging in this crap over phone records, Adam Schiff is making it look like he is a part of a conspiracy that has a strong resemblance to the Steele Dossier.
You said before that “Time will tell”.
Time is telling a story. Mostly it seems to be telling a story of lots of democrats making up phony claims and abusing the power of government to spread them.
Though Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the house likely is beyond what he is permitted – and the courts will resolve that.
It is actually tame in comparison to that of Obama – or even DOJ under Rosenstein when subpeoned by The GOP house.
Trump is not even close to as non-cooperative as they were.
I personally beleive that the limits on congressional oversight of the executive are SMALL.
i.e. Congress has BROAD powers to demand information from the executive.
I beleive that executive priviledge ONLY applies to communications directly with the president. And does not cover criminal conspiracies – though you must produce probable cause to breach executive priviledge.
I do not beleive there is a valid national security priviledge.
The executive can restrict classified information to members of congress with a need to know and a clearance – but that is it.
I also beleive that congress has its own inherent declassification authority.
That it can make public classified documents.
I think they need to do so orderly and carefully.
I think they should consult the appropriate executive authorities before doing so.
And I beleive that if they do so willy nilly without due process and without deliberately – i.e. VOTING to make something public – that just like anyone else who “leaks” they commit a crime and should be prosecuted.
But if after following a reasonable process either house of congress decides that some classified information should be public, they are free to do so.
If that proves disasterous – the political costs will be paid by congress.
I beleive that congress can demand information that might interfere with an “ongoing investigation”. Again they should do so carefully, but I do not think anyone has the power to tell them NO. Just because their inquiries might “obstruct” an ongoing investigation.
HOWEVER, the consequences of the house or senate prying into an ongoing investigation are likely to result in guilty people being unable to be prosecuted – that happened in the Iran-Contra investigations.
I would further note that Congress CAN access Grand Jury information.
The constitution does NOT bar it.
The current bar is the rules of federal procedure. These are the rules that the Judiciary devises and CONGRESS makes LAW.
Congress is not barred by the constitution, from GJ material. They are barred by a law that THEY passed. They have the power to undo that.
It is entirely possible that if they do, the courts STILL might find against them.
That is a different question – there are legitimate ARGUABLY constitutional reasons for GJ secrecy. But the law passed by congress comes first.
BTW just because congress MAY do something does not mean it SHOULD,
While I favor broad congressional powers.
I actually DO want significant procedural barriers to using them – not absolute bars,
Just requirements to jump through enough hoops that there is time for congress and people to think – is this a really good idea ?
The use of power – by the president comes with responsibility.
Just because you legally CAN do something does not mean that you SHOULD.
Trump should not have fired Comey – Sessions should have.
Comey clearly needed fired.
I think Trump could have handled this Ukraine thing better.
I do not think he SHOULD link aid to invrstigations – but I do think he can, and that means I do not car alot if he did.
Indepedently I think there absolutely MUST be an investigation of the mess in 2016 in Ukraine involving americans. Most of that investigation is NOT likely to produce criminal charges. But the inability to PROVE that a crime occurred is NOT an insurmountable bar to investigation.
Much of dealing with Ukraine SHOULD have been done by the media.
When we have a situation where our media is siloed and those on the left will not touch ANY malfeasance on the port of those on the left, and will take the most trivial questions over conduct and amplify them to impeachable offenses when done by the right – our press has FAILED. And it is a major portion of the partisan divide.
Absolutely media like FOX does the same – though not even CLOSE to the same degree.
Trump/Russia collusion was a fraud that was knowable from the start. It NEVER passed the laugh test. The left claims to be the smart people – and yet they have the ones buying and selling OBVIOUS nonsense. Russia does not have the power to change the minds of myriads of americans, and the Trump campaign could not have “colluded’ with Russia without covert skills beyond those of the CIA and near infinite money.
So what political candidate spends massive resources to prtedictably fail at something they will be in trouble if caught, they are near certain to get caught and they can just go out and buy ?
Anyway people who buy an obvious tin foil hat conspiracy theory should not be making accusations about the intelligence of others.
Of Course impeachment is political.
It is ALWAYS political.
Our founders were not precluding political impeachment.
They could have done so trivially.
They could have required that articles of impeachment have the legal appoval of SCOTUS.
i.e. SCOTUS get to say “article I is NOT a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
They provided no oversite. They left the process entirely to the congress. Vesting separate powers in the house and senate.
What Schiff and pelosi are doing is WRONG, it is immoral, and unethical. And I expect it will have very bad consequences – because if it does not it will become the future NORM.
But it is also constitutional.
There are two checks on the house.
The senate an the people.
I think Democrats should review Prof. Turley’s testimony until it sinks in.
If they succeed the normalization of this will be with us for a long time.
There is some law and constitution going on.
But lots of politics.
And each side is using the law and constitution for political purposes.
I think Trump would ultimately lose most of his legal conflicts with the house.
But it will take months to do so.
Trump’s political goal is for the democrats to look stupid.
Pushing forward too fast is one way of doing that.
Democrats have multiple competing goals.
They have a very serious problem with their own base.
They have amped everyone up on outrage steroids for years.
If they can not keep up the outrage through the election the backlash is likely to be a tsunami.
The extreme left – which now owns the Democrats wants impeachment.
Just as they have from the day Trump was elected.
Any reason will do. They do not need a reason.
Like Jay here – Trump evil. Impeach now, figure out why later, or not at all.
If house democrats do not impeach – far left voters might well stay home.
But the far left is not the country – even though they own democrats and it seems that way if you watch the media
At the same time as democrats are rallying their base they are energizing Trumps base AND losing the middle.
Republicans have always had a similar problem with abortion.
They MUST talk about abortion – because there is a cohort of voters that will not vote at all, if they do not think progress can be made in banning abortion.
But if republicans talk to loud or worse do something that goes beyond what the middle will support – they energize the left and alienate the middle.
That is what democrats are doing with impeachment.
The question is NOT whether it is constitutional – it is.
Nor whether it is political – of course it is.
But whether it is a good idea – it very likely is not.
Another Trump diplomacy failure:
“ North Korea carries out ‘very important’ test at once-dismantled launch site: KCNA
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea has carried out a “very important” test at its Sohae satellite launch site, state media KCNA reported on Sunday, a rocket testing ground that U.S. officials once said Pyongyang had promised to close.
—————-
(Reuters): North Korea says denuclearization off the table in US talks
Country’s ambassador to the UN said dialogue sought by US was a ‘time-saving trick’ to suit domestic political agenda.
“North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations said on Saturday denuclearization is already off the negotiating table with the US and lengthy talks with Washington are not needed.”
——————
But Trump has toilet flush diplomacy under control!
So ?
No one thinks NK is going to be easy to deal with.
Trump might even fail.
If he did nothing – like Obama and Bush – he will fail.
Absent any effort NK is some unknown but short period from having sophisticated nuclear capabilities that threaten not just its neighbors, but the world.
Trump, Obama, Clinton. Absent action, that is happening
Maybe it will happen anyway.
Trump is attempting to thwart that – I support that attempt.
I wish that GWB or Obama had done so earlier.
Trump may fail.
I hope not.
But we will be no worse off than with the inaction of the past two presidents.
Nancy Pelosi was asked by a Reporter why she hates Donald Trump.
The question was fair – reporters have been asking gotcha questions for decades.
Pelosi went off on the reporter.
Though she was not as articulate as the press credits here MOSTLY she responded reasonably.
Except for one thing.
Pelosi has mocked Trump’s manhood,
She has called him an imposter,
Pelosi has been insulting and mocking Trump for a long time.
She is free to do so. But lets not pretend that is no animosity there.
But the more remarkable thing about Pelosi’s respons is how lacking in self awareness it is.
The left accuses others of hatred all the time – but it is not acceptable for anyone to challenge them for the same tactics ?
Pelosi ‘went off’ on an asshole right wing reporter with a history of inane pestering. This was a contextually inappropriate question. If you believe otherwise you’d have no problem with a Rolling Stone reporter asking Trump at a a public meeting how long (maybe how short a better descriptive) he had his dick inside Stormy’s vagina.
That would be the same reporter who worked for CBS, NBC, and Dan Rather and the Obama administration spied on ?
It was a perfectly approriate question. Left wing nut reporters ask the same question all the time.
It is a typical reporters “gotcha” question. But there is nothing wrong with it.
Pelosi’s response was quite good – except that it was an obvious lie.
Regardless, she pointed out that disagreement is not hate.
Something you do not grasp,
Every day 10 reporters as Trump questions identical to Rosen’s.
And atleast once a week they ask Trump questions similar to your hypothetical.
Kamala Harris has bowed out of the Democratic Presidential race.
She – as well as others have attributed her failure to racism and sexism.
And numerous figures on the left have joined in.
Whose Racism and sexism would that be ?
Did Trump cause Harris to fail ?
Wasn’t it Tulsi Gabbard who delivered the fatal takedown – and isn’t she a minority female muslim democrat ?
Is the democratic party drowning in racism ? Mysogyny ?
This week 4 liberal democratic law professors testified before the Judiciary committee regarding impeachment.
Three of those were unbeleivably embarrasing. As one editorial noted – they were so bitterly partisan, nuts and clueless that they ultimately were witnesses FOR Trump.
The 4th, Johnathon Turley is a democrat, did not vote for Trump and is bothered by many of Trump’s actions. But he compellingly noted that Democrats do not have the record to support impeachment, and should not proceed unless they can get it. And the claims that Trump is abusing power by resisting their subpeona’s is itself abuse of power.
The courts not the house get to decide whether a subpeona has merit.
Even losing a fight over a subpeona is NOT abuse of power.
I was just reading an article about the constant death threats that Jonathan Turley is now getting, because he testified that there is no evidence on which to impeach. George Mason University has been inundated with demands to fire him.
Turley actually said that there MAY be evidence, but that the Democrats have moved so rapidly to impeach, that they have failed to do any real investigation. He was a devastating witness largely because he was so measured and non-partisan in his testimony.
If Nancy Pelosi were any kind of true leader, and not just a weak-kneed partisan, who has buckled under pressure from her left-wing base, she would put a stop to this clown show right now, and warn the left that phony accusations of treason and threats of violence would not be tolerated under her “leadership.”
But she is corrupt and weak, and her party is unserious and vindictive. It’s important to them that Turley serve as an example of what will happen to anyone who testifies against impeachment.
The Democrats are trying to overturn a presidential election, less than a year before the next one, simple as that.
The whole thing is a farce, and I hope that they will pay the price for it.
Priscilla – on Jonathan Turley:
Death threats against witnesses who testify at the impeachment hearings are unconscionable. But you conveniently have forgotten the far more numerous death threats made against the witnesses who testified Trump’s Ukraine call was improper; or condemned Trump’s forceful character assassinations of those people which undoubtedly added to the death-threat fever he has generated from his followers beginning with his obtuse personal name calling in 2016.
As to Turley- his testimony was a full flip-flop from his previous legal testimony and musings on impeachment. Here’s a link that lays out his reversal of crucial points of view:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473227-the-shifting-impeachment-positions-of-jonathan-turley
Death threats are unconscionable.
But I would venture that Turley has gotten more “death threats” than the entire rest of the deep state brigade combined.
Jay – join reality. No one is breaking down the doors of those opposing Trump. No one is breaking their ribbs, shooting them on ball diamonds. Beating them up if they wear MAGA hats.
Today and throughout US history there are few significant examples of right wing political violence.
Compare and contrast the american revolution with the French.
There were about 5,000 deaths in the entire american revolution.
There were about 1,000.000 in the french revolution.
“Dont Tread on me” is the defining characteristic of political violence outside the left.
Leave Trump supporters, republicans – even the militias alone and they will not harm you.
But come after them and they are lethal.
The left goes after people. They will kill you or fire you if you do not share their POV.
Absolutely Trump finds and attacks the character of his political enemies – he is extremely good at spotting their weaknesses and exploting them.
But it is entirely a battle of words. There are no actual calls to violence.
Half of Hollywood as publicly fantasized about the assassination of Trump.
And none of us doubt that after they take off Trump’s head they will move on to anyone who thinks like him, and then to anyone who does not think he is the most evil person that ever lived.
Trump is really good at “character assassination” – though his skill rests on identifying ACTUAL character flaws and then exagerating them.
Only the left is talking about ACTUAL assassination.
Regarding your hit peice on Turley.
I do not have exactly the same views as I had in 1998. Is change as you learn impermissable?
As a practical matter there is no actual conflict between Turley’s testimony in 1998 and that today. Clinton perjured himself TWICE, he solicited and got others to perjure themselves – witness tampering. He sought the destuction of evidence.
There is and was absolutely zero doubt that Clinton committed actual serious crimes.
The only question – one that remains today, is whether the commission of a crime outside the duties of the president and the official acts of a president warrants impeachment.
Turley has even in recent columns said that Clinton should have been removed, that his criminal acts are so fundimentally repugnant to the rule of law that even though they are not presidential acts they are just too lawless, and too fundimentally wrong.
Oddly I am more ambivalent. I think the outcome of the Clinton impeachment is appropriate.
Though I think that Clinton should have suffered more serious consequences for perjury and suborning perjury after leaving office.
Regardless, Turley’s remarks then were perfectly correct.
If you allow presidents to commit perjury – a REAL CRIME, A FELLONY, Certainly a HIGH CRIME, what crime is it they can not commit ?
Turley’s argument regarding Trump only appears opposite to shallow thinking.
There is no actual crime in Trump’s conduct. This impeachment is over policy.
The entire parade of witnesses made it absolutely clear that Trump’s foreign policy and national security priorities were at odds with theirs (though nearly all found Obama even worse). But not a one testified to a crime. And just to be clear – “bribing” a foreign country to investigate a political rival is only a crime – if there is no foundation for that investigation.
If you presume that the bright line is “political opponent” and not “reasonable suspicion of a crime” – then you have the logical problem that the entire faux impeachment is the exact same abuse of power. Trump is clearly the political rival of the house democrats. There is zero doubt the impeachment is political. There is zero doubt that Pelosi and Schiff are politically motivated.
Criticising a lawyer because they provided a client with the best possible defense is
repugnant.
My wife defends murders, rapists, peodophiles – and I am incredibly proud of her for doing so.
She does not defend murder, rape, peodophilia.
Porteous was entitled to the best defense he could get.
Had he been asked I expect that Turley would have taken the job of defending Clinton.
I am a big fan of Gerry Spence – he defended Randy Weaver,
But he turned down Terry Nichols, and regrets that.
A lawyer should not be judged by the guilt or innocence of their clients, or their clients character, nor even by whether they win or lose, but by the quality of their representation.
The objective of a defense attorney is to compel the prosecution to make their case, to assure that the defendant has the benefit of ALL due process and ALL reasonable doubt.
“The Democrats are trying to overturn a presidential election, less than a year before the next one, simple as that.”
I agree. They should drag it out until after the election. Prolong it so the faces and names of Republican witnesses who refused to obey subpoenas to testify are plastered daily in swing state media.
We’re in accord! Let his last year light up the skies with even more Trump-dumb fireworks!
I am not going to tell democrats what they should or should not do.
But I am going to criticise your alternate future predictions.
Should house subpeonas complete their legal review, and be upheld and still in some alternate universe go unheaded – absolutely those failing to respond should be excoriated and prosecuted – unlike Lois Lehrner or Eric Holder.
But that is not going to happen. Trump has lost some court cases. Or he has lost at lower court levels. More so than prior administrations, Trump has obeyed the directives of the courts – even if they were wrong.
If the final directive of the highest court to review something require the administration to produce witnesses and documents – that will occur – and if it does not – that is actual grounds for impeachment. It is grounds – even if SCOTUS’s decision is horribly flawed.
Short and fast or slow and thorough – it will not change anything.
One of the gigantic flaws to this impeachment is that it is self refuting.
Democrats are politically investigating a political opponent for seeking a criminal investigation of a political opponent.
There is litterally absolutely no favorable difference between the impeachment itself and the actions Trump is alleged to have done.
Short or long – that comparision will ALWAYS be present.
You can not make it go away.
By YOUR standards – if Trump’s actions were improper – so are those of the house.
but worse – the longer this goes on, the more examples of democrats behaving like they accuse Trump we will see.
So by all means – drag this out all the way to the election.
You have made the case that the state department needs cleaned out.
Lets bring in people from CIA, NSA, DOD, …. lets present ever more evidence that the “deep state” is thwarting the elected president from implimenting the will of the people.
Do you have any doubt that we can find hundreds of witnesses to say that Trump is not following their recommendations THEIR policies, and is therefore dangerous ?
Yes, the way to win elections is to parade an army of witnesses telling the american people that even if they elect a president to do their will – they the elite get the final word.
Keep this up all the way to election day.
I am not sure what happened in 2018.
But I am sure of one thing.
Republicans retained control of the Senate BECAUSE of the insanity of the left in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Everything about that hearing was telling.
Everyone – the witnesses was trying to make an originalist argument.
Listening to Nadler and 3 left wing law professors nonsensically claiming to know what the founders thought was amazing.
Turley was incredible. But Turley was NOT the star of the show. The other professors were.
They wore their political biases on their sleeve. It was absolutely apparant that everyone of them would have impeached Trump on day one. That they did not care what the basis for removing him was – it would be acceptable to them.
THEY made the argument that this was entirely political. Kalman’s stupid joke about Baron Trump was the entire show in a nutshell – as was her subsequent apology.
There can be no doubt at all that the joke was planned – she likely spent weeks before hand working on it, trying it out with friends etc. And then when she delivered it, it went over like a “lead balloon” – Why ? Because Yale, Harvard, Standford Law are NOT the country.
Turley was great, but he was not actually important. The failure of the democrats own witnesses was more important.
The significance of Turley speaks more of the future. Democrats are going so far left, they are driving out their own best and brightest. Turley is a democrat. I follow his blog regularly. He is NOT a Trump supporter. He is not voting for Trump in 2020 – guaranteed.
But he is smart. He is a highly reputable constitutional scholar. The 4 people at the table were probably the 4 most influential constitutional scholars of the left in the coming decades.
It is near certain that Turley is NOT going to be on the left all that much longer.
Like Derschowitz and anyone else on the left who says “Wait this is insane”,
Slow down. Lets get the facts straight, follow the law, think about the 2nd order effects of what we are doing. Turley is being “deplatformed” – as Jay is saying “shunned”.
If you devide the country in half
AND THEN
drive out of your half your own best and brightest – you have no future.
I can name a dozen constitutional scholars who could have made better arguments than Turley. But I can not name one who had more to lose, who was speaking truth to power, speaking ansanity to the insane.
If the left “shuns” Turley – What they will have is a homogenous clown car of the other 3.
Are those the people you want deciding the future ?
Kalman was on Hilary’s short list for the federal judiciary, and then for the Supreme court.
She was supposed to be the left’s next RBG.
Look at those other 3 professors. THIS was the best the left has to offer ?
THIS was the cream of our law schools today ?
Turley was amazing – but the 3 democratic witnesses were the stars of the show.
Because they were the BEST the left had to offer.
I keep hearing from those like Jay that the left is the home of the intellectual, that only stupid people are not on the left.
Well after you have threatened him and taken his job – do you Think Turley is going to be on the left any more ? And how exactly is it you plan on laying legal foundations with the likes of the other 3 democratic witnesses ?
You wonder why lower court decisions go against Republicans quite often – because there are too many people like these professors in the federal courts.
You wonder Why manafort and Stone were convicted ? Why so many Trump actions are reversed by lower courts and then again by the supreme court.
Because intellects like these are the leading lights of the left and them or their inferiors or their alcolytes or those educated by them populate the lower courts.
It was self evident that these 3 leading lights of the law from the left would mow down the entire constitution to get the outcome on each issue that they wanted.
It was self evident that these professors were the powers that be from Animal Farm and 1984 and myriads of left wing dystopias.
That their intellectual predecessors are the people who gave us Stalin and the USSR.
https://spectator.org/vote-for-me-you-lying-racist/
The lying asshole is at it again:
https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1204122816666329089
Here’s what the Justice Department inspector general’s report says:
“After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any [informant] or [undercover agent] within the Trump campaign…”
Trump morons don’t get it:
They’re being BRAIN-FUCKED by a despicable dishonest con artist. And are HAPPY as hogs in shit to wallow in his embrace.
I have no idea what the IG has found yet – and I doubt either you or cambell do either.
Nor in this instance is it relevant. We already know that the Trump campaign was spied on.
What we do not yet know – and Horowitz had no ability to determine is whether that spying was by the FBI, CIA, or in coordination with foreign intelligence services.
Horowitz is limited in his inquiry to current government sources within the FBI.
This is why Durham was appointed. It is also why Barr and Durham have made statements indicating that the scope of the IG inquiry was necescarily limited.
Halper was not employed by the FBI. Though the FBI coordinated with him.
One of the reasons for Durham is that Horrowitz does not have the ability to investigate outside of current FBI employees and outside the FBI.
Is anyone dumb enough to believe Trump actually red the IG report?
He’s on the phone now, getting his cues from Hannity & Carlson.
Have you read the full IG report yet ?
If not then why are you insulting others for purportedly not having done so ?
The IG report exonerates Comey.
He was scheduled to appear on Fox tomorrow, before the report was released.
“ FYI: I offered to go on Fox & Friends to answer all questions. I can’t change their viewers on Donald Trump but hoped to give them some actual facts about the FBI. They booked me for tomorrow at 8 am. They just cancelled. Must have read the report.”
James Comey.
The IG report is quite damning – and of Comey.
As I understand it – Horrowitz was unwilling to draw conclusions about motives.
I have ZERO problems with that. I do not care what Strzok’s motives are what McCabes are, what Comey’s are What Trump’s are.
Crimes are ACTS.
Horowitz identifies numerous instances where the FBI failed to follow:
The law,
DOJ guidlines,
the constutuion.
THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER! That is what you still have not come up with regarding Trump.
You seem to think that Trump is vile because he acts within his legitimate power in ways you prefer he did not, and decide those are wrong because of your guess regarding his motives.
If Trump’s actions are constitutional and legal – his motives are irrelevant.
Comey’s actions violated the law, due process, the constitution, DOJ requirements, ….
Therefore they were a criminal abuse of power.
Speculation as to WHY is irrelevant.
If this is your idea of “exoneration” – then Trump is a saint.
Trump appointed FBI Director on ABC:
“We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election,” Wray said, adding that “as far as the [2020] election itself goes, we think Russia represents the most significant threat.”
Trump didn’t like hearing that. The Putin Puppet can’t allow the Russian party line to be questioned, casts ‘deep state’ charges in response.
GOP- Government Of Putin.
Aparently neither you nor Wray are capable of reading the Ukrainain own US embasy web site – or the conclusions of Ukrainian courts.
I am surprised that Wary would say something so stupid.
We are not talking about differences of oppinion. We are not talking about trying to bend what Trump said in his phone call into more than it was.
We are talking about being completely blind to the evidence directly in front of your face.
If Wray is unable to see what is in plain site – not hiding, then it is beyond his abilty to clean up the FBI.
It is very tiresome having to deal with nonsensical claims that the sun does not exist.
We can debate the scale and impact of Ukraine or Russian interferance – both were inconsequential.
But the Ukrainian ambassador to the US publishing an op-ed extremely critical of Candidate Trump in the midst of an election is foreign interferance.
Personally I have no problem with foreign countries expressing their views of US political candidates. I have no problem with foriegn contries making facebook posts.
I have no problem with foreign TV personalities insulting US political candidates. I have no problem with foreign journalists doing the same.
But those of you on the left do.
“I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
For years Donald Trump has falsely spread dishonest self-serving propaganda that the FBI and the deep state was involved in an illegal conspiracy … Now, after A through investigation, the inspector general said, ‘Not true. Didn’t happen.'”
BUT Trump Cult worshipers will continue to shriek those lies anyway. They live in an alternate Trumpian universe created by a Russian propaganda operation using disinformation to divisively undermine and destroy our nation – Trump their Manchurian Candidate provocateur.
Wow, you get one norrowly constrained soundbite in hundreds of pages of relentless misconduct and your off to the races, and nothing else matters.
The Trump campaign was spied on. That is a fact. We are way past that.
Halper was paid by the US government and what he was doing with Papadoulis is called spying. Was he working for CIA ? FBI ? DoD ?
Does it matter ?
I beleive DoD was paying him, but the available evidence is that Brennan was running him.
Regardless CIA and DoD were not part of Horrowitz’s brief.
Horrowitz did not investigate the Deep State – he investigated the FBI, Specifically he investigated the FISA warrant effort, and his results were damning.
He did not exonerate anyone. When you violate someones rights using the power of govenrment – that is abuse of power. It is of little importance WHY you did something criminal.
He most certainly did not exonerate Comey – he did a separate report on Comey that was released this past summer where he refered Comey to DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying.
AG Barr – you know the guy you think is hyper partisan chose not to prosecute Comey over the very Crime that Mueller drubbed Stone, Cohen, Manafort, Papadoulis and Flynn over.
There is no “russian propganda” operation here. Are you saying Horrowitz is a russian agent now ? Are you claiming the Ukraine Ambassador to the US is a Russian Asset ?
Or that the Russians hacked the embassy web site ? Or that editorials that were published in US news did not actually happen – that the Russians hacked reality ?
We have a serious problem – we can not agree on facts, not complex facts, but very basic ones that are plane as your nose.
While I think there is far more evidence – circumstantial evidence or evidence that needs to be further examined. There is plenty of actual factual evidence to support much of what I have asserted – even alot of what Trump has asserted.
Lets try some SIMPLE questions:
Did the Ukrainian ambassador to the US post and editorial on the Ukraine Embassy web site and in a major US news publication during the 2016 election criticising Donald Trump ?
True or False ?
If you say false – you are flying in the face of reality and lots of evidence.
If you say true – the only question remaining is the scale of Ukrainian interference – not the fact.
Did Stephen Halper who is paid by DoD and has worked as a spy for the CIA previously travel to the UK and meet with George Papadoulis during the 2016 election ?
yes, or no ?
True or false ?
I can come up with myriads more of these. But these two are relatively simple and well documented. There is still alot of questions about Mifsud, there are a number of identified FBI informants who were snooping arround the Trump campaign. But it is possible that at that particular moment they were not working for the FBI – unlikely but not impossible.
You complain about a mythical Trump cult. Cults are people who beleive what is not demonstrably true.
They are the people who can see russia in everything – when there is no evidence, and can not see editorials by foreign ambassadors in the news.
“The damage being inflicted by @realDonaldTrump on our national conscience & our government is tragic. Members of Congress & staffers who defend & misrepresent his indefensible actions are telling Americans it’s ok to be dishonest, unethical, & corrupt.
How far we have fallen.“
That’s John Owen Brennan, former American intelligence official who served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, from March 2013 to January 2017.
But brain dead Trumpers, who have fallen to the dim dumb distortions continue to ignore the WAVE of warnings from distinguished Americans like him, to the nation’s peril.
At a moment when Wapo is releasing the modern equivalent of the “pentagon papers” informing us all that the CIA, and DOD and govenrment have been KNOWINGLY LYING to us for 2 decades (and $3T) you think quoting a former CIA director is compelling ?
“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”
~ Harry S. Truman
(1884-1972), 33rd US President
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
~ William Colby
(1920-1996) former Director of the CIA
“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched. ”
~ George Herbert Walker Bush
(1924- ) 41st US President, CIA Director, CFR Director, Trilateralist, Yale Skull & Bones Society
Lisa Page should now sue Trump for character defamation –
Jay, you are living in an alternate reality.
Even McCabe has dropped his wrongful termination lawsuit against the government.
No one – not Horowitz, not anyone sane, is saying these people behaved properly.
As I have said myriads of times before – I do not give a crap about your or Horowitz’s or Trump’s or anyone else’s GUESSES about people’s motives.
I care about their acts. It is a crime for a person within the federal government to violate a persons rights.
Speculation as to WHY is only of accademic interest.
Trump is meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow in Washington, that’s the same guy (along with the Russian Ambassador) he met with in the Oval Office in 2017, sharing highly classified information with them.
Want to bet at tomorrow’s meeting Trump and Lavrov share one-on-one private time together, with no notes taken? Wonder what instructions will be passed to Donnie from Vlad?
I would expect given the number of deep staters in the white house who leak like a seive that Trump might well meet entirely privately.
What is your concern ? That Trump might reinstate all the Obama energy programs that F’d over europe to the advantage of the USSR ?
That Trump might end Fracking – to make Putin happy ? That Trump might send blankets instead of Javelin Missles to Ukraine so that Russia could invade.
Who was president when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Who brokered the deal giving Russian oligarchs control of 1/5 of US Uranium ?
Who got hundreds of millions from Russian Oligarhs ?
Whose Son made millions at a no show job working for Russian Oligarchs in Ukraine ?
In 2012 Russian GDP was 2.3T, in 2019 it is 1.6T – which president has made life most difficult for Russia ?
Reality Jay. Try looking at it.
Bottom line: The iG report confirmed there was no liberal FBI conspiracy to get Trump-Putin. BTW, did you red the part of the report showing anti-Clinton pro-Trump FBI agents gloating over his election win?
But yes, the FISA process has serious structural problems. That’s something civil libertarians have been warning about for YEARS, but THE GOP and conservatives never cared about before.
Trump is democracy cancer.
The kind that is contagious.
Make out your will – you’ll suffer with the rest of us when he declares martial law.
You seem to think that if the Horrowitz report did not say something – often things that were outside of its scope, that it therefore proved those were not true.
Horrowitz was not looking for a conspiracy. He was looking for misconduct and he found PLENTY.
The FISA report section is DAMNING.
He found 17 specific errors in the FISA warrant applicaiton – many of which were extremely serious.
He found as most of us have been saying forever – that the Steele Dossier was the keystone to the FISA warrant application – that there was no other consequential evidence.
He found that the FBI failed to provide several bits of exculpatory evidence regarding page to the FISA court.
That is a VERY SERIOUS problem – the FISA court operates entirely EX PARTE.
There is none of the adversarial checks on prosecutorial over reach therefore as with ALL EXPARTE processes because there is no “defendant” or “defendants lawyer” the moving party – the state is legally OBLIGATED to provide ALL evidence – especially evidence that undermines its claims.
Horrowitz found that the FBI mischaracterized – i.e. LIED about Steele’s credibility.
Horrowitz found that the FBI had tried but was never able to corroborate any of the Steele Dossier claims.
Horrowitz found that not only did the FBI fail to corroborate, but they found significant problems with Steeles sources.
Horrowitz found that the FBI put significant effort into verifying the Steele Dossier and that even though with each subsequent warrant aplication they were even more aware how deeply flawed it was they never reveled to the FISA court the fact that its Credibility was substantially diminished over time.
ie. Horrowitz found the FBI defrauded the court.
Horrowitz also found that the Steele Dossier was used to produce that infamous ICA assessment you harp on constantly – though Horrotiz did NOT investigate the ICA assessment so the information that the Steele Dossier not only was all their was to the FISA Warrant application but all there was underpinning the ICA assessment comes from other sources.
Horrowitz found there WAS a conspiracy.
Apparently you can not read. Horrowitz found that the cabal involved in Crossfire Huricane did NOT properly inform their superiors in DOJ
That is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
When you are keeping secrets from those you are obligated to inform – especially superiors, you are engaged in a conspiracy.
To the extent Horrowitz “exonerates” anyone – it is Yates and Rosenstein who he says are not culpable regarding their involvement in the FISA warrant because they were lied to by those in the FBI.
He POINTEDLY does NOT exhonerate Comey.
But I will go further than Horrowitz, If you sign of on the work of subordinate – you are CULPABLE. If they have lied to you – it was your job as their boss to know that.
I thought you said Horrowitz found no “spying” ?
“We found it concerning that department and FBI policy did not require the FBI to consult with any department official in advance of conducting CHS [Confidential Human Source] operations involving advisors to a major party candidate’s presidential campaign, and we found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any department officials before conducting these CHS operations,” the report stated, noting that in the future, “department consultation is required when tasking a CHS to interact with officials in national political campaigns.”
CHS == SPYING!
Horrowitz found that FBI did not conduct a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign AS REQUIRED BY LAW since the Church commission investigations of the FBI and CIA in the 60’s.
Horrowitz found NOT ONLY that the Trump campaign was spied on, but that the FBI had from its spies information that was exculpatory that it was obligated to provide the FISA court and failed to do so.
In fact Horrowitz found that the exculpatory information that the FBI had BEFORE seeking the FISA Warrants in 2016 was not made available to higher ups in the DOJ before late 2017
After Trump was president for almost a year.
I thought you said there was no “deep state” and no conspiracy and no spying ?
I should have known better than to trust you
I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”
Or more simply – Horrowitz’s scope was limited to the FBI. This was bigger than the FBI.
Halper and Turk are not mentioned in the report – probably because the evidence is they were paid by the DoD and it is unlikely that Horrowitz was able to talk to them.
Horrowitz also concluded there was no evidence Mifsud was paid by the FBI.
The circumstantial evidence ties Mifsud more to the FBI than other US agencies.
Regardless, Mifsud was with certainty someone’s agent.
And if he was a russian agent – then western intelligence was compromised at very high levels across numerous agencies.
You beleive what you want. I would prefer to beleive that British and american intelligence were not compromised by Mifsud, which means he is a western agent.
“Bottom line: The iG report confirmed there was no liberal FBI conspiracy ”
Try reading – it actually did find a conspiracy – that is what it means when a cabal lies to their superiors so they can continue to do something that they know they would be told to stop if they were honest about.
“BTW, did you red the part of the report showing anti-Clinton pro-Trump FBI agents gloating over his election win?”
So – were those agent investigating Clinton ? If so then we have reasons to investigate that and them.
BTW Strzok was not the first choice to lead the investigation. He was originally rejected because of his laison with Page and because of the appearance of bias.
They should have stuck with that.
“But yes, the FISA process has serious structural problems.”
Lying is not merely a structural problem. The problems unearthed here are orders of magnitude worse than your nonsense about the Trump Zelensky call.
“That’s something civil libertarians have been warning about for YEARS, but THE GOP and conservatives never cared about before.”
Something we agree on. I do not expect ANY significant FISA reforms as a consequence of this. Neither Republicans nor democrats are going to reign in the FISA process.
While Rick covered many subjects, one he did not was our government lying to Americans to promote military actions costing young lives fighting for leaders that cant hit their asshole with a hand grenade.
Once again Viet Nam repeats. Not as many lives, but 1 is too many.
https://www.journalnow.com/news/trending/confidential-documents-reveal-u-s-officials-failed-to-tell-truth/article_bbde1828-8193-55a1-9dcf-2c6a9ff472de.html
And the democrats and republicans continue this insanity. i.e.Trump sending more troops to M.E.
And for the most part, do moderates really give a damn since it does not effect them directly? Was this really just an oversight by Rick? Hum. Maybe not.
Jay is constantly accusing me of being a Trumpster.
I do not trust Trump all that much.
That said what I do, is trust him MORE than most of the GOP, more than any democrat.
Trump is far from a civil libertarian. He is far from a libertarian of any kind.
He is a poor chose for this critical work.
But he is the best choice we have.
Tulsi Gabbard is not getting elected president, nor is Rand Paul.
Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and a raft of other republicans and democrats are NOT going to reign in “the deep state”.
Nor unfortunately is Trump. But he will do more to diminish their power than any of the rest.
That is the best we can hope for.
I am libertarian – that means I have some values held (or once held) by the left, and some from the right.
I want a strong military – that is about 1/2 as strong as today. The US does not need to be able to wage war against the entire rest of the world concurrently.
I do not think we should be paying nearly $1T/year in defense.
We do so because of the power of Eisenhowers “military industrial complex”.
That has had stronger support from the right than the left. But there is plenty of support from the left.
I agree with Jay that Republicans sold out our civil liberties post 9/11 – with the gleeful support of democrats. Neither party has done a dman thing since. Nor will they.
The Horrowitz report will NOT result in meaningful changes.
But we should all remember not only the pentagon papers but now the Afghanistan papers, or the myriads of other instances in which “the deep state” has lied to us.
As you are praising the civil servants purpoertedly speaking truth to power in the impeachment hearings – remember every one of these people – are the ones that created the mess reported in this incredible mess that is the afghanistan papers.
These are the people who have GOT IT WRONG over and over.
Is Trump some foreign policy genius ? Not a chance.
Are the purported best and brightest of the “interagency consensus” – absolutely not.
Look at this impeachment – if Trump is wrong on foreign policy – we can vote him out.
But if these deep staters who are fundimentally testifying that they disagree with Trump on foreign policy – though not as much as they did with Obama – if they “win” there is no checking their power.
Do you wonder why Obama never kept his promises on the Mid east ?
I am not a big Obama fan, but had he actually tried to honor his promises regarding the mideast – I would have supported that.
But the very people – the Bolton’s the Vindman’s the McRaven’s the Yavonovitches, the Ciaremello’s …. would all have been trying to thwart Obama, and ultimately he would have faced impeachment too.
And yes Jay – I expect that the very same Republicans defending Trump for taking on the “deep state” would be attacking Obama.
Are democrats and republicans hypocritical ? You bet your ass.
Had Obama had the big brass balls to keep his campaign promises, We would have seen Obama impeached by Republicans in the house. We would see Meadows and Gohmert and Gaetz telling us that Obama was weakening national security while Adam Schiff, Pelosi and Naddler were warning us about the deep state.
Politicians are mostly hypocrits – get over it.
Figure out the truth on your own.
And get past deciding whether something is right or wrong based on who did it or your speculation as to their motives.
What the hell does any of this Dave “bafflegab” have to do with lies by Bush and Obama and the incompetent military leaders that led 2,500 young men and women to die?
And you state, “As you are praising the civil servants purpoertedly speaking truth to power in the impeachment hearings – remember every one of these people – are the ones that created the mess reported in this incredible mess that is the afghanistan papers.” .
Show me one f’in place I have praised anyone in Washington concerning the impeachment! I have hardy ever praised anyone for anything in Washington except for maybe Joe Manchin and a couple others.
Do you read what is posted or is it just the most recent comment that you access to attach your excessive dissertations that say nothing of importance other than to defend Trump like another messiah.
What you think the only people who have lied to you are Bush, Obama and a handful of Military people ? You think that is the story of the Pentagon Papers or the Afghainistan papers or the multiple IG reports or Benghazi or fast & Furious or ……
I wrote from the top of my head, but I did think I was clear enough for your to discern the STORY is not about Bush or Obama or Trump lying.
It is about the fact that far too much of our government is NOT run by the people, or their elected representatives – whether the president or the congress.
It is run by “the interagency concensus” by our unelected rulers.
As Schumer said regarding Trump long ago – Don’t mess with the IC they have seven ways from sunday to get back at you.
Most every president in modern times has run promising one thing and ended up back pedalling on nearly all promises.
Some of that is partisan politics and the inability of democrats and republicans to get things done together.
But a significant part of that is that you can do what you promised – and face what Trump has from the start – back stabbing by the “deep state” right up to the point of staging a soft coup.
The “deep state” is only Quasi partisan. Today it is more democrat than republican.
But politically it is more like police unions in state and local government. They do not care much about democrat or republican. They care about the blue line – themselves.
They will use democrats to mess with republicans who do not toe the line or republicans to go after democrats who do not either.
I do not honestly beleive Obama came to the whitehouse and said F’ this we are staying in afghanistan and Iraq, and gitmo and starting a few new wars.
Nor do I beleive he came into office and was persuaded by “the generals” or whoever that he was wrong and they were right.
I think he was elected and learned pretty quickly – do not F’ with the permanent state.
In the impeachment hearings we listened to an army of career govenrment employees. Both parties fawned over paying respect for their service. But quickly it was obvious – they were gunning for Trump – not out of hatred, not out of partisan politics – but because Trump made the mistake of beleiving that elected presidents set foreign policy – not the “interagency concensus”. Time and again we were told Trump was violating US policy – that is NOT POSSIBLE – not for ANY PRESIDENT. Time and again we were told he was harming national security – Elected members of congress absolutely positively can claim that. But NO ONE in the executive branch can. The requist degree of national security is a POLITICAL decision – only elected members of government can advocate contrary to that established by the president.
Do not get me wrong – Schiff can howl that Trump is weakening national security. He can impeach because he beleives that. But unelected members of the executive branch ADVOCATE for policies. They provide information, and when decisions are made – they impliment those decisions – or they resign if they can not.
The absolutely MAY NOT openly or sureptitiously attempt to undermine those policies because they disagree with them.
It does not matter whether we are talking about Afghanistan or Iraq, or Ukraine.
The assorted democratic candidates are making promises regarding their actions as president.
Their voters expect they will keep those promises. And constrained by the constitution, and where necescary – and I beleive that is most of the time, the consent of the legislature they are obligated to deliver on those policies – or explain clearly why as president they have discovered they are wrong.
As much as I loath the policies nearly ever democrat is advocating – to the extent that the constitution does not preclude their implimenting those policies AND they can get required legistlative approval – their voters are entitled to expect them to deliver.
None of us should expect that a 4th branch of government – the unelected bureacracy has veto power over anything.
While there is a partisan twist to this – most in government are democrats – they are NOT left democrats. They are more whatever the problem government is the answer democrats.
fundimentally this is not a partisan problem – this is a who governs problem.
One of the things I found most damning in the IG’s report was the extent to which the cabal involved in this was LYING to their superiors. I still have not figured out where Comey fits into this – except that this report at the very least damn’s Comey’s leadership.
The Buck stops at the top, and this nonsense was going on when Comey was the FBI directory. What Horrowitz did make clear was that This was a small cabal of ranking members of the FBI. Horrowitz specifically notes that Yates was DELIBERATELY kept out of the loop, as was Rosenstein, I have not read where Horrowitz claims Comey was part of this, nor where he says this was hidden from him. I am inclined to beleive Comey was part of it – because Horrowitz refered Comey for prosecution in the earlier report.
Regardless, this report may not say the FBI was politically biased but it absolutely says they were KNOWINGLY CORRUPT and they were ACTIVELY hiding what they were doing from their superiors.
To be clear this was NOT what I expected. Horrowitz seems to be saying the corruption ends basically with McCabe or maybe Comey, that it does not extend to Yates or Rosenstein or anyone in the AG’s office – either under Trump or Obama.
I do not beleive that. But even if I am wrong – this is really DAMNING.
Does it matter whether the corruption is at the highest levels of government or at the tippy top highest levels of government ?
Trying to simplify even further.
The “problem” that the afghanistan papers reveal is NOT confined to the DoD.
Government and lying are inextricably interlinked. DoD, FBI, CIA, HUD,
Whether the president is Republican or Democrat – much of our government is lying to us all the time about most everything.
My Rants are basically saying – the Afghanistan papers, the multiple IG reports, the testimony before Schiff – Lois Lehrner, Fast and Furious – all are examples of the same theme. Our government is neither trustworthy nor competent. AND it is NOT under the control of our elected representatives – not our president, not our congress.
Ron,
Can you please quit taking every reply I make to one of your posts as intended to be a litteral attack on Ron P ?
Sometimes “You” is generic.
When I Obama or Trump says “You elected me to ….”
Does he mean Ron P or Dave ? I did not vote for either of them, and I most definitely do NOT want what they are selling much of the time,
you:
pro. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed.
pro. Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one.
pro. Used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb.
“You ” does not always refer to a specific person.
“You” – Ron P, posted an article on the Afghan papers.
I replied making an argument that the problem “You” – Ron P were bringing to our attention was very important, but went beyond DoD, and Afghanistan.
I used the impeachment witnesses as one example of the same problem.
Why were these people being treated with such respect by both parties ?
They were all testifying that they engaged in something more than insubordination and slightly less than a coup. That they arrogantly beleived that THEY set foreign policy.
And like the message of the Afghan papers (and pentagon papers and …)
We are talking about people who have spent their lifetimes BOTCHING their area of responsibility.
While I do not know how Dir. Wray or Jay can deny in the face of OPEN acts in the 2016 election the FACT that Ukraine attempted to influence the election.
I guess they are unable to see things unless they are done covertly or where there is no disconnect between overt motives and presumed hidden ones.
Regardless NO ONE should be arguing that the US has done well with regard to Ukraine.
It is a mess – and the US is partly responsible, and the people testifying in Schiff’s faux impeachment are up to their necks in those failures.
I have subsequently shifted to the IG reports as further evidence of the same arrogance and incompetence.
Yes I did post the article on Afghanistan. I will read your comment again to see how it links to that since I missed it twice.
My FIRST point is that this is ONE of many bits of evidence demonstrating that government is not very good at much of anything. This is not confined to DOD or …
We have a long list of government failures, in every arena that government is in.
These should not surprise us.
The 2nd point is that an awful lot of these examples of failure are NOT failures at the top.
The IG report does absolutely positively make clear that the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was a disasterous mess.
The public political debate at the moment is over whether that is politically motivated wrong doing or not – WHO CARES ?
The conduct was DELIBERATE – that is a VERY BIG DEAL.
I keep trying over and over to get people to understand that motive is irrelevant to criminality.
But even if this was just a giant cockup – it is still damning. And equally important it is NOT all that atypical of government.
During the Obama administration we had a mess ad the VA – that Mess was not “obama specific”. It did not start with Obama, and I have little doubt the VA is still messed up.
Government sucks at doing the critical jobs only government must do.
There is no solution to that – only work arrounds.
But expanding the scope of government is idiocy when it can not do what it MUST do well,
Why do we expect it to do tolerably at things we know the market can and will always do better.
Can you quit channeling Jay ?
In posts today I have:
Written very little about Trump. The fact that Jay thinks everything is about Trump – does not mean I do. I want the 4th amendment back to protect me, and you, and even Jay, even though he does not want it. If that requires railing about 4th amendment abuse of Carter Page Donald Trump – so be it.
Atleast partly defended Obama, i.e. maybe he is just another of the incompetent dupes of the deep state or afraid to take them on rather than the director of one of the most corrupt administrations we have had.
The excepts I have read of the IG report today have told a story different than I expected.
I do not know if I agree yet. Regardless, The IG has “exonerated” Yates, and Rosenstein and much of the DOJ. There is still the problem that this mess occured under their leadership, but Horrowitz is explicitly saying “they were lied to”. I think it is damning that the upper tier of the DOJ is so easily duped.
I still have not figured out where Comey fits into this – whether Horrowitz is saying he was being lied to, or doing the lying. Given that Horrowitz previously refered him for prosecution for LYING – I think the later. But many of the excepts I have read do not have Comey participating. Most of the criticism of Comey is lack of leadership and creating a culture where this was possible.
By exonerating Yates and Rosenstein Horrowitz effectively exonerates Obama.
There is still the problem of Strzok’s text’s claiming Obama was briefed biweekly starting in March 2016. I do not know how you exonerate Obama given that.
I am also willing to consider the possibility that the Lois Lehrner mess might have actually ended with Lerhner – or at worst moved latterally into DOJ (we pretty much know that).
But might not have lead to the white house.
I even defended Schiff and congressional democrats in a backhanded way.
Schiff and democrats CAN assert that Trump is a threat to national secutity – they are elected representatives and they have a voice in policy and national security.
Our unelected bureacrats DO NOT.
Watching this faux impeachment procede, watching these non-witness witnesses, watching the Afghanistan papers watching the IG reports, Admiral Rogers report on NSa surveilance abuse, and many many other examples, I am increasingly inclined to view the unelected government clerisy is the most serious threat to our country – not Schiff or Democrats or Trump.
The lying right targeted Lisa Page & Peter Strzok with vicious smears as the agents who opened the Russia investigation. The IG reports the decision to open the investigation was made by Assistant FBI Director Bill Priestap— he would ordinarily expect quick smears from. Trump, but the lying ignoramus is too busy tweeting against dozens of other report revelations that contradict his dishonest invented conspiracy fantasies about It.
President Toilet Brain needs to be flushed from office now…
Jay – please read the report.
Horowitz Exonerates Yate and Rosenstein. I am still trying to figure out what he is saying about Comey – but his prior to reports damned him.
But starting below Comey Horowitz is DAMNING.
I think that Horowitz’s asserion that this was not political is naive and stupid.
But that does not matter, the actions he documents are CRIMINAL.
And they involve Page and Strzok,
NO ONE owes them an apology. and they could end up in jail – from this report alone.
Just a few of the things I can recall:
The FISA Warrant to SPY on Carter Page was based on the Steele Dossier. The is no chance it would have been granted without the Steele Dossier – and in fact the regest to SPY on page was turned down in June without the Steele Dossier, there is nothing of substance in the application except the Steele Dossier.
So let us dispose of this nonsense that there was any other evidence once and for all.
Horrowitz finds that the FBI investigation into Trump/Russia meets the very low bar – reasonable suspicion needed to open an investigation.
That was BEFORE the Steele Dossier.
Keep that in mind as you keep trying to claim Trump could not ask Ukraine to investigate 2016. The bar to start an investigation is REASONABLE SUSPICION.
But that is pretty much the end of Horowitz being friendly to the FBI.
Horrowitz CONFIRMS that there was SPYING or in FBI Speak – confidential human sources – CHS. He never mentions Mifsud.
He explicitly condenms the FBI for failing to follow DOJ or any other procdures for handlying CHS – SPYS.
I beleive he concludes that the predicates for spying were not met, but the cites I have are muddy on that.
And it just gets worse from there.
He finds that the Steele Dossier was crap. That the FBI knew it was crap. That the failed to tell the courts anything that they knew about its being crap.
That the FBI tried to verify the Dossier – and the more effort they put in the crappier it got.
That if the FBI might have had the basis to start the investigation, that quite quickly they KNEW that they had nothing, that they actually went BACKWARDS, and LOST reasonable suspicion.
And then that McCabe and company LIED REPEATEDLY to their superiors.
If you think this is good – your blind.
The best news for democrats in this is that Horrowitz puts a ceiling on the malfeasance just below Rosenstein and Yates.
And that he somewhat credulously claims that there was no POLITICAL corruption.
Just CORRUPTION.
Horrowitz’s investigation was contained within the DOJ/FBI.
But he does provide some additional facts. Again things that MOST OF US KNOW, but that you have denied – such as that the Steele Dossier was a part of the Intelligence Community Assessment.
So all the posturing about that ICA – there is now a burden on YOU and the IC to prove that the conclusions were based on more than the Steele Dossier.
Horrowitz does not confront it directly – but he does WEAKEN the ICA.
Aparently you can not read.
Strzok did not have the authority to open the investigation on his own.
Strzok DID start the ball rolling. Preistep did NOT want Strzok on the investigation – BECAUSE he was aware of all the Strzok-Page nonsense.
But ultimately he picked Strzok.
Horrowitz found that this entire Cabal was LYING to their superiors – to Yates and Rosenstein, for a long time. That they were actively trying to keep alive an investigation that was on life support from day one and had multiple cardiac arrests,
If you have not figured that out – a group lying to their superiors is a CONSPIRACY,
Horrowitz is at best claiming the conspiracy is smaller and not quite as high level as most of us beleive.
But there is a conspiracy nonetheless.
So you are going to damn Trump because he was not perfectly accurate about the exact membership and scope of the conspiracy that was out to get him WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT ?
Regardless – wherever you are getting your news is full of Schiff.
Conspiracy – Check.
Spying – Check.
Misconduct by Page and Strzok – Check, Check.
Insufficient foundation for a warrant – Check.
Fraud on the court – Check.
Polluted the ICA report – Check.
Lied to superiors – Check.
I think Horrowitz is naive if he does not think there were political motives.
But as I have said repeatedly – I do not give a FORK about anyone’s motives.
If the act is otherwise legitimate – speculation as to motive does not change that.
If the act is corrupt – no good motive will fix that and bad motives just help us understand better. A crime is a crime regardless of motive.
Tom Nichols gets it right!
“Bottom line, however, is that however sloppy the FISA process was, the IG still saw it as legit. You can believe the FISA process needs cleaning up and also believe that the FBI was doing the right thing investigating this bunch of creeps.“
No Jay – Horrowitz did NOT say the FISA process was legit.
Your source can not read. Horrowitz said that in July 2016 – before the Steele Dossier there was “reasonable suspicion” as required to open an investigation.
Pretty much EVERYTHING about the FISA warrant was DAMNING.
Horrowitz is vascilating throught the report as to whether the FBI’s investigation which relentlessly UNDERMINED their evidence might have also dropped below the “resonable suspicion level requiring them to SHUTDOWN the investigation.
Not only do you need reasonable suspicion to start an investigation – but if you find the evidence you relied on is wrong, and you do not get other evidence you lose reasonable suspicion and must stop.
Horrowitz NEVER finds the FBI had more than reasonable suspicion.
The standard for a warrant is probable cause. That is a far higher standard.
The FISA Warrant was fraudulently obtained.
This is NOT “sloppiness” – Horrowitz says those involved lied to the court, and to their superiors. That is Corrupt.
There is no – the FBI was “doing the right thing” – Over and Over Horrowitz notes they were doing the WRONG thing. They barely had enough to start an investigation, they near certainly lost that as they discovered no new evidence and slowly discredited the evidence they thought they had.
They did not follow the law requiring them to notify the Trump campaign that they were spying on it – the required “defensive briefing”. They did not seek the DOJ authority to procede without the defensive breifing.
And lets make this clear. While Horrowitz did NOT investigate the Trump campaign.
He did review all of what the FBI had gleaned from its investigation.
And he found that BEFORE the end, the FBI had sufficiently less that they should have shutdown the investigation. because they new this was all a lie.
Horrowitz did not find that the Trump Campaign was not “creepy”
Horrowitz found that the FBI found that there was nothing there.
And Horrowitz has created a huge problem for Mueller.
Horrowitz did NOT go into the Mueller investigation.
But he did find that the FBI – many of the same people who were brought into Mueller’s investigation KNEW at the start of the Mueller investigation that they had nothing.
That there was nothing in the Steele Dossier.
Had these people not LIED to Rosenstein he NEVER would have appointed a special counsel.
Horrowitz found that the FBI found that there was nothing to investigate BEFORE Trump was inaugurated.
Do I have to start posting quotes from the IG report ?
Or are you going to quit this nonsense ?
Reasonable suspicion is the standard to start the investigation. That is the only standard Horrowitz ever found was met.
Probable cause is the standard for a warrant.
Horrowits found that the FBI KNEW they did not have probable cause when they went to the court.
Love your stuff, Rick.
President Boorish Bullshit Artist At It Again.
“Trump Lashes Out at F.B.I. Director Over Report on Russia Inquiry
The president suggested he lacked confidence in his own F.B.I. director because the director did not share his view of a long-awaited inspector general report.” NYT
This dangerous unstable retard needs to be REMOVED from power. Unless underlings subserviently kiss his ass on everything he says (like despicable toady Barr) he demeans them, no matter how truthful their opinions.
Don’t you Trumpsters understand how deleterious an unstable buffoon like him he is to our government…
Jay – you posted here that Wray said that there was no 2016 Ukraine election interference.
That remark is so OBVIOUSLY false – that I have no confidence in Wray.
I do not know what Wray would say anything so nonsensical.
We can all debate the SCALE of Ukraine interference, the extent to which americans were involved. the importance of Ukraine interferance. There are SOME specific allegations that are less certain than others. But there a couple of examples that are absolutely beyond any doubt at all.
The fact that you and the media are in denial, is just proof that your ability to perceive the world is severely compromised by your political biases.
But Wray repeating such nonsense is very disturbing.
It is similar to but smaller scale to Clappers claim that the NSA was not engaged in mass surveilance.
It is something that Wray either knows better or damn well should no better.
There are plenty of non-answer answers wray could have given.
It was not necescary for him to toe some political line supporting Trump.
But you do not as head of the FBI flatly contradict the president AND be WRONG.
Wray could have simply said no comment.
Or any of a number of other noncomital responses.
I have not been impressed by Wray from the start.
But then unlike you I do not start with some presumption that the people in positions of power in government are either inherently competent or inherently good.
If they were either – they would not likely be in government.
Our founders did not conceive of government of permanent civil servants. Their idea was that public service was something that people did AFTER they had been successful.
They did Not want people like Trump as president – they wanted them THROUGHOUT government.
I am going to refer to “the ugly american” again. I would strongly recommend reading it.
And then watching Ken Burns vietnam.
I think Trump’s “Make American Great Again” theme was brilliant.
What “Makes America Great” -is NOT our govenrment. That is a mess.
You say Trump is deletorious to our govenrment – SO WHAT ?
Our government sucks.
Our FORM of govenrment may suck less than all other forms of government.
But that does not make it good.
America is Great – our Government is not.
Being the lessor of all evils is NOT Great.
The overwhelming evidence that our Government sucks – is not unique to the Trump administration.
We can argue about details of the Horrowitz report.
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO argument that Horrowitz found a MESS.
That the very best you can say and what the left is hanging their hat on is significant incompetence of a significant number of people just below the top of the FBI.
That is NOT a victory of any sorts.
What is also true is THAT IS NOT UNUSUAL.
We have the afghanistan papers saying that NOTHING have changes in the 50 years since Vietnam.
We have Fast & Furious, IRSgate, Benghazi, U1, Iraqi Yellow Cake, the VA, …..
Again you can presume political motives or just gross incompetence, regardless they are REAL and they are PERVASIVE through out our government.
Is Trump undermining respect for Government ?
Absolutely.
Our government is not worthy of that respect.
And that is where you and I FUNDIMENTALLY differ.
I understand that “Government Is Like Fire, a Dangerous Servant and a Fearful Master”
it is ALWAYS to be viewed with suspicion, and always to be tightly reigned in.
You are completely clueless to that.
You see an armada of good career civil servants testifying about the dangers of Trump.
I see people that self evidently should not be trusted with power over others. Who think they are a law unto themselves. Who think they are in control, not the president, not the people.
That difference has nothing to do with Trump.
Thanks to Trump and his toadies who keep rationalizing his lies and distortions of facts, millions of Americans now believe Russia is our friend and the FBI is our enemy.
Duh- that’s a result of Russian kompromat
I am aware of no one who thinks Russia is our friend.
They are just another country. They have their own interests, which are sometimes shared with us and sometimes at odds with ours.
YOU are the one who has only recently and only driven by Trump pushed this nonsense that we should thwart everything Russian. That our entire foreign policy should be opposing Russia in everything.
Yet, just a few years ago you were telling us all there was nothing there with the Uranium One Deal.
Forget whether that deal is emblematic of Clinton Corruption.
That deal was ABSOLUTELY reflective of a view that SOMETIMES the US shares mutually beneficial interests with Russia.
Something that you completely deny today.
A few years ago with different politics, you were able to grasp that our relationship to Russia was not ALWAYS as adversaries.
Today you can’t.
YOU are the one who has changed.
I would have zero problem either abolishing or significantly scaling back the FBI,
For about half of US history we had no FBI and we did fine.
I do not see any need for an FBI.
I do not beleive any agency in the US govenrment is my friend – and the evidence supports that.
That is not a new beleif, That is not a belief lacking evidence.
Ron noted the recently released Afghanistan papers showing that nothing has changed since Vietnam. That we are still clueless in the area of military and foreign policy.
During Obama we had a Mess at the VA – I do not think we or Trump fixed it. At best it is covered up, and maybe a tiny bit improved. The VA is still a disaster.
I can go from agency to agency. Bush, Obama, Trump – does not matter.
Whatever power they have they are abusing.
With political motives ? Does it matter ?
Does it matter if the clerk in the DMV is fucking you over because she does not give a shit about her job or because you have a MAGA hat on ?
Read the Damn Horrowitz report! Get past the politics, ignore the politics entirely.
WHATEVER the motives a cabal near the top of the FBI put this entire country through three years of HELL. Does it matter whether they were politically motivated ? Does it matter WHY they did something absolutely reprehensible ?
And you think that we should think the FBI is our Friend ?
What rock do you live under ?
Today’s delusional rant by Trump Stooge AG Barr:
: “I think our nation was turned on its head for 3 years, I think based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned & hyped by an irresponsible press. I think that there were gross abuses of FISA & inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in FBI.”
Compare the hypocrites remark with his praise for Comey reopening the Clinton email probe right before the 2016 election.
I have serious problems with Barr’s statement.
He should not have said “I think”
These are facts, and they are reprehensible.
I will comment on Barr’s remarks about re-opening the Clinton email probe when you provide those comments.
I am not a big Barr fan – He should have prosecuted Comey as IG Horrowitz recomended.
These remarks are still correct.
The more I read through this the worse it gets.
Earlier you said – “no spying” – can you read ?
There was FAR MORE spying than we have been previously aware of.
Informants wore wires with Page, Flynn, Papadoulis, Manafort, and sever others.
Anyone withing 2 hops of Page had their communications of all kinds monitored – that is potentially thousands of people.
What exactly do you think spying is ?
Horrowitz did NOT find these people were unbiased.
What he FOUND was that when interviewed all of them said that their biases did not effect the investigation. There is some discussion of this, but apparently that is the limit to which the IG is permitted to investigate bias. It is not merely reasonable, it is self evident to any reasonable person that there was tremendous bias – and that is essentially what Barr is saying. That maybe the IG is unable to find Bias using the rules he must follow, but in a criminal investigation it is easy to find bias here.
Horowitz did find that the investigation had sufficient basis to start.
I am extremely ambivalent on that. According to Horrowitz the investigation was started by Andrew Downer’s report of his conversation with Papadoulis. There have been lots of stories, as well as text messages released that indicate this investigation started in late 2015.
There still is very little information about what occured between Dec 2015 and July 2016.
Horrowitz does not appear to have investigated that at all. Durham and Barr are defininitely chasing Mifsud and that involves the period from March to July.
So Horowitz has not enlighted us on that.
I think that it is arguable that Downer’s (innaccurate) report of Papadoulis’s comments meets the invredibly low bar required to start an investigation. I will give Horowitz that and I will disagree with Barr on that. It is flimsy, and Horowitz makes it clear that ultimately the FBI was able to determine that Downer’s report was inaccurate.
One of Horowitz’s problems with Bias is that There are only two things that have EVER provided a foundation for this investigation. Downer’s report of the conversation with Papadoulis – which the FBI was able to determine was inaccurately reported, and the Steele Dossier which from the moment the FBI acquired it through to the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, has stunk worse and worse over time. The only parts of the Steele Dossier that have ever proved correct are a small number of absolutely inconsequential items that were easily gleaned from media reporting of things that happened prior to 2015.
Every time the FBI tried to verify any other part of the steele Dossier it either proved FALSE or it proved dubious.
From the start to the end – NOTHING made the incredibly weak start any stronger.
Next – though we have two specific instances where an identified FBI lawyer made changes to information presented to the FISA court to transform some record item from exculpatory to inculpatory – and there is no means on earth that is not evidence of bias (as well as a crime),
You can not change records indicating that Page WAS a CIA Source to say that he WAS NOT TWICE without being self evident bias.
But that is not the end of the forgery. There are 6 other instances where the FBI altered an exculpatory record to make it inculpatory that Horowitz found but was unable to identify the person who made the change.
Further I am still trying to sort out Horowitz’s finding that the corruption did not involve the DOJ or whitehouse.
Horowitz DID find that the DOJ and Whitehouse were briefed on this investigation.
Horowitz is limiting his findings of misconduct to the FBI as he is claiming that DOJ and the whitehouse were LIED to.
I am personally highly dubious of that – but it does not matter – either the Whitehouse and DOJ were lied to by the upper tiers of the FBI – which is really really bad.
Or they were involved – which is even worse.
Next, it appears that before Comey was fired. Before Mueller was appointed. The FBI had confirmed from Steele’s most significant source that every claim that was attributed to him was gossip and rumour and highly unlikely to be true.
That is BEFORE the Special Counsel appointment, and BEFORE Comey was fired.
It is marginally possible to beleive that Rosenstein was not aware of that AT THE TIME.
It is marginally possible to beleive that Mueller was not aware of that within days of his appointment.
It is NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL to beleive that Rosenstein and Mueller were not WELL AWARE by arround march of 2017 that there was NOTHING.
There is a gigantic difference between there is sufficient basis to start and investigation, and justification to continue it infinitely.
The standard to start and investigation is LOW. But if the investigation finds the initial basis is incorrect, and does not find additional information to maintain the justification – then that investigation MUST be shutdown.
Horrowitz tells a relentless story where the results of the investigation START as barely sufficient, and with every new bit of information, that weak justification is ERODED.
We can debate the exact moment at which the FBI was required to STOP.
But it was BEFORE Comey was fired.
We can debate the exact moment when Mueller was required to STOP, but it was BEFORE the summer of 2017.
Finally – there is an effort to white wash this is 17 “innocent mistakes” – clerical errors.
BUNK. When you change exculpatory evidence to inculpatory and then offer that to a court
THAT IS A CRIME, not an “innocent mistake”
Further Horowitz is clear from the opening of the investigation EVERYTHING lead in a single direction – to the conclusion that this was all CRAP. Every “mistake” what one way – from innocensce to guilt. Every bade decision went one way. Every bit of new information retrieved went one way – towards the investigation is unfounded.
Last Horowitz does NOT extend his investigation into the CIA, but he does document that information from the CIA went to the FBI and information from the FBI went to the CIA.
And that CIA provided the FBI with NOTHING inculpatory.
And that the CIA fed the Steele Dossier to the group doing the ICA and that it was used as part of that. Horowitz’s jurisdiction does not include the IC.
But there has been some evidence that not only was the Steele Dossier part of the ICA, but that it and the Papadoulis exchange with downer are the ONLY evidence that the ICA rested on.
Put simply Horowitz does not put a steak in the heart of the ICA, but he definitely weakens it.
Credibility matters alot.
We have a bunch of spats involving Nunes and Schiff,
Or Schiff and Trump.
Schiff is at the center of nearly everything recent and for a long time.
Schiff has told us there was more than circumstantial evidence of Trump Russia collusion
WHERE IS IT ?
Regardless, Horowitz gives us something else.
There were two competing reports put out regarding this mess by the House intelligence committee in 2018 – the Nunes report, and the so called Schiff report.
Those reports agreed on many things, but there were about 11 points of difference,
Horowitz has confirmed that Nunes was correct on each of those differences and Schiff was not.
But this is not about some claims of mistakes of honest differences – not that Schiff has ever admitted he erred about anything.
Nunes and Schiff – BEFORE Horowitz saw much the same evidence that Horowitz did.
By confirming Nunes and refuting Schiff the Horowitz report
Does everything short of state that Schiff lied to us all.
And right now Schiff’s credibility is a huge issue.
There are now claim’s that Schiff and his staff met with the WB 2 weeks before the complaint was filed. I am told this is BEFORE the Trump Zelensky phone call.
This faux impeachment is starting to look alot like a political hit job – possibly a CRIME.
Finally, by defining the legal standard required to start an investigation, Horowitz makes it clear than it is not possible for Trump to have done anything wrong.
Trump had FAR MORE foundation to ask for investigations into Biden and the list of things he hoped Zelensky would investigate.
Horowitz stated formally what most everyone knows, but the left will not admit.
The burden to start an investigation is incredibly low.
And Trump easily met it.
If you do not like that – change the law.
Finally, Trump FORCED to do good:
(From Washington Post – Ron; full article)
“President Trump has paid $2 million in court-ordered damages for misusing funds in a tax-exempt charity he controlled, the New York attorney general said Tuesday.
The payment was ordered last month by a New York state judge in an extraordinary rebuke to a sitting president. Trump had been sued in 2018 by the New York attorney general, who alleged that the president had illegally used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to buy portraits of himself, pay off his businesses’ legal obligations and help his 2016 campaign.
The money was split among eight charities, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). The charities were the Army Emergency Relief, the Children’s Aid Society, Citymeals-on-Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha’s Table, the United Negro College Fund, the United Way of National Capital Area, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, according to the statement.”
We have been through this before – this was a settlement.
The court has merely given its preamature to the settlement.
I guess you have never settled anything in court.
I have, several times.
On a small scale, I have taken tenants to court for failure to pay their rent.
I have on occasions “settled” with them – agreeing to allow them to remain – if they paid part of what they owed, or agreeing not to get a judgement against them – if they moved out.
These were not “victories” – either for me or the tenants.
Nor were they findings of wrong doing on my part or that of the tenants.
In most cases the court wrote an ORDER turning our agreement into something that could be enforced – without either of us having to return to court.
In the case you refered to – Trump and the NY AG agreed to end an investigation and lawsuit into Trump’s family charity. In return for contributions to other charities significantly less than Trump’s legal fees would likely have been, the case ends. There will be no further prosecution.
There is no admission of wrong doing on anyone’s part.
That is the NORM for a settlement.
Given the allegations – the settlement is small.
Mostly this looks like the NY AG trying to get out of a losing conflict while saving face.
Alot of the legal issues depend on information that neither you nor I have.
The Clinton foundation was a PUBLIC Charity – the rules are radically different.
The Trump foundation was a CLOSED Private Trust.
My Mother has a small closed private trust. The money in that Trust had rules regarding how it could be spent – but there was not requirement that the use had to be for charity.
I do not know what the actual legal constraints – if any on the Trump Family Trust were – and neither do you.
You have presumed alot that we do not know.
You’re babbling again.
The point your Novacained mind is missing: unprincipled asswipe Trump knowingly, intentionally, greedily misused funds in a charity he controlled.
But here you are, focused on the picayune details of the settlement. My comment was meant to be ironic-: some good was done despite his corrupt inclination to swindle people.
Ignoring example after example of Trump’s corrupt character, avoiding blaming him for bad deeds and moral bankruptcy is your typical modus operandi response. That’s why you are a Trumpanzee in effect if not by intention.
“The point your Novacained mind is missing: unprincipled asswipe Trump knowingly, intentionally, greedily misused funds in a charity he controlled.”
That would be false – at just about every point.
CF is a public charity. TF is a family trust. They only thing they have in common is “foundation” in the name.
I am not precisely sure of the legal structure of TF – as there are many forms of Trust.
Regardless TF is not in any sense a public charity.
I am not even certain it is a charity of any kind at all.
It is a trust – and most trusts ARE NOT charities.
The money in TF is ENTIRELY from the Trump’s – mostly from DJT himself.
It is not from russian oligarchs or saudi princes, or from ordinary people giving to charity.
Again I do not know the details of TF’s legal structure – but in general Family Trusts are tax exempt with respect to principle (income is taxable).
In General funds in a family trust can be distributed in any way consistent with the trust documents.
I have not read the Trust Documents – and neither have you.
But I would be shocked if TF was not fully able to pay Barron Trump’s scouting dues.
Which is one of the allegations.
Further without knowing all these details – I do know that the NY AG settled the case by agreeing to have TF make 2M in charitable donations.
If TF was an actual charitable Trust it would have to use 100% of its funds on charitable donations. So this settlment would be stupid.
It seems pretty clear to me that the NY AG had a losing hand, and they made a settlement offer that was below the legal fees Trump would have faced to win this case.
And Trump agreed to settle and the court ordered the parties to be bound to that agreement.
All very normal.
My mother had a trust. That Trust was used by my father while alive to pay for renovations to an apartment building owned by my sister.
Dubious – but perfectly legal.
I did not address the details of the settlement – you did.
I noted that public trusts and private trusts are not the same, and all trusts are not charities.
TF is a closed private trust. I do not know its structure – nor do you.
But the overwhelming majority of closed private trusts have great freedom with respect to how they can spend money.
I also noted that as a closed family trust – there is very little public interests, and not much law.
There are no public contributors to be harmed.
I suspect one of the other reasons the NY AG settled is that they may not have standing.
Depending on the structure – in the overwhelming majority of private trusts only the beneficiaries have standing to challenge the way the funds are used.
The NY AG is not a beneficiary. The general public is not a beneficiary.
I have heard no evidence that anyone was “swindled”.
As I understand it funds put into trust by members of the Trump family were used for:
Barron Trump’s scouting expenses.
A portrait of DJT,
and a political contribution.
You might not like that – but it is not your money.
The NY AG may not like that – but it is not her money.
Whether that was permissible depends on the trust documents.
It would have been premissible for my mothers small trust.
It would have been permissible for 98% of all trusts in the country.
I am not aware of any of the benficiaries of TF alleging misuse.
What I do know is that the settlement looks alot more like a face saving move on the part of the NY AG than any victory.
But there are LOTS of things we do not know.
The State AG does – under some circumstances have jurisdiction in Trusts.
The State AG represents actual charities in estate and trust cases.
So if the TF had provisions that required specific disburements to charities – then the NY AG would have the ability to enforce that.
Knowing now what I did not know a decade ago, I would have encouraged my father to give 2% of his estate to charity. Had he done so, I could have asked the AG to step in and reign in an abusive executor. But AG’s do not have jurisdiction to step into trusts and estates unless there is a specific provision for charities that is NOT being honored.
Others including Trusts are free to do as they please with their own money.
They are not ever required to do what YOU think of as “good”
Trump’s settlment with the NY AG either conforms to the requirments of the Trust or it is another example of abuse by government.
If as an example the TF was setup to provide porn for DJT, and the NY AG drug them to court and made them give $2M to charity – that is EVIL not good.
Stealing from others for ANY reason is evil. Stealing to give money to Mother Theresa is EVIL.
You keep pushing this false narractive that good and evil are determined by intentions not actions.
When you violate the rights of another – you do evil, not matter what your motives or intentions.
I rarely defend Trump’s character.
The vast majority of my posts are factual attacks on your posts.
Getting facts wrong – that is actual bad character.
dhlii’s favored pollster:
So ?
I have no “favorite” pollster.
Fundimentally, Democrats have a problem – ALL of their candidates SUCK.
We have seen Biden, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren even at one Time Harris show alot of strength
and then slump as they were subject to scrutiny.
Biden for all his problems – has a core of 30% of democrats who just are not voting for any of the other choices.
Most of us understand that neither Sanders, now Warren can beat Trump.
Many democrats do not want either of them as much or more than they do not want Trump.
Conversely there are LOTS of other democrats who do not want Biden, Hence Biden can not truly pull out ahead. He has pretty much never been able to get much over 30%.
Many of the Sanders and Warren voters are not going to vote if Sanders or Warren is not the nominee.
Biden hasn’t slumped in the national polls at all.
He’s consistently maintained the same percentage lead over other candidates.
And consistently leads Trump in the swing states.
He’s the Dems best hope to evict President Dunce.
And the Dems best choice for a Biden VP is Kamilla Harris: black, female, young.
The GOP’s only chance to regain the presidency is to have Trump abducted or committed to psychiatric straight-jacket custody, run Nikki for president with Tucker as VP, to solidify FOX core voter support. Their election slogan best appealing to Trump base mentality: NIKKI-TUCKER – MOTHERFUCKER!
I really do not want to argue with you over polls – polls are not facts, they are predictions.
And there are so many fact that you are so totally completely wrong about, I do not see alot of merit in arguing with you about predictions.
Democrats will have primaries. they will elect a candidate, there will be a national election, and the final poll in Nov. 2020 will determine our next president.
If I am right today – everything could change by November.
If I am wrong – it could still change.
Regardless, you have still misrepresented facts.
Biden’s support dropped significantly initially. More recently Sanders and Warren have taken the heat.
Biden’s support is BACK near what is was before. Though there is substantial evidence that it is weaker than before – meaning he is less likely to get as much of those who did not support him before.
But the big story about the democrats – is that voters really do not want ANY of these candidates.
Everytime any of them seems to be gaining, something happens and they get clobbered.
Democrats want a “do over” – they want a mythical super candidate that can beat Trump.
They want Biden – but without the gaffes, stupidity, without the sundowning. without the attacks on other democratic VOTERS, without the corruption, and without the policy uncertainty.
It is probable that if either Warren or Sanders dropps out – the other will get their votes.
But what is more interesting is that as Booker and Harris and others have dropped out – their support has NOT gone to the leaders. Sanders, Biden, and Warren’s numbers are mostly unchanged as a consequence of dropouts.
We are seeing Buttigeg or Bloomberg grab the votes of dropouts – not the leaders.
There are a variety of polls. Some have Trump behind in swing states, some like the one below have him ahead in ALL swing states against ALL democrats.
But the story is NOT whether Biden is 2pts ahead or 2pts behind based on your personal favorite poll.
The story is that from september to december in ALL polls Trump is closing the gap.
In the midst of what is supposed to be a damning tide against him – Trump is GAINING.
The next big story is we are a year away from an election – and Trump is in easy striking distance (if not ahead) of every oponent.
At this time in 2015 – Trump was something like 35 pts behind.
At this time in 2011 – Obama was 10pts behind
Anything could happen between now and November. But the odds favor Trump gaining significantly.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/poll-donald-trump-2020-election-democrats/2019/12/09/id/945149/
I am not a big fox fan. I do not follow ANY network.
More recently I have found “the rising” on youtube interesting.
I have also been following Turley for years, as well as “the hill” – though for technical not political reasons I hate their web site.
I also use lots of news agregators – like RCP, I especially like that they link to less high profile and more thoughtful commentary on Axios, Medium, Quillette, Tablet, ….
I do not always agree, but these less “MSM” sites tend to have a less ideologicaly fixed perspective.
I do on occasion see clips from the MSM – Fox, MSNBC etc.
Interestingly I found a recent survey that claims that Fox is now the source for 50% of americans news, and that it is the source for 70% of americans in the heartland.
I am not endorsing Fox – I am NOT generally favorable to their specific brand of “republicanism”, but they ARE overall less bat shit crazy than CNN, MSNBC, NYT and Wapo.
And that is what viewers have decided.
Further a couple of surveys of accuracy in the media found Fox to be the most accurate news source and the most politically centrist.
Just to be clear – it did not find fox all that accurate – just that the rest of the media is worse.
But what should disturb you Jay – is that the purportedly right wing lunatic conspiracy sites – like InfoWars have freguently proven more credible than CNN or MSNBC.
That is not an endorsement of infowars. It is really serious criticism of the MSM.
When you can compare Alex Jones to tapper, Cuomo, and Maddow and come up with a draw. the MSM is bat shit crazy.
“ Further a couple of surveys of accuracy in the media found Fox to be the most accurate news source and the most politically centrist.”
Who conducted the survey. Fox?
An egregiously dangerous organization owned by a foreigner whose politics are as shady as Trump’s business dealings.
“An egregiously dangerous organization owned by a foreigner ”
There you are channeling your inner Trump
“whose politics are as shady”
Meaning you do not like them ?
I find your “politics” revolting, you are prepared to use force against others on a whim.
Right, Biden has age related mental slippage:
I have not noticed – but we have a fairly old field of front runners, and yes, we should be paying attention. Whether it is Trump or Sanders or Biden, or less likely Warren.
All are old enough that the odds of a major health problem as president are high.
Sanders had a heart attack. We are very good with those today. But it is still a concern.
It is difficult to tell whether Biden is just his normal degree of incompetent or if he is showing early signs of dimensia.
If you say Trump is slurring – we should pay attention.
But I have been hearing Trump has this or that problem since he was elected and so far they have all proven false.
There is Zero evidence Trump is playing Basketball any time soon. But he seems to be in good mental and physical health, and he is definitely enjoying himself.
Honest Don ADMITTED misuse of foundation money. Don’t you just love his rectitude, taking the high moral road confessing a moral judgmental lapse! BTY – did he donate the portrait to a charitable organization?
“President Trump has paid $2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement in which the president admitted he misused funds raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid and pay off business debts, the New York State attorney general said on Tuesday.
The foundation’s giving patterns and management came under scrutiny during Mr. Trump’s run for office, and last year the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit accusing the president and his family of using the foundation as an extension of their businesses and the campaign.
The payments were part of a settlement announced last month that capped a drawn-out legal battle. In the end, the president admitted in court documents that he had used the foundation to settle legal obligations of his businesses and even to purchase a portrait of himself.” NYT
Ordered?
They didn’t volunteer?
Will we taxpayers have to pay for required Secret Service details ?
“As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump’s three children who were officers of the foundation — Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump — were ordered to undergo mandatory training to ensure they do not engage in similar misconduct in the future.”
That is what I would expect the NY AG would say.
What does the actual settlement say ?
I highly doubt the word “misuse” appears.
But whether it does – you are also left with what does “misuse” mean.
Aparently you and the NY AG think it means – use differently than I would prefer.
I thought my father using my mothers trust money to make apartment repairs for my sister was a “misuse”. Most everyone who heard about it thought it was.
But it was a permissible use according to the Trust documents which essentially allowed my father to do pretty much whatever he pleased with the Trust funds.
Regardless, you still do not seem to get it. The TF is a PRIVATE trust.
It is NOT a charity, it is NOT public.
You and the NY AG do not get to decide how those funds are used.
To the extent that the state has ANY input, it is that If and only if there are some sax advantages to the Trust, they can charge taxes and penalties – maybe.
That still would not constitute misuse.
To be a crime – Trump would have to use someone else’s money in a way they did not wish.
No one has come forward to say that occured.
My guess reading this is the NY AG overstepped and this is a face saving measure.
Trump is settling because it will cost more in legal fees to fight and win.
And you can not get legal fees from the state if you win.
You’re right.
The Trump Family was rail-roaded by another corrupt AG for purely political reasons.
None of the charges Trump pleaded guilty to were valid.He didn’t misuse the charity money for any of the reasons cited. Instead he agreed to admit he and his family members committed dishonorable financial acts to save paying expensive legal fees. How noble a decision! Question: why didn’t he admit guilt sooner, and save a years worth of legal fees already paid, fighting the charges?
You continue to misrepresent – this is not a criminal case there is no guilty plea.
There is no plea at all.
It is a civil case that was settled – there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
The AG and the Trump family mutually agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in return for the Trump family agreeing to make charitable contributions smaller then their legal fees would have been.
You can pretend whatever you want. But you can not make your wishes into facts,
nor the AG’s spin into substance.
If she beleived she had a case – she should have pursued it.
After all it would not be her money she would be wasting.
TF is NOT a charity, it is a Family Trust. They are not the same thing.
There is almost no public accountability – nor should their be.
The accountability is to the those who funded the Trust – the Trump family, and the named beneficiaries of the Trust – the Trump family.
No one has “admitted” anything.
The fact that the NY AG is settling for so little demonstrates the weakness of her case.
Why didn’t he ….. ?
First civil cases almost never resolve that way.
There is no such thing as a guilty plea in a civil case.
If the case proceeds to trial THEN there are conclusions of law and findings of fact,
and having dealt with actual civil cases – often very bad conclusions of law and findings of fact.
Courts are just about the worst place to resolve civil disputes – short of at 20 paces with pistols. But they are what is available to us when other means fail.
This is one of the major differences between us.
I fully grasp that some govenrment is NECESSARY, but that does not make it good, or even not corrupt. Just better than anarchy.
You seem to think of all government as a positive good rather than a necescary evil.
And you think that despite a relentless stream of evidence to the contrary.
Whatever you might think of them
Horrowitz, I, II, III are NOT studies of good government, nor is Mueller,
nor are the Afghan papers, nor are ….
Nor is the VA debacle nor Benghazi, nor Fast & furious, nor …
You think /i am not worried about Trump abusing power – of course I am.
But:
Most – though not all Trump’s actions move towards less govenrment power.
There is no danger in that.
Every example of abuse of power I see, and every threatened abuse of power comes from those in government or those on the left.
I am going to direct my ire at the most seriuous threat.
Trump is not on that list.
Blah fucking blah.
Blah is not an argument.
“Shame on you if you can’t win arguments without insults”
Some good advice from Kenya
https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/editors-picks/whatsapp-introduces-call-waiting-feature
Haven;t we had enough double and tripple hearsay in the fax impeachment ?
What are the FACTS ?
WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM ?
Until you can identify a person who has been harmed – I have very little interest in your spin about “missuse”
What people SAY is not evidence. FACTS are.
Why aren’t those actually harmed making this claim ?
Wow, Trump spent money on his campaign, or the campaign of others or on artwork !!!
News at eleven! Democracy will collapse ?
Was it his money ? If so then why do you care ?
If it was not his money – have the people that money belonged to objected ?
If not – why do you care ?
What does it take for you to grasp – YOU do not get to decide how others live their lives.
Until you have someone who can say Trump used my money without my permission
then what this is about – is your or the NY AG’s idiotic beleif that you have the right to control other peoples lives.
In 2017 Burisma “settled” Twice with the Ukraine PG’s office for over 100M.
Does that prove that Burisma was corrupt ? That Hunter Biden is corrupt, that Joe Biden abused power ?
If you are going to impute guilt to settlements – VP Biden is headed to jail and the flimsy reed of your faux impeachment is gone.
More WTF?
White House says “President Trump warned against any Russian attempts to interfere in United States elections” In meeting with Lavrov.
Lavrov just now: “No, we haven’t even discussed elections.”
Whose words should we trust?
They are all politicians – you should not trust any of them.
You should not Trust what Trump says about a private meeting.
What Lavartov says., What Schiff says, what … says.
Frankly, you should not care all that much what these people SAY.
What matters is what they DO.
Trump At Work:
https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1205105242704138240
Really ?
So I guess that in Jay world Trump is not ever allowed to mention – on his personal twitter account any aspect of his life outside of 1600 pensylvania avenue.
If he mentions he his going golfing – you will decide that is somehow a crime.
Keep trying, Jay.
Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that “she” got a USMCA deal that the Democrats, the President and the unions all liked. And boasted “we at their lunch!”
Umm, if the President negotiated the deal a year ago, gave up a small concession to Dems that still made the deal a thousand times better than NAFTA, and got Nancy to sign off on it in order to cover up her huge impeachment fail, well, then…..
Exactly whose lunch did she eat, lol?
Although, when it comes to mumbling and slurring, Pelosi is the champ, I’ll give you that.
Tend to exaggerate much?
“ Umm, if the President negotiated the deal a year ago, gave up a small concession to Dems that still made the deal a thousand times better than NAFTA, and got Nancy to sign off on it in order to cover up her huge impeachment fail, well, then…..”
Show us the THOUSAND TIMES EVA added that’s better than NAFTA.
Yes it’s slightly better, and the DEMS slightly made the slightly better. And so it’s slightly-slightly better. Yay For Trump. Yay for Pillosi. Yay for US consumers who may see marginally better prices biologic-medicine prescription prices (DEMS provision) and for US auto workers, who may see an increase in hiring over the next decade (GOP provision) but modest bad news for USconsumers who are expected to see ‘slightly’ higher prices.
What impeachment fail? It’s turning out to be wonderful anti-Trump publicity for the Dems.
Everyone knows the Trump-Toady-GOP Senate wont remove him. But the daily media reminders of Trump-GOP perfidy has solidified 60% of the defeat-Trump electorate. And who knows what additional anti-Trump evidence will surface at the Senate trial. I’m hoping against hope Stormy Daniels will be called as a witness to testify. Media news rating would explode off the charts!
DEM QUESTIONER: “Ms Daniels, during your encounter with Mr Trump, did he mention or make reference to previous sexual experiences in a Russian hotel?”
Yes, Jay absolutely – make Priscilla’s obvious hyperbole into a crime!!!!
Do you read most of your own posts ?
You are ready to draw and quarter anyone who does not think Trump should be impeached because Lavrtov denied having talked about elections with Trump.
In this weird Jay world – we can not ever Trust the Russians – except when they do not perfectly concur with Trump. Then their word is golden.
And you want to attack Priscilla over hyperbole ?
Alas, alas, for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrites that you are
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you
You will not venture half so far
Other men that might enter the gates you
Keep from passing through!
Drag them down with you!
You snakes, you viper’s brood
You cannot escape being Devil’s food!
I send you prophets, and I send you preachers
Sages in rages and ages of teachers
Nothing can mar your mood
Do you actually want to have a serious discussion of USMCA ?
Or are you just looking for a way to spin it to attack Trump ?
You are correct It is not 1000 times better than what we had before.
We can quibble over details. Everything government does – even chosing not to do something has winners and losers.
There is nothing government can do (or not do) that will not be good for some and bad for others.
But Freer Trade is ALWAYS on net better for all parties – even though it might be worse for a small portion of people.
What we SHOULD do is get government entirely OUT
Let each of us make our own decisions whether to buy mexican or chinese goods.
320M individual USMCA deals, that are dynamically renegotiated every day – that is how free markets work.
Regardless, this has forced Pelosi to climb into bed with Trump.
She deserves credit for doing so.
But YOU are stuck with the inescable admission by democrats that Trump has done something good – you can say it is not perfect – fine.
But it was good enough for pelosi to sign on to.
AND it is something Obama could have done something about and did not.
Ok, ok.
500 times better!
😀
Priscilla – you owe no appologees,
the left has no sense of humor. No understanding of the use of hyperbole.
It is very weird Jay lies and exagerates and says completely over the top things all the time here – but he is actually brutally serious, he barely if at all grasps that he is engaging in hyperbole. He really does beleive the end of the world is nigh.
I waste enormous amounts of time explaining the obvious to him.
What the NY AG says about Trump is not an admission by Trump, nor is it a proven fact.
It is not even hearsay. It is just opinion.
It is nearly certainly self serving spin.
But for Jay it is gospel.
And I used that as an example – but it is just one of thousands.
I hear constantly that Hispanics will not forgive Trump for calling immigrants rapists.
But I have actually watched the clip in which Trump purportedly said that – and the whole clip, not the deceptively edited bit the left wing media sprayed has Trump saying that many mexican immigrants are “very fine people” – a classic Trump phrase.
Just about every purportedly racist or sexist, or hateful or discriminatory remark Trump has purportedly made is entirely different in context.
The left is incredibly litteral. More than people with autism or aspbergers.
Far more than I am, but worse still – they constantly play word games and engage in hyperbole and exageration – just as Trump does, and you do EXCEPT, they expect their exageration to be taken litterally.
No one thinks that USMCA is exactly 1000 times better than NAFTA.
But Jay would be here beating you if it was 990 times better or 1010 times.
If Trump did something perfectly legal, but outside of what Jay is familiar with – such as spending FAMILY Trust money on Baron Trump’s scouting, Jay would immediately exaggerate anything outside his own experience into a criminal lie.
i.e. the left exaggerates and then takes their own exaggerations literally.
Is it surprising that there is far more unhappiness, anxiety and depression on the left ?
These people have no sense of humour, no sense of joy in life, no sense of persepective.
There has been a “meme” floating that the left can not meme.
So left leaning social media artist took it upon himself to disprove that. He contacted the Warren campaign and was appointed to some social media position responsible for the creation of political memes – I beleive they had a different title.
A bit of this work leaked before their official opening – and was roundly criticized – by the LEFT. Those on the right had fun with it – and made memes of the memes.
Then they had an official opening of the Warren Meme force – with some other name.
Within a few hours all the memes were taken down – because the left took offense at their own memes. But many of these were captured and those an the right are having Fun memeing the memes.
I beleive Tim Poole did a video on this.
We see examples of this problem all over the place.
Proponents – even purported climate scientists DELIBERATELY exagerate the dangers and outcomes of Global Warming – because the truth – even the left leaning only subconsciously exagerated version is just not that scary or dangerous.
But then hordes on the left take these exagerations deadly seriously.
A left wing Journalist on the BBC had a recent exchange with some climate dystopian who was demanding we go to zero carbon emissions by 2026.
That we must stop flying completely and driving and ….
The journalist pointed out that even the IPCC did not support any of this, and he was told repeatedly with absolute sincerity that absent draconian measures immediately the world was doomed.
Not only are your OBVIOUS exagerations and Trumps taken litterally, and then framed is lies,
But their own intentional exagerations are taken as the truth.
In some instances by the very people making the exageration.
It is like telling a child the boogey man will get them if they do not finish their ice cream, and then spending all night guarding the doors to keep the boogey man out.
Jay, the media jumped the shark long ago.
In 70% of the congressional districts in this country more than 50% (often much more) of the news viewing is FOX.
That is not because FOX is great – they aren’t. It is because no one trust the MSM.
When MSNBC and CNN and … rant about Trump – they are speaking to the choir.
Most of the country is NOT LISTENING.
And with each day FEWER are.
CNN and MSNBC combined have less viewer than FOX in most prime time slots.
While CNN’s ratings have risen since Trump was elected (more recently they have seen about a 50% decline, though they are still above 2016), Fox’s ratings have increased faster.
Trust in the media is at a 30 year LOW – more than 50% down from Clinton.
The “approval” rating for the media is BELOW Trump’s.
Further numerous polls are showing that impeachment has turned off independents, and it has turned off voters in swing states. That Trump’s polls – especially in swing states has RISEN through the impeachment.
That impeachment has been a gift to republicans at all level – that fundraising is way up, that it has energized the GOP base AND that it has alienated those in the middle.
If this is your idea of success – please sir can I have more ?
Most people get the extremely obvious.
Asking the Ukraine to investigate clearly suspicious acts by VP Biden is not troubling.
You can not focus group test rhetoric to transform what most people do not see as wrong into something they do.
You have to persuade people with arguments, not word games.
Dave “When MSNBC and CNN and … rant about Trump – they are speaking to the choir.
Most of the country is NOT LISTENING.”
AMEN BROTHER! I have a friend of almost 50 years, retired Director of Pharmacy at the healthcare system we worked at, raised on a farm in the upper peninsula of Michigan, that became a flaming liberal that can almost regurgitate Rachel Maddow and co. daily news offering. Most of the time I just bite my tongue when he goes off using their facts. Other times I cant and tell him ” I dont want to hear it, do some research before running your mouth
As they said during colonial times, men do not argue, they have spirited discussions. Well we had a spirited discussion when he found nothing wrong with a FISA warrant being issued based on incomplete evidence or other problematic information contained in the request. And does not believe any legal action should take place if it is found that this was done on purpose, because, like Jay, he believes Trump needs to be removed using any means possible, including falsification of legal requests. His closing was ” Well I am not a Libertarian! “
I know you do not read all of my comments.
But I have been careful.
I have made it clear from the begining that there was NOTHING illegal about the DNC and HFA seeking – even manufacturing dirt on Trump. Repugnant, dirty politics, fine. But not illegal.
There was also nothing wrong with shopping it to the FBI.
The misconduct, the crime was what the FBI did with it.
Law enforcement should ALWAYS validate allegations before taking actions that infringe on the rights of others.
Can the police go lights and sirens to the scene of an alleged liquor store robbery ?
Certainly.
Can they shoot the first person coming out the front door ?
Absolutely not.
Horowitz is absolutely right – the standard to start an investigation is incredibly low.
The standard to ASK for one is FAR LOWER. Pretty close to non-existant.
But merely starting an investigation DOES NOT mean presuming the allegations are true.
It is the obligation of law enforcement to confirm as much of what is alleged as quickly as possible and if the allegation does not hold up – the basis for the investigation dies.
Horowitz focuses on the standard for a Warrant – because that is much higher and much clearer.
That standard was NEVER met. Not even close. FBI got warrants 4 times (and aparently was turned down for additional warrants on Flynn and Papadoulis) by LYING to the court.
Nor was this “mistakes” – Horrowitz just testified that he has never in his career seen anything like this, and he has seen occasional “mistakes”
Of the 17 specific egregious errors he found, most he had never seen before.
So everyone is clear – these people were not walmart cops.
Every single one of them was a lawyer – most having gone to excellent law schools.
Every one was an FBI agent. But not merely an agent, not even just a Special Agent in Charge. These were the heads of counter intelligence, and deputy directors of the FBI.
These were purportedly the best of the best at the worlds purportedly premier law enforcement agency.
It is quite simple to conclude that the Cross-Fire huricane was illegitimate but Trump’s request for investigations of Ukraine was legitimate. It is not possible to beleive that Crossfire Huricane was legitimate without also concluding that Trump was free to ask for investigations.
You are actually still trying to sell the “pee tapes” ?
“At Long Last, have you no shame ?”
Did you actually read the horowitz Report ?
The FBI talked to Steele’s source.
He said the Pee Tapes (and the rest of what he told Steele) was just gossip, and that he told Steele it was just gossip.
EVERYONE has tried to verify the pee tapes.
The AP, the FBI, Mueller, the rest of the press. Schiff.
If there were any reality to it – there would be a million dollar payday for someone.
As to your faux stormy testimony – If Stormy had anything damaging to say – she would have sold it to the media long ago.
And more power to her if she did.
I have no problem with Daniels getting as much money as she can whether it is to tell her story or to not tell her story.
Perfectly legal either way.
I would love to see Democrats call daniels – that would make total asses of them.
I can not think of anything stupider Schiff could do.
I am not making predictions at the moment – except that no matter what happens – this will flop for democrats.
If the house votes for impeachment – that will make life hell for swing district democrats.
If they do not – that will demoralize the democratic base.
If they do something will happen in the Senate.
It is possible that Republicans will vote to dismiss as insufficient before the start.
And they should. But I doubt that will happen.
I think That McConnel beleives that the Senate proceding is politically advantageous.
Republicans can spend days ranting of the pointlessness of this, and how democrats are wasting the publics time.
McConnel can give Schiff a lesson in due process – fair hearings do not permit hearsay, and do allow rigorous cross examination. I think McConnell will vote to use the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure, and Roberts will get to make the determinations as to what is allowed and what is not. And McConnell and republicans will not challenge him.
I do not think Schiff or the Biden’s will be called as witnesses, but I do think there will be a fight over it – and even losing makes Trump look good.
If they are called as witnesses – they are screwed.
Nor do I think Trump will testify. The evidence is not there – it is not even close.
I think that McConnell will figure out how to schedule this to most interfere with democrats political efforts, and most help republicans. Sanders and Warren must attend all the impeachment hearings. If past process is followed – that means being in DC for 6 days a week. The Senate normally does ordinary business in the morning. McConnel can force Sanders and Warren to take politically damaging votes, then tie them up all afternoon 6 days a week mute.
If the public pays attention (unlikely) that will damage democrats.
If they do not – that will damage democrats.
Next – democrats have just ensured that holiday discussions will be over Trump and impeachment.
Mostly left wing nuts trying to beat on their less lunatic relatives who do not wish to be hounded.
You will be manufacturing Trump voters by the score. You will be making people angry.
The reason most people have not paid much attention to this is because the most egregious version of it is just not consequential.
After Crossfire Huricane and Mueller most people do not have a problem with Trump investigating his harrassors.
Read Horowitz’s 3 reports. Read Mueller. The FBI Tried, Mueller tried. They came up with NOTHING.
Lots of people think it is Trump’s turn.
For those who actually pay attention – Horowitz just said the standard to open an investigation is very low. If the FBI met it – then Trump has easily.
But most people did not need Horowitz to understand that Trump doing to democrats what they have done to him for 3 years is not abuse of power.
You can not spin that away. And shouting and frothing just alienates people.
I told you that there is a price to pay for getting caught lying – particularly about false moral accusations of others.
Guess what – you are paying it now.
The people you most need to convince – do not trust you – for good reason,
They do not trust democrats, they do not trust the media..
Read your own quotes.
The Trump foundation is a FAMILY TRUST.
It is not money from russian oligarchs or the milk money of school students.
It is money the Trump Family has put into Trust.
It is THEIR money – not the NY AG’s , and they may use it as they please.
You point out that it was part of a long drawn out legal battle – so the Trump family decided to spend less than the legal costs – which can not be recovered from the state, to settle this – and you think that is some victory for the NY AG ?
Let me give you a clue – anytime any defendent in any action settles for less than the legal costs would be if they won – that means THEY WON. No matter how much spin you and the NY AG put on this She was unwilling to risk going forward and settled for an amount that she knew the Trump’s would agree to – because they are smart people who are not going to spend more than the 2M settlement to get an at best symbolic court victory.
I have been sued many times in my life as part of business.
I can not think of a single instance that did not settle.
And I beleive every settlement required me to pay money.
Sometimes I both paid money and received money.
There is not a single instance that I would say that I LOST.
In one instance I was sued for age, race, religious, and every other form of discrimination immaginable. The adjudicator on the State Human Relations commission took my lawyer aside after I testified and said – the plantif has no case. But this is going to take several more days, can you offer him half what the legal fees would be for the next 3 days and maybe we can make this go away ?
I agreed happily. It cost me $2500 to avoid wasting 3 days of my time and my lawyers.
But in your lunatic world – that means I must have been guilty of something.
Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: “we endorse a vote to impeach the president. While his removal from office is unlikely, his crimes against the country, and the Constitution, warrant that outcome.”
GOP – PartyOverCountry
Cite an actual crime, and provide incontrolvertable facts to support it ?
I can produce a LONG list of the crimes of his opponents – Horrowitz just did.
Horrowitz just – as expected cut the legs out from under “fantasy impeachment”.
The burden that must be met to open an investigation is very small.
The burden to ASK is even lowerer
Trump easily met the burden of constitutional legitimacy in his requests of Zelensky.
And would have been justified to do EXACTLY what democrats claim – to have demanded an investigation as a condition for receiving the money.
If Trump could constitutionally demand more than he did, he certainly can demand less.
As to the faux national security claim – while the Russians were actually shooting at and Killing Ukrainians – an event that Obama (Clinton) provoked. President Obama provided Ukraine with blankets.
If Trump is offering Ukraine Javelins with strings – we are more secure than with Obama.
If your criteria is security – why were you not demanding Obama’s impeachment ?
No one beleives you (or the house) gives a shit about National Security.
Nor do I beleive the Philedelphia Enquirer does either.
So if you wish to bitch about federal Aid not getting through – how about this.
Congress appropriated the aide – Adam Schiff even voted for it.
The white house has ordered the aide to be provided.
Yet the state department has been failing to deliver the aide – for more than four years – because the people being exterminated by ISIS who were directed to receive the aide were christians and jews in the mideast, and The Obamaphiles in the State department will not allow any aide to anyone anywhere to go through or to anyone with a religious affiliation (unless it is muslim).
So lets quit the idiotic handwringing about minor diddles in aide to Ukraine.
And since you like to pretend this has something to do with national security.
These are people in a recognized war zone being exterminated by ISIS and designated by Obama as victims of Genocide. With absolute certainty people died over this.
And just to be clear – those responsible are in many instance the same people – Yavonovich was in Syria, or of the same cliche as those paraded in front of the house impeachment committee.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/11/career_officials_thwart_aid_to_christian_yazidi_genocide_victims__141929.html#2
It’s just one more irony of our time, that a satire news site is more accurate and reliable than the mainstream news media:
https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-popularity-rises-after-revelation-he-obstructed-congress
I am chortling at the claim that republicans and Trump supporters are “conspiracy theorists”.
On just about every major claim thus far – Trump has been fundimentally correct.
This was a witch hunt, his campaign was wiretapped, his campaign was spied on – according to horrowitz at high levels. There is a deep state cabal out to get him.
There was no “collusion” with Russia – atleast not by the Trump campaign.
Had Mueller found the connections to Russia that even Horrowitz is echoing in the Steele Dossier and Hillary for America – in the Trump campaign – Trump would be in jail by now.
The only collusion with foreign powers was in the Clinton campaign, the only collusion with Russia was with the Clinton campaign.
Much is made that the Investigation of Trump did not go public (mostly) until after the election – and somehow this favored Clinton, while emailgate was very public.
Yet, Russia provided the anti-Trump nonsense in the Steele Dossier to the Clinton campaign. Clinton could have gone public with it, but instead chose to foist it on FBI/CIA/State.
It is trivially arguable that Russia was deliberately feeding Clinton dirt on Trump to destroy HIS campaign. Regardless HFA and the DNC were clearly “colluding with Russia”.
We have had Comey’s testimony, the Nunes Report, Horowitz I, Mueller, Horrowitz II, and Horowitz III, and each of these is relentlessly damning to democrats.
Each of these says that our government – our CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD have spent 4 years in a WITCH HUNT.
Horrowitz has confirmed everything in the Nunes report. It has also rejected every contradictory claim in the Schiff report.
The democrats have been wrong, The media has been wrong, the DOJ, FBI, have been wrong about pretty much everything.
We have several Trump people who have been destoryed even jail for purportedly lying to congress or investigators – lying about their own innocence in a witch hunt.
This is quite litterally soviet tactics – threaten and even prosecute people for false crimes to get them to make false confessions to support your false narrative.
Mueller new or should have know very early into his investigation that there was NOTHING THERE. And yet he forged on. We do not have the equivalent of the Horrowitz Report on Mueller’s investigation.
But there is zero reason to expect it would be different.
Most of the same people who are excoritated in the Horrowitz Report were key players in the Mueller investigation.
Papadoulis has gone to jail, Page is very lucky to have avoided the same fate.
Stone is facing the equivalent of life – because a DC Jury and an Obama judge want to punish him for Trump being elected.
Yet nothing has happened to any of those who foist a lie on all of us. Those who used the power of government to torture people like Papadoulis and Page and Stone.
If what Horrowitz found is all there is – it is still ACTUALLY worse than watergate.
And I really do not want to here nonsense from anyone on the left about Republican Conspiracy theories and conservative “fake news”.
Have none of you any shame ?
Yesterday we heard top democrats talking about solemn duties to the constitution and oaths of office.
These would be the very people who have been lying to us for 4 years.
After the MacCarthy hearings in the 50’s Joe MacCarthy was scorned and ridiculed and faded into oblivion.
Adam Schiff is more prominent than ever – for …. Selling LIES.
It is somehow Trump’s fault that we are bitterly divided – yet who is it that is lying about who ?
The media, the left and democrats have been accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being a “russian asset” – including other democrats, yet the only people Russia successfully manipulated and colluded with was THEM.
Jay, how do you square the fact that Trump was a very, very famous businessman and reality TV star, known for his pro-American and pro-captialist views (as well as his braggadocio and womanizing) for decades, long before he ran for president, yet, as soon as the Steele Dossier, now proven to be complete, unsubstantiated rubbish, was presented to the CIA and FBI, they immediately began a counterintelligence operation against Trump, without ever giving him a defensive briefing?
As far as I know, there is zero evidence, from his past life, or from his campaign and presidency, that he ever had any treasonous or nefarious dealings with any foreign government or person, yet you believe that he is a traitor ~ or at the very least, unAmerican~ in the same way that people belive in God.
I honestly can’t understand it. It seems as if half the country has minds that have completely shut down on this, and there is no persuading them. As the old joke goes, if Trump were to walk on water, you would say that he can’t swim.
Can you state any specific reasons why you think that he should be impeached? Hating him, and thinking that he is an asshole don’t count.
It seems to me that politics is now seen as sport by many people, and they root for one side to win and the other side to lose, NO MATTER WHAT THAT SIDE DOES. If Trump became a socialist, would Sanders and Warren supporters be happy, and start to like Trump? Or would they just say that he’s faking it, and impeach him for that?
How have we gotten to this place? Maybe it really is that politics has replaced religion?
I do not like the term “defensive briefing”. It implies that it is optional.
It is actually not. Horrowitz did not investigate that very deeply.
As a consequence of the CIA’s and FBI’s domestic spying and infiltration of the anti-war and civil rights movements, severe restrictions were made into law following the recomendations of the Church Commission.
These severely limited the FBI’s ability to spy on US organizations – not just political campaigns, but church groups, etc.
Whenever the FBI wishes to use these techniques on a US organization, it must either notify the leadership of that organization OR it must seek the explicity permission of the Attorney General.
We know that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. The implication in the Horrowitz report is that they did NOT get permission of the AG. But one of the problems with the Horrowitz report is that Horrowitz’s ability to question anyone not currently in the FBI or DOJ is non-existant.
BTW this is also why so much of this mess takes place in England or involves Mifsud or Downer. Because the FBI was looking to circumvent the law by operating outside the US with foriegn assets.
Hypocrite Trump at bullying best:, picking on a minor with autism after numerous railings against a harmless joke about his son’s first name:
“So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”
If this is still your guy, you’re subhuman.
Is this the first time Trump went after an underage girl without Jeffrey Epstein’s help?
You do know that the conpiracy theories regarding Epstein are that Hilary killed him to keep Bill;s kiddie diddling from coming out ?
Joe Walsh answering what kind of president bullies a teenaged girl”
“ To answer your question sir: An insecure President. A lonely President. A cruel President. A narcissistic President. An ignorant President. A cowardly President.”
But Trump Cultists will defend him no matter how obnoxious his actions.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Greta – she is being used.
But it is Not Trump who is using her. It is the perverts that have fed her this malthusian climate garbage.
When you set up a child – an autistic one at that, to push your political garbage and malthusian nonsense, you do EVIL.
We should not be attacking Greta – outside of her family we should not be listening to her at all. Much less giving her Nobel prizes.
Children should not be used in adult political conflicts.
And YOU started that.
So you’re going to ignore Trump bullying her in his tweet?
Typical ignoble double-standard whataboutism bullshit.
For me to express any more contempt for you a new synonym needs to be invented –
First I do not pretty much ever consider free speach bullying – if it was – you would be in jail.
That is all you do. I was actually bullied as a kid – other students beat me up, or tried.
Greta has taken a highly public political stand.
BTW I have zero problems with her doing so at an age appropriate platform.
But those thrusting her onto the global stage despite her age lack of experience, maturity and knowledge (otherwise known as being a teenager) did her a great disservice.
Worse they are doing so deliberately – because when Teens spew ill informed nonsense. we are disuaded from saying “That is Bullshit”.
My family has debates like this all the time at the dinner table.
But my Son and Daughter do not take their views to CNN or MSNBC – they are not ready, well informed or mature enough for that.
Greta is being used – by people like YOU and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Hiding behind the skirts of a teen with autism.
As a completely independent issue – Time botched it.
The obvious “person of the year” is the Hong Kong Protestors”.
Greta is beating a dead horse badly.
Worse she is being used – by you, and Time, and you are clueless.
Joe Walsh again ? Really ?
You do understand that he IS what you accuse Trump of ?
You do know that Walsh shoots holes in your repetitive gurgling that lefties and neoconservative are the only ones condemning Trump for the asshole divisive inept moron that he is.
Look at the GROWING list of genuine Republican-conservatives who keep warning you what a disaster Trump is to the nation.
Look at you-having lost all sense of proportion of the damage that lump of deceptive divisive crap is doing to the nation. Look at you – too self centered with your own image of political clairvoyance to look at it objectively.
Trump is the WORST thing to happen to the nation in your lifetime; likely in the history of the nation. and you continue to rationalize his acceptability.
Shame shame shame on you…
Were talking about the Joe Walsh that Actually attacked Tammy duckworth for being seriously disabled as a helicopter pilot in Iraq ?
“My God, that’s all she talks about. Our true heroes, the men and women who served us, it’s the last thing in the world they talk about.”
On June 19, 2014, Walsh was removed from his radio show for using racial slurs
On January 14, 2015, following the Charlie Hebdo shooting, in a tweet which he described as satirical, Walsh called for Islamists to “behead” reporters on CNN and MSNBC and referred to them as “appeasing cowards” for not airing cartoons published by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which depicts prophet Muhammad.
In another tweet, Walsh stated that not showing cartoons of Muhammad would lead to more attacks.[
On July 7, 2016, the night of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, Walsh wrote on Twitter, “This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out Black Lives Matter punks. Real America is coming after you.”
On October 24, 2016, Walsh wrote on Twitter, “On November 8th, I’m voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket. You in?”
On September 23, 2017, Walsh described Stevie Wonder as “Another ungrateful black multi millionaire” after Wonder had taken a knee at his concert in protest of what he termed police brutality
In 2018, Sacha Baron Cohen’s television program Who Is America? premiered showing Walsh supporting the hoax “kinderguardians program” which supported training toddlers with firearms
In July 2011, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Walsh’s ex-wife, Laura, was suing him for $117,437 for past due child support dating from 2005 for their three children.[59] Walsh allegedly had told his ex-wife that he did not have the money because he was out of work; she had later seen from his campaign disclosures that he had been employed
On February 1, 2013, Walsh filed a motion to terminate child support obligations, claiming that as he was now unemployed he was unable to contribute to the support of his children
No Jay. Republican support of Trump is GROWING.
I am not republican. But if Democrats were wise they would not Take Neo-Cons back.
They are toxic to anything they touch. Little could harm democrats more than crawling into bed with Neocons.
Rassmussen Has Trumps support at 51% and 6pts higher than Obama’s at this time.
If Republicans are fleeing SOMEONE certainly supporting him.
Actual contenders for the worst thing to happen to the nation in my lifetime:
9/11
Vietnam
The John Kennedy Assassination. The MLK assassination.
The summer of rage.
The Iran Hostage Crisis.
The Lockerbee Bombing.
OKC
Wacco
Ruby Ridge.
The Beltway Sniper.
ObamaCare
ARRA
Akilli Laro
Munich Olympic massacre.
Bhopal
MV Dona PAz
Chernobel
Three Mile Island
Challenger
Columbia
Columbine
Las Vegas.
Trump – not on the list.
No matter how long you make the list. Trump will be below Obama and Bush II.
Spittle does not make something consequential.
Trump did not push Greta to advocate for scientifically unsuported malthusian crap that is dividing people – others like you did.
Trump did not force on half the country a healthcare program they did not want.
Trump is trying not to force on the country millions of immigrants they do not want.
Trump did not push on the country a completely bogus and divisive collection of false allegations that has consumed the country – or atleast the left for 4 years.
I look arround at everything in this country that is getting worse – and what I see behind it (or in front of it) is the left.
Ending the national divide is trivial.
Cease trying to get your way by force and persuade people.
That is all it takes.
If you can not persuade people – then you are not free to force your will on them anyway,
Persuading people is NOT alone sufficient, but it is an absolute requirement.
Trump was elected because you failed at persuading voters.
Current numbers suggest that if the presidential election was held TODAY – Trump would win – against any current democrat, by the same or more than he did in 2016.
Calling the people who voted for him cretans – and you do daily – is NOT persuasion.
It is highly divisive.
Getting along is easy.
Resist the urge to get your way via force.
Meh, come on , Jay.
You don’t seriously believe that that the people who exploit this young girl, who is afflicted with Asperger’s, keeping her out of school, and sending her out to parade herself around as some sort of climate change expert, really care about her, do you?
When she ceases to be of value to them, they will toss her aside like garbage. I hope that she will at least have some money at that point, although it’s probably her parents who will benefit from any financial gain. And we already know that they are more than willing to pimp her out to political interests.
You’re fine with mockery of 13 yr old Barron Trump, who is kept almost entirely out of the public eye, and whose privacy is carefully guarded, but you get all riled up when anyone criticizes an autistic16 year old, celebrated by the media, who claims that climate change “dnniers” are literally killing her?
Who is paying for her world travel, her lodging, her meals? Who is scheduling her speeches? Who’s writing those speeches?
Who decided that she is more important, in the scheme of things, than the Hong Kongers who are risking their lives for freedom? I suppose Time Magazine, for one.
I have no ill will toward this poor kid, but seriously the whole thing is a cruel farce.
WTF does any of your blabbering have to do with TRUMP BULLYING HER?
You failed to condemn him for that, yet you were indignant when a dem merely referred to Trump’s kid’s name.
Jay, yes, I failed to condemn him for saying that a young teen, who sails and flies around the world, angrily denouncing everyone who disagrees with her apocalyptic view climate change, should go to a movie with friends and “chill.”
I think it’s similar, actually to the mockery of Barron Trump for having a name that some lefty law prof “jokes” is his father’s way of conferring a royal title on him. It’s not nice, and I wouldn’t say that about a kid who has to deal with a lot already ~and I mean that about both Barron and Greta. But it’s far from “bullying.”
The difference is that Greta and/or her parents have willingly put her out there to be used used as an “attack child,” by political activists, who know that, whenever any adult tries to fight back against her “How DARE you?!” attack speeches, they can be called bullies.
I don’t think Trump really cares if the people who are willing to make fun of his 13 yr. old’s name on national tv, call him a bully……
He’s been called worse, prettty much every day.
“ He’s been called worse, prettty much every day.”
Yes, justifiably.
But Priscilla, if you’re OK with Trump singling out a teenager for advice on Twitter, you should be OK if a major Dem Tweets similar advice:
“Chill out Byron, no one blames you for your father’s vulgar sexual behavior the night you were born, or his groping women admissions, or sexual payoffs, and misuse of charity money, and associations with mobsters. You can still lead an honorable life.”
Another news organization describes the slimy prez:
USA TODAY:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/11/impeach-president-donald-trump-usa-today-editorial-board-editorials-debates/4391506002/
“Clinton was impeached by the House (but not removed by the Senate) after he tried to cover up an affair with a White House intern. Trump used your tax dollars to shake down a vulnerable foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election for his personal benefit.
In his thuggish effort to trade American arms for foreign dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump resembles not so much Clinton as he does Richard Nixon, another corrupt president who tried to cheat his way to reelection.
This isn’t partisan politics as usual. It is precisely the type of misconduct the Framers had in mind when they wrote impeachment into the Constitution.“
Clinton lied under oath MULTIPLE TIMES.
He Suborned Perjury.
He obstructed Justice.
He directed others to destroy evidence
These are ALL real crimes.
And actually no Trump did not use “your tax dollars”.
Had he actually done as you claim, particularly had he actually denied aide to Ukraine – he would have SAVED tax dollars.
Not spending Tax dollars is not stealing from americans.
I want far more president to NOT SPEND tax dollars as much as possible.
And I would cut US foreign aide to ZERO.
No, Jay this is pretty much exactly what the framers DID NOT want.
They explicitly left foreign policy – short of declaring war, as the domain of the president.
Our founders did not beleive the US government should be giving money to other governments.
For washington and Madison and Jefferson and Adam’s US Aide to ukraine is itself unconstitutional.
You have a very warped view of the world.
You have had multiple reports – done by Democrats, Obama appointees, your own chosen people – Horrowitz and Mueller.
And despite Mueller’s growling and huffing these have all RELENTLESSLY contradicted YOUR world view.
No one Trusts you or those you associate with.
At worst you are all demonstrable liars of the worst sort.
At best you are completely unable to see the world as it actually is.
You celebrate Horrowitiz’s legal conclusion – that it takes very very little to START an investigation.
But are completely oblivious to the fact that it takes EVEN LESS to ask for an investigation.
There is no conceivable legal system where the initiation of Crossfire huricane is legitimate and Trump’s request of Zelensky to investigate Ukrainian interference in 2016 is not.
But in Jay world that is somehow True.
The ghost of Nixon is present in Comey’s FBI, not Trump.
What was done to Trump in 2016 is exactly what Nixon wanted from Hoover and could not get. An FBI that he could use for political goals.
Todate there is zero evidence of Trump ever using the institutions of the US govenrment – it is self evident that through his entire presidency – they do not listen to him.
When EVER has the FBI spied on a political campaign before ?
You and those like you are investigating the wrong things.
Trump is not even close to a problem.
So lets be clear – I WANT THE NONSENSE THAT WENT ON IN UKRAINE IN 2016 INVESTIGATED.
I am tired of your nonsense that this is all right wing conspiracy theories.
You have lost that argument.
Alex Jones has more credibility than Jake Tapper.
The democrats have no clothes. You have lied and smeared and you are unrepentant.
Get Out Of The Way!
I am glad to hear that Durham and Barr are pushing back.
That means there is some hope they take this seriously.
While I think that Horrowitz did a good job, it is also self evident that he is too part of the institutions that he is investigating and is just unable to reach the OBVIOUS conclusions that we are way beyond individual malfeasance.
That at a minimum a significant part of the FBI was SYSTEMICALLY CORRUPT.
I do not agree with Mark Levin’s editorial below.
But you should be deeply concerned, because I and millions of others are NOT FAR from supporting this.
YOU have decided that people who disagree with you politically are the enemy and that we are at war and that you are free to use any means necescary to win.
If you continue to behave lawlessly – then there will be no law. You can not have law, when only half the country follows it.
Regardless This is what is coming.
————————————————
I am of the opinion that the next Democrat president must be impeached.
That’s the only way to stop this.
If the Republicans control the House, they must impeach the next Democrat President to ensure this sort of thing is never repeated.
The next Democrat President must be impeached? What are the grounds? It doesn’t matter.
With Trump, they were talking impeachment when he was a candidate. They were talking impeachment the day he got elected. I told you, this is all sham. It’s a scam. It’s a ruse.
The only way to stop them is to turn the political and impeachment guns on them.
The next Democrat president must be impeached.
The Republican Congress can take a page from Nadler, from Waters, from Engel, from Schiff and all the rest.
They should issue scores and scores of subpoenas. Scores of subpoenas, for financial information, for bank records, for tax information; all kinds of communications with, around and about the president; issue subpoenas for the president’s White House Counsel, Chief of Staff, National Security Adviser, and other people who are closest to the president so he ceases to function.
You want to burden this Democrat president as much as possible. You want to undermine him as much as possible.
And you can wave around the Pelosi doctrine, the Schiff doctrine, the Nadler doctrine, and all the rest of them. Use their rules and take him down.
Do the Republicans have the guts to do so? I doubt it, but they must.
It is the only way to fix the Constitutional order when it comes to impeachment because the Democrats are creating this precedent.
Now let them eat it.
Joe Biden would be the perfect Democrat president to be impeached.
Start subpoenaing all of his records; all of his phone calls with Ukraine, all of his phone calls with Red China.
You bring Hunter Biden in for 30 hours of secret testimony like they brought Don Jr. in.
You create a special counsel, the way they created a special counsel against President Trump.
You demand Joe Biden testify in person and, when he refuses, you claim he has something to hide.
Imagine using their tools and their rhetoric against their guy. Or gal, it could be Elizabeth Warren, another liar. She’s another one with interesting finances. Well, we want to get to the bottom of it.
The next Democrat president must be impeached.
And Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Nadler and the others; CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC and the others; they have all laid the foundation.
And the only way to stop this is to destroy their foundation with their guy or their lady.
No single person has done more damage to this country in the past 3 years than Adam Schiff. He is the head cheerleader of the Coup, and though the Horrowitz report does not address Schiff it does repudiate every single thing he has said over the past 3 years.
Schiff will likely be re-elected as he comes from a safe seat.
But ANYONE would be a better choice.
Regardless, as we move into the future Adam Schiff is about as credible as Alex Jones – MAYBE. Jones has been right more often.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-adam-schiff-horowitz-report-20191212-52rjydsgzvb7tf7pgh3gfy45qq-story.html
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace:
“I believe President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on freedom of the press in out history.”
He’s right.
He should resign on air, and moon Trump as his parting gesture.
Watching what the rest of you are doing to John Solomon and you can say that with a straight face ?
And I like Chris Wallace, but this is pretty much NOT the day to be attacking Trump for criticising the Press.
Most of the MSM has spent 4 years chasing snipes – Read the Damn Horrowitz Report,
Nearly all that anti-Trump reporting of the past 4 years has been LIES.
Trump has not nationalized the press.
He has not gotten search warrants against Journalists – as Obama did.
He did not pass a stupid sedition act – like our founders did.
Trump has been highly critical of the press.
AND THEY DESERVE IT.
Trump’s criticism’s can be muted or atleast blunted quite simply
REPORT THE FACTS, ONLY THE FACTS.
Save opinion for the opinion page, and even then – support your opinion with FACTS.
Regardless, Trump seems to have read Justice Brandeis
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill
Keep up the whataboutism- you’re so good at it.
And keep ignoring the Trump stench – that’s become second nature to you.
What you call whataboutism has a more accurate name
Your hypocracy
No one believes that you actually care desperately about something you never did before
Nor do we beleive you will in the future
Obama withheld military aide under the sam e law
Pv bide threatened to withhold 1b in aide
You still don’t care
This is about trump not facts not acts
6 in 10 say Trump has not cooperated with the house.
That’s easy. I do not either. Nor do I think he is obligated to, until either:
Ordered to by the courts
or
the house and whitehouse negotiate an arrangement.
But 44% oppose impeachment and only 38% now support it ?
And you are moving forward ?
And you KNOW there is more bad news coming – unless after reading the Horrowitz report you beleive that Barr and Durham are bluffing.
Fox News Poll:
“ Nearly half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a new Fox News Poll. In addition, 6-in-10 believe the president did ask foreign leaders to investigate political opponents — and two-thirds say that action is inappropriate.
Forty-nine percent want Trump impeached and removed from office, 4 percent say he should be impeached but not removed, and 41 percent oppose impeaching Trump. That’s about where things stood in early October, when 51 percent said impeach/remove, 4 percent impeach/don’t remove, and 40 percent opposed altogether.”
100% shoul agree that he asked for an investigation of Biden
Asking for an investigation is not a crime
Many of us absolutely want that investigation
Just as 100% should agree that Clinton violated many laws with her bathroom email server
And 100% should agree that mueller and the fbi conducted an improper witch hunt
Sounds like nothing has changed since he was elected
Sounds like the same sore loser soft coup problem we have had since he was elected
Todays domestic financial headlines “November Lackluster Retail Sales Bad Omen for America’s Economy”
I am sick of reporters that tell part of a story to fit THEIR agenda. I am almost to the point every article should contain a warning to readers that this reporter is considered “x or y” in their political leanings.
They are like women that had family recipes that shared the recipe, but left out the one ingredient that was critical that made theirs better than the others recipe.
.
Yep, sales were down.
Yep, there was 30 days in November, sam as last year.
Yep, there was a Black Friday and Small Business Saturday in both years
HOWEVER!! Cyber Monday fell on December 2, the first time this has happened in years.
So tor those with an agenda, they have 31 days to run around with their sky is falling message and the huge impact the trade issues are having on the economy. Then when December blows away sales totals compared to Dec 2018, not a word will be spoken, nor will they compare total sales for the two months combined.
So nov 2019 was the same as nov 2018 without cyber Monday ?
Another Dumb Ass Deal by Trump: The Tweeter’s Ten Billion Dollar Loss
-China has agreed to buy $50B of ag products next year (but no guarantee they will). That’s an increase of $29B from pre-tariff trade.
But the tariffs cost U.S. farmers $11B. And taxpayers put up $28B in emergency ag payouts.
So…we lost/spent $39B. Gained $29B. 10B flushed down Trump’s Toilet.
And it doesn’t help any of the Americans who lost their farms as a result of TTT (Trump Toilet Tariffs). Or any of the Americans still losing jobs for the TTTs still in place.
Atta boy, Donnie – the Art Of The Dumbbell; high-risk low-reward outcome, just like you ran your casinos.
Jay, I am linking an article from yahoo, not known to be a Trumpanszee site. So read it and explain exactly what is wrong with the agreement that has significant increased purchases over 2017, before the tariffs. And please note the paragraph that reads:
“Soybeans made up half of China’s agricultural purchases in 2017. Demand has since cratered because the pig herds that eat it have been reduced by African swine fever, however.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-phase-china-tariffs-beijing-153122949.html
So blame Trump for decreased soy shipments, but when a far left site like Yahoo writes this, I question your thinking.
But you and Dave are two peas in a pod. Open borders for anything coming into USA with no recourse for closed borders for our stuff. As long as you can buy your cheap Chinese crap, you could care less about the industry workers out of a job. As long as your cell phone works, too bad others in technology dont have a job because China stole the intellectual properties.
So far I am behind Trumps trade actions 100%. After 30+ years at least someone is trying, unlike those selling out to trade agreements like TPP and NAFTA. I have no idea how USMCA will comenout, but someone is at least trying to make things better.
The $40 to $50 billion in AG exports is over two years. It doesn’t increase farm exports above where they were before tariffs went into effect. There’s no promise the increases will extend past two years (per Larry Kudlow)..
In 2018 thru Oct 2019 US exports to China fell close to $100 billion, post 2017 tariffs. in other words it isn’t much of a deal. And the tariffs have been an economic failure.
Are you sure?
Beijing has committed to buying $32 billion more in farm products over the next two years, or about $16 billion a year, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told reporters at the White House, on top of a baseline of $24 billion in Chinese purchases in 2017. In addition, Beijing said it would make a big effort to spend an additional $5 billion a year. ”
Why would a liberal site report the 32B is in addition to the 24B purchased in 2017 before the tariffs took affect?
According to trading economics data us exports to China a re highly volatile even seasonally
But the log term trend is not and current exports are slightly higher than when trump was elected
Further the peak to trough difference is ess than 60b
So the max possible impact was closer to 30b
And that is a reach
This trade deal s neither a great try or a defeat
I think we should have stayed out of this
But that does not make it crime of the century
Trumps trade deals have been nastier than Obama’s
They have been slightly better for the us than Obama’s
But they have been neither great nor the end of the world
Probably the biggest effects up has had whether in trade or other aspects of foreign relations is that he has sent a message to the world that the us has weight to throw around and will do so in its own interests
Macron and treudeau can joke about trump but when they were talking together
THEY were answering to the US
I do not care nor do most Americans whether macron or Trudeau laugh at our president
So long as they respect our power
And Ron – re: your swine flu comment- it has cut pork production by 50%, of course they’re going to import more agricultural products.
Did Trump’s tariffs cause the the swine flu?
Jay, read this again.
“Soybeans made up half of China’s agricultural purchases in 2017. Demand has since cratered Soybeans made up half of China’s agricultural purchases in 2017. Demand has since cratered because the pig herds that eat it have been reduced by African swine fever, however.have been reduced by African swine fever, however.”
See where it says “because the pig herds that eat it”. Soy bean exports were cut because they had many fewer pigs eating the soy beans.
You said “of course they’re going to import more agricultural products.”
No they are not. They cut back on the amount of Ag products when this happened.
We will never agree on trade just as Dave and I do not agree on trade. If I had anything to do with it I would slap a 50% tariff on all Chinese crap until their economy was in shambles.
There is. Requirement that China import more products from the us because of swine flu
Ron
Am I supportive of actually free trade ?
Like 95% of economists
As to your criticisms
If Chinese goods are cheap junk
Do not buy them
But why are you forcing me and everyone else to live by your judgement
Stanard of living rises ONLY when more value is produced using less Human Resources
Always and everywhere that means rising standards of livin will result in people losing one job and having to find another
The us China does not matter
If the Chinese do not take those jobs illegal immigrants or automation will
All that said while I am not supporting trumps trade war
I am not exaggerating the negative impact
The global economy and inelasticty in supply of agricultural products means if China does not buy our food some one else will
Probably for more not less mone
The Chinese devalued their currency essentially transferring the cost of the trade war to the Chinese people
The highest est impact on the us I have seen is 1%of gdp
That is likely an order of magnitude off
The lowest is 0,01% of gdp
The latter being more likely than the former
Dave, we have already had this discussion so many times that I am going to copy this so I can paste it and not have to rewrite it each time!
There IS a difference between free trade and FAIR trade. You support free trade like 95% of economist. I do not. I support fair trade.
Free trade = their stuff comes in free, our stuff blocked by high tariffs. They steal intellectual properties, we follow trademark rules.
Fair trade = their stuff comes in free, our stuff goes to them free of tariffs. Our stuff has high tariffs going to them, their stuff gets high tariffs.
And stop telling me to buy things not made in China. For instance, find me a regular incandescent light bulb made in America!
Also, I was in the market for a pressure washer. Website stated, “produced in America”. Humm, I wrote company and they said pressure system was American, the assembly plant is American, the engine ( not a minor component) is Chinese made.
No I did not buy it! But had “produced” not caught my eye instead of ” made in America”, I most likely would have.
Buy they way, I just today replaced a high cost, Chinese made LED 100 watt equivalent bulb, 4th one in a box of four that has a 15,000 hour life. Box was purchased last spring. Even if these bulbs were on 5 hours a day ( which they are not), they should last 3000’days! All four went bad within 200 days.
Dont tell me to guy something else since something else is almost impossible to find!
Of course there is a difference between free trade and fair trade
We know universally what freedom is
There is zero agreement in any context regarding fair trade
Regardless ALL trade has the negative effects you attribute to unfair trade
If you up steel from the us instead of China
Americans are out of a job regardless
Just as consumers should decide whether they want low flow toilets
They not governments should decide whether they want the goods you call junk from China
You only get to decide quality and affordability for yourself
Trump has just forced the Chinese to buy lots of government subsidized farm products from the us
That might be good for us farmers
It is not so hot for the rest of us
Just as China subsidizing goods sold to the us harms the Chinese the us subsidizing farm goods sold anywhere harms Americans
There is a reason 95% of economist support free trade
It is well understood that the best outcome for any country is the lowest barriers to foreign trade
No matter how badly your trading partners behave
You are better of if your trade is freer and the freer the better
I have taken jay to task for magnifying the harms of trump on trade
But I have not said there is no harm
Trump has been wise in that he has played from a position of strength
The us ecomy started growing after trumps election and us unemployment continues to drop
China, the world are in a weaker position
While China’s growth is higher than ours
They need to sustain that growth and they are having trouble
Further there is an abundance of countries starting to do to them what they did To us
Textiles will leave China in the next decade
Just like Japan and Korea in prior decades China must shift to higher value products
Or hav a stagnant standard of living
Ultimately China will benefit as low skill low pay jobs leave and they must compete at higher skill
Just as the us benefited
If you want to go back to making textiles in the us you must
Kill minimum wage
Open the borders to allow low skilled cheap workers in
Joseph schumpeter identified a market force called creative destruction
For standard of living to rise those who can not compete must fail
To free those resources like workers to be used more productively
If the jobs you seek to protect in trade deals are secured from China
They will ultimately fall to automation
The price of anything is what a buyer will pay
If they know consciously or intuitively that the price is too high
As it is when th government engages in protectionism
They will get lower prices another way
If the Chinese can do your job for less
You are living on borrowed time
What you call fair trade is inherently unfair
By your definition of fair trade we should be sure that red states are not being ripped off by blue ones
The states are not ripping each other off
It is not my job to find you what you want at the prices you want made by the people you want at the quality you want
If that place existed and they do not now it is because most consumers found other choices better and they. Failed
Failure is a good thing in markets
It is how thing improve
You keep talking about cheap crap from China costing American jobs
Would it be ok with you if the Chinese goods were superior to us goods ad more expensive ?
We are near certain to have a trade deal with the us shortly
That deal will create jobs in some us industries and kill them in others
Is that ok with you ?
All trade creates and destroys jobs
All trade occurs because the goods purchased elsewhere are either better or cheaper
Trade would not occur otherwise
You are really opposed to trade
Or arbitrarily opposed to some trade
Trump just got the Chinese to buy billions in us farm goods
How is that fair
Us farm goods are sbsidized by our government
That means tax payers are paying for benefits to the Chinese
That you are ok with ?
shouldnt American famers sell soy or whatever because theirs is the best price or the highest quality ?
Not because trump strong armed the Chinese ?
I am not outraged over trumps trade deals because they are not the Ed of the world
They are not errors n the magnitude of PPACA
That does not make them good
As to jay
Is there anyone who doubts he would be a protectionist if trump was a free trader ?
Dave HELLO!!!
Fair trade¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Has nothing to do with jobs directly.
If its fair, trade free of tariffs coming and going, or 10% coming and going, fine.
If it protects one job and eliminates another, O.K.
Free trade does NOT do that.
It destroys jobs because we import without tariffs when they add tariffs.
Understand?? Free??? FAIR????
If you voluntarily agree to sell to me and I voluntarily agree to buy from you nothing can possibly be more fair
Anything that interferes with that is unfair
Tarrifs did not cost taxpayers anything
China devalued its currency
They were still a bad idea
Bailouts were a bad idea
This deal is not a big deal
China does not have to live up to it and neither does trump
Mostly it is both sides backing from the brink and continuing to negotiate
It is a SMALL victory for trump
so dhlii, having read the entire IG report as you claim, why didn’t you mention this?
“ Another fun finding? That Ivanka Trump has been buddies with Christopher Steele—the author of the dossier that her father has blasted as “phony and corrupt,” and the basis of the F.B.I. “witch hunt” against him—for years.
Rather than harbor a bias against Trump that led him to produce a negative, highly embarrassing file on the then-presidential candidate, the report found that, if anything, Steele was “favorably disposed” toward the Trump family, given his friendship with Ivanka, which @realDonaldTrump failed to mention at any point while slandering the former British spy as “dopey,” a “Trump hater,” and a “lowlife” on Twitter. While the apple of Trump’s creepy eye is not mentioned by name, the “family member” referenced is said to be his eldest daughter, according to ABC News. Per the report, Steele told investigators that the allegation he was biased against Trump was “ridiculous,” considering well before he started his research, he visited “a Trump family member” at Trump Tower and had “been friendly” with [the family member] for a number of years. Steele described his relationship with said family member as “personal” and told investigators that he’d once gifted them a family tartan from Scotland to.
According to ABC News’s Julia Macfarlane, Steele and Ivanka initially met at a dinner in 2007 and subsequently met up at Trump Tower. Emails suggest they stayed in touch over the next several years, with mentions of other dinners coming up. And not only were the two personal friends, Princess Purses reportedly invited the former spy to her office in 2010, after he’d gone into private practice, to “discuss the possibility of him working for the Trump Organization doing due diligence abroad as part of his work for Orbis [Business Intelligence],” the firm he founded. Strangely, however, none of this came up while the president was maligning Steele as an associate of “Crooked Hillary.” ”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/ivanka-trump-christopher-steele-inspector-general
The House should subpoena Ivanka to find out is she was the source for the Russian hotel bed peeing story.
Really ?
This strikes me as not very relevant to much of anything.
You are the one who seems to think that who knows who or guessed motives matter
The clintons and trumps we’re freinds too
Ivanka was close to chelsea
What I care about is facts
Btw most of the Steele dossier was the work of Glenn Simpson
Are portions were crap Simpson tried to use on McCain in 2008
But no one was buying Then
So Simpson changed names
I do not care if Steele voted for trump and slept with ivanka
The fbi is supposed to verify
And stop if it can’t
The creation of the dossier was legal
The selling o& the dossier to state and fbi was legal
The buying of it esp long after it was known wrong by the fbi is a huge problem
Horroitz is wrong about political bias
But the why does no matter
This is what actual abuse of power looks like
Not asking Zelensky to investigate a lot of allegations
I occasionally play this stupid guilt by association game with you
It is your game
It is a fallacy
But what the hell
I can connect pretty much every democrat with hitler in two hops
Is who knows who interesting ?
Sure
Is it evidence
?
No
The scumbag gaetz is the AOC of the right. Democrats should welcome his every moment as an attention grabbing jackass in the spotlight. He is the perfect face for today’s contemptible sleazy GOP. Trump, the epitome of an asshole, and his little buddy minitrump from the panhandle. He makes a very strong case FOR impeaching trump and in effect the GOP itself. The GOP has descended into shameless honorless pandering to the worst characteristics of America. They will be remembered for their actions for a very long time.
So, being an attention-grabbing asshole qualifies as a “high crime?”
I would venture to say that a majority of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, might qualify on that standard ~ so many, in fact, as to make it the norm.
Adam Schiff, for example. As the saying goes, the most dangerous place in D.C. is between Schiff and a TV camera…
Priscilla, the democrats are making a huge mistake trying to remove a president because he is an “attention-grabbing asshole”.
Many told Harry Reid not to change senate rules on super majority votes because it would come back to haunt them. Well Trump has filled more judicial appointments than most of his predecessors did because there was not long that 60 vote threshold. Paybacks are hell.
Now with this action by the house, the precedent has been established. The next time a house is GOP controlled and there is a Democrat president, any questionable actions before or during the administration will be open for impeachment. Maybe in the long run that will be good. But I doubt it. No longer is it what is good for the country, it is getting elected the next election.
If only trump was merely an attention grabbing asshole, yes, no one would even notice and he would not be under impeachment. And if AOC and gaetz were merely garden variety jackasses they likewise would go unnoticed. But they are much more, that is why the media follows them and not some other political assholes. This is obvious, denial is useless. The GOP has made AOC their focus, the dems should make the equally repulsive gaetz theirs. The truly exceptional assholes, the assholes who rise above all the mediocre assholes are pure gold for the opposition.
The feigned innocence, the denial of any understanding of what trump has been doing, its just kabuki theater, an act. Any intelligent person understands that trump has done far more and far worse than merely having bad manners. Any intelligent conservative knows full well that the GOP would be impeaching any democrat who did a small portion of what trump has done, and with reason. I do not believe the insincere feigned stupidity for a second.
I do not believe for one second that lindsey graham et al, and in fact any intelligent person, do not understand perfectly well that trump has committed impeachable offences and that the GOP themselves would be furiously attacking and impeaching a democrat who did these the same things. This is what has earned my utter contempt for the trump GOP and all its members and all the so called conservatives who are playing the so what game. In fact they completely understand that trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. They are simply willing to have trumps behavior be the new standard if that is what it takes to survive the next news cycle. Its not what I would call love of country, patriotism, or honorable behavior.
When there is a democratic president and the GOP tries to bring him down with ginned up controversies, I will be saying so what, so what, so what and so will many many other people. They have given up their honor and so have lost the ability to complain about the other side and be believed by any intelligent person. They are betting that there will be enough unintelligent people to save them.
If I were the democrats I would make graham the center of their attention and replay his role in the clinton impeachment ceaselessly. Even stupid people can understand that he has all the sincerity of a mercenary.
I used to respect graham. I am so embarrassed that I was fooled.
Roby “I used to respect graham. I am so embarrassed that I was fooled.”
Anyone that respects ANY politician is a FOOL. I like Joe Manchin’s political positions, but I dont respect Manchin.
If Adam schiff had proven truthful he would have our gaging respect
What has Gaetz been wrong about ?
I will condemn him over that
Agree.
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” Mark Twain
Nothing has changed in 100 years
Twain’s public remarks were the pentagon papers of his time
Then it was the Philippines that we needed to invade and pummell into submission
Funny how those looking to send us solders to kill elsewhere often argue it is to protect others
Like the ypk
Mark
Being an attention grabbing asshole is a prequisite for Congress
Has Gaetz lied about something ?
Has he tried to violate anyone’s rights ?
Is he pushing to spend more money we do not have ?
Gaetz likes to hear himself on tv
That makes hm a politician
AOC is pretty much wrong about all facts
Se has lied
She is constantly seeking to infringe on rights
And spend over peoples money
There is no equivalence here
You do not like Gaetz ok
That does not create equivalence
He is hypocritical – accepted
Still not AOC or pelosi or Nadler and certainly not Schiff
Put simply no one purportedly on the right is morally as reprehensible as those one the left
Prior to an impeachment trial, according to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, the senators serving as a jury “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”
According to the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials that oath is:
”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-SC, on impeachment trial: “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell: “We have no choice but to take it up. But we’ll be working through this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president, in the way all of the Senate.”
Imagine other jury members coordinating with defense attorneys at a federal trial. Both these bozos are as impartial as Puritan judges at witchcraft trials. They, and any other Republicans with similar attitudes, should recuse themselves from the impeachment process. But of course they won’t: Party Over Nation is the new GOP motto.
Can you cite a part of the constitution they are violating ?
Not a big graham or McConnell fan
But in what world should anything produced by schiff who was wrong on every single item in this report on fisa ever be taken seriously ?
Would you expect the senate to take anything produced by Alex Jones seriously ?
Well that is where your credibility is
You keep pretending that you the left democrats and the media can lie over and over and
Still be believed
Why should I have any more trust in the accuracy of these arricles of impeachment that in crossfire hurricane or mueller ?
You should be happy they are dispatching this pile of schiff quickly
The alternative is to call the Bidens schiff an ciarimello as witnesses
Regardless everyone has already heard the best evidence that democrats have
You Took your shot
That was a poor choice
The best thing you could do is accept that you blew it
Apologize and move on
Most everyone knows this is only happening because 2020 is looking Ike a Democrat blood bath
You do not understand that democratic support has two pArts
If you go for award with impeachment you lose one
If you do not you lose the other
Why don’t the Republicans just repeal the oath taking?
That way they won’t have to show what kind of untruthful despicable shits they are..
What part of that oath are they violating ?
Jay they are giving you and the country a gift
Quit moaning
You could get your wish and have a real trial in which trump calls witnesses and schiff only gets to present actual evidence
This as goe Harris for you
Why do you want to complain about ending this farce ?
If trump really wants to use this to dig into Biden and schiff h would be free to do so
The impeachment rests on the validity of the request for investigations
Trump would 100% allowed to present evidence that the investigation was justified
The democrats failure to allow that in the house was a huge mistake
It made this about poloiics not truth
Ha! Jay, come on… Schiffty and Nads can break all the rules, impeach the president with zero evidence, and remove all semblance of due process and fairness from the hearings, but if a Republican says, very reasonably ~and truthfully ~ that there is no way that this whole thing is anything but a partisan political sham, and he’s going to treat it as such, you all of a sudden want procedural integrity?
And, Dave is right, getting this circus over quickly would be a gift to Democrats, who have blown it from the very start. The longer it drags on, the worse it gets for them, because the more obvious it is that they have failed to make their case because…well, there is no case to be made.
It’s hurt Biden much worse than it has Trump. It’s actually helped Trump.
Oh sure, I have been hearing that “Biden is toast” here for quite a while. And yet, he is still on top of the polls. My advice to blovulators and spinners: Declare victory when you have actually won. There is a long dirty depressing war ahead before anyone will know who was helped and who was hurt. I would not bet a nickel on a prediction of how this turns out. But I do know that impeaching trump is absolutely the only moral course given his actions and I support the dems in taking it, whether it hurts them or helps them, its not about winning, its about the future and whether trumps actions are the new acceptable standard for the POTUS. If they are, we are all just fucked and the GOP will be among the most badly fucked in the future, though they will richly deserve it.
What the history books will say in the future matters more to me than what the media or the countless little spinners say today.
“And, Dave is right, getting this circus over quickly would be a gift to Democrats”
Blah blah blah.
Since impeachment fever began nationwide in October there’s been NO CHANGE in the number of Americans who want him impeached.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/12/1862/1048/1fd05045-1.png?ve=1&tl=1
Jay
It is irrelevant that you are wrong
I am perfectly willing to let you screw yourself
Let’s have long hearings
Bring in schiff ciarimello the Bidens
And limit democrats to fact witnesses
Make this last months
Trump is supposed to be president of all the people, not just his core voters.
If 50% of the people don’t want him to remain as president after an almost complete first term, he should resign.
Never before in our lifetime has a president been so divisive, so untrusted. If he gave a shit about the nation he’d quit now, so Republicans could find a more suitable human to serve as president.
Come on Jay, when was the last president that was “president of all the people”? And PLEASE dont say Obama!!! He was about as divisive as Trump in his policies.
Us presidents and politicians are not popularity contests
Trumps current approval is 6pts above Obama’s
Obama did not resign
Plenty of presidents have been below trumps
If you really believe popularity matters
In 11 months you can get rid of Trump
If you are right
One of your problems is that the actual standard is not popularity
But more. Like he physicians oath
First do no harm
Trump has mostly restored the rule of law
Has mostly brought government back to enforcing the laws passed by Congress not concocted by the prior president
Apparently being president of all the people to you means screwing everyone not on the left
How did we get ppaca ?
Is there anything democrats have done that all the people wanted ?
That half the people wanted ?
When we do not agree
We should do nothing
Most of the time
We should not us force
Apparently you forgot the Obama presidency
Roby, I didn’t say that Biden was toast, I said that the impeachment effort has hurt him more than it has hurt Trump.
Biden is still the best that the Democrats have got.
I will say it Biden is toast
And I am not going to be silenced by those who said trump colluded with Russia or was not spied on or was not wire tapped
Graham is prepared to dump this
How does that violate any oath ?
Democrats are bringing a pile of schiff to the senate
The Horowitz report demonstrates conclusively that schiff can not get the facts straight even when he is spon fed them by an actually honest process as Nunes conducted as HPSCI chair.
Why woul anyone believe that he will do better with the deeply flawed process he concocted
While due process is typically viewed as a right of defendants
Fundamentally it is about running legal processes to get at the truth rather than paint the picture the prosecutor wants to sell
If schiff wants graham or republicans to take this seriously
Then he needs to have conducted a serious inquiry
Which he can do at any time
Purportedly schiff seeks to call new witnesses at a senate trial
Sorry Adam and jay
You do not get to make the same farce of the senate as you did the house
If you want to subpoena new people
That just means you know you do not have a case
Nothing prevents schiff from continuing to investigate in the house
And when he can bring articles to the senate that have actual evidence then he can expect the senate to take him seriously
Regardless the senate is not the place to fix the mess he made in the house
Ultimately the court will rule on schiff subpoenas
But even Ginsburg grasped there is a case
Had she said no the lower court ruling against trump would have stood
Regardless I expect that scotus will give schiff his subpoenas
But I also expect it will require him to follow rules of due process
Which would preclude schiff kangaroo court approach
Need I remind you that Horowitz has just said that when the fbi failed to abide by rules that are there to direct investigations to seek and find truth rather than predetermined outcomes those inquiries are deeply flawed and do not find truth
I think the truth is obvious
So do you
But we see exactly the opposite results
I trust A proper inquiry following the rules and ending when the rules dictate it can not continue
You do not
Schiff did not and does not
You seek to ignore due process because it is design to thwart distortions of the truth
And you do not what the truth
You do not trust in truth
To you there is no truth except you desired outcome
Regardless if you want a full hearing before the senate
Conduct a proper investigation
Make your case
And except that if you can’t it is because your hope is not the truth
Regardless one of the first thing that the defense does in most cases is seek to dismiss because the prosecution has not made a prima fascia case
I have staunchly defended the houses right to impeach for any reason at all though I have strongly advised that this reason is a poor choice
The senate is equallly free to decide on its own what constitutes an impeachable offense
And is free to return this to the house without a trial on the basis that the senate finds no valid claim of an impeachable offense
Which they should do
Something all should know, conservative, liberal, moderate, centrist…..too many do not.
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/12/15/happy-bill-of-rights-day/
From the Washington Post:
“A private campaign is underway to draft Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) as an impeachment manager in the Senate trial of President Trump, a bid to diversify House Democrats’ appeal to voters with a rare conservative voice.
A group of 30 freshman Democrats, led by Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), has asked House leaders to consider the libertarian, who left the Republican Party earlier this year, for the small group tasked with arguing its case for removing Trump in the upper chamber, according to several Democratic officials.
The thinking, according to these people, is that Amash would reach conservative voters in a way Democrats can’t, potentially bolstering their case to the public. He also would provide Democrats cover from GOP accusations that they’re pursuing a partisan impeachment; Amash is one of the most conservative members of the House and a vocal Trump critic.”
By the way, the LNP supports impeachment, not entirely due to the articles, but their perspective the President has exceeded his authority in many ways.(Paragraph 4, Official statement)
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/12/13/libertarian-party-officially-supports-trump-impeachment/
BUT REALLY, if we impeached for violating powers provided the president by the constitution, would any president finish a term?
“BUT REALLY, if we impeached for violating powers provided the president by the constitution, would any president finish a term?”
No, and SCOTUS, by agreeing to hear the case for compelling the release of Trump’s financial records, has pretty much destroyed the “obstruction of Congress” charge. If the Supreme Court thinks that it’s appropriate for the Executive branch to ask for a ruling on this, than it can’t very well be “obstruction.”
Not to mention that the whole concept of checks and balances is really a constitutional method of each branch “obstucting” each other. Almost every president (maybe every one) has claimed executive privilege, so, as you say, no president, would ever finish another term.
Or we’d just devolve into a British style parliamentary system, where every time the Congress opposed the President, there would have to be a new election.
I hadn’t heard of Amash being proposed as an impeachment manager, but I don’t think that he would influence things much. He was always a never Trumper and he’s not even a Republican anymore, so he doesn’t carry much weight with either side. And with Van Drew now leaving the Democrat Party over impeachment, he kind of cancels Amash out.
Hamilton warned of partisan impeachments having the potential to destroy our system, and here we are.
“No, and SCOTUS, by agreeing to hear the case for compelling the release of Trump’s financial records, has pretty much destroyed the “obstruction of Congress” charge. “
No, they’re going to decide if potential financial crimes Trump may have committed prior to his inauguration can be investigated.
SCOTUS hearing this at all is unusual
No they are not going to decide if potential financial crimes can be investigated
That was decided long ago
Of course they can
They are going to decide two things
Whether the ny ag has probable cause that a crime was committed to permitt a warrant
That btw is the stronger case
I hope they say no
But that is unlikely
But they should say no because the 4th amendment should be restored
I am tired of I wanna know warrants
And any decision that is specific to trump is wrong
The 2nd issue is settling whether congress can violate a century old law an supernatural the tax records of an individual
Impeachment complicates this
But that actually ties back to the first case
As an investigative body they need probable cause and they do not have it
But they are also addressing house witness subpoenas
I expect the house will win a physic victory
Scotus will order the wh to Mae witnesses available
But I will als rider that they must have time to prep
Have White House counsel and be informed narrowly of what questions they will be asked
Nor will that preclude the wh from asserting executive privilege narrowly
Put simply scotus will say that the house can subpoena members of the executive
But that it can not violate due process or prevent the White House from making claims of privilege
Members of the executive are not subpoenaed as individuals but because f their office
Therefore the house must negotiate their testimony with the wh or go to court
There is no shortcut and congress is not a law unto itself
Jay, law enforcement cannot simply seize personal property without reasonable cause. That is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Politically motivated “fishing expeditions” do not qualify.
I realize that you don’t care, because orange-man-bad, but once that constitutional protection is gone, it’s gone for all of us.
If they can do it to the President, they can do it to anyone. The President’s lawyers are challenging this in the courts, and the Democrats will have their chance to present evidence that indicates reasonable cause for a warrant.
If they have it, they will get what they want. SCOTUS will likely hand down a ruling before the election, so be patient.
As far as the 2nd impeachment article, “obstruction of Congress,” ~ it’s based on the Executive branch refusing to provide documents and testimony that it considers privileged or personal. SCOTUS has basically said that the President has the right to challenge this in the courts, before he can be compelled to obey King Adam Schiff and his minions. So, there is no basis for the article, until SCOTUS rules.
If they can do it to the president
The president can do it to them
It requires scotus to rule AND trump to fail to comply with that ruling
The most relevant issue is that congress does not get to decide what its powers are any more than the president does
Frankly we have f’d the 4th amendment and the standards applying to congress are backwards
I think congress is entitled to most anything they want from the executive
Though there still must be due processs
I,e, they do not get to demand it yesterday nor preclude witnesses from having department provided attorneys or knowing what they are to be questioned about
But I think congress has zero power to compel the testimony or records of private parties
The 4th amendment allows search’s to investigate crimes congress is not a criminal investigative body it has no power to search private parties
I would give about anything for a Rubio, Bush (45) of even (gag) Cruz as president instead of Trump, even if the economy would not be where it is today.
But individuals that do not realize that even a small crack in constitutionality in investigations of anyone are living in a dream. Anytime a crack, no matter how small, develops in constitutional rights, it is the first steps in the weakening of the foundations of all rights.
Comey said “I was wrong. There were 17 things left out or mistakes in the FISA warrant”. If that was anyone else, the whole damn case would be thrown out.
But now that a FISA warrant stands with this, the same proceedings will be used against citizens. COUNT ON IT!
The economy does not boom if freedom is in decline
I can not bring myself to vote for trump
But he has been a better president not only than every person you mentioned but also rand paul or Gary Johnson
Several libertarians and even anarchy capitalist have noted that even though trump is not libertarian
His immigration and trade policies are anti libertarian
And he is status quo on our horrible drug laws
Still in terms of actually accomplishing libertarian goals no president ever except maybe carter has been better
So sorry Ron
I will turn off the tv pay in attention to twitter and be happy that trump rather than Rubio or Cruz is president
I do not beleive they could have done nearly as well
And the ecomy is the sum of ALL the things we value
So no
I am never taking a weaker economy
Trumps un popularity stems from two things
First he is undoing Obama
And 2nd he is fighting back against all the slurs of the left and the media
Trump has incredibly effectively provoked the media and the left into burning their own credibilty to ash I celebrate that
He has faced down those and we have too man here who think it is moral to insult people into silence
Well trump will not shut up
He is painfull to listen to
But I do not listen to him I pay attention to what he does
The left fixates on his every word torturing them selves
That makes me happy
The left including others here have made it clear they will turn this country into a dystopian hell. All at once or n small compromises
I am happy that trump is undoing 8 years of leftist nonsense and the result is that the country is thriving
I probably disagree with trump on much more than you
But I am happy about many of the things you do no like about trump
I am happy that the press has openly shown their bias
I am happy that democrats have exposed themselves as lawless incompetents with no clue about reality
Why should we buy the nonsense of democrats on healthcare or climate or trump or foreign policy or …
Republicans including trump are no hero’s but democrats are pretty much always wrong
Until that changes trump is more valuable than Cruz
I would note that thatcher saved England quite litterally in myriads of ways and she was more Similar to trump than Reagan
Do left wing nuts have a clue ?
I actually respect amash
If he was my rep I would vote for him
But his vote on impeachment will not change the facts
Libertarians in particular are NOT followers
Respect is not worship
Republicans are starting to put nation over party:
Former GOP Homeland Security Secretary and GOP GOV of Pennsylvania —
“Tom Ridge says Trump’s Ukraine call left him ‘disappointed and troubled,’ says he won’t back president in 2020″
“As far as I’m concerned, it is abuse of power”. (Fox News)
I am a big fan of ridge
But he is wrong
This was not abuse of power it was not close
If there was a qpq it was not abuse of power
If the aide was never provided it was not abuse of power
This issue is trivial
Does reasonable suspicion exist regarding the items trump wanted investigated
That is it and as Horowitz made clear at is a very ow bar
There is not a world we’re downers inaccurate repetition of papadoulis remarks is reasonable suspicion and Bidens public remarks are not
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/12/15/fox-news-poll-shows-over-half-americans-support-trump-impeachment-and-removal/
This about mirrors the political split in America.
My only concern is the reported 45% that still believe he committed bribery when that was the Democrats #1 issue they wanted in the articles of impeachment and could not find enough evidence to support that. Once they were convinced there was bribery, he is still believed to have committed bribery even without any evidence.
I suspect Jay is in that 45% because Jay would believe Trump was guilty of any crimes that the left ever mentioned. But when the articles did not include bribery, I also suspect there was none.
There are two issues with this entire mess
1 none of the known conduct and nothing but the most ludicrous allegations violates the law
It is not wrong to investigate where there is reasonable suspicion
That is what democrats are holding to from the Horowitz report yet it completely undermines impeachment
2 voters are not stupid they understand that trumps actions are less egregious than your typical politician
If trump bribed the Ukraine what did Biden do ?
Wasn’t t
Obama’s Iran deal massive bribery ?
Isn’t hunter Biden the bribery of joe Biden ?
What of bill Clinton’s speaking fees ?
Or donations to the Clinton foundation
If you define bribery broadly you catch all past and future presidents as well as all of congress
If you are really going to change the standards then make THAT case
But if you tell me that Trumps conduct is unusual
Hell if you try to tell me it is half as egregious as Clinton or Obama or democrats
Then you are bald faced lying
Dave “2 voters are not stupid they understand that trumps actions are less egregious than your typical politician”.
So why does 50% support impeachment?
I may argue polls but I do not weigh them heavily
Until a persons oppinion has a cost it is highly inaccurate
Robby
“Biden is toast”
We have heard nonsense from you about trump for three years
Not really interested in being tol by people who said trump colluded or was not wire tapped or was not spied on or was lying about all kinds of things that we now know and could easily have known at the time we’re true
Nope do not place much credence in the views of those who have “born false witness”
Against others
Absolutely only time will tell
Absolutely “Biden is toast” is speculation, opinion
But it is a reasonable conclusion from the facts
If the house votes to impeach the trial will likely be mercifully short for democrats
But the follow up will not
But for impeachment the senate likely would not have taken up Biden and Ukraine
Now they will
If for no other reason than to punish as they deserve democrats for faux impeachment
Biden can not handle softball questions on Ukraine from friendly reporters
Trump has not run adds against him yet
Everyone has thrown him softballs
You think he can handle real scrutiny ?
Regardless this is already over
Post fax impeachment
Democrats Hail Mary trump is beating all democrats in all swing states
You needed to strike a fatal blow and you barely nicked trump
Democrats did more damage to themselves
The question now is not will trump win in 2020
But whether the GOP retakes the house
Probably not
But dems are going to have to spend enormous resources trying to maintain the status quo
Momentum has been running against democrats since the mueller report
This was their shot at changing that and it has backfired
It is not just Biden in trouble
It is anything with a d behind their name
https://humanevents.com/2019/12/12/daca-an-actual-abuse-of-power/
Priscilla & Dave & Ron:
If you’re having trouble wrapping your Christmas presents to me, this will help:
https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/status/1206567898636050433
Well hell. I have all mine wrapped and many pieces of “just a little too small” pieces.
So now I know who to blame!
Jay!
He could have shared this last week before I wrapped.😁.
Just kidding. And i have paper for next Christmas!
Great idea. Unless someone is OCD and needs seem right down the long bottom of the box.
I’ve gotten so lazy wrapping Xmas presents, whenever possible (like for wine or whiskey bottles) I just slap on a ribbon or bow.
🥴
Yep, gift bags work real well for lazy ones like me also.
Wow. This is a revelation.
But I also have gone mostly with gift bags. Life’s too short to wrap presents!
Educate yourselves.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/
Jay
This crap is boring
If the actual elements of any crime were present or even close the house would have alleged it
It has not
They even dropped the ludicrously stupid claim of bribery
Someone has not committed a crime because you sat they have
Nor because someone else does
Actual crimes are specified by the law
They have specific elements
And you must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt to convict
And assert each element with evidence just to get into court
We do no play this game you are playing
Or at least people who care about the rule of law do not because many perfectly moral and legal acts are indistinguishable from crimes until you apply the law narrowly and require every element
If trump bought a burger at McDonald’s that can by the broad arguments the left makes constitute bribery and many other crimes
It is obviously a quid pro quo
When you game the law like this you make criminals of all of us
Whe n you game the law like this we are a very short distance from soviet gulags and political prisons
I am not interested in this kind of crap
Pick an actual crime
List the elements from the actual law
Demonstrate with facts how each and every one is met
I can trivially do that with Clinton and the espionage act
I can do that with bill Clinton lying under oath
I can do that with some of the things Horowitz found
And I can do so with each example above without making criminals of half the country
I typically define crime as an unjustifiable use of force
That is a very common definition
But another frequent definition is harmful conduct that only 1-2% of people engage in
That understanding of what is a crime is important because the larger the broader you define crime the more lawless and totalitarian you society becomes
When you make a new law or you interpret a law broadly
You make a larger portion of people criminals
The examples you cited who catch all of congress
Every politician
At moments I could be ok with that
It what I would not be ok with is allowing you or those of any other ideology
Deciding who among the guilty based on a broad definition of crime gets prosecuted
That is litterally the same as the USSR
Think of it this way
At this moment trump is president
Using the same broad definition of crime
Trump could arrest an jail half of congress
Do not try to game the law
Th most likely victim of that gaming will be you and yours
Another Republican standing up against Prez Cancer.
Former Republican presidential candidate @CarlyFiorina tells @poppyharlowCNN it is “vital” that President Trump be impeached. She says his conduct is “destructive to our republic”
You keep offering this stuff that is all rooted in emotion
Things like destructive of our republic require a basis besides emotion and not getting your way
If we can start throwing temper tantrums to dismiss our leaders
They are all gone
You have spent years telling me trump is a liar
Yet on your core claims
On the matters of great importance
Not only has trump been truthful
But you and the left and the media have lied
About trump
And about the facts
YOU are the clear and present danger
YOU are the threat to the republic
We have spent three years being told our nations political institutions and process had been cooped by a foreign power
A very serious allegation
An actual threat to the country
And yet it was a complete LIE
If Trumps conduct is a crime
So is yours
It is that simple
The division in this country is not driven by Trump it is driven by YOU
You are converting political differences into crime
That is litterally from the gulags
Facts logic reason
YOU keep dismissing valid opinion with nonsensical dismissals that have nothing to do with the opinions expressed.
Of course I keep dismissing opinion
Whether a crime was committed must be far more than a matter of opinion
It must be established to a high degree of certainty as a matter of FACT
If all you have is oppinion
The argument is over
Further this goes well beyond crime
You may not use force against others on the basis of oppinion
You can run you own life on opinion
You can not run others on your oppinion
You are quite litterally arguing for the totalitarianism you claim trump might impose
But Dave, the opinion of all those people I’ve quoted And linked, with extensive reputations and credentials for intelligence and probity, agree there is more than sufficient evidence to impeach and remove the asshole.
I presume that the motive of politicians is always political
I do not judge their motives but their results
Whether it is schiff or nadler Warner or Schumer or coons or ….
Democrats and the press have turned out to be 100% wrong about pretty much everything regarding the 2016 election
Why am I to beleive the opinions of people who have been wrong constantly
You constantly call trump a liar as do they
But as this article notes schiff Nunez nadler Horowitz and mueller all saw the same facts
After seeing them schiff nadler the msm you and democrats canal led Nunez and trump liars and their claims conspiracy theories
Mueller told us 6 months ago the allegations against trump were false
Horowitz has just told us those made by trump and Nunez were true
you seem to think that ACTUALLY lying has no consequence
Some advice I gave my kids when they misbehaved or lied years ago
Keep it up, it only gets worse
I will beleive people with a reputation for truth
I will treat as a threat those who have actually lied repeatedly
Without regard for motives or guesssed intentions
In the long run most voters are likely to do the same
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/12/16/ig_report_undercuts_credibility_of_impeachment_manager_nadler_121654.html
To those spreaders of faux information who claim Trump is ahead in all the swing states, these are the five states that trump barely squeaked wins over Hillary
Most Recent RCP Polls:
Michigan. Biden plus 8
Wisconsin- Biden plus 8
Pennsylvania – Biden plus 9
Florida – Biden plus 2
RCP is a running average not a poll
It is called a lagging indicator
There are several recent polls that have him ahead
All polls are trending towards trump
You can quibble all you want
I don’t care
You can beleive what you want
How did that work for you in 2016 ?
It is not my job to save you from yourself
“It is called a lagging indicator”
Your brain is lagging reality.
Those RCP polls are compilation averages of the most recent polls.
You described rcp accurately an fail to grasp that a rolling average is by definition a lagging indicator
Regardless until nov 2020 it’s the trend that matters
So long as we both accept that we avoid stupid arguments over which poll is better than which
They are all showing the same trends
The ‘trends’ you quote in Trump’s favor are minuscule. A week or two trend of a point or two is an insignificant Fluctuation.
Want to make a wager it doesn’t fluctuates down again?
The trends are from the start of the impeachment inquiry to the end
They range from 6 to 10 pets
Large numbers of pundits beleive that MN WI and OH are likely trump
That NH may be too
That fl is locked
That OH is likely trump unless sherrod brown is the Democratic pv
Some polls have trump leading in PA but most do not
You needed a win
You got a loss
Does it matter how big ?
Not surprised. I have been saying this for months, even well before any action on impeachment began. Dave is the only one in a dream world thinking Trump will sweep these states.
Apparently an awful lot of democratic analysts are in the same world though they would call it a nightmare
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-beats-democrats-battleground-states-2020-poll-1476382
Well looking at 2-16, apply “X are like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink”
Here X = Presidential preferences
If we elected presidents by polls, Clinton would be in the White House.
However, if Trump was not like the bratty little kid that can not keep his mouth shut and would concentrate his tweets on everything positive he has done, the polls would mean something because he would be blowing his competition out of the water. Trump is his own worst enemy because for every 5 people that he wins over, he loses about as many with his obnoxious personality. That is why he can’t get over 50% in job approval.
Tremendous job growth
Structural changes in the trade agreements that will have lasting impacts (unless another free trader gets elected and reverts back allowing China to send their crap here without following accepted agreements)
Effectively eliminating any authority the WTO has and sending the Geneva vacation ministers home for good. (Had they done their jobs, china would not be stealing intellectual properties without recourse)
Solid economic growth
Lower taxes
Low inflation
Low interest rates
Freedom to choose health insurance without government involvement
More freedom of workers to choose representation or not.
Recognition that global warming is driven by tunnel vision blaming CO2 and not additionally other major contributors like lack of active volcanic eruptions and solar activity.
Industry freedoms to move toward electric cars and not being forced to move in that direction until buyers are ready to buy, cars can go farther than 300 miles without a 2 hour recharge and recharge stations are readily available when traveling.
If anyone else, even with an impeachment hearing over their head just tweeted daily these issues and ignored the political crap going on, they would be far ahead and there would be no question who was going to be elected.
But for trumps tweets he would not have been elected
But for his tweets he would not be re-elected
I too wish it were not that way but like it or not it is true
Both Romney and McCain should have been more appealing candates
They lost because the left and the media successfully defined them
And they did so falsely and negatively
Trump fighting back harms him
But it also harms his attackers more
But for trumps tweets comey and company would have gotten away with this
When the left and the media comes after you and you place nice you lose
“The Court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn’s arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements and that the government pressured him to enter a guilty plea. The record proves otherwise,” Judge Sullivan writes.
Fuck-the-law Trump’s Rump is going to pardon him anyway.
“To hell with the truth! As the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything. It’s irrelevant and immaterial, as the lawyers say. The lie of a pipe dream …” Larry/The Iceman Commith/Eugene O’Neill
Apparently Sullivan has not read the Horowitz report
I am disappointed in Sullivan
James comey admitted to setting up Flynn
Worse is according to the agents involved
They failed Flynn was truthful
But then over time the 302s were altered
Like the 6 times that evidence for the fisa warrant was altered by this very same team
The people who need to be in jail for abuse of power are Flynn’s persecutors
McCabe was ethically barred fromparticipating in an investigation of Flynn as Flynn had been a witness against McCabe in a sexual harassment case
People like strzok and McCabe and comey are your hero’s ? And Flynn is your idea of a crook ?
What is the crime Flynn has committed ?
The agents involved said he was truthful in their reports
It is only months later they were altered to say the opposite
Just like the alterations of evidence in the fisa warrant
Flynn wasn’t set up.
Flynn out and out lied.
That’s what the judge said.
He saw/heard all the evidence.
You’re just offering your own SLANTED opinion.
Do you remember what you just said about judgements made FROM opinion?
You need to repent.
Pray to the Universe for forgiveness.
Ask to have your mind cleared of Trump-fog.
So that you can SEE the forest from the GOP!
Jay comey admitted in his emails that they were setting up Flynn
They told him they were reviewing security procedures
And then conducted a criminal interview without telling him
They bypassed the office of whitehouse council which is standard procedure for any interagency communications
They deliberately took advantage off the confusion associated with the transition
None of this is speculation
It is all documented in comey
McCabe and strzok emails and texts
This has all been public knowledge for years
It is referenced in the Horowitz report
There are 6 documented instances o f altering evidence just associated with the fisa application
There are several more involving the Flynn 302s
All the same people are involved in all of this
Falsus in unmute falsus in omnibus
There are 17 serious errors in the fisa process
But Horowitz found 51 total serious errors in the overal investigation
One of the problems with Horowitz is that he stops with mueller and starts in July 2016
As bar and Durham have noted
There investigation starts in 2015
And does not end with muellers appointment and is not confined to the fbi
Or the fisa warrant
Frankly Sullivan should throw out the Flynn investigation on multiple counts of fruit of poisonous tree
Horriwitz found the start of the investigation based on downers statements (which ultimately proved wrong) to meet the low bar to investigate
BUT you miss the fact that Horowitz also concluded that the investigation quickly LOST that basis
By November 2016 there was no credible evidence and the investigation had to end
Flynn was after that
So the Flynn investigation did not have sufficient predicate
What is it Flynn lied about ?
The original 302s of Flynn interview say he was truthful
Both agents say that
The 302s do not mention sanctions
They quote Flynn as explicitly stating that he does not remember the details of the call
And that if the agents say he talked about them it is possible that he did
As does the records of Flynn’s interviews
This is also why this is an improper setup
The fbi can not just acost someone on the street
Question them
And then prosecute them for lying based on errors in their remarks
None other than Ginsberg has asserted this in scotus decisions
An interview must be scheduled
The person interviewed must be informed of the areas they are to be questioned
They must have acccess to council if they want
The erosions statements must be deliberate and must mislead
They can not be erroneous statements about something the agents already know
If the agents do not meet all these criteria they are engaging in entrapment
In Flynn’s case
The case should’ve dropped based on a tiny subset of the damning facts we know from the fbi
And I am certain that you can not provide actual evidence that Flynn lied about anything
Find the notes or transcript by the FBI agents with Flynn’s words that are purportedly lies
They do not exist
No that is not what judge sullivan said
He said Flynn gave up his constitutional rights by pleading guilty
Sullivan is only correct when the guilty plea is finalized
Flynn still has the right to withdraw his plea
And therefore as a matter of law he still retains his constitutional rights
I am not sure what will occur here
But my guess is Flynnn withdraws his plea
In which case Sullivan’s ruling mostly goes out the window
At this time it is near impossible for Flynn to be prosecuted successfully
McCabe can not testify
Strzok can not testify
The other agent can not testify
….
They would all have to take the fifth
Most of these people have been dismissed for LYING to investigators
For every single one Sullivan would have to give a crim in falsi jury instruction
Basically a these witnesses are known liars
The issues is does Flynn take a near sure thing zero time guilty plea followed by a near certain pardon
Or does he gamble on a trial with a dc jury the near certainty of a conviction because dc juries do not give a shit about facts followed by a successful appeal
Regardless Sullivan erred
There is much more than enough in the Horowitz report to find malfeasance in prosecuting Flynn
Further Sullivan should have taken heed of bar and Durham
Some of these people are headed to jail
McCabe is being prosecuted now for lying
And McCabe is core to setting up Flynn
If this were an ordinary criminal trial
This would be dismissed
I am disappointed in Sullivan
He is mostly a good guy
He found fbi misconduct and threw out the Stevens conviction based on a forged invoice from an FBI agent
We have multiple altered 302s here
Further the mueller prosecutor should let go
Horowitz has just destroyed the foundation of the mueller investigation
Every claim Horowitz makes regarding crossfire hurricane applies to mueller
The same people worked for mueller
If the fbi knew they had nothing before mueller was appointed
Nothing changed
Pretty much by definition mueller’s investigation can not be justified if by early 2017 cross fire huricane was not
Mueller and his team are not stupid
That leaves only abuse of power and malice
Continuing to prosecute Flynn is just about the stupidest thing you are doing
Flynn is a bonanza Fidel hero
He spoke truth to power and was fired by Obama
And proved right
The afghan papers are making him a sane voice in an insane world
And as you fixate apron motives lots of people had motives to get him
And many of them are part of this
I hope Flynn withdraws his plea
But I suspect he will not
“ We now know Rudy Giuliani’s indicted ex-business partner Lev Parnas—who paid Rudy $500,000 to do Trump’s Ukraine election meddling—had a Russian funding stream.”
Huummm. Trump’s lawyer-pal Rudy paid by Russian money.
There’s an honest explanation, right Trumpees?
Will the GOPers allow the Dems to call Rudy to testify at Senate Impeachment hearings?
Oh, sorry – I forgot. GOPers don’t want witnesses to testify.
https://thebulwark.com/why-is-mitch-mcconnell-afraid-of-this-man/
Rudy is already going to testify before graham
Be careful what you wish for
Btw Burisma has a huge Russian funding stream
If you are going to do this two degrees of separation guilt by association nonsense then Biden is a Russian spy
Rudy’s manufactured testimony (will it be under oath?) was assembled by unsavory Ukrainians like Viktor Shokin, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general who was removed for lackadaisical corruption efforts at the insistence of the US, including GOP congressional politicians who approved Biden’s trip, as well as numerous international critics who wanted him gone.
You think Shokin doesn’t have a Biden axe to grind? He and Rudy have held numerous telephone conversations since last January. The Trump whistleblower also said that Giuliani and Shokin met in person in Europe late last year. They’ve been cooking up this Biden crap all that time. And have you conveniently forgotten about Rudy’s other Ukraine pals Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, recently arrested – what’s the odds the GOP will let them testify at the impeachment?
I don’t understand how you can be that blockheaded a defender of all this suspicious Trump bullshit. That you’re not the least bit skeptical of Trump’s & Rudy’s purely political motivations makes me conclude you have some un-tone-deaf remedial thinking dysfunction.
So are you claiming Biden water Shokin fired because he was Not digging into Burisma fast enough ?
Btw you seem to think trump is no allowed t influence Ukrainian investigations
Why can Biden ?
Next from Bidens own remarks the Ukrainians did not want to fire Shokin and wild not have without Bidens threats
Of course Shokin has a been axe touring just as Biden ground the axe first
Of course Rudy talked to Shokin
Rudy has been digging into American misconduct in Ukraine
He is doing exactly the same thing Steele was doing
There is nothing wrong with that
The problem with Steele is not that he investigated or bought gossip
The problem is the fbi ruled on it and knew it was wrong
No one is expecting you will assume what rudy found is true
It should be investigated
Having reviewed a lot of it
It is pretty compelling
But still it must be validated
But just slurring evidence does not make it go away
Unless doj comes up with something more on Parnas and Fruman the charges should be dropped
Obama refused to prosecute Rosie O’Donnell for the same thing
And Hillary received 65m in donations that involve the same “crime”
No one was prosecuted
No one except republicans have ever been prosecuted for this
Nor should it be a crime
What one does with your money is your business
What are Parnas and Fruman supposed to testify to
They had no involvement in a thing schiff is trying to peach over ?
I fully expect both will ultimately testify
I have no problem with schiff callin g them to testify in the house
Though the courts already have said that if the house compels the testimony of someone being investigated for a crime
The criminal prosecution must fail
See Iran contra
I am sure Parnas and Fruman would be happy to be subpoenaed
Why do you keep presuming that whoever you want to testify is going to help you ?
Parnas and Fruman have evidence of corruption involving Burisma
Do you think that will help you ?
Careful what you ish for I want and expect gulliani to testify
There is nothing h can estifytoo that will hurt trump and lots that will harm impeachment and Biden
Parnas and Fruman May testify too but they have less to contribute
Basically Burisma is corrupt
You do know that Rudy interview Shokin
And that Shokin has testified 7nder oath ?
You do know that almost half the damning docs on hunter Biden and joe Biden come from
The us state department
Doj
Fbi
Bidens lawyers
Us news sources like nytimes
It is pretty simple to build more than probable cause against Biden without using a Ukrainian source
The primary role of Ukrainians besides corroborating us sources is the malfeaance that did not involve Biden
Though even some of that is from us sources
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/horowitz-report-confirms-john-solomons-scoop-fbi-spreadsheet-regarding-steele-dossier/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/12/media_attack_on_john_solomon_is_an_attack_on_the_free_press_141946.html
Gulliani motives do not matter if what he says is true
Trump’s taxes will show he has a huge Russian finance stream – no degree of separation.
If it were true trump was getting massive revue from Russia his taxes would not show that
You have claimed before to have business experience if you really did you would know what tax returns show
I have no doubt publicly releasing them will be harmful
It does not matter what his returns say you will find a way to spin it as negative
But no matter what his tax returns will not provide actual evidence of a crime
His taxes went through an army of lawyers and accountants as well as the irs
But that does not mean you will not make something of it
I can throw a dart at a dart board and pick a number for trumps income
And you will manufacture a claim that is bad somehow
There is not an answer you would not disparage
It is not possible for you to beleive anything but negative things about trump
And that is true of the media democrats and the left
And it is true of anyone not on the left
You have fo7nd ways to trash gabbard
How do politicians become so two-faced?
Is there new evidence we have not heard ?
If so why isn’t schiff holding hearings on it ?
Democrats have chosen to bring a cas without evidence and a seeing to use the senate to continue the violations of due process they have engaged in from the start
Who jay has not head the evidence ?
You have failed to make your case
Graham is asking republicans for the equivalent of a directed verdict
Or summary judgement
Basically asserting that’s for despot show up on the doors of the senate with a prima fascia case
In many instances a directed verdict is appropriate
Reardlesss w are botching jay ?
A real trial would be a disaster for schiff
Trump gets to call schiff and the Bidens
Schiff gets no hearsay test only which rscs him to some of Sondland
Schiff gets no new witnesses
He had the opportunity for that before impeaching
You do not seem to grasp how badly a real trial will go
Thank graham for minimizing your embarrassment
You do understand that prosecutors are obligated to show up on the day of trail wit sufficient evidence to convince the court they can win
There is no “maybe I can make my case with new witnesses”
There is no “ maybe I ca ,are my case if you allow inadmissible evidence”
Only he defense is not required t have its case established a trial
The prosecution gets Adria witnesses in tw instances
As rebuttal to what defense witnesses say and where new evidence is found that was not available before
The senate has transcripts of Sondland testimony
They also have the democrats articles impeachment
The senate can by a simple majority return this to the house saying either
The house articles of impeachment do not offer a claim that if true the senate accepts as impeachable
Or the only admisssible evidence is not sufficient to prove the claims
Bth happen frequently in courts
Demrats should feel lucky
A court can dismiss with prejudice
The senate can not
But it is just as free as the house to dece what is impeachable
And that is not a evidentiary question
Put simple
Go back and do this right
Yeah. He really admitted this:
Giuliani: “I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way. She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”
Rapidly approaching senility?
So what ?
I beleive even yavnovitch should have been fired
There is plenty damning abut her
Absolutely she was asking nvestigationns difficult
That is both obstruction and the opposite of her job
🖕🖕🖕
Russia confirms Trump subservience:
“ As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov returned home from his visit with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, Russian state media was gloating over the spectacle. TV channel Rossiya 1 aired a segment entitled “Puppet Master and ‘Agent’—How to Understand Lavrov’s Meeting With Trump.”(Daily Beast)
I think absolutely everyone Democrat republican are all agreed
Trump wanted investigaons
If there is reasonable suspicion then the job of the ambassador is to get them
If she will not she must be fired
If there is not reasonable suspicion
She can try to persuade the president and failing she can resign and go public
There is no thwart the president choice
Yavonovitch does not have final say on s policy
You keep raising truth that is Damon to you and gasping and claiming it means the opposite
You are also under the delusion that gulliani is a government actor (tough that is not relevant in this instance)
Any private citizen is free to seek the removal of anyone in government
You want trump gone how is that different ?
dhlii I’m bored, waiting for roast chicken dinner, so a reminder:
Remember when Trump was told North Korea was about to test an ICBM, and he said: “It won’t happen.”
Then it happened.
Once.
Twice.
Three times. ? ? ?
Why haven’t you figured out the extent of his incompeyence?
Dhlii what has happened to your inexhaustible Trump defense?
Have I exhausted your rationalizations in defense of the indefensible?
I am not defendng i am attacking you
Further I am in Japan right now s responding to your craps about twice as hard
But I am having a great time and you seem miserable
This is totally off politics, impeachment, Trump, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, etc.
This has to do with science and alternative causes for global warming.
Open and then think about this.
Sunspots and solar activity warm the earth
Water absorbs heat and retains warmth longer than land.
71 percent of the earths surface is covered by water
1000+ years ago the earth was as warm or warmer than today.
In the 1600’s the earth experienced a “little ice age.
Since that time, global temps have increased
So if the solar activity minimized to the 1600’s as shown here and a little ice age occurred, is there a link as the ocean temp cooled allowing global temps to cool?
With the increased solar activity over 400 years and the resulting record ocean temps, is there a link to global warming as the oceans release heat and moisture into the atmosphere?
I am not saying there is not climate change, but asked why other factors other than CO2 are being ignored.
The phrase climate change is an admission of the failure of CAGW
CO2 has a small impact on temperature
Solar factors have a demonstrably larger impact
But we understand the effect of co2 better
And want o blame it for everything
We all should hope the impact f solar activity is weaker than historical evidence as predictions for the approaching solar minima are the weakest in at least a millennia
I would Also suggest looking up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
As these are purely solar
Radical impacts on climate and broadly accepted
Ron, I’ve never been able to take the climate change movement seriously, not because there is no such thing as climate change, or even some evidence that human activity might have some role in it. I can’t take it seriously, because the people that we’re supposed to be listening to, are the same people that refuse to acknowledge any cause for climate change, other than CO2.
Of course, there is also the issue of blaming the United States for global warming, while giving a pass to China, Russia and India. Also the issue of ignoring sunspots and solar activity. Also, putting a 16 year old, without scientific expertise, front and center, as the leader of a movement that supposedly has hard science backing it up. There are other oddities ~ why do so many people who publicly call for eliminating fossil fuels, have a personal history of using private jets, driving SUV’s and limos, and buying large mansions, often oceanfront mansions, that have a huge carbon footprint?
If the world is ending, what good are carbon credits?
The climate is supposed to change
“Climate change” is a left wing nut with word propaganda game to paint anyone who questions CAGW as a nut job
You can tell there are problems when advocates think they need the right words to make their case
A silver tongue is fine when convincing me to buy a car
When you want me to jail someone I want FACTs
When you want to limit my freedom
You must prove you argument with FACTs
When you want to impeach you must have FACTs
This is pretty good
I think that the analyst underestimates trumps understanding f circumstances
Trump can not fix the problem with his negatives without going after the press
Every recent republican that has not confronted the bias and error in the press as been slimed and crucified
You want Rubio or Romney or McCain
We have seen what happens when a epublican who will not take in the press runs
They are called heartless nazis by the left and the press and they lose
There is a current fact check on trumps chain that fox apologized for screwing up his mike in one debate
That is false according to fact checkers because fax admitted the error
Bu purportedly did not “apologize”
There are really only two forms of admission of error
The on is an apology which is presumed in all admissions of error
The other is “we were wrong f#@k you”
Is the media saying that was fox’s response
No republicans moderate or otherwise will get a fair shake from the press until they have to pay a price for bias
Trump is imposing that price
The press is not going to change sort of paying a price
Today fox which I do not like is #1 in 70% o markets in many instances with higher ratings than there competition combined
That is because fox is more trustworthy
And I think fox is not that trustworthy
Trump is winning in the only way a republican can today
By confronting the liars
Her analysis is accurate.
There is no analysis
Does putting country first require buying the unsupported assertion of proven liars ?
If so count me out
This is not about country
Or party it is about truth
And it never should have started
There is more than sufficient evidence to investigate Bidens and the Ukraine
And that should have been the end of this
A legitimate act does not become illegitimate because you do not like the person doing it
Nor because you guess or even they admitt to motives you do not like
This is simple and you have never ever addressed it
We have wasted 3 years on XFH and mueller
The results of each have been a cabal including all the current players who have been wrong about everything
Many of them are solidly proven liars
Schiff Nunez and nadler all knew the same things that Horowitz has just reported
Only Nunez has been truthful and even he understated things
The very people leading the charge on impeachment have all lied to us constantly
Not just been proven wrong but been proven liars
The upper tier of the Obama doj and fbi has proven at best incompetent and many of them criminals comey lied to Congress McCabe lied to investigators klienstein tampered with evidence
There are 6 other instances of evidence tampering that someone at the fbi did but no one admits – clearly at lest on person is criminally lying
Mueller had to know much of this
At the very least he had to know the foundation of his investigation was rotten to the core yet he continued
You call Ukraine interference in 2016 and Biden corruption a hoax
Believe that if you want
But there is plenty to investigate
We already have the ic ig saying something Horowitz was unwilling to
That the wb is biased
We know he is connected with the people we now know as liars and crooks
You want to look into Parnas and Fruman and gulliani
Fine right after we look into a long list of those involved in ukraine corruption
There are claims that yavonovitch obstructed investigations the administration wanted in Ukraine let’s investigate that and if it proves true convict her
Hill says there is nothing to claims regarding Ukraine
But there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise
Let’s investigate there
And if there is substance to Ukraine claims and evidence hill knew that lets prosecute her for lying to Congress
We have lots of ethical violations of schiff and a few of nadler
Censure them
We have more that end investigated
We also have Durham investigating criminally and beyond Horowitz scope
Do you expect that will go any better for you ?
Keep going after trump
In the end it is your credibility that is destroyed
If you care about truth and the country
Trump is not the problem
The problem is that you continue to beleive proven liars
Keep it up
This only gets worse
Jay according to rcp of the last 6 polls not one has a plurality of support fo impeachment
Since early October the average has seen a 6pt drop
From about +5 to -1
If you have lost 6% in 3 months your in trouble
So by all means keep it up
I do not actually expect either republicans or democrats to do anything substantive about baseless government surveillance
Any San reading of Horowitz makes it clear not only was the FISA warrant a violation of rights
But much of XFH ad Mueller
The standard for a FISA warrant is no different from any warrant
The big deal is the degree to which they are secret
The abuses of FISA warrants are no different from warrants issued everyday without basis throughout the nation
Jay was mostly correct that the courts have allowed warantless access to phone records
That access is narrower than jay claims
But more importantly that access is WRONG
The expectation of privacy standard the courts created is both wrong and wrongly applied
We do not expect that our neighbors will have access to our bank or hone records
The lying distorting motherfucker is at it again.
His deceptive, creepy, historically incorrect letter to Pillosi is filled with distortions and lies.
TRUMP: “VP Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.”
That’s UNTRUE!. The corrupt prosecutor Shokin was NOT digging. This has been documented: The investigation into Burisma Holdings had been dormant for more than a year: It had already been shelved when Biden acted. Shokin was a Russian aligned holdover whose removal was supported by Republican senators ROB PORTMAN & RON JOHNSON, the IMF and most of all of our western democracy allies. This Shokin is the ‘reliable source’ shit-for-brains Rudy and despicable lump of feces Trump is relying on to discredit Biden.
But the Trumpanzee party-over-truth scum sucking right will propagate the distortions to undermine Biden, a basically good guy with a good heart who truly relates to ordinary Americans – to re-elect an inferior loud mouth low life like Trump. It is with a heavy heart that I’ve come to conclude those of you who go along and continue to support President Crapola are no better. You’ve been blinded by the sleaze…
No jay it is absolutely true Biden did use $1b in us aid to force showings firing
Not only is there no doubt bout that Biden has said he did exactly that
Shokin was investigating burins a which had given hunter a no work high pay job
We also know that pv Biden was aware of his sons business interests and the the us state department though they were trading influence and that Biden knew that
We know that hunter was to be interviewed by shokin the day after shokin was fired
Pretending the facts away changes nothing
And we know all of the above from us sources
And we know much of it from the Biden’s
Calling truth lies damns you not those you accuse
Again shokin was scheduled to interview hunter Biden the day after he was fired
We know this from emails from Biden’s us lawyers
Shokin was slow
And thorough
He had a long reputation for that
Jay you have to quit listening to CNN WaPo MSNBC and NYT
You know the media that got pretty much everything wrong so far
No it is not documented that Sokin was not investigating Burisma and Hunter in fact the Opposite is well documented
There are emails that schedule a shokin interview of Hunter
The schedule date was the day after Joe demanded Shokin fired
Coincidence ? Maybe, but certainly not an inactive investigation
There are emails documenting rose not Seneca lawyers contacting the new PG to see if Biden was to show up and promising they had nothing to do with firing Shokin
There is myriads of documents most from us sources like rose not Seneca lawyers and the state department confirming a slow but thorough investigation
That appeared to be about to heat up
There also exists no evidence that Shokin was corrupt beyond naked assertions from us or us affiliated sources that Biden heavily influenced
Even miracle of miracle Sorros shows up in this
We can speculate about what Joe Biden knew
Though much of that is provable unless you believe joe is deaf and does not listen to his son and that hneither he nor his staff were aware of nyt articles and requests by reporters for advance comment
And that the vps staff did not tell him about state department memos asserting that hunter was engaged in influence peddling in Ukraine
All of this is from us sources
And there is twice as much and more if you add Ukrainian sources
So yes I want gulliani to testify
And furman and Parnas and john Solomon
And hunter and joe
And damn straight I want an investigation an Biden is just one part of that
I want an obstruction investigation into yavonovitch
And a lot more
New Post/ABC poll:
— 71% of Americans say Trump should allow top aides to testify at Senate trial
— 55% say House hearings have been fair to Trump (not a “coup”)
— 49% say Trump should be impeached *and removed,* versus 46% who say he shouldn’t
You have no moral authority to led the nation as president if half of the citizens want you removed.
During Clinton’s impeachment His approval polls had him at plus 70% . Americans didn’t want him ousted for lying about a blow job – a far less serious charge than Trump is facing.
Trump is a disgraceful human.
If you don’t get that you’re FUBARed beyond redemption.
Jay.
1. I agree with the 71% if they have information pertinent to the senate trial.
2. I can’t comment if the house hearings have been fair since I have not watched any or read anything about them. I guess 55% of the people are more informed than I am.
3. I hope I am never on trial and have anyone like the 49% who have made up their minds BEFORE the trial begins. But they are the same people that give a crap about anything in the constitution to begin with as long as it fits their needs and desires.
Just like the FISA warrant based on missing and incomplete data that judges allowed to go forward without question, what is in the constitution is secondary to a political agenda.
You keep telling me that constitutional rights reduction “creep” does not happen every time I say amend the constitution if one wants it changed ( gun control). That is total B.S. and this is a perfect example of what happens when you make laws and dont use the amendment route (Patriot Act).
Nothing precludes house democrats from calling administration witnesses when the courts resolve who is permitted to testify and under what terms
It is near certain scotus will give house democrats these witnesses it is also likely
It will require normal procedures to be followed not schiff star chamber
Democrats chose to rush ahead without waiting for the courts
They created their own problems
If they want the senate to try this now it must be with the evidence they impeached on
No Hail Mary passes
You do not get to demand others fix your mistakes
Especially when it is in your power to fix them yourself
The senate should not be used to short circuit the courts or repair the mistakes democrats have made
All of these and more will eventually end up testifying
And likely long before the election
If that testimony produces anything useful
Democrats are free to impeach again
I do not think McConnell should allow any hearsay
Or any new house witnesses
And though trump has a right to call witnesses
He should be strong armed into not doing so
Or more accurately the senate should have a quick vote on whether the house has referred an impeachable offense
Say no
And dispose of this
There is nothing here
Let’s assume as an example Mulvaney testified that there was a clear qpq it would not change this
The only question that is relevant that democrats failed to look into was whether there was sufficient predicate to ask fo an investigation
There are plenty of good reasons to have a probable outcome before a trial
This is a perfect example
No actual crime or malfeasance is alleged
Saying something is wrong does not make it so
Buy impeaching without a crime
By saying the house can impeach for whatever reason it pleases the senate is free to say and if you do not state a good enough reason we will refuse to hear your case
That happens in court all the time
Most every trial begins with multiple defense motions including motions to dismiss for failure to properly state a crime or for insufficient evidence
These rarely succeed
But sometimes do
Insufficiency of evidence typically has a better chance after the prosecution presents its case but before the defense does
But the prosecution always faces a high bar to introducing new evidence
In a normal trial the defense is supposed to not merely have all the prosecutions evidence at the start but also any exculpatorial evidence
And the defense can and usually does move at the start to dismiss asserting 5hat if the prosecutions alleged evidence all is proven there still is not sufficient to prove the allegation
Prosecutors are rarely permitted new evidence or new witnesses
Though they are always aloud to rebut any defense witnesses
If we are going to follow the rules of criminal procedure this gets dismissed before it starts
Horowitz did not investigate the FISA warrant he investigated all of XFH
While the left makes a big deal that the investigation was found to have started with sufficient basis, lost in the discussions of the FISA warrant is Horowitzs conclusion that the investigation LOST sufficient basis before the first warrant was issued
Not early was the FISA application fraudulent because of mistakes
Not only was it fraudulent because probable cause did not and never existed but because the entire investigation LOST validity as the evidence became weaker rather than stronger
Lying under oath is one of the more serious crimes it is destructive of the rule of law
President Clinton did it twice
He encouraged others to do so
Hillary Clinton did it at least once
James clapper did it
John Brennan did it
James comey did it
Everyone who signed each of the 4 FISA warrant applications did it
Only stone is accused of it
Flynn, papadoulis, van der Zant, gates were all accused of a lessor crime – lying to a government agent
The list of people who also did that is huge
Almost everyone who lied under oath also lied to a government agent
Plus McCabe and most everyone in the XFH team
The only people prosecuted thus far are trump surrogates
the criminal conduct of those enforcing the law is far more significant than that of ordinary people
We might be able to make society work if ordinary criminals lie
We can not of law enforcement lies
While the FISA process needs work
The most important thing that needs to occur is those who swore a knowingly false oath to get these warrants must go to jail
That is far more important than any claims regarding trump
Rules changes will not fix this
There were already plenty of rules
The rules were broken
And absent consequences that will happen again
Byron York has an excellent article on this
Basically this is just a Hail Mary to try to stretch this out
But I am perfectly willing to have more witnesses
Lots more witnesses
So AGAIN think about what you ask for ?
We can have a two month senate trial that adds the 4 witnesses that democrats want
And hunter and gulliani and firmament and Parnas and pv Biden and Shokin and Chalay and …..
As a practical matter though
Democrats ran the house investigation
It is near certain that they will ultimately get all the witnesses they asked for
Under terms set by the courts
That is they appropriate resolution
The house can continue to chase down faux impeachment and have more kangaroo court hearings as they please
While graham follows due process and digs into Ukraine 2016
But schiff nadler pelosi decided to bring this to the senate now
It should be decided now exactly as the house asked on the same evidence of high crimes that house democrats think is compelling
If the house can not make their case
Then they should wait until they can
Of course these people and more
Every witness republicans asked for
Including the wb and schiff should testify
And ultimately will testify
Though hopefully under circumstances where the rule of law is followed
God knows where your data is from since the rcp average is well below your numbers
According to a link in your own wapo poll story a small majority do not want trump removed if impeached
Did wapo ask if schiff should testify
If the wb should testify
If the Biden’s should testify .
I expect majority support for those and more
Did the poll ask would the person still want these people to testify if it drug this out for months ?
Did the poll ask if they would prefer democrats waited until these people were called by the house ?
McConnell’s answer to this will be trivial
If democrats want more witnesses they have control of the house and can call who ever they want that the courts allow
The senate is going to try the case the house brought
Not the one they hope to bring
The house has full control of impeachment
The have no control of the trial
Ordinary rules should be followed
A trial is not an investigation
You do not go to trial if you do not have the evidence you need
We should not repay the kavanaugh fiasco
You made your bed
Lie in it
There are going to be lots more witnesses and investigations
But house democrats have brought impeachment now
The real law and fairness requires the to try the case they have or withdraw the impeachment and wait until they have what they need
Lying under oath is one of the most serious crimes there is
Our entire system of government can not work if people regularly lie to courts
I would further note Clinton suborned perjury conspired to have evidence destroyed and obstructed justice
There is no one credible that thinks those are less significant
Clinton’s misconduct violated the fundamentals for working government
Clinton also got a fair hearing in the house and was convicted on evidence from a protracted independent counsel investigation following the rules of legal procedure
The house action was political – impeachment is political
But it was based on a thoroughly done apolitical investigation
But even in the house Clinton was allowed to cross examine and subpoena witnesses of his choosing
Trump has not been
The core question here is was there sufficient basis for a request to investigate
Horowitz just laid out how low that standard is
Everything democrats (and republicans) have fixated on is irrelevant
It does not matter if trump threatened Zelensky
Not that there is evidence he did
What matters is was the request legitimate
If the answer is yes which it clearly is
We are done
Neither hunter Biden nor joe nor the wb nor all the witnesses the democrats called are relevant to the legitimacy of the request
It does not matter whether the Biden’s are crooks or saints
What matters is whether the information known to trump at the time was sufficient
And it clearly was
Should in the course of investigation it turn out that reasonable suspicion is disproven
As did occur during XFH
Then the investigation must stop
But proving someone guilty is not required to start an investigation
And subsequently proving the innocent must end the investigation but it does not undermine the start
Everything you need to know about what is necessary to start and maintain an investigation is in the Horowitz report
Republican Conservative tells it like it is:
Really Nichols ?
Do we need to go to the way back machine for the thousands of false tweets of Nichols
He is another never trump neocon who has Ben wrong about everything for years
You want to offer this as your model for moral .
Have you no shame ?
Well at least we have one Judge not buying the government B.S.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/secretive-court-rebukes-fbi-errors-russia-probe-67785339?fbclid=IwAR3i5bYWkFR6CoyNa1OG0b_6JViuhBUro6J_v-o6_EoFGgvbeghFw0SALd8
But most people will pay no attention and those that do will blame it on a conservative judge that was a Bush 943) appointment to the court and later to FISA by John Roberts.
Insufficient
The FISC can huff and puff but procedural changes are insufficient when an entire invesgitive team conspires to break the law
And have no doubt this was a large conspiracy
Every. Breach of procedure
Every crime required that multiple people were aware
There is as an example no possibility on earth that kileinstein as the only person to see the cia email that page was a source
Kleinstein May have altered the email
But many others were aware of the change
Sullivan erred and it is a serious problem to falsely attack defense counsel
The oppinion Sullivan cites says you can not cite an authority without attribution
Another brief is not in terms of law an authority
It is an argument
Turley notes prosecutors do this all the time and badly
Regardless plagerism in a brief is nearly impossible
There are strict rules on arguments
And there are only a few ways to frame each
Plagersims is about stealing someone’s creative work
Myriads of laws that apply elsewhere do not apply to court documents
As an example you can not defame someone in court
The judge can sanction you but the victim can not sue for defamation
The same is true of copyright and plagerism
Sullivan appears to be losing his marbles
Which is disturbing he has been an excellent judge in the past
There is one and only one point at which I think I concur with Sullivan
It is nearly impossible to expect a judge to essentially find you innocent while you are still pleading guilty
If Flynn has the balls to withdraw his plea
Which he is free to do
Sullivan should dismiss with prejudice
The conduct of the fbi has been atrocious
I do believe this case warrants dismissal without requiring Flynn to drop his plea
Things are that bad with the fbi in this case
But I can not fault Sullivan fo4 resisting doing so
That said Sullivan has made several remarks that are highly inappropriate and unusual for a judge of his caliber
And for jay
I greatly respect Sullivan
I understand why he will not dismiss if Flynn will not withdraw his plea
Even though I disagree
But Sullivan has made many pretty bad errors in this case
Something is very wrong
These mistakes are not normal for him
Page is the most clear cut victim hear
And what has been done to him
By the FBI
By doj
By the government
By the media
And by many other posters here is despicable
When you make false accusations of others it is YOUR reputation that should be trashed
Have YOU no shame!,,,
But page is not alone
Papadoulis was investigated because an Australian diplomat made an erroneous report to state which found its way to the fbi
It is arguable that the error was innocent
Though the ties between downer and Clinton
Indeed all the ties in this are really disturbing
And we can all be justified in wondering how large the ESTABLISHED conspiracy to get trump was
Regardless FBI knew
This is getting scary when 1/2 the people in a major party think like this.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.com/content/uploads/2019/12/672/378/fnc3.png?ve=1&tl=1
Anyone with a favorable view of socialism has ceded any claim to intelligence regardless of political affiliation
Thats why its so scary because 1/2 od a major party supports this crap and even more than 1/2 of those younger.
And this is not going to be confined to California and New York because our educational system is promoting this crap nationally.
It is marginally excusable in the young who do not know better
One big deal is that many countries today that the us left call socialist aren’t
Switzerland Sweden norway Denmark might have some form of universal healthcare
But they are as free economically or freer than the us
They have less regulation
They might have a broader safety net
But there are enormous legal and cultural pressures associated with getting off
Socialism?
But what about Trump’s billions of dollars of socialistic give-away to farmers – govt payment for his tariff game.
These would not be required had previous congresses and administrations not signed such fucked up trade agreements in the past. Now, while trying to fix the crappy mess we have with trade, temporary measures are being used to support those hurt by the current tariffs. Once an agreement is attained (hopefully he stands his ground for this), those additional support payments will end.
Socialism and its programs like Medicare for all, entitlements like student loan payoff programs and others never end.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475037-trump-approval-up-6-points-since-launch-of-impeachment-
This Cnn article makes a number of false or suspect statements and fails to attemp to understand why things are not working out
Still it at least grasps as jay is unable to that the impeachment inquiry has had a significant negative impact on democrats
I would strongly suggest that at least half the country is not stupid and understands that asking even damanding an investigation of political corruption in Ukraine including corruption of an opponent is not a crime
It is not even wrong
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html
We keep hearing that everything john Solomon or Rudy gulliani say and trump repeats about Ukraine is debunked
Russian propaganda
A right wing conspiracy theory
Where have we heard that before ?
By the same people when attacking trump over claims he was spied on
That trump Russia collusion was a hoax
In the real world those who have lied repeatedly in the ast are less credible in the future
While people who have told the truth in the past are more likely to be correct now
Tailibi notes that Horowitz leaves open a number of unresolved issues
Most having to do with the start of the campaign
Horowitz essentially says he has not gotten to the bottom of several things
Either Loretta Lynch is lying or comey and McCabe are
If lynch is telling the truth XFH began much earlier than Horowitz reports
Otherwise lynch is lying
Regardless someone violated 18 usc 1001
You know the statute being used to prosecute Flynn papadoulis and van der Sandt
Then we have either comey and McCabe are lying or Brennan has been lying repeatedly when he claimed to have intelligence about Russian effort to collude with trump
Neither outcome is good for the left
If comey and McCabe told Horowitz the truth that seriously undermines the ic report on Russian interference in the election
And then there is mifsud
If mifsud is not a Russian agent and the us ic knew that
Horowitzs fiding that the investigation was properly predicated is gone
That makes this all much worse
Mueller found no evidence mifsud was a Russian agent
Horowitz found no evidence he was an FBI agent
Mifsud was absokutely working for someone
Likely either mi6 or CIA
Regardless not a Russian agent alone is a huge problem for the left and the media
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-
It is impossible to keep track of the mountain of evidence that claims that the Biden Ukraine story is Russian propaganda
Aside from th latviain ones laundering evidence here
I completely forgot that several of schiff witnesses had confirmed that there was a great deal of concern over hunter Biden’s activities in the Ukraine, that the vps office had been informed and that us aide programs had been stopped because of hunter Biden’s connections to them
https://johnsolomonreports.com/
Yah!
NEW YORK (AP) — “The first line of President Donald Trump’s obituary has been written.
While Trump is all but certain to avoid removal from office, a portion of his legacy took shape Wednesday when he became just the third president in American history to be impeached by the U.S. House.”
But his numbers are improving:
Trump by the numbers:
4 bankruptcies
3 wives
But only 2 articles of impeachment
0 foreign wars
0 journalists spied on and wiretapped
0 instances where he used the irs to target enemies
0 money for Iranian hostages
0 swaps of terrorists for traitors
0 foia violations
0 solyndras
If pelosi refuses to send articles to the senate did it even happen ?
How impeachment will be remembered depends n what follows
You pelosi nadler Clinton schiff have all jumped the shark
And long before impeachment
Purportedly pelosi was not pressuring anyone
Believe that ?
Tulsi gabbard is being destroyed by all of you on the left
Are you incapable of seeing yourselves ?
You keep saying trump has divided the country
But trump did not make you channel joe McCarthy
Everything you disagree with is Russian propaganda
You convinced almost 2/3 of the country at one point that the trump campaign was actually colluding with Russia
Mueller grudgingly and Horowitz unequivically not only found that was a lie
But the the person you put a bullseye on was actually voluntarily working for the CIA and had taken down actual Russian assets
It is increasingly easy to tell truth from lies
If you say it it is false
There is a lot we still do not know about Ukraine
Actually that is false most of us are well aware that a lot of dubious acts took place in Ukraine
The question is whether they were crimes
Do you have the slightest doubt that Burisma did not hire Hunter Biden for his knowledge of energy or corporate governance ?
Is there a crime there ?
Using actual law rather than leftist infinite law probably not
But it sure smells rotten
You want the trumps anally probed because the hotel they have owned for years continues to rent rooms to diplomats
An exchange of actual value for value
What value did Burisma get from hiring Biden ?
McCabe and comey have been forced to admitt that the FBI was shoddy
Of course that was only the low level agents on the seventh floor
They are now playing the clown because they have the limited choice between boobs and crooks
People should be burning comedy’s book purportedly on honor
Is there anyone who does not grasp that comets firing was justified ten times over ?
Horowitz has just said there was no basis left by the time of the inauguration
Or put more simply that firing comey solely to stop an unfounded investigation would have been legitimate
As has been said many times
You can not obstruct injustice
Alex Jones is right far more than Chris cuomo
That should disturb you
Do you have no shame ?
The will ultimately be a public airing of what we know about Ukraine
Likely soon
What happens to your faux impeachment as it turns into the schiff memo ?
With it being rebutted point by point ?
I warned you, the left, democrats, the you had shredded your credibility with the mueller report
And yet you have doubled down
You tell me my polls are false and cite RCP
Yet rcp shows the same trend
Both in impeachment and job approval
A 6 pt swing in trumps favor in3 months
Time is unlikely to improve that
Pelosi is now tryi to leverage impeachment to corrupt the process in the senate
Who cares ?
Send them
Don’t
Call witnesses
Don’t
You have a losing hand
You doubled down past mueller
You are betting on lightning strikes
Maybe you will get that
But the odds are not
The “Perversion” is trump and his lawless presidency. The trump GOP, which lindsey graham has made himself the loudest poster boy of, is, likewise, a perversion. It is howlingly funny, in the darkest way, that the same conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution, have supported trumps unfettered lawless destruction of the Presidency and bent themselves into pretzels to defend his actions.
The democrats are the party that is now protecting the Constitution, they did what they had to do to preserve this country. The evidence that trump withheld military foreign aid to Ukraine as a lever, as a quid pro quo, (ask Mulvaney) to get a purely trump-serving search for dirt on his strongest democratic rival for the presidency is crystal clear and indisputable. That cannot be allowed to stand without impeachment. Bravo! I do not know how this will play out politically, even if it plays out badly for the democrats, then it was still necessary. If it plays out badly for the democrats that they defended the Constitution, while the GOP is busy trying to destroy it, then we don’t have much left anyhow. But the question needs to be put to the test.
The best quality polls tell some slightly conflicting stories, we know about the Fox poll, others differ by a few percentage points and within their margins or error as to whether a majority want trump removed. According to 538 trump support has a base level of 40% and trump disapproval has a base level of 52% There are about 2% who still sometimes change their minds and account for the 3-4% swings that we all breathlessly watch. Meanwhile, there is a locked in 52-40 majority whose opinions are very solidly formed. As Fox found, that group corresponds nearly exactly to the number who want to see trump impeached and removed. So, the impeachment by the democrats is the only possible outcome considering both trumps lawlessness and the opinion of the people.
Those who think there is “not a shred of evidence” that trump has abused his Presidential powers, cry me a river. I can’t help your fantastic and grotesque blindness and I am not going to bend to it. Neither, evidently, are approximately 52% of my fellow citizens.
The whole issue is of course complicated by bernie sanders marxist takeover attempt of the democratic party that has had at least some success, although he is polling at about 15%. Without the too strong influence of what I would call the far left on the democratic party, it would be easier for conservatives to act on their Constitutional principles with trump. It is also complicated by the fact that trump has done some bold and interesting things in foreign policy, some of which history may judge in the end to have worked (or, just as likely, not worked), along with some incredibly wrong and destructive things, of which his actions regarding putin and Ukraine are the loudest examples.
The most similar previous POTUS to trump was Nixon, a very flawed and destructive man, who nevertheless did some interesting and successful things in foreign policy, along with some terrible things. The other closest previous POTUS to trump is Bill Clinton, a scoundrel of a man, who did have a successful presidency in many ways. All three have been through impeachment.
trump is getting what he has richly earned, so will his party I certainly hope in time. Successful or not in some ways, no POTUS is above the law, and that is why impeachment was created by the founders.
I am not here to argue. This is my opinion, that is all I will have to say about it. I know what the response of every other person here will be to it without the need to spend my efforts reading the outrage and blind denial of trumps defenders.
Ditto.
😊
If trump is lawless you could cite a law that was violated
No prior impeachment ever not of a president
Not of a judge
Not of anyone has ever before not cited a crime
The burden is on you
If you impugn someone else
If you call them a liar
If you call them a criminal
YOU are obligated to prove that
Withou warping law to a pretzel you can not do that
Saying something is true does not make it true
Today I can call you jay the press the left all liars
With no potential risk to my reputation
You beat the drum of trump Russia collusion
You got behind all these self serving leaks/lies
You owned them and you bet your reputation on them
You damnedand continue to damn anyone who is not fullthroated behind you
I have given up on democrats
They are like lemmings running off the cliff
I am hoarse from yelling stop
You have near certain assured trumps reelection
You have near certain assured great gains if not an outright victory of republicans in the house
If you wish to give republicans the senate too – go ahead
https://images.app.goo.gl/7MSConypJDT5qwH47
When you state that someoeelse is a liar a crimsoned
That is not just an oppinion
That is a moral judgement
It is also a bet of your own integrity
You have done so and you have lost
You do not have the integrity to appologize
The character to ask how you could have been so wrong
Instead you double down
No an is good enough to be a successful liar
Lincoln
Man bears the seeds of his own destruction
There is just shy of a year until the next election
Democrats and the media barring a miracle are done
You can impeach
Again and again
No one will come
But people will slowly digest mueller
And Horowitz
They may be no fora investigation of Ukraine in 2016
But more will get out slowly
It is inevitable
Durham will start indicting people
And possibly produce a report
Republicans have massive amounts of political weapons from the mouths of democrats
You have constantly doubled down
Raised the stakes
Been found wrong
And come back again
We are past mere opinions
We are deeply into lies
We even have crimes
Actual crimes
Not of trump
You want to complain about voter stupidity
Who would vote for schiff who has lied repeatedly
Apparently we live in different worlds
Horowitzs inquiry ends at the doors of the fbi
Nor can he compel witnesses excep those currently in government
Yet what he found as damning
Fast and furious
Irsgate
The va scandal
Lying about Benghazi
The Clinton email mess
Uranium one
And now crossfire huricane
Either Obama was the most clueless and incompetent president in history
Or he was corrupt
I fully expect gop adds of Biden saying he is proud of an absence of scandals
And after 3 years what do you actually have on trump ?
That you do not like his policies ?
That he and “the generals” and the career bureacracy are at odds over policies ?
That he wanted to investigate suspicious conduct in the Ukraine ?
You talk about history
Spin does not fare well over time
I do not expect that history will remember what you do
The world you live in is clouded in trump-fart.
I have spent three years saying almost exactly the same things as Horowitz
And the same things as mueller absent the sore loser spin
I have bEen relentlessly right about the facts and the law
You have repeated lie after lie
You have slandered not just trump claiming truth was lies
But lots of the rest of us
Have you no shame ?
GOP – Good Old Putin – Criticizes Dems for Impeaching Asset
MOSCOW—Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized U.S. Democrats for impeaching President Trump on what the Russian leader called “made up charges… WSJ
Buzzards of a feather…
What has the world come to when Putin is more accurate than schiff or comey
If Putin told you Trump fucked Pillosi in the Oval Office, you’d believe that too, right
Trump has been f#@king pelosi for a long time
She keeps coming back for more
I do not need Putin to know that
Speaker Nancy Pelosi should “Merrick Garland” the impeachment of Donald trump- hold off submitting it to Senate until after 2020 election.
She may do that as the calendar is not benefiting Democrats running for the nomination. Unless this happens the first couple weeks in January, Booker, Warren, Sanders are all going to be in Washington sitting in a trial while Biden, Buttigieg and others will be squeezing hands on the streets of Iowa campaigning for votes to get the early momentum if she waits much longer. And that is critical because money comes with momentum.
But it will help whoever ends up running to have the impeachment still hanging over Trump’s(ugg) neck like the Sword of Damocles.
In the next months more negatives will undoubtedly surface to further tarnish his name: SCOTUS will have ruled his pre-presidential taxes and documents are not privileged, revealing more of his dirty deeds. Maybe someone even as anti- Dem as you will see the light when that package is opened
His core Zombie-Cultists won’t care, but more Independents & Undecideds will shift to the Dump Trump side, and, hopefully, Trump-cancer will be excised.
Jay, “Maybe someone even as anti- Dem as you will see the light when that package is opened”
How many different ways that someone who did not vote for the bitch have to say they did not vote for Trump.
1. I did not vote for Trump
2.’I did not vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2016
3. I voted for the Libertarian
4. I voted for Johnson.
5. I did not vote for Clintons opponent
So I saw the light in 2016. Again, I did NOT vote for Trump.
1. I will not vote for Trump.
2. I will not vote for the GOP nominee
3. I will vote libertarian or not vote for president if the LP runs some half wit like they dobso often.
4. I will not vote for the democrats opponent
5. I will not vote democrat unless that democrat does not support forced purchase of private company products, does not force climate deals that do not require the same sacrifice for China and India as the USA, does not force auto companies to produce high mileage cars that no one wants that results in most everyone buying trucks and SUV’s on truck frames, does not support spending billions on student loan forgiveness for idiot students that ran up 6 digit debt when state university educations were available atca fraction of the cost and does not support one size fits all healthcare reimbursement systems, but supports medicare buyin if that is whatnpeople so desire.
Run a democrat that fits that mold and I will vote for them even with other bad agenda items.
Again if the democrats retain the house
They can impeach again as many times as they want
If democrats win the senate
They can hold the trial how they want
But I would suggest that will reduce their chance of wining the senate
But do what you want
Normally I completed actions of one congress must be restarted under the next
There is no way that democrats can lose the house win the senate and still move forward on impeachment
And in every other scenario this is just stupid
But hey go for it
I Trump will be happy to have you keep this in the news as slowly Ukraine heads the way Russian collusian went
If you think impeachment is hurting trump you are heavy into your bubble
Keep it hanging as long as you want
You fail to grasp you just make it look more stupid
It was so important it had to be rushed but now there is no hurry ?
Get a clue
This impeachment will be a major republican issue in the election
Eventually the already existing evidence regarding Ukraine will percolate to the surface and all democrats will have James comets choice between corrupt and stupid
Go for it
What do you expect to surface ?
Durham is going into the places like doj and cia that Horowitz couldnt
And he can compel people to testify which Horowitz could not
He is near certain going to establish who mifsud was working for
We now know that the XFH team forged evidence
Do you think the same people became suddenly law abiding when they went to work for mueller ?
The house still has not subpeoned the witnesses they claim trump denied them
How do you ever expect their testimony if you do not ask for it ?
In the event the ny ag gets trumps tax return
Anything that leaks is a crime
I think it is not likely the house gets his tax return
Law back to 1916 is against them
Regardless trumps tax return will not lead to crimes
At most it will be embarrassing because he is rich
Or maybe 10 years ago he donated to planned parenthood
You are betting on magic
How has that worked for you so far ?
Seek help
There is a gamblers anonymous chapter near you
The first step is to admit you have a problem
Jay
This is not going to get better for you
You should not be hoping over the next few months you should fear them
It is near certain gulliani will testify in the senate soon
He is dying to do so
That should scare you
Be carefull you could get what you hope for
Independents are moving away from you
That 6 pt shift you keep pretending did not happen was independents
I do not think Ron is anti dem
I am certainly not
I am anti stupid
Anti self destructive
Anti lying
Anti socialism
Anti big government
Anti corrupt government
I am a propenent of divided government
I was happy that moderate dems were elected to the house in 2019
Pelosi has lead them to slaughter
That I am unhappy about
I want democrats to look in the mirror to figure out why the lost 2016
And to change to better reflect the country than the left
Right- .but I’m hoping others in swing states have a different opinion.
Hope is not a basis for policy
Government should get out of trade period
I do not understand pelosi threat
I can argue that she can’t do this
But why ?
This is politically a loser
It is and admission this was stupid
The house does not control the senate just as the senate did not control the house
It will be easy for McConnell to politically games this
As has been noted the house can impeach as many times as it wants
If they are not happy with the senate handling
They can win the senate and impeach again
The only scenario that makes the slightest sense is somehow democrats lose the house and win the senate
And even that does not work
This makes no sense
There is no leverage in this
It just looks stupid
It is not worth fighting over
Just ignore it
“ Government should get out of trade period”
Tell it to the Chinese, who are surpassing us in every manufacturing industry.
The fact that the Chinese are screwing up and subsidizing us citizens is not a good reason for us to make the mistake of. Subsidizing Chinese citizens
“Tell it to the Chinese, who are surpassing us in every manufacturing industry.”
Well thats because of people like you and Dave that support “free” trade with no rules.
The Chinese surpass us in very little
This is an old stale argument
It was not true of the Japanese either
I am in Japan right now
They did an amazing job of catching up to the us from behind after wwii
But even today their standard of living is lower
And they have lost ground on the us since the 80’s
At the same time
Do I care ?
Do you ?
Why ?
I keep getting told american exceptionalism is bunk
Then why do we need to do better than China ?
The us did catch up to Europe from behind in the 19th century
And then moved ahead
It can happen
China could surpass us
Or Japan could
If they actually do
Great we will all be better off and let’s learn from them
In the meantime no diverse nation
No nation with a population over about 10m has a higher standard of living
I am more interested in how we van do better than in keeping the Chinese poor
I could care less who is ahead or behind us in economic development. That is not mine to worry about.
If china surpasses the USA, fine, but just not at the cost of economic development here like we have seen in the last 30 years.
And DO NOT give me a bunch of B.S. that we are better off today than we would have been had the Chinese had FAIR trade and not free trade where they kept products out of their country produced here,sent us their products subsidized by their government, piss poor working conditions and pay, pollution that they do nothing about and we hear daily how bad we are in the USA for using petroleum products and steal intellectual properties and sell the products back to us.
There is absolutely no way you are going to convince me that producing a Buick in China and sending it here with no tariffs and selling it for the same prices as a domestic made car all while they slap 25%+ tariffs on domestic made cars going to China creates jobs in America and stimulates our economy.Spend all day writing why you think all that is fine and I will ignore it like I have so many other comments because no one is going to convince me that Fair trade is not better than free trade without extensive documentation.
Sorry Dave, I do not buy it!
I have addressed the problems with any argume involving “fair” before
It is the Chinese harmed by lack of access to our products
There is no right to have your product bought
The infringements of the Chinese government on the freedom of its people are the business of the Chinese people not us
The same is true of subsiding products for sales in the us
And we should stop subsidizing our goods too
Chinese working conditions are bad compared to the us
They are fantastic compared two 30 years ago or to those in Cambodia
The world is not going to have flat working conditions
Even the us does not have flat working conditions
Ideas are not property
You can not in a meaningful way steel them
No country has ever become competive by steal up
The ussr sent spies to steal us ip
By 1989 they were able to make the equivalent of an 8008
A us CPU from 1972
The perceptions about protectionist trade are false
No rules ?
Absolutely there are rules
No unjustified use of force
Keep you agrreements
So the house leaves town and does not send the articles of impeachment to the senate.
Is the President really impeached?
Is this another ploy to just have that over his head going into the election?
Will Queen Nancy say she is not going to send them and say they will if the voters elect him again?
I did not watch the debate last night, but heard clips. Yang was the only one making any substantially sound arguments from what I heard.But common sense does not get you elected. Spending money and buying votes with more entitlements does
This faux impeachment has buried democrats presidential campaign and harmed their house campaign
If democrats are hell bent on self destruction
Let them
The longer pelosi holds this in her pocket
The easier it will be for senate republicans to dismiss without hearing
She is making it clear it is political
She claims that democrats were free to vote their conscience
While she is demanding that senate republicans do as she says
She is actually makin McConnell look good
And that is hard
I can not find any likely scenario that favors democrats
But maybe pelosi will get lucky
Has not happened so far
Yes he is Impeached. The articles were passed.
She had this all planned out to start with.
She ansered the call of the radical left.
She is answering the call of the senators that dont want to be caught in trial while others are campaigning in Iowa.
She is using the articles to hold over Trumps political head giving his opponent the issue Trump will be removed if he is reelected.
And a few other political ploys.
I do not want to debate whether trump has been constitutionally impeached
Several lawyers including one nadler called say no until pelosi delivers the articles of impeachment to the senate he has not actually been impeached
I do not know if that is correct
However if it is false then McConnell can schedule a trial now
What is not true is that the house can actually impeach without triggering a trial in the senate
But honestly
I don’t care
There is nothing over trumps head
There is now a debate over how long the vote remains valid
No act of the house remains valid after the end of that house unless acted on by the senate
Pelosi can not pass a Democratic house impeachment to a democratic senate in 2020 without holding the house
This is just a stupid game
And there is no reason to fight it
Dave “There is nothing over trumps head”
I am so happy you live in a dream world where you believe voters understand the constitution, have followed closely everything that took place in the house and know what you believe them to know.
I dont have that same warm and fuzzy feeling because I dont believe voters are this smart. Had they been that smart, we would have never had such a cesspool of nominees in 2016 to choose from. Both Clinton and Trump were the worst.
So you keep thinking that the articles will not be used extensively during the campaign and voters will not believe that propaganda. I dont have that same trust in voters..
This is not about the constitution
Impeachment is only leverage until you do it
Now it is a flop
Both trump and house democrats are itching for a fight in the senate and neither is really looking to change the minds of senators they are after each other and appeals to voters
Who are not likely to watch
I actually think not forwarding this to the senate is a smart choice
I is even possible that Schumer is quietly telling pelosi not to drop this in his lap
We do not understand 2018 but we do know senate democrats suffered a backlash over kavanaugh
We do not know how impeachment will effect the house in 2020
But I suspect Schumer does not want to find out
Schumer wants to be majority leader
No matter what he says publicly a bitter senate trial is not likely to improve his odds
Pelosi can hold the faux impeachment in her pocket forever
It is not going to smell any better in a month or a year
I find it strange that you think democrats threatening to commit sepuku is harmful to trump
This is how history will judge Trump’s (ugg) Impeachment:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-steny-hoyer-speech-on-trump-impeachment-20191219-iak6h2v5kjhrzegf56dmj664qy-story.html
These Conservative Christians are radical lefties (or so Trump soon will say in a tweet or comment )
“ But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
Christianity Today’s call for Trump’s removal comes the day after Republican representatives compared his impeachment to the crucifixion of Jesus.
Christianity Today was founded by Billy Graham.
You think Graham’s ghost may have been offended by the comparison?
We can play this game forever
Dershowitz
Turley
Even gabbard could not tolerate this
I have many problems with gabbard even her explanation for her present vote is confusing
But it still was a profile in courage
Btw I know you think the right is homogenous but Christian fundamentalists are pretty socialist
Apparently they (and you) failed to read Horowitz
Investigating a political candidate is not a violation of the law or constitution
What matters is whether there is a basis to do so
Horowitz barely found there was in XFH
There clearly is enough based solely on Biden’s public statement
You have completely refused to address this
In what world is asking for an investigation of Biden’s successful extortion of the Ukraine a crime and Croofire huricane and mueller not much worse
Or is there a provision in the constitution I missed where only trump is bared from investigating
CT considers itself a Moderate Christian publication.
This is supposed to be a MODERATE site.
Why aren’t I hearing a moderate defense of their stand against Schlump?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/20/christianity-today-mark-galli-berman-intv-bts-newday-vpx.cnn
Jay stand on principles and stop playing politics like everyone else.
“Why aren’t I hearing a moderate defense of their stand against Schlump?”
Why are you not as outraged at Queen Nancy not sending the articles of impeachment to the senate as you are with Trump?
how in the hell can they spend all this time and money and then have her say she doen’t know when she will send them because she doesn’t know how they will be handled.or some such crap as that. It is not her position to decide how the senate will handle them. The constitution says the house creates the articles, the senate holds the trial. Period.
They are all as corrupt as those that controlled chicago during the 30’s!
I am not outraged by pelosi game
It just makes it obvious this is all a political game
One of her own constitutional scholars has said that it is not impeachment until
It’s turned over to the senate
It is just another stupid political game on Nancy’s part
“Do what I say or I will shoot myself in the foot”
I can not get outraged over this
If this is what she wants to do
So be it
Well I dont know who the dim wit that considers themselves a scholar is that says its not an impeachment until sent to the senate is, but I hope they are not teaching the constitution to anyone.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 ” The House of Representatives shall choose the Speaker and.other officers: and shall have sole power of impeachment”
The articles were passed, impeachment happened, no other body of government need be involved.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6; “The senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments”.
They can not hold a trial until the individual is impeached.
Other than those few words and who presides over the trial, the founders left everything else vague about impeachment and up to congress. However, Hamilton did warn about what just happened in Federalist 65.
As I said I do not care much about this
The scholar testified in nadler hearing
He was bad there
But he has written and nyt open that there is no impeachment unless pelosi names managers and forwards articles
Yes the constitution leaves a lot to the respective chambers
But nowhere is there an impeach but not try option
Either trump has not yet been impeached because pelosi has not finished the process
Or he has in which case McConnell can start the trial as he pleases
Frankly i am not sure this is not a good outcome
It makes this the equivalent of a partisan censure
Jay posted that weld opposed Trumps foreign policy
So ? I opposed Trumps foreign policy.
I want out of Iraq and afghanistan now
I do not give a crap if the taliban take over
If they fork with u again we go back and spend 30 days obliterating them
And leave immediately
In the meantime afghanistwn is a problem for the afghan
If Rubis want to fork up in afghanistwn again let them
As to Ukraine just say no to not jut in Ukraine all us foreign aide anyway
If the Ukrainian want javelins they can buy them from Rockwell Collin or whoever make them
I do not mind if us arm manufacturers sell whatever they want to Ukraine
This is close to the foreign policy Trump promised
It I not hat he I delivering
But there is no candidate with a snowballs chance of getting elected that would do better
I disagree with both you and trump in trade
But again every other candidate is worse
I disagree with most everyone here including trump on immigration
But again every other candidate I worse
The horowitmreport was damning
First I want the 4th amendment back
You want to search – get a fracking warrant PERIOD
I would give Congress very broad access to the records of government
But I would give Congress ZERO ability to compel.lthe disclosure of private records
Subpoenaing gulliani s and Solomon’s phone records is absolutely an abuse of power and
There must be a price to pay
I do not care if congress engages in politically vindictive wars – it is the job of voter to reign that in and I hope in November they do I hope pelosi and schiff and nadler lose their seats unfortunately it is the more sane democrat who will pay
I do not give a crap what witnesses are called in the senate
But the rules of criminal procedure Gould be followed
That means no hearsay
That also means that the prosecutor I obligated to provide its case including the elected testimony of witnessses before the trial
No surprise prosecution witnesses
Prosecutors build their case before trial snot during
But it does not matter
I am not getting what I want
I understand that
I did not get what I wanted under Obama
And if trump i impeachable
Obama should have been impeached 50 time over
But I am really pissed over the FBI
Horowitz did not follow thi outside the FBI so we do not know the cope of thi conpiracy
But inside the FBI it polutted the top of the agency and was criminal by any standard
I will send you to jail for swearing a warrant you know any part of Is false
I will send you to jail for swearing a warrant where others know part are false and you have not checked
Swearing out a false warrant is worse than perjury
But thi went beyond that
The FBI might have had sufficient cause to investigate Trump
I though we’re the hell does anyone who thinks the Origen of the trump investigation was legitimate ,get off being upset about trump wan ting investigation in Ukraine ?
This is another effort to hide the misconduct of democrat and those in government
It I probable that we will never have a provable case of criminal conduct by Biden
But his conduct was insrguably unethical and think to high heaven and need a serious investigation
To date no one has found away trump trading influence for money
Cohen was locked out of the whitehouee for trying to do just that
The trump trade meals and golf games and room for money
Value for value
It I arguable that Burisma got squat for what it paid hunter
It I inarguable that what they expected was not corporate governance or energy experience
George papadoulis has much more of that then hunter
Regardless on many levels what happened at the FBI is thoroughly repugnant and must not happen again
Not to Trump
Not to Flynn
Not to a democrat
Not to an ordinary person
And the likelihood this does not go well outside the FBI is ZERO
Those things I care about
Do I give a rats ass about Trumps requests for investigations ?
Yes! They should have been demands
I want all the malfeasance of the us government in 2016 investigated
And let’s get something straight
Whatever was done by Russia or the Ukraine in the 2016 election
What was done by the FBI was much worse
We can not stop foreign governments
We especially can not and should not stop them voicing opinions
But our government gets ZERO voice in who should win an election
Proper basis or not XFH lost any basis almost right after it started
To congress
We do not need more laws
If you want to assure this does not happen again we need convictions
And not silly faux impeachment’s of those actually trying to find the misconduct of OUR government
You consider yourself moderate
I see no reason based on evidence to beleive that
Nancy Pelosi is guilty of abuse of her office.
As Ron states, “It is not her position to decide how the senate will handle them.” It’s also not her role to have the entire house vote on something, only to have her decide that she has the sole power to temporatily veto it. She is violating her oath, and acting like a dictator.
Wait, haven’t I heard something like that before?
Pelosi is making it clear this is political
Yes her actions
In fact the actions of the whole democratic leadership are an abusive of power
But a legal one
Arguably trumps refusal to cooperate with the house is an abuse of power
But unless the courts order something and he continues to. Stonewall it is a legal abuse
Just as that of every president before him
Republicans debated going after rosenstein for resisting house subpoenas
But ultimate chose not to
I beleive the courts need to make clearer the ability of the congress to get documents from the executive
And I would broadly favor the ability of congress to quickly get what they want
But there is such a thing as executive privilege and they can not get everything
I do not as an example think the house can seek records about policy choices that were considered but not acted on
We wat the advisors of the president to be able to consider all options and to advise on all potions without being 2nd guessed over acts they chose not to do
Putin told Trump that the Ukraine tried to undermine his election.
The Asset Idiot believed him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
why has President Schlump spent the past year overruling his own nat security team to dramatically realign US foreign policy towards Russia?
Will the answer be revealed in his hidden taxes?
You mean the counter intelligence people at the fbi who ran XFH ?
What is the reason Anyone should trust them ?
Or do you mean the same people who concluded that Russia interfered in the us election based on the Steele dossier
And yes we do now know that was a significant pat of the ICA
The Steele dossier has just poisoned the left the media the state
What should be disturbing is how little evidence the government has for any of its conclusions and how vigorously it defends the flimsiest of threads
Who cares what Putin said there is plenty of actual evidence
You keep fixating on what people say
Particularly people who have been lying
When Putin is more truthful than us media
You have a problem
Why should trump not trust these people ?
Vietnam
Pentagon papers
Iranian coup
Chillean coup
Collapse of the ussr
Aldrich ames
John walker
Robert Hanson
9/11
Golf war i
Golf war I
The Steele dossier
Assad chemical weapons attacks (debunked)
The afghan papers
Richard jewel
The anthrax letters
Iraqi yellow cacke
Need I go on ?
The question is why do you trust these people
“\Trump being Trump:
“Trump laments that Debbie Dingell voted to impeach him despite the fact that he allowed the normal state funeral to proceed for her late husband, former Rep. John Dingell. Trump then suggests John Dingell is in hell — to audible groans.”
And this, not the impeachment cra is going to be why Trump loses the swing states he won. Tonight on Fox, they said comments like this will cost him the handful of votes he got last election allowing him to defeat the bitch.
No matter how many times Dave tells me people dont care what he says, I will continue to say he is his own worst enemy.
I am always suspicious that whatever jay says trump said is significantly different from what trump actually said
Because way too many time that is true
It does appear that trumps remarks regarding dingle were over the top
Though I still have no5 heard the actual remark in context
It is things like this that are why I could not vote for trump
But that does not alter the fact that not a single democrat is more palettable
Oddly graham got it pretty right today when he said this remark was wrong
That trump is understandably angry that so many are lying about him
But that republican presidents should be better than that
I would sat this degrades abs debases our politics
But how can I
Democrats went there long ago
Trump is not the inventor of insults as arguments
He just responds in kind to those who insult him
I will disagree with you on the impact of this
There is very little trump can actually do that is worse than what he is constantly accused of
Remember in the story of the boy who cried wolf
Eventually the wolf comes
And no one pays attention
Politically trump does not lose if insults are your criteria
Trump is gonna be Trump. What he said about Dingell was a rude joke ~ the kind of joke that people make in private all the time, but is very inappropriate for any statesman, speaking in public. I guarantee you that nearly every politician who has publicly excoriated Trump for saying “maybe he’s looking up” has made ruder and meaner jokes than that. Just not in public.
Trump is not a statesman. He doesn’t act like one or talk like one. He won’t pretend to be one. And, he’s not going to apologize to a bunch of phonies, who have been trying to destroy him since Day One.
If he ever did, he would have to keep apologizing forever. As it is now, regardless of what you think of him, he has taken more abuse ~ by FAR ~ than any president in recent memory, yet he remains standing. There’s something almost sociopathic in the way that he relishes the kind of abuse he takes. But the things that are said about him are also pathological. Violent, cruel, vicious things (just read Jay’s comments).
Trump’s not going to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules in a mud fight. Am I happy that this is the state of our politics today? No, but it is what it is.
Masochists relish abuse
Sociopaths are more malignant
Well, he’s definitely not a masochist. And I don’t think he’s malignant ( mileage often will vary on that one)
But, for whatever the reason, he relishes the battle.
Trumps comments about dinglevwere nasty and immoral
But they were not important
Priscilla, I dont disagree with our comments, but I look at NC in 2018 where “Trump backlash” energized voters on the left, as well as swing voters, to elect democrats into positiins they had jot won for 25+ years. Forsyth and Guilford counties, as well as a couple others, elected democrat sheriffs which had jot happened since “forever”.
In states like Wisconsin, it only takes a handful of votes compared to the total number of voters to not vote or switch votes to give the democrats those electoral votes. These are not the life long GOP or Democrat voters. They are the $75,000-$125,000 income families that had a good job in 2016, have the same job today, did not see much difference in tax bills, have slightly more income today than 2016, have higher healthcare premiums and see college tuition increasing for kids they will have in college. They are the ones who saw two really crappy candidates they did not like and after 3+ years like Trump even less due to his totally unacceptible personal behaviors as president that his base thrives on. These are the ones that wont vote for president or will vote for the democrat.
Unlike Dave, I dont see much that won’t prevent that happening and see much, like what happened in my swing state in 2016 that supports this happening.
Ron, I agree that 2018 was a disaster for the GOP. It didn’t help that something like 55 Republican House members resigned or retired ahead of that election, leaving their districts open to so-called “moderate” Democrat candidates, who promised to work with Trump and the Republican Senate on health care , trade and infrastructure. None of which they did.
The Democrat strategy of all impeachment, all the time, has been popular with the media, but not so much with swing voters.
That’s not to say that swing voters will go back to the GOP in 2020, but the Democrats are not doing a very good job of locking them in.
I agree with you that Trump is often his own worst enemy, and it may turn out that he self-destructs, but, now that the moderate Democrats who won in 2018 have turned out to be not so moderate, I don’t think that it’s a sure thing that Trump loses swing voters. If the economy stays strong, there might still be a lot of independents who hold their nose, and vote for 4 more Trump years, rather than vote for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All (really Medicaid for All), amnesty and free healthcare for illegals, repeal of the tax cuts (it’s one thing to be disappointed in the tax cuts, another to want them repealed) and taxpayer bailouts for students who borrowed tens of thousands of dollars for useless degrees.
I guess I think that the Democrats are their own worst enemies as well. They play politics with everything, to energize and drive their base…but their unpopular policies could energize the Trump base as well.
Of course, a strong third, or even fourth, party candidate could totally change the dynamics. Also, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, all hell will break loose on both sides.
By the way, I will be an NC voter by November 2020. Another blue state refugee moving down your way….
I do not know what 2018 was
Democrats did well in the house but republicans did well in the senate
There is not an explanation that covers both results
The explanation probably has to do with the relatively small number of GOP Senate seats that were up for re-election, and the high number of GOP House incumbents who chose not to run.
Republicans did better than expected in the senate and even the losing races were very close
A lot of this was likely do to kavaugh blow back
Regardless I would like to know how well republicans did in the house in states where they did well in the senate
I do not think 2018 was a clear rout I do not know what the message from it was
Nor would I presume to be able to predict 2020 based on it
There are many reasons I predict a big trump victory in 2020
But one of the biggest factors is democrats are burning out their own voters and alienating the middle while republicans are getting more and more angry
Well we could use a few right wing voters offsetting all the damage that the majority of new voters being democrats have done. They move here because taxes are lower, the cost of living is lower in most cases and the quality of life is better. Then they demand spending and programs that they had where they came from, trying to make Raliegh or Charlotte a mini New York City
So welcome. What area are you moving to?
We will all get to find out in 2020
Based on polls as well as small contributions from swing states Trump is doing much better than in 2016
No this is not a small number of voters
Trump flipped over 2m voters in swing states
His margin was narrow but the swing was huge
The actual evidence is these voters are not routine flippers
These were mostly life long democrats
I am not as familiar with NC and different parts of the country are different
FL is not even considered a swing state any more
This is mostly because republicans are doing well with minorities there mostly blacks ad mostly over charter schools
That is a major factor nationwide but it impacts different states differently
Purportedly NC and AZ are potential democrat pickups
Absent dems picking sherod brown as VP trump is going to win OH
PA is undecided But WI is probably locked and MN is more trump than 2016
Despite all the insider stuff the big deal is voter motivation in 2020
I would like data on how voters voted in the house in states where republicans did well in the senate
My guess is the explanation for 2018 is that republicans came out to vote in states with a competitive senate race and did not in states with no senate race
So what does that mean in 2020 ?
Democrats were energized in 2018
But they have had 2 years of relentlessly bad news
And they have spent the past 6 months making republicans angry
We do not know what 2020 will bring
Lots of things could energize on side or the other
But the odds favor republicans
Even if Durham does little before the election there will be leaks and they will favor republicans
Ukraine is going to be further investigated and that is not just bad for Biden but dems overall
A very large body of republicans are very happy about trumps judicial picks
And republicans vote over the courts
Democrats don’t
We are all doing tea leaf reading
Maybe you are right
Maybe I am
Most likely we are both wrong
“Trumps comments about dinglevwere nasty and immoral”
I don’t disagree. His comments about John McCain were, too. But, there is evidence that McCain was actively conspiring with the IC to take him down. He was literally trying to get Trump accused of treason. That’s pretty nasty too.
I guess my point is that Washington D.C. is a town full of backstabbers and hypocrites. Trump stabs you in the front.
I’ve said more than once that politics is bloodsport.
i Thought trumps remarks about McCain during the primary were the end of his campaign
But McCain’s response by participating in the trump Russia collusion nonsense was practically criminal
All that said while McCain was not such a hot congressman
Ha was a genuine war hero and we do not piss on dead war heros
I am not a dingle fan
But he is dead
Leave him alone
We’ll be moving to Southport.
Very nice area, but the humidity can be brutal sometimes. We spend a week at Ocean Isle in July each year. Great area for recreation, especially fall, winter and spring. Have to send you an email next time I head that way and meet you somewhere for coffee. ( and talk about Dave😁 )
Yeah, we’ve heard that the summer humidity can be brutal. Definitely let me know when you’ll be in the area!
Someone interviewed Shokin recently
He claims that
He was under pressure to drop specifically the Burisma investigation for over a year
That he was told that vp Biden was pressuring Ukraine president poreschenko
That the big deal was that shokin had frozen Burisma assets especially in foreign countries
And that vp Biden had specifically demanded that those assets be released before us aide would be delivered
That these demands were made in phone calls to Ukraine and that shokin had read the transcripts
So let’s release the transcripts of Biden’s calls with Ukraine
If this is all a Russian hoax there should be nothing about Burisma in the calls
At the very least turn them over to the gang of eight
Why doesn’t trump trust us intelligence
This would be one reason
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/19/amid_fisa_scrutiny_critics_warn_of_fbi_briefing_subterfuge_141993.html
You tell me that you are outraged that trump asked to investigate Biden’s overt extortion
So what was the basis for spying on the top tier of the trump campaign in an intelligence briefing ?
Schlump is a Russian asset.
I hope our security agencies are still investigating him.
That’s their job – to protect the nation from traitorous intent.
You really are nuts
Can you read ?
The more we learn the more we ow that claim is tin foil hat conspiracy theory
Do you actually want to be taken seriously ?
Hell, you are approaching a point at which your delusions could be considered dangerous t yourself and others
Are you going to continue down this road until you lose your mind altogether ?
Absolutely nothing from before trumps election to the present has vindicated any of your crazy conspiracy theories
The good/bad news is you are not alone
Much of the Democratic Party is with you
You tell me trump is authoritarian
But you keep chasing nonsense often using the power of government to do so
The trump is a Russian asset nonsense never made any sense at alll
There is nothing Putin could ever offer trump he could not have done for himself more easily
Regardless you are entirely blind to facts
Trump has for the most part ignored Putin
Doing what he promised
Most of which is not good for Putin
Russia has lost ground economically
They have not invaded anyone
They are going backwards as a world power under trump
Every item above wa false under Obama
Putin invaded Georgia just before Obama’s election
And invaded Crimea just after Obama’s re-election
Under Obama Russia held gas as a sword threatening Europe
Trump has guaranteed Europe’s energy
He has been able to do so by reversing Obama stupid energy policies
Trump has sold Russia nothing
Obama sold them control of 1/5 of all us uranium
If this is what a Russian asset does
Please can I have more
But beyond that
Today China is far more serious a treat
The only Russian air craft carrier is a burning hulk as we speak
Russia has very limited ability to project power
There only card is the worlds largest stockpile of nukes
China’s navy is growing by leaps and bounds
And they are deliberately seeking to nuetralize the advantage the us navy has over them
China’s transition from an emerging free market back to a totalitarian state took place under Obama
Trump has reversed almost every Obama policy towards china
You’re blaming Obama?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Is Obama responsible for Russian TV calling Trump their “agent,” and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as the “puppet master” following Lavrov’s visit to the states?
Or for Putin saying the US is no longer a major world power (wanna bet Douche-bag Donnie doesn’t respond to that?)
You keep fixating on what people say
I am interested in what they do
At the same time as you lost your credibilty long ago there is no chance I am going to take your word for a naked assertion
What is it you think is Russian television RT ?
Does that make BBC a propaganda arm of the UK
What about VOA ?
Apparently the only government sources you think are suspect are Russian ?
The FBI did not fare too well recently
In fact they and you bought a crap load of Russian propaganda paid for by Clinton and knowin both that it came from Clinton and gru took it as gospel
As to your claim
Presuming rrt actually said that
You seem to think the Russians are both brilliant and stupid at the same time
If Trump was in anyway helpful to Russia do you think they would admit it ?
This is the same nonsense as the Russia is responsible for the dnc hack
The us hacked Iranian centrifuges
But for years stud was blamed on Israel
Because the us put Israeli fingerprints all over it
We only figured out that stub came from the us as a result of Snowden
You can not tell either the intentions of a nation like Russia or the source of a hack by what you see on the surface
If something points at Russia
That is most likely not where it comes from
If Russia tells you something
It is probably not true
Kind of like the New York Times.
Why do I care what Putin says
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-their-agent
This is your idea of news ?
Are you this easily duped ?
S you think this is evidence Putin wants Trump to win in 2020 ?
Are you so clueless that you can not grasp that Latrobe is not pulling trumps strings Putin is pulling yours
And like Pavlovs dog you respond
I guess you think joe maccarthy was a Russian agent too
Because clearly Russian directs its agents to screw Russia at every chance
More Republicans seeing the light.
Republican @GovBillWeld rejects @realDonaldTrump’s foreign policy: “He has not even a child’s understanding of what’s at stake.”
Those still defending the malignant narcissistic inept idiot are brain dead.
A Republican MODERATE reminding the Dazed Trump Core of their Dizziness
“To my former Senate Republican colleagues:
“What is indefensible is echoing House Republicans who say that the president has not done anything wrong. He has.”
Jeff Flake.
If trump has done something wrong
You and flake should be able to identified it
Specifically and cite the law violated
With the evidence that each element of that crime has been committed
There is evidence that joe and hunter committed a crime in Ukraine
I want that investigated
Only in left wing nut world do we not investigate credible evidence of a crime
There is evidence you’re a male model for tin hats
What does that even mean ?
And who is it directed too ?
Regardless it is false
If you beleive there is evidence of something you can provide it
Th is now irrefutable evidence tat numourous statements and accusations of. Yours the left the press democrats are blatantly false
Many of these were made by people who had seen the evidence
The remarks and even some official acts of schiff nadler Warner are inarguably bowing lies slandering trump and others
Even mueller was inarguably conducting an investigation he knew had no basis
Are you really prepared to see this as the new political norm ?
Are you really this blind to who and what is dividing the country ?
If two people loath each other and lob bitter and nasty accusations at each other
The party found to have actually lied about the other is morally bankrrupt while the aber of the other is righteous indignation
Facts matter
You did not have access to the same information as schiff or nadler or Warner
You are not as culpable as they
Further you spewed this garbage provided to you by massive numbers of other bitter angry hatefilled IYIs
But you do not get exonerated for being a lemming
The entire argument was nonsensical from the start
To beleive trump was colluding with Russia you had to beleive he was both an absolute idiot and a total genius concurrently
You have undermined you character
No one else did that to you
You can not blame me
Or trump
Worse still
You continue to push these everyone you do not like is a Russian agent garbage
To the extent anyone is serving Putin now it is clearly you
Trump has actually been hard on Russia
Far harder than Obama
Putin has good reason to want trump to lose in 2020 as does Xi
They are near certain to try to inluence 2020
Regardless their impact will be small
Most of us are not as gullible as you
Most of us do not hold tightly to nonsense after t is obvious it is false
I can not keep you from the bitterness that is eating you alive
No one has asked you to support trump
Just to quit selling obvious lies ad hurling false insults and accusations
The evidence continues to stare you in the puss: the impeachment charges, you know- the ones for which 60% of the nation want him removed.
He’s guilty as charged.
You’re blind to the charges.
Additionally, he’s morally, intellectually, constitutionally unfit to be president.
You’re indifferent to those presidential failures.
You deserve each other.
I have not seen a poll with plurality much less majority support for impeachment in a while
Regardless opinions are not evidence
Horowitz relentlessly cited FACTs
If you wish to challenge those it is easy to evaluate the dispute – by looking at FACTs
The house impeachment resolution cites almost no evidence
Does not offer a crime
And seeks impeachment over conduct every president has engaged in
No president has given congress whatever they have asked for
It is not an actual abuse until the courts final adjudication is not followed
VP Biden blackmailed Ukraine under very dubious circumstances he clearly benefitted personally and politically
The Obama administration participated in an investigation of a rival political candidate
Any claim that rump can be impeached over Ukraine’s requires either
Demonstrating there was even less justification for investigations in Ukraine of 2016
Than supported XFH
You say the Biden claims are some Russian propaganda conspiracy theory
Maybe that is true
Though it is highly unlikely
But we know that XFH was based on a false conspiracy theory sourced by Russian agents
The faux impeachment is democrats last gasp effort to thwart trump from looking at malfeasance of democratic candidates and members of the resistance in his administration
The impeachment itself is part of a soft coup
Do you think it is legitimate for members of the house to impeach to prevent a legitimate criminal investigation ?
If those in government seek o remove a legitimately elected president because they beleive the people decided wrong
Is that acceptable in jay world ?
To me that starts to look like a totalitarian state
What was he charged with ?
We go through this nonsense with you all the time
I can list ten thing trump is wrong about
But he was still elected to do those things
Whether I like it or not
Your arguments are all assertions about emotion an emotional conclusions without evidence
The collusion you claim was false
The lies you claimed have proven false
And now we are supposed to remove trump as president based on testimony of people withou direct knowledge that what trump who has proven far more truthful than you or his accusers is lying about actions that would not be improper even if you were right
Which failures would those be ?
If Weld remains libertarian on foreign policy than it is likely I prefer welds over trumps
But trumps is still better than Obama’s or Busch’s or clintons or warrens or Biden’s or … anyone who can stand any chance of getting elected
Further if weld were elected he would either have to capitulate surrendering foreign policy to the “deep state” or face the same obstruction and accusations trump has
I will be happy to reject trumps foreign policy and go with welds
End all foreign aide
Get out of foreign wars and entanglements
“ End all foreign aide
Get out of foreign wars and entanglements”
OK! Let’s all get together and sing Kumbya as the economy collapses as the military budget shrinks, and millions of citizens who work for military-related business are unemployed, and China & Russia advance their Libertarian (er-socialistic) agendas world wide, and Russia re-invades Ukraine (and maybe Finland), and China continues to expand into the South China Sea, and Turkey expands deeper into Kurd occupied territory, and…and..and…
Amazing an actual albeit bad argument on actual policies!
Guess what it is not a crime to disagree over policy
Absolutely shrinking government will have many obvious negative impacts
And yet we know that government size does bot survive reduction ad absurdem
Either logically or in fact
Every 10% of gdp government consumes cost 1% in rate of rise in standard of living
Robust ove the entire past century and over all developed countries in the world
You are offering a version of the protectionist argument
If it is a bad thing for us to allow defense jobs to decline
Then Trump and Ron are also right about trade
Stanard of living is based on the value we produce not the jobs we create
We try to link them
But defense spending is only valuable to the extent it makes the country more prosperous
We are far above that level
Neither China nor Russia have libertarian agendas
They are about as anti libertarian as you can get
Further both but particularly China have internal problems that dwarf trumps
We have seen the unrest in Hong Kong
That is unbeleivable
These are not poor yellow peasants protesting
This was millions of affluent people demanding political freedom
I do not think this has ever occured in world history
The closest analog was the us revolution
And China’s problems are not confined to Hong Kong
They have massive debt problems that are mostly. Hidden from us – we know they are there but do not have the data to measure their scale
Their have been uprisings in Beijing and other cities where we see them less
There is not only a massive genocide going on but government documents admitting it have leaked to the public
The Chinese economy is getting clobbered top and bottom
They are in a disastrous trade war with the us while watching cheap labor jobs leave for other countries
They and Russia have massive Capitol flight problems
They have their own massive military build up they can not afford
Further they are intent on challenging the us navy on the seas
The upstart us navy could challenge GB a thousand miles from home because Americans had a multiple century maritime tradition
China does not
No nation has ever built a world power navy in less than 50 years
It is not just about weapons
The us navy could take on China in Essex class carriers and win
No nation has the equivalent of a b52 and those are 60+ years old
China was expanding in the South China Sea under Obama
Who quite litterally ceded the sc sea to China
Trump has reversed that and China’s role in the South China Sea is shrinking
Not only is the us challenging China but Vietnam Taiwan South Korea and Japan are
The Japanese another nation with an actual naval tradition is rebuilding its navy
The Taiwanese navy is small but incredibly capable
All of these either started or accelerated under trump
Europe is starting to take greater responsibility for its own defense
I think that is great
I do not want a world where us soldiers must face down every possible enemy alone
Obama was big on multilateralism
His form meaning Americans will do all the world fighting but nato or the eu get to decide when and where
Trump is big on unilateralism
His form meaning we will help you defend yourself
But if you do not give a shit about your own defense we don’t either
Turkey is a member of nato
The Kurds are not even a country
They are better off today than under prior presidents
Turkey is not the “ good guys” neither are the Kurds
Shared enemies do not create obligations
It is not our job to arbitrate every global conflict
Especially not with our soldiers lives
The Russians have not done well invading Finland in the past
They would not have invaded Crimea but for Clinton’s badly thought out coup in ukraine
Nancy, showing class
Invites the ass
To deliver State of the Union speech.
Will Donnie tweet she only did that to suck up to him?
Or menstrual cramps weakened her resolve?
Or he had God instruct her to be deferential?
Pelosi appears to have sufficient brains not to make the same mistake twice
The president need not come to the house to deliver the state of the union
We did this stupid dance before
Gaming it hurts pelosi not trump
You’re babbling again.
Nancy Pelosi’s favorability rating immediately jumped six percentage points after she announced the Trump impeachment inquiry. It’s continuing to rise as Putin’s Puppet attacks her.
Pelosi Rcp avg approval is 39% and it has dappled through this
Trump is a small man in a crucially important office.
Those who continue to support him are fucked up beyond belief.
Slurs are not arguments
Trump is vomit
Still not an argument
But you always insist on factual evidence…
“But you always insist on factual evidence…“
Yes
Hi Rick! Just came back on to read a bit, & i’m wondering how these 2 examples of filibuster manage to think between posts! If talking, breathing would be impossible!
Pardon me, but I prefer our normal talks – though I do like your writing.
Note to self: pause & consider an exit route as soon as Dave responds & run if anyone answers 😂
Welcome back
You are always free to ignore any posts or posters you want
You can not filibuster blog comments
I would welcome your perspective on most any issue
We could use comments more thoughtful than jays “orange man bad” drum beat
If it can be posted. I’ll wait for Rick to feel better & try to get a word in early.
However orange man is bad, despite that inept way of putting it. This “slightly left of center” lady feels list in a chasm, unable to reach any within this political no man’s land… but that is a fact I’ve known for over 30 years.
Welcome.
“However orange man is bad, despite that inept way of putting it.”
Then vote against him.
That said it is more than just an inept way of putting it.
It is a reflection of a world view that decides issues not based on facts but based on feelings and prejudices.
We get way too much “argh! Trump” here, in the media from the left. We get no actual discussion of the real issues.
Further we get moral judgments of everything – not just Trump without laying moral foundations or arguments.
It is one thing to claim another person is in error, that they are wrong about the facts or in their judgement. We can adjudicate factual errors, and we can look at results after the fact to determine judgement.
Either party in such debate can be wrong and only their judgement, not their integrity is questionable.
But when you claim someone else is a liar, a racist, a hater, you bet your integrity against theirs, and the burden of proof is on you.
Orange man may well be bad, but many many many false moral claims have been made about him. Those making false moral claims are inherently worse.
And this is where the chasm exists today. It is not about Trump.
it is manufactured by all sides in politics, but that does NOT mean the blame is distributed equally.
If you are making moral claims about ANYONE, and you can not strongly support those claims, or WORSE, you are WRONG about those claims – YOU are the problem.
If you are calling others liars, haters, sexist, mysoginist, racist, … and you can not prove to the satisfation of an overwhelming majority of people – YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
YOU are the cause of the divide.
If I tell you that you have a fact wrong – we can test that, and regardless of whether I am right or wrong, that does not make either of us evil.
But if I call you a liar, a racist, a hater, …. we are never coming together.
If you make claims like that you had better be right.
But even that is not enough. If you call a substantial portion of people liars, haters, racists, …. even in the event you are right, you are still creating an unbridgeable chasm.
You will never gain another persons support by calling them a liar – even if you are right.
In another bit from Horowitz’s testimony he rejected the media spin that there was no evidence of political bias nor that political bias did not effect the outcome
What he reported was that no one confessed to acting on their biases and he was obligated by the constraints of the ig process to take them at their word
Regardless it does not matter why they did as they did
What they did was wrong
What I find really disturbing is that post Horowitz anyone could continue to support impeachment
The same people who were falsely saying Russia Russia Russia before are still saying Russia Russia Russia as if Russia is omnipotent or a magic uncantation
Ukraine interference in 2016 is a fact
The only question is the scale
That anyone trusts Adam schiff anymore shows a thorough lack of judgement or grasp of reality
But there are a long list of other prominent democrats who were either dupes or knowing cheerleaders the nadler who keep calling those who disagree with them Russian assets or Russian propagandists
Did no one learn anything from joe MacArthur ?
What ever you view on policy
You can not trust people who have been caught lying
Adam schiff should join joe maccarthy
And Trump doesn’t engage in a “habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders” and he hasn’t shown “gross immorality and ethical incompetence,”and he isn’t “morally lost and confused,” and he doesn’t have a “bent and broken character” – right?
But you cuddle him like your favorite growling poodle, right?
Which of your significant accusations of misrepresentation regarding trump have proven true ?
We do not expect the victim of a secret conspiracy to accurately damn those attacking him
He can not know exactly what malfeasance those plotting against him are doing
Yet in the barbs traded with the press the left democrats the resistance trump has proven presciently accurate
An the left the media you have proven to be dupes or liars
And that is not me saying that
That is Pit bull mueller and Horowitz
Rational people do not expect those being attacked accused spied on to play be marquis of queens bury rules
We do expect that if you start the accusations
That you better be right
You, jay have STILL not let go of this ludicrously stupid Russia nonsense
Now you are idiotically adding China
Do you really want to claim trump is a stooge of Xi too ?
At this point it is clear
You have no shame
You do not give a schiff that you have repeatedly lied
And not just about trump
But half the country
Trump is on net a better president than the past two
He is not cuddly
He is also not hitler
I am watching some wwII specials right now
The parallels between hitler or better still goebels and the left are striking
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
Adolf Hitler
Me in Kampf
Flip-Flopper-Republican:
“You know the facts pretty well. If there is any doubt, let’s call witnesses and let’s develop them fully, and leave no doubt on the table, and make sure that history will judge us well. Everybody will have a fair shot at proving their case.” – Lindsey Graham, January 16, 1999
You do know that 1999 was 20 years ago, during the Clinton impeachment, right?
And that there were Democrats who opposed witnesses back then, who are demanding them now:
“Later, during the Senate trial in January 1999, Mr. Schumer said that there was “no good case” for bringing witnesses and said Republicans were “more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.
All politicians are flip-floppers, when it suits them. No shocker there.
god only knows what reason democrats think more witnesses will help
If witnesses are permitted they we be handled radically different than in the house
While the house managers will be able to question
They will have to follow court rules
Individual senators get to ask written questions and the presidents attorneys get to cross
That is not the environment to try for a hail mary
“ Which of your significant accusations of misrepresentation regarding trump have proven true ?”
Two weeks of Trump misrepresentation:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/politics/fact-check-trump-two-weeks-december/index.html
In other words you have nothing
Did you actually read your article ?
You have a Cnn fact check claiming trump did not cut NATO spending just one month after Cnn bitches that trump is cutting NATO spending
Can you give me a good reason for reading or believing the remaining “fact checks” ?
There is lots more to criticise
But it does not matter
Your right I am rarely paying attention to what the media says anymore
Trump could nuke France and if Cnn said it I would not beleive
That is bad
But it is also good
It is the natural consequence of constant lying
If trump actually does something consequentially bad I will find out quickly
Just not from places that are wrong most of the time
And worse still lie much of the time
I do not know the truth about NATO spending but I do know the truth about Cnn
Trump is far more trust worthy
Find a credible source
You make my point
Btw does the word significant have any meaning to you ?
Is you point trump should not be president because he made some inconsequential exaggerations at campaign rallies ?
According to sources no on trusts anymore
Elizabeth Warren is exaggerating to the tune of 32T / decade
I think that is our NATO budget forever
I am sure I can find 100 fact checks during a single two hour democratic debate
Correct. His principles flip flopped from the last impeachment to this one.
He’s a political hypocrite for taking the opposite political position without reason.
Is that too morally confusing for you Trump cultists to process?
Different circumstances. Not confusing at all.
In 1999 graham brought a fully developed case based an a very thorough investigation by the independent council
Graham’s remark seem to pretty clearly say
There is no need for witnesses but if YOU want some call them
That is not the same as
We have done a crappy job and expect you to fix it for us and we hope yo7 will find they evidence we could not
I am not a graham fan but what he is saying is close to the opposite of what democrats are asking for
Graham went to the senate with incontrovertible proof of several crimes
Clinton did not deny committing those crimes
His entire defense was they were not impeachable
There was no question of facts
Further to the extent witnesses were discussed these were people who had already testified
There was no effort in the Clinton impeachment to find new evidence
The question was whether senators wanted to hear the testimony themselves
The only actual witness.the house managers have to call is Sondland
Everyone else is inadmissible
If you want Sondland go for it
I honestly do not care if you call witnesses so long as there is no hearsay and they are testifying to facts
But you should be careful what you wish for
If house managers get witnesses so will trump
Do really think calling hunter Biden joe Biden Adam schiff and the wb is going to go well for you
Not hard for me to figure it out. Nationally all house seats up for election. Trump fatigue impacted many. Most senate seats were run in solid red states and the two they flipped, Missouri and Florida were in states that usually lean conservative.
This time, most all Democrat seats are safe except for Alabama , but Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina are all likely Democrats flips and Maine is a good possibility resulting in a 50-50 senate. When the democrat takes the white house, that gives them free reign to undo everything Trump has done plus more!
Republicans did better than expected in 2018 in the senate and much better than in the house
Republicans lost a lot of seats in California
That just does not reflect the nation
Florida has been a swing state for a long time
After 2018 it is NOW being considered pink
It also reflects several trends
Trump gains with Jews, Hispanics and blacks
300k black single mothers voting republican over charter schools in FL determined. Nearly all statewide elections
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2019/12/20/what_if_hunter_biden_were_hunter_jones_the_meaning_of_quid_pro_quo_104015.html
This is getting ridiculous. Do states really have the right to suppress voter access to the parties they want to vote for? Is this any different than other tactics keeping people from voting their choice?
https://tucson.com/news/local/new-arizona-law-keeps-libertarians-off-ballot-just-as-gop/article_d5d91f9f-81fe-5b96-8e12-82f15389a343.html
I am really pissed that republicans would try to screw with libertarians
But whe I read the article it ends up being much ado about nothing
Libertarians need 3300 signatures to get on the ballot for president in AZ
I am ok with that
Apparently democrats and republicans need over 5500
What is wrong with just saying 5000 signature to get in the ballot for president
Don’t care about your party
Further AZ seems to be one of the easy states
If AZ libertarians can not get 3300 signatures they do not belong on the ballot
And I am libertarian and I want more libertarians on the ballot
There are states where there are really problems for libertarians
Where dems and republicans require 5000 signatures but 3rd parties require 60000 signatures
While AZ republicans should not be pissing on libertarians
AZ is not the place we have big problems
What’s your thoughts about GOP state parties preventing Republican candidates from opposing Trump in 2020?
I am not a republican so mostly that is not my business
I am much more concerned about the difficulty of getting candidates onto general election ballots
Primaries are the business of p9litical parties
General elections are governments responsibility
I do not understand why the states run primaries
But if I were to choose to be either a republican or Democrat I would want my party not to protect incumbents from challenges
We know that the dnc put its fingers on the scales big time in 2016
And there are lots of claims they are doing the same today
I dont agree with it, but the constitution provides for states to handle their elections as they see fit as long as it does not violate federal laws pertaining to voting.
As I recal the constitution leaves what congress does not dictate to the state legislatures not the states
The constitution should be taken as written
When it says state it means state
When it says legislature it does not mean governor or state courts nor subject what was delegated to a state legislature to a state constitution
If we do not like what the constitutions says we can amend it
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/475364-six-ways-we-were-blind-to-screaming-red-flags-about-government
If Trump mis-behaves in regard to Putin’s wishes, he better have an official McDonald’s taster pre chew his cheeseburgers.
For years, members of a secret Russian team of poisoners -Unit 29155- operated without Western security officials having any idea about their activities, knocking off targets outside of Russia.
You can make anything about Trump
These guys have been around for a long time
Nor were they unknown
I beleive Russia’s culpability for the 2015 attack was discussed here
The only news here is another failure of the us ic
So to recap recently
They got culpability chemical weapons attacks in Syria wrong
There were no chemical weapons used and no deaths
It was an obvious fraud but our intelligence community and media
Lathered us up to hate Assad al the more
They got trump Russia collusian completely wrong
They missed this
And somehow
You blame trump ?
And trust the intelligence community ?
I don’t blame Trump for the poisonings.
I blameTrump for kissing Putin’s ass at every opportunity, and legitimizing him and his regime -traitorous behavior in my opinion.
We have been over this before and the facts do not support you
Trumps administration has been the most hostile to Russian interests since the Cold War
If Putin had puppets they were Obama and clinton
“ They got trump Russia collusian completely wrong”
No, they just weren’t able to prove it. Trump WASN’T ABSOLVED – that’s what the Mueller report stated, as you conveniently have forgotten/ignored.
Please read both mueller and Horowitz
The did not merely not prove it
They got it wrong
Horowitz and mueller found not a single claim to be true
Carter page as an example was not a Russian asset as the fbi claimed
He was working for cia to put away russian spies
Flynn voluntarily briefed the cia over every visit to Russia and every conversation
The cia used him to get information they wanted about Russia
The entire trump/Russia claim is an actually debunked conspiracy theory
That you are still selling it just proves that you do not live in the real world
Horowitz found that the investigation should have been closed before the inauguration at the latest
He found far more than enough to fire comey for cause specifically for his handling of the Russia investigation
We have not yet proven mifsud affiliation though mueller concluded he was not a Russian asset
But every other XFH investigated contact was with a fbi operative
That is not what the mueller report stated
That was an assertion outside the report
Regardless there is a point at which the absence of evidence is the evidence of absense
It’s Nearly 2020! Happy New Year Prez Prevaricator!
Hope the new year’s better than his previous failures
Will Trump’s tariffs finally create jobs, lower prices, reduce the deficit?
Will his love-fest with North Korea reduce their nuke programs?
Apparently his destruction of the Taliban hasn’t happened yet, will we see that in 2020?
And how about that trade deficit he promised to reduce, hitting an all time high?
And the opposite of his promise to keep jobs in the US is happening
And what happened to all those corporate investments he promised for his tax cuts going into stock buybacks instead of infrastructure?
And will he release his taxes in 2020- before SCOTUS forces him to?
“Will Trump’s tariffs finally create jobs, “
Something certainly is,
“lower prices,”
China devalued its currency so that is a yes
“reduce the deficit?”
Trade deficit with China was 600b at the end of 2016 it is 400b now according to trading economics
“Will his love-fest with North Korea reduce their nuke programs?”
Did ignoring them work ?
Btw can you cite that as a campaign promise ?
“Apparently his destruction of the Taliban hasn’t happened yet, will we see that in 2020?”
He promised to get us out of Afghanistan
He has failed like both of the past 2 presidents
But the problem is not the Taliban
It is the endless war people in state and DoD
“And how about that trade deficit he promised to reduce, hitting an all time high?
And the opposite of his promise to keep jobs in the US is happening”
Again check jobs numbers record high job creation of 266k with record high employment including mfg jobs
“And what happened to all those corporate investments he promised for his tax cuts going into stock buybacks instead of infrastructure?”
Where is the house infrastructure bill ?
Approx. 1.5T in capital has returned to the us as a result of tax cuts
I know this is difficult for you to grasp
But there is nothing that can be done with that money that does not benefit Americans
Just as there is nothing the Chinese can do with the trade deficit that does not benefit Americans
“And will he release his taxes in 2020- before SCOTUS forces him to?”
Why ?
Will you ?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/09/24/tariffs-are-costing-jobs-a-look-at-how-many/#6e420a887b26
Tarrifs are likely costing jobs, they are also likely creating jobs
Regardless jobs are rising way beyond expectations
I am not a fan of tarrifs
There is ample evidence they are a bad idea
But I am not going to miss the forest for the trees
Trump tariffs increasing nationwide consumer costs – could rise to nearly $69.8 billion annually if they continue.
: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-trumps-new-tariffs/#ixzz68s5kaUJ7
Interesting read. Aligns with much of what I keep saying and Dave keeps saying I am wrong.
https://www.journalnow.com/opinion/columnists/john-hood-north-carolina-may-tip-the-balance/article_e8ef0284-8dba-5a6a-918c-6ae4df087ad3.html
I’d better hurry up and get down there, lol!! I will tell our builder to get a move on! 😉
Now this I agree with. The judiciary should not be left or right, it should be neutral. When judges are nominated based on politics, the only way to get ” neutral” is for evenly divided courts. Judges should be appointed based on qualifications and how their cases are viewed by professionals in the field. That has not happened for years. So to avoid attorneys from choosing which court to file appeals based on politics, getting the sitting judges close to 50-50 democrat/republican is about the only way to accomplish that.
https://thelibertyherald.com/2019/12/22/trumps-positive-impact-on-the-judiciary/
Yes, Ron, the courts should not be politically left or right.
Judges should be politically centrist moderates.
That’s why you should be screaming bloody hell against Trump stacking the court with Republican leaning conservatives with lifetime appointments. Instead you’re applauding what is sure to cause future divisiveness throughout the federal judiciary, and the nation- a judiciary of warring lefties and righties. When the Dems return to full-over, you think they won’t respond with over-liberal appointments in compensation?
No judges should not be moderates
The politics of a judge should have zero impact on their decisions
Whether the guy who stole your car goes to jail should not depend on the judge
Whether your home can be searched should not depend on the judge
The outcome of every case before every court should be the same regardless of politics it should be determined by the law and constitution
The influence of the federalist society in fixing severely broken courts is fantastic
You want Trumps tax returns ?
Should whether you get that be decided by which party dominates the courts this year ?
Or should it be based on the law and constitution; ?
A federalist will follow the law and constitution whether that benefits or harms trump
Btw even fox found the quality of trump judges to be far above prior appointments
Nearly all of them clerked for other federal judges and many of t
Jay if one wants gray paint and already have dark gray, mix in some light gray.
However, if one has white paint, mix in black paint.
So when there are judges like the 9th district that are all “white” leftist where anyone wanting a decision supporting radical left positions take their cases, you have to add ” black” conservative judges to balance that court.
I dont like it, but when democrats put idiots like Kagan, Sotomayor and Gingsburg on SCOTUS, you cant have all Roberts and Kennedy’s to offset their liberal positions. You have to have Thomas, Scalia types to balance the courts. I would love to see 9 Sandra Day O’Conners , but that day will never happen.
It is not the ideology of a judge that matters
It is the extent to which they follow the law and the constitution
I do not care what the ideology of the judge is
Though it is more common to see the constitution bent by left leaning judges
There are plenty of bad decisions based on right leaning judges
I am ecstatic that Scalia was replaced by Gorsuch
Scalia faux originalism tended to defer to congress when constitutional rights were infringed on.
We are not a democracy. And democracy is not a moral form of government
Government may only infringe on rights where doing so demonstrably protects greater rights
And even then it must do so in the least infringing way possible
If the law fails to do so
It is unconstitutional
Soto mayor Kayan etc are not idiots
They are just occasional wrong
Primarily because their ideology interferes with their ability to think
“Jay if one wants gray paint and already have dark gray, mix in some light gray.
However, if one has white paint, mix in black paint.”
Excellent analogy.
The federal judiciary has become far too powerful, especially when one district judge can issue an nationwide injunction, based on partisan political opposition to a law or executive order. It’s probably too late to require neutral judges, but at least we can create checks and balances in the judiciary branch.
I would also support term limits for federal judges and SCOTUS justices.
Priscilla, I agree with limits on judicial appts as well as congress.
However, I would offer one caveat. Only two SCOTUS terms could run out each presidential term with one every other year. Should a judge die or retire and their term was not part of the limit cycle, that position would become one of the cycle replacements and all other positions would be reset until that judges limit came up.
I dont want any president packing the court, democrat or republican. Under this hyper political environment, this change, along with the requirement that the replacement appointment take place 30 days after the new congress, the senate acts on an appt within 120 days and no parliamentary delays could happen would spread out all appts that could provide a more non political court like we have today.
I would caution against believing that you can fix a perceived political problem by changing the rules
While not always impossible that is very difficult and most proposals have unintended consequences
Gerrymandering has beeen around for 150 years
Nothing that has ever been done has fixed it
The recent efforts of democrats in Pennsylvania are just gerrymandering by the courts.
There is always some faux objective criteria that any party can concoct to make a claim for their approach
I beleive one of the latest is voter efficiency
That is nowhere in the constitution
The framework for electing senators and the president violate voter efficiency
I am not proposing a specific right answer
I am just noting politicians are very very good at gaming the system and of selling some form of advantage as “fairness”
You already know that I consider “fair” a red flag
Pretty much 7niversally when some selling “fair”
They are screwing one group over another
Democracy and all democracy favoring processes screw minorities to favor the majority and destroy individual rights
Yes, when ever an action occurs, a reaction comes. I saw that for 30+ years with the government trying to reduce costs for Medicare health expenses and every one back fired as there were teams of people working to game the new system of reimbursement. That is why healthcare costs so much in this country today.
But when things get to the point the old system is being played so well by the two parties, an attempt should be made to try and improve the system. Maybe judicial term limits would just create more democrat/republican courts than we have today. Hard to see how with the 9th the way it was, but who knows. I just think if people retire from jobs from the CEO of large fompanies to McDonald servers because of age, the those in powerful government positions should be required to do the same.
Government can always be gamed
At effort to game free markets can only brefy successful because people will always alter their behavior when they perceive they are on the wrong side of a deal
It is not about power
Subject to conformance with appellate courts all judges have the power to determine what a law says or what the constitution says
And they are obligated to decide based on that
What they are not free to do is decide based on something else
Feelings
Ideology
The power to change the law or constitution belongs solely to the people acting through legislators
Not the courts
So tell me if it is required to interpret the law and its consitutionality and not to use ideology as a basis for decisions, why are most of the cases brought by liberal groups always taken to courts that have a high number of democrat appointed judges?
Because how things should be is not how they are
Ron, your SCOTUS recommendation is well-taken, and I agree.
Listening to the news today, with the Democrats saying that they’re going to continue to “add” articles of impeachment as they find them, I realize that, unless the Senate asserts its proper constitutional role here, this will genuinely become a coup…something I have not been willing to say before this.
Both parties have been ignoring the Constitution when it suits them, and so have the liberal SCOTUS justices. By doing so, this sort of overthrow of a duly elected president, by faux-legal means is becoming a reality, and it will literally destroy our republic.
That poor frog is in a full boil right now…I hope he can still jump out.
Nah! The frog is toasty warm in the water with his cell phone, laid back watching his big screen T.V., drinking a glass of white wine thinking about the party coming up. Not a worry in the world
I have been more inclined to agree with Turley that a vote on articles of impeachment completes impeachment
But adding articles undermines that claim and favors feldman’s argument that trump is not impeached until the articles are forwarded to the senate
Regardless this is an admission of weakness
Regardless democrats have diminished the seriousness of impeachment
This will not get that back
It will be very hard to fix what has been done
No the judiciary should not be “neutral” ?
They should follow the constitution and the law period
Courts shoul not be evenly divided
You are again selling this argument that all comprise is good
If democrats actually followed the constitution I would not care if the court was 100% democrat
The fact that party affiliation effects outcome demonstrates that judges of at least one affiliation are lawless
Cases in the federal courts should have exactly the same outcome if the judges were selected at random
The courts should follow the constitution and the law not ideology
Is Prez Duffer-Donnie playing golf today?
“Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Winter Vacation Pushes Taxpayer Golf Tab Above $118 million”
But, hey- he has forfeited his presidential salary, so spending millions$$$ of taxpayer money at his owned golf courses and hotels is no big deal. And he’s surely done better than Obama at golfing on government money- in Obama’s first term he spent 88 days on a golf course. Yesterday was Trump’s 227th day as president on a course that he owns.
Watta marvelous guy!
So change the law!
We decided through Congress.to provide presidents and their families massive amounts of security for life
That was our choice
If you do not like it change the law
It’s an ABUSE of the law, abusing it after he promised no to- and abusing it at his own properties for financial gain (likely illegal – there are pending lawsuits). But it’s only one of many abuses of judgement/morality he’s amassed in his lifetime; and his character (or lack of it) requires his removal from office – as has now become apparent to people qualified to judge him.
Christianity Today editor Mark Galli today: “I’m not really making a political judgment about him, because that’s not our expertise at Christianity Today. I am making a moral judgement that he’s morally unfit.”
That you don’t agree with that assessment is a fatal flaw in your judgement.
You violate a law or you do not
There is no blizzarre “abuse of the law” construct
To the greatest extent possible laws are black and white
Whatever is not prohibited is allowed
You can not run a functional government where each of us has our own oppinion of what is and is not legal
This is also why the politics of a judge should not matter only there adherence to the law and constitution
Discretion
Gray area are for private life and private moral judgement
Just to be clear I am not supportive of public funding of trumps golf outings or Obama’s or ……
I would gladly change the law
I will be happy to join you that the public should not fund trumps lifestyle
Nor Obama’s nor bush’s
But the problem is not with the president it is with the law
It can’t be anything but a coincidence, right?
Did you read the actual memo ?
It is absolutely clear that Ukraine will get the funds by the time they are obligated too
Rather than make your case it undermines it
Jay often self-owns himself.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/21/donald-trumps-theyre-after-you-tweet-says-it-all-goodwin/
Jay, have you ever considered that the way this impeachment has gone down is very damaging to the country?
I understand that you hate Trump. But that is not a reason to impeach. Ron is certainly no fan of Trump, yet he’s able to discuss him in a way that allows for civil disagreement.
Unfortunately, Democrats are incapable of having a nuanced, realistic discussion about ANY topic these days, least of all Donald Trump. And they are behaving like a mob, one that will use any pretext to try and overthrow his presidency. That, in particular, has made it impossible for Republicans and Trump supporters to do anything but defend him, because any acknowledgement that he may have done something inappropriate, much less anything wrong, is immediately latched onto as evidence that he has committed a high crime, or is a traitor, or some other gross exaggeration.
This is what I was talking about a few comments up, when I said that Trump could never apologize for the “maybe he’s looking up” comment about John Dingell. Now, he’s not the apologizing sort, and probably wouldn’t apologize anyway…BUT, if he did apologize, it would not end the matter, it would simply blow it up into a bigger deal, with the media and Democrats shrieking about how he should now be removed from office for being a cruel and sadistic defiler of the dead, and listing out all of the other not nice things that he has said and demanding apologies ~ or else!
Right or wrong, he would be crazy to leave himself open to that.
So, let’s look at the Ukraine phone call that supposedly started this whole thing (of course it started the day after election day, but whatever). What if Trump were to say, “Hey, I shouldn’t have asked Zelensky about investigating Biden’s son, not because it was wrong, but because it was inappropriate, given that Biden was likely a 2020 candidate running against me.”
Would you say, “ok, fair enough, but I still think it was wrong” ~ or would you start copying and pasting tweets from every leftist and never Trumper, claiming that Trump should resign/be impeached/be hung in the public square, etc?
That’s a rhetorical question, because I’m pretty sure that it would be the latter, but my actual question is this: how does the country return to any semblance of constitutional governance unless there can be reasonable debate on issues like this?
The impeachment itself is not damaging to the country nor to trump
But it has altered te norms of our processes
Actually damaging is that almost have the country still believes the trump/Russia nonsense
And that would be the same Hal that wanted Trump mpeached
That is the same half that considers themselves morally and ntellectually superior to the. Rest
That is what is damaging to the country
That so many beleive such crap and not just about one issue
And the rest of us must put up with their moral preening and nonsense about intellectual superiority
And this is true well beyond the issues of Trump and impeachment
Dave, I think that the harm comes from the obvious partisan nature of the impeachment, and the lack of due process afforded to the President.
Impeachment, as described in the Constitution, was never conceived as a British-style “vote of no confidence” in a president. It is not supposed to be used to remove a president who is “unacceptable” to the opposition party, for reasons of thought crimes, such as believing in the deep state, or for investigating corruption by members of the opposition. The Constitution clearly says “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In case of confusions, the founders gave examples : treason and bribery. Big, obvious, serious stuff…not phone calls, monitored by dozens of advisors on both sides, on which a president asks for a re-opening of an investigation involving obvious influence-peddling by the son of an American vice-president.
Anyway, impeachment is now being used as a sham political tool by a radical House majority, in a specious and purely partisan way, with no high crimes or misdemeanors charged, just “we hate the president and he asserted executive privilege over sensitive conversations with his lawyer and high ranking staff”
I disagree with you that Congress should accrue the power to demand whatever they want from a president. In our system, the executive branch is co-equal to the Congress. Once this is allowed, in the context of a partisan impeachment, our executive branch is permanently weakened and made subservient to the legislative branch.
There are those who may want this type of parliamentary system. But it’s not our system, and, before it is, the Constitution must re-written or amended, to state that the Speaker of the House is the chief executive, and the president is no longer the head of a co-equal branch. That would create the partisan, parliamentary style form of government that exists in many foreign governments. But not ours.
In the meantime, Nancy Pelosi does not have the power or authority to veto or delay an impeachment.
The constitution provided no oversite no appeal regarding high crimes and misdemeanors
I absolutely agree the house has trivialized something at is supposed to be serious
But there is no extant remedy beyond the electorate
Btw there is an election analyst on YouTube who was predicting a trump loss who is now predicting at least 300 and possibly 320 EC votes for trump
He is also predicting the gop picks up 41 house seats
I am not selling I’m as accurate but e is worth listen to at least to get the arguments.
You do not need nuance
Trump did not collude with Russia full stop
Biden did act unethically and possibly illegally in Ukraine and that should be investigated
Agreed. But, before the Mueller report, and while there were questions about Trump’s involvement (or lack thereof) with Russia, there were nuanced and differing opinions of what might constitute collusion. But, on the left, there was no room for debate.
If the radical Democrat majority had controlled the House during Trump’s first two years, they would have impeached him on Russian collusion, which we now know to be false.
Agreed
The Trump CAMPAIGN was under investigation for inappropriate Russian behaviors.
And if you hadn’t noticed, Mueller’s Russia investigation has already resulted in seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial, defendants including Trump’s former campaign chairman, ex-national security adviser and onetime personal lawyer.
With more investigations ongoing into other Trump associate illegal pursuits (Rudy, Rudy, Rudy). And you have aligned yourself into defending the slime-ball President responsible for generating the ooze.
Again, the Mueller report did not find Trump innocent of collusion: it found insufficient evidence to charge him.
Horowitz just took the legs out from the entire mueller investigator
Te stone prosecution farce just proves no republican can get a fair trial in the Dc environs
Who would expect a jury made of cable or strzok or yavonovitch or ciaremiello to be fair ?
Stone was actually convicted by the jury of colluding with Russia something we know did not happen
Nearly all muellers rose ruins are for process cries
Even Ginsberg has argued tha the 5th amendment likely precludes most of those
As to guilty pleas look at what is happening to Flynn
The FBI 302s of the Flynn interview which was an admitted setup I.e. Flynn did not know he was being interviewed both said Flynn was truthful and were revised over the course of 8 months to say the opposite
The people involved ar the same ones who lied and commtted fraud in XFH
BTW that is tre of ALL of these cases you cite
So why are we supposed to beleive Muellers success is meaningful ?
Mueller has a long track record of bullying and being wrong
I can go on and on but mueller was disastrous for you
And Horowitz just proved it never should have happened and those involved knew it
When are we going to see those prosecutions ?
You want trump impeached for asking for an investigation when reasonable suspicion existed
Horowitz just said there was barely reasonable suspicion to start Trump Russia and BEFORE. Mueller was appointed it was gone
You clearly understand that some investigations are criminally wrong
There is no nonpartisan criteria for determining wen an investigation is valid ta t implicates trump but does not take out mueller rosenstein Yates probably obama. And an army of others
So your claim is tat a corrupt investigation that itself never find the collusion is justified because corrupt prosecutors convinced partisan juries or because honest people were not willing to take a chance with corrupt prosecutors and partisan juries ?
Jay Rudy’s actions are not and can not be illegal
If they were Steele Simpson fusion GPS Perkins coi and HFA would have been prosecuted
If you are going to make the law up as you go at least be consistent about it
Anything less is hypocracy
Cohen and manafort are revolting
But I would rather be defending them than mueller comey strzok page McCabe Yates
The actual abuse of power is always worse than private misconduct
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-congress-indispensable-power-revisiting-faithless-execution-book/#slide-1
The normal protocol for requesting investigations from other countries is for the leader of one country to make the request of the leader of another much as trump did
Asking that leader to have his equivalent to the us ag cooperate with the us ag as trump did
This is als why Barr went with Durham to AU and it
As Then the us ag introduces his investigator to the investigator in the other country
It is likely that Trump. Allied AU and it before Barr’s tripps
I wanted XFH investigated
Horowitz was a start
I want the shenanigans in the Ukraine investigated
I have zero problems with properly conducted congressional investigations
But this was a farce
I think it would be wise to return to something like the independent counsel act
The special counsel act has proven worse as there is no oversight
The ic was answerable to a panel of judges
I do not have a problem with investigations
I think we need more not less
But allegations of criminal conduct must follow the federal rules for due process
And if impeachment standards are lowered then so must they
“I think it would be wise to return to something like the independent counsel act
The special counsel act has proven worse as there is no oversight.”
I agree, although I might even support repealing the special counsel act entirely, and leaving it to Congress to vote, on a case-by-case basis, the need for an independent counsel.
Independent council, special council, whatever one is in effect or something like it will come under attack. In this day and age, creating any investigative authority will almost impossible that will be viewed as non-political.
Although there was much disagreement between the founding fathers, they had two keys that our elected officials do jot possess today. 1, compromise and 2, putting country first.
Today, they could care less about country and put career and party first. Too compromise is to show weakness that leads to defeat in an election, regardless of long term benefit to the country.
So an IC under congress will be a witch hunt to the president. A SC under the A.G. will be considered a white wash by the opposition in congress. Where those that would compromise and put country first accepted these individual authorities would be independent, today politics gives us Mueller.
So short of some high power descending from the heavens and leading an investigation, I see no way any investigative authority could be created and be “independent” in anyway, shape or form given our current “party/career” first government.
What you want is an appointed prosecutor with oversight by both branches of goverent not being investigated
But probably you need a constitutional amendment
I do not want congress conducting actual investigations as opposed to oversite
The rules are different and as we see congress is incapable of due process
Mueller who has a history of persecuting the innocent ultimately found nothing and grudgingly admitted it
Nadler wants to impeach based on the same farcical evidence
I would rather have a bad lawyer than congress investigating
A prosecutor would have taken 5min to dispose of what democrats impeached over
Was there reasonable suspicion regarding Biden ?
Yup
We’re done
One of the things about the IC act rather than the SC is that it provided a panel of urges for oversight
Starr had to get each new inquiry aproved by e court
Requesting an investigation is not inappropriate and we ever want that to be the case
Starting an investigation without sufficient basis or continuing one after the basis has disappeared is more than inappropriate
I do find it the height of hypocracy that the very same people who have demanded pushed and waited breathlessly over a three year investigation that was clearly baseless within a short time of starting have impeached Trump for asking for an investigation that has a basis
‘ Unfortunately, Democrats are incapable of having a nuanced, realistic discussion about ANY topic these days, least of all Donald Trump.“
Again you seem brainwashed about the political identification of the most prominent Trump critics – a wide spectrum of conservative Republican politicians, commentators, bureaucrats, high-ranking officials – who daily are calling for his removal from office.
You’re deaf to the warning voices of people who shared your own political values. You’ve been swallowed into the Trump swamp. Gurgle. Gurgle. Gurgle.
Jay, that “wide spectrum” of people, which do include never-Trumper conservatives and most of the media, as well as bureaucrats and high ranking officials (like the FBI officials who spied on Trump and his advisors for over a year and defrauded the FISC, which will likely lead to the FIS Act not being renewed),
are the very same anti and never Trumpers who have been calling daily for his removal, since before he was inaugurated.
I cannot take them seriously, because they never give any credible reasons for removal.
My political values are not strictly aligned with any particular movement, conservative, liberal or libertarian, and I think for myself, not based on what politicians, media talking heads, or the Twitter mob say.
The FISC act will be renewed
Government rarely gives back a power once it has usurped it
You may be right, Dave. But it will be interesting to see the parties change sides. Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposing.
Go figure, the Democrats claimed last time that, if it was renewed, it would lead to the government spying on its pwn citizens. Now that they have be proven right, they’ll vote for it, because it was Republican citizens who got spied on. They never believe it will happen to them.
I do believe that there will be considerable debate, and perhaps significant changes to the law, based on what has come out, and will continue to come out, about the FISA abuse by the FBI and DOJ.
There will be little debate
In the midst of this they quietly renewed it
Both republicans and democrats rail at it
But they still both vote for it
Slime balls of a feather…
https://apnews.com/7f97eac651e7ada92fed6480e70dce1b
I do not know the details here
And neither do you
But on the surface what I see is people trading value for value and a US ambassador interfering
This is pretty much NOT what the Biden’s did.
The value they were selling was government protection
IT was pure inluence peddling
While in your example there s a Eagan deal
With overcoming illegitimate government obstacles as a side issue
Trump has been Rey active in making it much easier to export US products
Like Gas
To significant benefit to the country
I know this bothers you but in a free market whenever the common good is increased someone protits
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
Selling government favor is corrupt
Overcoming idiotic government overreach and obstacles short of using force is not
All you have done is proved Yavonovitch needed removed and was removed for cause
She was clearly messing where she did not belong
Both constitutionally and as a matter of foreign policy
The BBC knows Quid Pro Quo when it sees it:
“ The White House sought to freeze aid to Ukraine just 91 minutes after President Trump spoke to President Volodymyr Zelensky by phone in July, a newly-released government email has revealed.
The email, telling the Pentagon to “hold off”, was sent by a senior White House official.
In the phone call, Mr Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate his political rival, Democrat Joe Biden.”
The same email explicitly states the aide will be delivered on time
So your argument now is ride to leverage early release of aide to te jstifed nvestgations ?
You do know that so long as there was reasonable suspicion nothing else you come up with will ever matter ?
There is no special immunity from prosecution for democrats
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A new satellite image of a factory where North Korea makes military equipment used to launch long-range missiles shows the construction of a new structure.
Didn’t Donnie tell us NK wouldn’t be doing that?
Trump can not make promises regarding 5he behavior of others
He can only promise consequences
Trump has been president for 3yrs
NK still does not have the capability of striking mainland US or accurately striking us territories
They were 6 months from that according to Obama’s CIA
Three years later they are still 6 months away
We all would like the threat to go away
What has happened which did not during Obama is that it has been slowed or stalled
That is actually far more important than you think
As trump also reversed Obama and is perusing ABMs particularly satellite based ones
What matters is not whether no gets ICBMs but whether they can use them
Didn’t Donnie say he was getting the Taliban to call a cease fire?
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — An American service member was killed in combat Monday in Afghanistan, the U.S. military said… the Taliban claimed they were behind a roadside bombing in northern Kunduz province that killed the U.S. soldier.
The Taliban now control or hold sway over practically half of Afghanistan but continue to stage near-daily attacks targeting Afghan and U.S. forces, “
Jay, when it come to military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, personal likes and dislikes for a president nor politics should be part of the conversation. I don’t remember you saying one thing about getting out of Afghanistan or Iraq when B.O. was in office and soldiers died. I dont remember you saying a word when B.O. said he was getting us out of that war and then sent in more troops resulting in more deaths.
I have been consistant in my criticism of 43, Obama and Trump concerning the middle east.
So dont you think its time to take a stance on our involvement in the middle east and stop using deaths of our military to feed your unhealthy hatred for the president? There is plenty for you to criticize without using military deaths to attack Trump when this war has been going on for 18 years.
Amen Ron
I will beg happy to criticise Trump on Afghanistan
But he is still better than bush Obama and any democrat
So violating a cease far is trumps fault ?
Was the Holocaust the Jews fault ?
It is long past time for the us to leave
Positive outcome so far. Will it last? Who knows. If the democrats take the presidency, I doubt it. They will allow China to walk all over us like all administrations have done in the past.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/china-to-cut-import-tariffs-open-markets?fbclid=IwAR2HJNMzct6cA6Bpb2Gn1w_ej1E26a9RgUki31muHA2cXmtS01m0RZbYNxY
Someone please tell me again why we are still fighting in the middle east? 18 years, thousands killed and now this.
https://aclj.org/us-military/why-im-in-the-hague-presenting-oral-arguments-in-defense-of-the-interests-of-us-soldiers-at-the-international-criminal-court
We forked all ‘is at Nuremberg
These international tribunals and crimes against humanities claims are nearly always nonsense
There is no one convicted at Nuremberg that would not have been convicted in courts with actual jurisdiction
In fact the opposite proved true AFTER the nuernburg sow trials the us preasured governments across the world to NOT prosecute lessor warcrimes
“Democrats in Virginia may override local zoning to bring high-density housing, including public housing, to every neighborhood statewide — whether residents want it or not.”
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/23/virginia-house-zoning-environment/
According to the article, single family housing is “racist” and “energy inefficient.”
Virginia’s state government is now 100% Democrat controlled. Unlike California, many counties have majority GOP, and have elected sheriffs who have made them 2nd Amendment sanctuaries, after a Democrat state legislator suggested that Gov.Northam use the National Guard to confiscate weapons under draconian new state gun laws.
Anyone who thinks that today’s Democrat Party is the party of JFK, or even of Bill Clinton, is living in a dream world. The hard-core left controls the party now.
Yes, I was in Williamsburg for the colonial area Grand Illumination the second week in Dec and every local newscast led off with 2nd amendment sanctuary news. Almost every city in the tidewater area voted to become sanctuary gun cities.
Trump: “I never understood wind, I know windmills very much, I’ve studied them more than anybody…”
Those who believe this assertion of expertise, please step forward..
Those who care step off a cliff.
Excerpts from the same talk:
“They’re made in China and Germany mostly — very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right?
“So they make these things and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard.”
” You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle. If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. It’s true.”
“I’ve seen the most beautiful fields, farms, fields — most gorgeous things you’ve ever seen, and then you have these ugly things going up”
“No, but — and you see these magnificent fields, and they’re owned — and you know what they don’t tell you about windmills? After 10 years, they look like hell. You know, they start to get tired, old. You got to replace them. A lot of times, people don’t replace them. They need massive subsidy from the government in order to make it.”
Sounds like he knows a fair amount about windmills…
Priscilla, thought I would add a link for further documentation for our resident “Trump lies about everything”. This provides support concerning the birds.
Anyone wonder why all the greenees and environmentalist did not riot when Obama gave this a 30 year moratorium? I know why Queen Nancy said nothing, like the current border wall, its in her state for many of these.
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
Most of this rant of Jays is just nonsense about Trump’s way of talking.
It is clear Trump is not ignorant of wind farms. But his remarks are still not literally true.
He does not know more than anyone. He is just not so poorly informed as Jay would have you believe.
Whether you beleive he is “lying” depends on your standard for defining “lie”.
If I own a Corvette and I say it is “the fastest car arround” am I “lying” ?
Thrust SSC went 763mph – that is far faster than any corvette. But Clearly there are few production cars that are faster than a corvette and likely none “arround” my neighborhood.
Most of us do NOT call a statement like that a lie – unless the speaker is actually cloaim to hold the world land speed record.
If Trump makes a remark like that – Jay, democrats, the left and the media will call it a lie.
Bust aside from style – Trump’s spoken language has a very specific cadence and word choices, it is near certain deliberate. Though part of it demonstrates his NYC back ground, mostly it is highly accessible to less well educated people. Trump rarely if ever uses a complex word or phrase when he can use a simpler one.
None less than George Orwell asked writers to do that. Though not to the degree Trump does.
There is a tradeoff – one the one hand what you say is accessible to a larger portion of the people, and they do not feel like you are talking down to them. On the other SOMETIMES language complexity is to allow more accurate communications.
Though I do not think the source of Trump’s choice of language is politics – his much more common man approach to speech is incredibly common among politicians, and for many of them likely cultivated. George Bush’s Lite Texas accent cadence and word choices were likely practiced.
Regardless, Trump’s way of speaking connects him to his audience – it is effective.
They see him as their champion, as someone who not merely identifies with them – but is one of them. Trump’s entire personal life and style resembles the Longshoreman who won a Billion Dollars in the lottery. And that is part of what grates to those on the left and endears his supporters.
But the wise person should not judge Trump or anyone by their style, but by there substance.
Trump has succeeded in multiple different fields.
Stupid people do not do that, The odds of it being luck or chance are zero.
He has succeeded as president – against very powerful forces.
Is there anyone here who thinks he should have been the GOP candidate ?
Ron spends endless time pondering how that happened and how to change the primaries so that it can not. I would offer that you can not. It is always a mistake to presume that a specific strategy was instrumental in some success.
Hillary did not lose because of the electoral college. She lost because she did not figure out the best strategy for the given rules. Most of the people who win, are going to win no matter what the rules are. They will change strategies to reflect different rules.
We see the same in Trump’s presidency. Trump got shit for cooperation for a Republican congress at the start. There is little that they provided him aside from the Tax system overhaul. While that could have been better, it was excellent and one of many forces driving the economy.
Trump is wrong on Trade. But he has still used it as an effective weapon to energize his base, and to push multiple agenda’s and he has actually been very calculated in containing the damage and imposing the costs on others.
Most everything he has done on Trade and foreign relations has left the entire world with the perception that the US is a force to be re conned with.
AND that we are going to do what WE think is right, and in OUR interests.
“Trump has succeeded in multiple different fields.”
Sometimes I question how that happened. I doubt if his companies were noted for luxury, service and outstanding recreational activities and he received a few complaints on the company websites that he would be railing about the complaints and attacking the complainers. He would be advertising and stressing all the good points of his company.
He has been able to fill more positions in the justice system, reduced illegal immigration, achieved a new North American trade deal, improved trade deals with China, reduced taxes and regulations that created one of the better economies since the 90’s and reduced black unemployment to 6.8%, lowest since that statistic was created.
But unlike his business accomplishments, he does not stress the positive adminstration accomplishments in his daily comments on a regular hasis. He stresses the negatives, constantly attacking those that “complain” about him. Why? It only lends credence to there attacks, while hiding his accomplishments.
Dave, you say this is a winning strategy. How I will never understand.
To the extent I have any interest in how Trump has succeeded it is to figure out how to do better myself. That is all.
But ultimate all success is through giving people what they want – which requires figuring out what they want. Often when they do not know themselves.
An entrepeneur is someone who creates something that you did not previously know existed, and had never considered, that now you find you must have and is a necesscity for a good life.
Ron,
Trump stresses his accomplishments CONSTANTLY,
He BRAGS constantly about them
as do many republicans.
But the media does not cover that.
Just ot be clear – I am OK with media outlets chosing what they wish to cover.
And I get to decide whether to view them or not.
But as a fact check – view any trump rally – any Trump speach of remarks that are not edited – often deceptively to create a damning comment if out of context.
Dave, I began following @realdonaldtrump on twitter after I decided that was his primary method of communication. The largest number of tweets is negative comments about Queen Nancy and the dem-(wits).
Twitter is a place where people brutally attack each other over politics.
You do not go to the dentist to build a home.
Dave, wrong.
https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/twitter-stats-facts/
@realdonaldtrump has 64 million followers at last count.
What is it that you think I am wrong about ? And how does Trump having 64M followers change that ?
Trump constantly Stresses his accomplishments,
The media rarely cover that.
But that is not an insurmountable obstacle – the effects of real growth are felt by ordinary people. We do not need government stats of the media to tell us that things are better – we know it , becuase we see a better world.
How does Trump win ?
Often this is how.
Two men are walking through a forest. Suddenly, they see a tiger in the distance, running towards them. They turn and start running away. But then one of them stops, takes some running shoes from his bag, and starts putting the on.
“What are you doing?” says the other man. “Do you think you will run fast than the tiger with those?”
“I don’t have to run faster than the tiger,” he says. “I just have to run faster than you.”
Not on twitter. Occasionally between rants about Pelosi.
So your view of the entirety of Trump is based on the window that the press choses to give you ?
Atleast on Twitter a third party does not dictate which parts of what Trump says you get to hear.
I am not a big fan of Twitter – I do not understand why Twitter has essentially become a bitter partisan political hate venue. But that is what it is. Almost everyone on Twitter is like Jay – desparately seeking the next brilliant insult grenade to slur their opponent.
People I have known and respected for decades have some of the most bitter insane twitter feeds. Twitter draws out the worst in us.
I am not personally big on social media.
But I am very big on the internet as a media to bypass press filtering.
Whether it is Trump or Obama Republican or Democrat, for decades a small portion of the media have decided what we get to hear and what we do not.
The internet increasingly has destroyed that.
Gone are the days when the uniformly slightly left media fed the country a steady diet of just left of center pablum.
I think that is overall a GOOD thing,
But all change has good and bad facets. Twitter is part of the bad.
Today if you want – and without working very hard you can find out about anything you want.
If you are not very good at critical thinking – you can find the sources that will tell you whatever you want to believe – mostly – not completely.
But if you are really looking for the Truth – not so much looking to find proof that your opinion is right – the answers are out there, and not hard to find.
As to Trump, absolutely he spends lots of time ragging on Democrats and right now Pelosi.
And democrats, the left, the media, Pelosi spend lots of time ragging on Trump.
Frankly outside of their respective bases – they cancel each other out.
But both are absolutely trying to push up the negatives of the other.
Guess what that is a big part of what elections are about.
Obama beet Romney in 2012 primarily because he was able to pummel Romney enough that millions of republics stayed home and did not vote.
When republicans do this – democrats call it voter suppression – just more of the hypocrisy of the left.
Regardless, it is just effective politics. Persuade as many people as possible to vote for your candidate, and those who you can not get to vote for your candidate – persuade them not to vote.
You may not like that. But it is not going away – ever, because it works.
But past all the negatives – which are going to be there – from both sides no matter what.
Trump IS pounding on his accomplishments. AS ANY INCUMBENT DOES.
I knew someTrump cultist would reply thusly, to defend his exaggerated hypocritical bullshit. Trump doesn’t give a crap about bird deaths incidental to business profit.
Today NYT: “ A new (trump administration) interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 2017 means that as of now, companies are no longer subject to prosecution or fines even after a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 that destroyed or injured about one million birds and for which BP paid $100 million in fines.”
Now Trump’s policy change has eliminated criminal penalties for “incidental” migratory bird deaths across the US:
“ Across the country birds have been killed and nests destroyed by oil spills, construction crews and chemical contamination, all with no response from the federal government, according to emails, memos and other documents viewed by The New York Times. Not only has the administration stopped investigating most bird deaths, the documents show, it has discouraged local governments and businesses from taking precautionary measures to protect birds.”
Dodo Donnie is correct – windmills kill birds, including eagles. But now Trump is undermining the very laws put place to protect them by insulating companies from penalties previously in place.
And as Trump is an expert on building big-city structures, like his own high riser skyscrapers, why didn’t he mention they kill more birds than windmills:
“ According to a 2014 article in the ornithological journal Condor, an estimated 365 million to 988 million birds die each year by colliding into buildings in the United States.”
The reason your bloated hero has a hair up his ass about windmills Is because he fought for years (and lost) against the construction of wind turbines near his golf course property in Scotland.
And if windmills threaten property values, what’s his Wall going to cost property owners in its shadow?
When you defend a fool, you become a fool’s proxy. Keep trucking on…
So now you’re upset about birds, but not when Obama gave wind turbines a 30 year reprieve?
Come on Jay, your hatred for Trump is blocking any common sense you might have possessed.
You also stated “And if windmills threaten property values, what’s his Wall going to cost property owners in its shadow?” In followup, check on what Pelosi’s walls cost California property owners. That will give you a good basis looking forward.
Hidden from both supporters and detractors the vast majority of the Wall Trump has built is replacement for ad hoc delibidated wall that is extremely ugly.
Jay,
Whatever you may think about BP – please tell me that you want to defend government behavior in Deep Water Horizon ! Please ! Please !
Deep Water Horizon was a perfect example of GOVERNMENT failure.
And the idiocy of government regulation. BMS reviewed every single thing that BP did and approved it.
Further Our govenrment had been charging fees to Oil Companies since the Exon Valdez to build up a fund and equipment to deal with exactly this kind of disaster. When the disaster came – as disasters inevitably do, there was no money in the fund as government had pilfered it. In the End BP not only paid massive fees for decades that were supposed to provide for this type of disaster, but ended up cleaning the mess up itself.
BP fixed the problem. BP cleaned up the spill, BP recovered nearly all the lost oil.
BP payed damages for what occurred – though because again the govenrment got involved much of those damages went to governments NOT those actually harmed.
Get government out of regulation – they do not know what they are doing.
Get them out of farcical taxes for contingencies – essentially acting as insurance – where you pay premiums but get no reduction of risk.
When bad things happen – as they must occsasionally in the real would – hold those causing damage accountable to those damaged. Not to petty bureaucrats looking to steal ever more.
BTW the vast majority of the cleanup effort was to recover the oil – most of which was recovered and refined. The long term impact on Gulf Eco systems was negligible.
Much of the long term damage was caused by government stealling funds that should have gone to the people and bussinesses impacted.
Windmills kill larger birds – lots of them endangered species.
Buildings kill primarily small birds – pigeons and the like.
Those skyscrapers you lament have actually become a modern habitat for raptors – and even the pigeons whose deaths you lament.
Windmills are not a habitat.
Large numbers of birds die in the city – because the environment attracts them – where they live, thrive multiply and die.
There is no thriving, and multiplying before dying with windmills.
It is hard to tell from the pictures but the Border Wall is 18-30 ft tall.
Windmills are 328 ft. Tall.
You will not notice the border wall from a few hundred yards away.
You will see a wind farm for miles.
Just get government out of this.
If you want to put one up yourself – that is your business, your risk is it fails, your reward if it does not.
If you want to start a company building them or generating electricity from them.
Again your risk, your reward.
They have lots of good points, They also have lots of bad ones.
The only arrangement EVER that sorts that kind of complexity our is the free market.
Many of the problems may be solveable – but it will take atleast 3 times as long by government.
Government does not know how to innovate. It also does not know how to stop chasing bad ideas.
I have no idea whether wind is truly a viable energy system. Neither does anyone else no matter what they say.
But if those who believe it is wish to bhet their own money – that is fantastic.
But we should not put public money into this.
It will corrupt things – especially decision making and at best delay things for decades.
Dave, Jay, i know you both support open trade with China and dont want tariffs of any kind, you believe open trade helps both countries and promotes a strong middle class.
https://www.wistv.com/2018/12/19/us-reviews-report-imports-forced-labor-china-camp/
That cheap chinese crap ( inexpensive for Dave) sure has improved conditions in China for this group!
Ron you are conflating lots of things.
What is going on with Ethnic Minorities in China – particularly Religious minorities and it is not limited to Muslims is despicable.
It is the modern equivalent of the holocaust or the Gulags, and should be condemned.
But this is a combination of forced labor – slavery and genocide.
These people are not chosing to work.
I am not even slightly interested in discussions of cheap labor and poor working conditions – so long as those who work in them are free to choose to do so.
By that I mean they are literaly threatened with violence if they do not.
There are myriads of people throughout the world who have choices between bad and worse. So long as no force is involved – I do not care.
Free people have the means of improving their own working conditions.
China has had horrendous working conditions in the past. For most Chinese they are much better today – though not even close to equal to those of the US
Since 1974 China’s standard of living has risen from $100/year – changed from under “the last emperor” to about 11,000/year.
BTW the 435/month quoted is over 5,000/year, That is substantially about the income in most of africa, and alot of southeast asia.
The relevant question is FORCE, not income, not “cheap”
And that has nothing to do with Trade Policies.
??
What do Tariffs have to do with forced labor, Ron? ? ?
And I’m in favor of CLOSED borders to prevent imports of products of forced labor.
And what Pelosi walls are you referring to?
And I wasn’t in favor of Obama allowing increases in number of eagle windmill deaths, and I complained about it at other sites when it was announced – as did much of so-called liberal news media: concerns were expressed nationally, on tv news, editorials, social media.
But those Obama permits issued to turbine companies are reviewed every five years, and subject to cancellation if eagle deaths exceed the limits imposed. And guess what- Trump has had the authority to change the rules from the day he was sworn in as president. But hasn’t. And now his own relaxation of rules over migratory bird safety are more extreme than Obama’s Eagle regulation, which included provisions to make turbine technology safer for birds.
Constitutionally, the congress makes the rules, and the president enforces them.
The problem with the Obama administration was great excercise of discretion.
Executive discretion is the father of corruption.
You have gummed up the logic on this horribly.
I really do not give a damn if people build windmills – I do not have the right to dictate what others do on their property.
To the extent that it is legitimate for government to punish people for killing bald eagles, each of us should be treated alike – anything else it lawlessness.
But that is not how it is – most of us will be severely fined, possibly even jailed if we kill a bald eagle – even accidentally.
If that is truly how things should be – then is should apply to those who build windmills.
Converesly if Windmill operators are free to kill bald eagles – so should the rest of us be,.
We do not decide that some people can commit murder – for some ill defined greater good.
We do not tell those with influence – you get 3 free murders.
There is no need for government involvement in windmills at all.
While much of Trump’s remarks are correct – it is irrelevant.
Whether you or I think Windmills are a good idea is irrelevant.
In an actual free market – entrepeneurs attempt to guess what people want, and consumers through their decisions determine what succedsor fails.
If Windmills can prove themselves in the free market – great, and if not then they should be sidelined until and unless they can deliver better value on the whole.
Coincidence! Pure Coincidence!
Wow! I think you have something here!
Extra Crime of the century!
The US rescinds Tarrifs and does not put them back.
Meanwhile President gets Trademarks.
The fall of society.
I do not exactly know the rules in Argentina, but in they are pretty much the same throughout the world. You can not trade mark generic terms, Trademarks are generally not legally meaningful outside of the business domain you operate under, they can not conflict with other trademarks, and otherwise they are pretty much guaranteed.
BTW this is supposed to be pretty much true of all benefits from government.
There are a limited set of rules that bar confering the benefit in well defined circumstances and otherwise it is granted.
What we do not want – in the US, in Argentina is a great deal of government discretion, because government discretion is equivalent to corruption.
And as always – the problem is with the govenrment not the person.
No person or business should have to bribe government to do what they should be freely allowed to anyway.
Liberty means we do not live in a permission qualified society.
You are supposed to be free to do anything – except a very limited number of things that are prohibited – like killing people. Though just because you are free to do something does not mean you are not responsible for the outcome.
You have a radically different worldview, one that can not work, one that manufactures corruption.
I hope Santa pays you all a visit tonight.
Watch it! You will be shocked! 😏
Apply this to the discussion of windmills, It fits perfectly.
And yes, my distaste for Trump’s tariffs have become more acute.
I’ve been requesting estimates to install solar power into my house because of sharply rising utility bills. But installation costs have jumped up because of Dumb Donnie’s 25% Tariffs on solar panels. He may have priced me out from purchasing them – I’d be in Solar Afterlife before reaching the break-even cost of installation.
And the money saved from Trump’s tax reductions won’t even cover the expenses I’ve accrued in travel time to visit solar contractors here in LA.
Jay;
I do not care if you purchase solar panels. That is your business.
Personally I have looked at the many times. Solar PV panels without significant subsidies or ridiculously high electric prices take way more than 7 years to cost justify, which always means it is better to invest in something else.
But then again I live in the Susquehana valley – where Nuclear, Hydro and Coal fired power is plentiful and cheap. I beleive you live in the people republic where they are neither, and where solar is heavily subsidized.
I heavily object to you getting subsidized to do anything. Government may not take my wealth from me and give it to you – because you and government like what you wish to do with that money better than what I would.
It is likely that in the future Solar will cost justify, But even then it only makes sense as a suplimental power system. The only form of so called green energy that is cost effective and reliable is hydro, and there are limits to the power we can generate using hyrdo.
Solar does not yet cost justify even with cheap chinese solar panels before Tarrifs.
But why do you think you are entitled to cheap Chinese Solar panels rather than more expensive US made ones.
Just to be clear – I think you should be free to buy solar panels from anyone, at whatever price the two of you agree to.
But you do not think that should be the case.
You told me it was OK for govenrment to override your personal choices regarding Windmills. Why not Solar Panels ?
If Government can decide what the right number of bald eagles to kill for Windmills, why can’t it decide who should make your solar panels ?
Once you decide that ANY regulation is legitimate, the entire debate becomes over who gets to impose their preferances on everyone else. That is near certain not going to be you.
People who are blinded by Trump hatred need to wake up and educate themselves. Judicial misconduct is unforgivable! People are oblivious to what our government does.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/fisa-court-owes-some-answers-11576799937?fbclid=IwAR11_c2sHSNPVMt06gcSSYLM8M3JLQDKQpbDesEs2VkUgLK6npY8_ssdVAA
I can not get at most of the article. But it does not matter.
Judge Sullivan is continuing this charade regarding Flynn.
How – Horowitz did not merely point out that the investigation that entangled him was corrupt in myriads of ways and fabricated and destroyed evidence,
But Horowitz found misconduct by exactly the same people who were involved in the Flynn investigation and EXACTLY the same misconduct that was conducted regarding Flynn.
Changing evidence from exclupatory to incuplatory.
After Horowitz not merely should Flynn’s charges be dropped but EVERY one of the purported convictions and Guilty Pleas that Jay celebrates.
When Law enforcement is corrupt – when they manufacture or hide evidence in ONE case.
You can not trust ANYTHING they have ever done.
Muller used almost the same people on his team as were part of Cross Fire Huricane.
He started using the same tainted evidence. He made exacty the same mistakes – and that is not speculation – we know this. We know that Mueller re-investigated things that XFH had already established did not happen. We know that Mueller continued an investigation that Horowitz found had LOST any basis by Jan. 2017 for another 2 years.
While we have excellent reason not to Trust any of these people.
But contrary to Barr – this is NOT some isolated incident.
We have a long list of FBI investigations that have been bungled.
Interestingly Horowitz’s investigation of the Trump investigation calls into questions his own conclusions about Clinton.
Is there anyone – left or right that does not grasp at this moment that James Comey is MORALLY BANKRUPT ?
If you are on the left you can point to his October 2016 Surprise.
If you are on the right – there is a long list.
He is crazy lying still – recently he claimed that as FBI director he could not know all the machinations of investigations seven levels below him.
But NONE of this was seven levels below him.
In fact what is HIGHLY UNUSUAL about both the Clinton and Trump investigations is that they were NOT conducted by the normal people at the FBI who would ordinarily.
What Horowitz found was NOT that the Rank and file of the FBI was sloppy as Comey claims. It is that the LEADERS of the FBI, the “Seventh Floor” the people with direct access to the director had botched repeatedly two of the most significant FBI investigations in our lifetimes.
So why do you Trust Comey’s exoneration of Clinton ?
Why do you trust ANYTHING James Comey has ever Done ?
Even if you buy the claims this was merely sloppiness – it was massive sloppiness and by purportedly the best of the best.
Of course we should be questioning ALL FISA warants.
Nor is this somehow isolated. I have tied nearly every botched investigation of the past 30 years to Mueller or Comey or both.
But lets presume that is not true – that only makes it worse.
We have an agency that botched Whitely Bulgar and Richard Jewel and the Anthrax letters.
Ruby Ridge, Wacco,
And if we add the rest of the intelligence community – they have botched Iraq Yellow Cake, the Assad Gas attacks, 9/11, the fall of the USSR,
We have the evidence of the Afghan papers – which says that nothing has changed since the Pentagon papers.
So let me make it CLEAR.
We have no good reason to trust our government. At best it is intolerably sloppy from top to bottom. More likely it is incompetent self serving and crooked.
Absolutely the FISC should have been more skeptical – and for a long long time.
This is NOT a problem requiring changes in the law and procedures.
As Horowitz noted – the FBI investigation of Trump violated the “Woods Procedures” for conducting investigations more than 51 different ways.
The “woods procedures” are a set of guidlines for documenting and evaluating an FBI investigation and for establishing whether the criteria have been met for each step or action in an investigation, and the current version was drafted and put into place long ago by FBI director Robert Mueller – who did not follow them as SC either.
There is nothing wrong with the procedures.
The problems are two fold – with the people, and with the incentives.
Law enforcement EVERYWHERE will always do what is rewarded and not do what is punished. We reward convictions – and we do not care what is done to get them, and we do not question outcomes when prosecutors and law enforcement get convictions.
Until there are consequences for bad actions – we will see the FBI and your local police officer violating peoples rights and behaving badly.
And Honestly the FISC was not blind to this – admiral Rogers shutdown broad access to NSA mass surveilance data – when he found it was being greatly abused – and he reported this to the FISC – so they were well aware of problems. Snowden’s information not merely exposed the mass surveilance, he exposed the corrupt nature of it.
No one should be shocked to find this misconduct going on. Nearly all of them had excellent reason to be suspicious if not outright know.
This will not stop until people lose their jobs – for participating, or merely knowing about this and doing nothing.
We have a WB complaint over Trump’s phone Call to Zelensky which frankly is ludicrous.
Where are the WB complaints about the tidal wave of corruption and misconduct at the FBI and beyond ?
Why are we supposed to beleive that this is just a few bad apples when this could not have happened without massive numbers of people knowingly turn a blind eye to it.
We also know that immediately after rogers shut down private contractor access to NSA Mass surveilance data, that Obama relaxed the rules on unmasking resulting in MORE than a factor of 10 increase in unmasking requests.
Susan Powers is tied to hundreds of them – and as UN ambassador it is easily arguable that she NEVER has a basis for requesting the unmasking of a US person caught up in foreign surveilance. But powers claims – and possibly credibly that she was not responsible for and unaware of the unmasking requests. If true – that only makes this all worse. Why was someone ELSE – likely with less authority and justification engaged in massive unmasking behind powers back ? Why haven’t they been identified and why aren’t they in jail ?
Given the obvious incompetence and corruption in Cross Fire Hurricane – why do you expect me to trust the FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC ? or the IC conclusions that Russia interfered in the election ?
Or pretty much anything coming out of washington ?
This stuff is not small. It is not limited to the top floor of the FBI.
What we already have is a fairly large informal conspiracy – and we KNOW that it extends outside the FBI.
A conspiracy is when multiple people are involved in a patter of wrong doing that could not have occured but for the misconduct of each of them.
Contra the Media – Horowitz did NOT conclude their was no political bias, he merely concluded that no one admitted to it. In testimony in the Senate he made clear this was substantial bad conduct and went beyond sloppiness and mistakes.
“ We have a long list of FBI investigations that have been bungled.”
We have A WAY LONGER LIST in the thousands of FBI investigations that weren’t bungled.
Keep digging yourself deeper in your hole of denial about Dick Head Donnie’s Russian involvements detrimental to US interests.
Jay, one should not be praising the FBI for doing their jobs right
Everyone should be holding them accountable for any jobs they mishandle.
Damn, just look back on what happened with Richard Jewel (No I have not seen the movie, this is facts from reporting). They wanted to close that case post haste because all the world was watching us and the pressure was on from the top. When we see bad work with government investigations, Richard jewel proves it can happen to anyone.
Why are you defending incompetence, or worse, deliberate manipulation of evidence?
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Blackstone 1760
This is a corner stone of Western law
“We have A WAY LONGER LIST in the thousands of FBI investigations that weren’t bungled.”
We do not actually know that. We are not even close to knowing that.
What we have is evidence of a serious problem that is far more than pervasive enough to require serious consequences, and that requires that we dig deeper to find out how pervasive it is.
Further – while the scope of the problem is relevant. The scope is the difference between the problem being really bad, and the problem being so bad the entire institution is rotten to the core.
There is not a scope that does not result in this being an incredibly serious problem.
There is not a knowable scope that gives us good reason to have faith in these institutions.
There is not a scope that does not give us good reason to question EVERYTHING these institutions have done.
I think the response to Horowitz has been far too muted so far – but it seems to be slowly growing as the implications start to be realized.
The FISC has grasped that the DOJ/FBI lied to it and used it in a very very bad way.
FISC itself is culpable – because this problem is NOT new, Admiral Rogers reported massive FISA abuse to FISC while Obama was president – and shut it down – only to see it pop up a different way.
This is NOT the first time the FISC has chastized FBI/DOJ and frankly this reponse is way too muted given the long term evidence of a serious problem.
Further we are starting to see people grasp the significance of some of the findings of Horowitz.
The most consequential of which is Crossfire Huricane had reached the end of the road by mid January 2017. EVERYTHING that occured after the FBI/DOJ interviewed Steele’s primary source and he completely undermined the entire Steele Dossier as gossip and bar room talk, was KNOWINGLY illegitimate – that means that the appointment of SC Mueller was KNOWINGLY CORRUPT, You can not appoint an SC to investigate claims you already KNOW as a result of your own investigations are FALSE.
That means that the DOJ/FBI obstruction of the House and Senate investigations – were not merely corrupt – but CRIMINAL. You can not hide behind protecting an existing investigation when you know that investigation was unfounded.
It means that the entire purpose of Mueller was entrappment – the hope that Trump would do something or that they would accidentally find something outside what they were investigating.
You can legitimately charge convict someone of theft, if during the course of a legitimate investigation into drug crimes you find evidence of theft.
You can not use an illegitimate drug investigation as a vehicle to unearth crimes that you had no evidence of in the first place. That is abuse of power. It is a crime. it is a violation of 18 USC 242.
And what are those “russian involvements”
Did he sell 20% of US uranium instrests to Russian oligarchs ?
Is he receiving 500K speaking fee’s from Russia ?
Is he receiving 100+ million in donations to his “foundation” ?
Is there a Trump tower Moscow ? If Putin and Trump are in bed with each other – why didn’t that happen ?
Biden has more interests in Russia than Trump.
Clinton’s campaign manager had 50m in investiments in Russia.
Please connect Trump to Russia in any meaningful way that is not dwarfed by democrats ?
Jay, First the border wall. The largest majority of these have been built since Queen Nancy elected to office. She had no problem with these being built. The first wall between San Diego and Tijuana was constructed by the Clinton administration, years after Pelosi elected by CA voters. Did she fight Clinton on building it? Just go to Bing.com and key in “California Border wall and you will get pages of pictures protecting California’s southern border.
Second, did you know that forced labor produced some Chinese products? Can you identify those products? Is this the only case this happens? They have forced labor, they manipulate their money, they block our products, they steal our technologies, we lose jobs, we run up debt…etc
Ron, The US southern border with Mexico is 1,933 miles long.
Only 700 of those miles have fencing in place.
I’m in favor of fencing and other high tech surveillance where it’s effective. And so was Obama. And the Dems In bi-partisan unity with the GOP had tried to reduce the illegal flows across the boarder – until President Divisive Dopy entered the scene with his idiotic Idea of extending a WALL from the Pacific Ocean to the tip of South Texas, and lying that Mexico would pay the billions of dollars required to erect it, not US taxpayers.
You must agree that was deceptive campaign-promise bullshit he spewed, an early precursor of the deceptive disruptive dishonest douche con artist he has proven to be.
Trump is an Immoral corrupting charlatan whose presidency has normalized lying as policy. He’s an existential threat to the nation. He needs to be removed from office to Make America Moral Again.
Jay
1. If anyone really believed he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, they should be banned from voting. Actually, anyone that believes ANY campaign promise by ANY politician should be banned from voting because they don’t have one brick short in the pallet, the whole damn pallet is empty. That pledge was no different than Sanders and Warren saying they will pay for the health programs they are proposing.
2. I really don’t remember the GOP and Dems working at all on immigration reforms. In fact Obama had total control of government and he did nothing to revise immigration policies with Reid and Pelosi as heads of congress. I just remember DACA which was done through E.O.
3. Yes his campaign promises were lies just like so much of what he says. However, I differ from you in the impact that his mouth has on America compared to legislative actions the Democrats will take if they get into office. I listed those earlier as items I can’t support. his lying words will not last. Democrat legislative actions will last forever.
No sane person is going to try to defend every word that Trump has spoken.
That said the claim that Trump is somehow a liar on an unprecidented scale – worse than prior presidents, or more significant that other politicians is GARBAGE.
In fact the CONVERSE is true.
Trump has not delivered on every campaign promise, nor honored each one literally
As has been repeated frequently – the media, the left, democrats, take Trump literally but not seriously. Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally.
There are numerous Trump campaign promises that I disagree with that he has done.
There are ones he promised that I support that remain unfullfilled.
WE also have the unique position of Jay, the Left, the Media of doing everything humanly possible to thwart Trump promises like the Wall or getting out of the mideast, and then claiming Trump is a liar because their opposition has made his ability to deliver only partial.
Voters can look at Trump in 2020 and have a very good idea based on his promises what he is going to do if re-elected.
That can not be said for any other politician running.
It can not be said of any democrats or any other republicans.
If can not be said of prior presidents.
If Trump is your idea of a demon liar – then the rest of washington is Satan.
Wonderful Jay – actually addressing Policy.
Immigration is a gigantic hairball.
ANYTHING short of the extremes – no immigration at all, or completely open borders REQUIRES DISCRIMINATION.
It REQUIRES deciding who can come and who can not, and how many.
Do we take low skilled labor, high skilled, do we take people who are being persecuted ?
How many people do we let in an how do we decide ?
DISCRIMINATION.
Having decided how do we enforce those decisions whatever they are.
You talk about walls and surveilance and ….
Why is this even a political debate ?
You said Obama was effective. He was not. He refused to answer any of the questions above. While he deported more people that anyone prior to Trump, he also had the highest long term rates of illegal immigration effectively more than cancelling out.
Put simply he did not answer any of the questions and he enforced the law bad as it might be randomly – that is not merely an immigration problem, that is a huge problem of lawlessness and the legitimacy of government.
I do not really want to get into the debate over the specific METHODS of enforcing the law.
The entire fight over the wall is NOT about methods or what is effective – whether it is democrats or republicans this debate is not about what works, best, it is about whether we actually want a solution that works.
We could reduce illegal immigration more effectively than with a wall by hiring an army of CBP officers, it would also cost far more than the wall and that cost would be ongoing.
It would also introduce serious problems of corruption.
Technology is merely a means of doing the same thing with less people – that is nearly always what technology does – much the same job as humans once did with less humans and more effectively. It has a higher initial cost, but MAYBE a lower long term cost.
Further it does NOT function as a strong deterent. Immigrants do not look across the border and see camera’s radar, motion sensors, drones, … and say – better not try.
Large numbers of border patrol agents and …. WALLS have a deterent effect.
And finally walls – No wall is insurmountable. No wall is entirely stand alone.
The findimental purpose of EVERY wall is as a speed bump. To make crossing sufficiently difficult – that EITHER people give up, or that border patrol has much more time to detect and interdict.
Absolutely along some parts of the border the terain is inhospitable enough that a wall has diminished returns. But we are far short of optimal.
The vast majority of the wall that Trump has built has replaced existing walls that are 20-40 years old and are no longer effective. In 40 year the walls Trump is errecting will likely need replaced too. Regardless those replacements have inarguably been effective, radically reducing illegal immigration in those areas and reducing the number of board agents necescary in those areas allowing them to service areas where there is no wall.
But again the conflict is not about how to secure the border, We would not have this bitter fight if that was all this was about.
And we can not solve problems that are about ideology and our view of the country with technical debates over walls vs. other technology.
The questions I asked at the start of this come first.
That is the public debate democrats have been unwilling to have.
Because you can not call the other side racist from any position except open borders, and you can not openly adopt open borders and win elections.
That is what prevents the immigration problems from being solved.
And it only took a few sentences to get from actually addressing issues into character assassination.
There is over 2000 miles of southern border. There is only about 700miles of wall – almost half at the southern board of CA. That wall is in bad shape BUT had proven very effective.
Trump is highly unlikely to complete a 2000+ mile wall during his presidency.
Do you atleast agree that the existing wall – has worked – there is data on that, and that it needs repaired or replaced ? Democrats have fought funding for that.
Do you agree that even if we do not need 2000+ miles of wall that more than 700 would beneficially reduce illegal immigration ? Again we do have actual data on that ?
If all we were fighting over was whether the wall must extend across 100% of the southern border or 75% there would be no rancorous debate.
You can rant about Trump’s purported idiocy, and your claim that he has promised and will not settle for less than an uninterrupted wall from the pacific to the gulf.
But you are unwilling to repair what is crumbling or build an inch of new wall. You have no beusiness ranting about Trump’s idiocy when your own is self evident.
“You must agree ….”
No neither I nor anyone else “Must agree” with you on anything.
You have not made your case that you have accurately stated what Trump promised,
nor that if you had it would be idiocy,
nor that it matters, because inarguably any error, deciept, exageration, over statement on the part of Trump is so far distant from where we are now it is irrelevant.
Whether we need 2000+ miles of wall or 1800 is not a reason to stop at 700. Nor a reason not to repair what we already have.
And democrats have opposed both.
Zero is not enough – 2000+ is probably a waste, The best answer lies between.
But it most likely lies much closer to 2000 than zero. And democrats are defacto arguing for zero.
So democrats win the “deceptive disruptive dishonest douche con artist” prize.
Please make
“Make America Moral Again” your campaign slogan.
Trump and republicans will own you.
Democrats are so totally on the wrong side of morality.
You constantly seek to use force against others just to get your own way on policy, and you often do so without the support of the majority of the people – which is just ONE requirement for the moral use of force.
We have spent almost 1.6T on the false promises of ObamaCare.
There are no discernable benefits from it.
Is Trump building a wall ?
Is Trump confronting other countries over Trade inequities ?
Is Trump growing the economy ?
Is Trump reducing unemployment ?
Did Trump move the embassy to Jerusalem ?
Has Trump ending our combat involvement in Syria ?
Has Trump reduced our combat involvement elsewhere ?
These and many others are promises KEPT.
Each one is a promise that OBAMA also made in some form and DID NOT KEEP.
Was Trump spied on ? Was he Wiretapped ? Was he the target of an investigation ?
Again these are all things Trump claimed – that you the left the press claimed were lies.
What I see is LOTS of very consequential lies being told ABOUT Trump.
Whatever Trump’s failure’s with respect to integrity – they are dwarfed by those of the left, democrats, the media and you.
Trump has endured an unprecidented onslaught, he has been slandered as no one has ever been, investigated – by the FBI, By Mueller, By Congress, By the press as no one ever has before and you have come up with NOTHING.
If Trump is a “liar” – his opponents – including you are “God Damned Liars”.
Trump lies less than I do — is not a winning campaign.
Here’s an interesting read about the border fences in place.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/12/politics/border-wall-cnnphotos/
jay, interesting. just move to one of the openings and enter there.
now explain to me how the Soviet Union built a 4,200 mile “wall” called the iron curtain that kept people from crossing to freedom?
“There’s no doubt that fencing is a deterrent, but it’s just part of a larger, more holistic approach that Homeland Security takes toward border security,” Moore said.
A substantial portion of the “wall” in Moore’s photo’s is NEW.
All or nearly all the metal fend made of welded angles that is visually transparent is NEW.
Most of the 700M of fence at the start of 2017 was alon the CA border. It had proved highly effective, but it was failing.
I beleive that much of what Moore photographed in CA is either older fence that has since been replaced or new fence that replace the older vietnam helicopter mat fencing.
I am near certain the fence leading into the water at San Diego was recently replaced.
Further More did not capture the hundreds of miles of razor wire Fence that Trump had the military deploy. That fence is new, highly effective, but is not designed to last long, and I do not think Moore photographed any of it – atleast it did not make the CNN article.
Jay, I want to change the tone of comments between you and I because I think I am letting the “hate Trump” 30% of the voters to influence my comments to anyone taking that position. And that is also drifting into my comments when Dave defends Trump to the furthest points right. So here are some thing to consider going forward as will I to your comments.
1. I support most every domestic law and regulation he has signed or deregulated. That does not mean that I support 100% like environmental changes where some parts should remain.
2. I do not support any of his further involvement sending or keeping troops in the middle east. Its time for those people to stand up for their own rights.
3. I support efforts to remove pollution from the air world wide, but not while allowing the chinks to increase pollution and reduce their production costs, while increasing ours and further shipping jobs to China.
4. I support fair trade, and totally open trade, as long as our products are treated at the import zone in the same manner as we treat theirs coming into this country. I support any effort to make that happen so we do not continue to lose to the Chinese.
5. I support border walls, but at the same time, support total rewrites of our immigration laws to make immigration easier for those with skills needed. In association with those changes, I support changes to the support system where immigrants would need to be supported by sponsoring charities and not government, along with an amendment requiring a child born in America to have one parent a citizen to be considered a natural born citizen. At the age of 18 or completion of HS, whichever occurred first, they could take the citizenship test and become a citizen.
6. I do not support one state having 90% of its southern border walled off and then not supporting that same security for three other states.
7. I support individuals being able to buy into Medicare at the actuary calculated costs adjusted yearly, with government subsidies for those under a certain income, but do jot support government force in dictating individuals have to buy a private companies product for anything.
8. I do not support further deficitvspending, but that is up to congress to fix. The president can veto, but congress can override. (They wont because their money support turning them into millionaires before leaving office would be cut off if they did)
9. Unless something drastic happens, I wont vote for Trump because I am sick of him personally, but unless someone from the dem-wits comes along more centrist, I can not support programs they will create and never be able to stop.
I know you agree wuth little of this. But maybe we can discuss differences based on policy and not personalities.
Have a goid remaining holiday season.
Biden.
Well Thats your choice. but not mine. Biden was one of the major supporters of forced purchase of private products included in PPACA.
NO ONE, FOR ANY REASON, SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUY A SERVICE OR PRODUCT FROM A PRIVATE CONCERN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Period.
And do not give me the driving a car and insurance B.S. There is no constitutional right to drive a car on government streets. Doing so opens one to damage and harm to others. Those damaged should have means to pay for their damage to others. Driving is a privilage, not a right.
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
Thompson v.Smith,
There is a vast number of state federal and supreme court cases that universally assert that driving is a right.
the claim that driving is a priviledge not a right is complete and total legal garbage – though it is on RARE occaisons found in some court opinions.
The problem is not that it is not a right, but that SCOTUS has divided our rights into 3 classes and subjected them to different standards.
The first – Strict scrutiny applies to rights explicitly listed in the constitution – the bill of rights,
And very rarely rights implied by the bill of rights (privacy). Strict scrutiny allows govenrment infringement on a right – but the bar that must be met to do so is very high. And the govenrment is always required to do so in the least infringing way possible.
The next level is intermediate scrutiny – It is extremely rare that a right subject to intermediate scrutiny stands as an impediment to a law that infringes on it.
The last level is rational basis scrutiny – which essentially means if the govenrment offers a reason for infringing – any reason at all, then they may infringe.
Driving is unfortunately subject to rational basis scrutiny.
So my thinking about the federal government not being able to force someone to buy a private companies services is bogus? Under your criteria, the feds can require us to buy coats to keep us warm to avoid colds that run up healthcare costs?
Or under certain circumstances, rights can not be exercised until certain criteria are met?
How can driving on highways be a right today, but can be restricted if one does not have insurance? Hunting is not a right. Owning a gun is, but one can be required to have a license before excercising that right to use the hunting rifle.
What I have said about the current constitutional criteria for infringement of rights, is how things ARE, not how they SHOULD be.
“Under your criteria, the feds can require us to buy coats to keep us warm to avoid colds that run up healthcare costs?”
As things are the impediment is not constitutional, it is public backlash.
The Feds can require that a person not raise grain to feed to chickens that they only eat themselves. Wickard v. Filburn.
I do not want to get dragged to deeply into defending how things ARE – because it is wrong.
EVERY natural right should be subject to strict scrutiny. Whether that right is in the constitution or not.
With respect to your numerous examples – I think each of them is a right. I do not think the courts today would disagree with me on that.
Where we would part company is the degree of “justification” government needs to infringe on that right.
Licenses are an infringement, requirements for insurance are infringements.
Currently the standards that govenrment must meet to infringe on an unenumerated right are thin as tissue paper.
Ron,
If I have ever or do ever insult you, rather than criticize your arguments – call me out for it.
What is polarizing out country is NOT specific people or parties. It is substituting insult for argument.
Pretty much everyone has been dragged into that.
Who started it is a chicken egg problem that goes back to before Washington.
I see far more of that on one side of all debates than the other, but maybe that is my perspective.
Absolutely Trump is guilty of lobbing insults rather than arguments, and he is masterful at it.
But regardless of chicken and egg problems – he did not start it, He is a response to it.
Nor is this something we are going to get rid of. It is effective – to a point. It is not going away completely.
But I do think that it can be substantially diminished.
I had actually hoped that Trump’s election in 2016 would change things.
Why ? Because as I said – Trump did not invent this. All that he has done is demonstrate that Republicans can do it effectively too. I had hoped that democrats might see 2016 as a reason to seek detente, to grasp that Trump had demonstrated that it works for Republicans too.
Instead democrats and the left have doubled down.
To the extent democrats and the left discuss policies and ideas at all in 2020 – they do so well beyond what most of the country will accept.
We are going into another election. Numerous pundits have opined that 2020 will be about Trump.
It absolutely will. It will not be about ideology – we have had bazillions of democratic debates with each candidate trying to out socialist the other – and no one is listening. No one cares.
No democrats will get elected because of their policies. The best they can hope for is that they will not lose because of them
But 2020 will not ultimately be about specific democratic policies.
It will be about Trump.
It will be about whether those who loath him as much as Jay, actually get out to vote, or whether 4 years of ineffectively pummeling him without changing anything has demoralized them. I am surprised they have lasted that long.
It will be about whether his attackers have mad any consequential inroads at chipping away at his support – Do HIS supporters come out and vote. My guess is that they do so with avengence – more so than 2016.
Jay and the media have fixated on Christian Times as some Bellweather. Maybe they are right – but look arround, I doubt it. Trump’s supporters have gotten what they want in a way no president has ever done before. A big part of that is promises kept, but before Jay goes ranting about things like Mexico did not pay for the wall, a bigger part is that he has kept faith with those voters. He speaks for them. He fights for them. He is their voice. And they know that. And that is also why the constant attacks on Trump are mostly ineffective. Because they are perceived as attacks on Trump voters or supporters or even people who do not support him but who disagree with him on that issue.
Trump has effectively turned negative campaigning into a form of positive campaigning.
When Trump attacks Pelosi and democrats and the left, he is also standing up for people who are being called hateful hating haters by the left, by the media, by democrats.
The last and probably deciding group is those who are neither on the left or the right.
The left with the cooperation of the media have made painting Trump so toxic that few in the middle will vote for him. They are SOMEWHAT effective at that. But to win – they MUST go beyond anti-trump to pro democrat – and that is far harder. If the left can not sustain their energy, if the right’s energy is sustained or increases and the middle refuses to vote for Trump – but does not vote for democrats either – Trump wins.
If those in the middle hold their noses and vote for the economy – which whether or not Trump effectively trumpets it, is in everyone’s mind outside the left.
Trump wins in a landslide.
The current economy is average – not exceptional. But we have not seen average in 20 years. So to all of us it seems much greater than it is. Because it is much greater than we have seen in a long time. And it matters alot. And it matters to voters.
Further democrats have had virtually nothing to do with creating this economy.
It is either directly a result of Trump’s policies, or it is a fluke of magic, random chance or it is the consequence of long term policies of Obama that too 8 years to bear fruit.
You can argue any of these.
But it is most likely the former, and specific to the election that will be the judgement of voters. Thus far democrats have not even tried to counter on the economy.
They have ceded that issue. They are praying that they can make people hate Trump enough to forget the economy – that is highly unlikely.
“ What is polarizing out country is NOT specific people or parties. It is substituting insult for argument.”
Tis a specific person spewing insult from high office for argument, daily worsening the problem. Guess who.
Hint: he didn’t send his old pals Cohen & Manafort Xmas cards.
Jay, you are off in la la land.
The polarization started – even HERE long before Trump descended down the escalator.
Cause must come before effect.
Trump can not be a cause.
You can not claim otherwise without losing any connection to logic.
Absolutely Trump has got your number, he has pushed your buttons and provoked you to jump several levels higher on the bat hit crazy scale – but he still only brought out what was already in your. And in the end you have chosen your own actions, and your won words.
Further you have not merely slandered Trump – we can all cope with your maligning politicians, it comes with the turf. While we might think that the attacks on Trump are full bull goose loon, no one has “sympathy” for Trump over them.
But you have smeared everyone who does not agree with you.
Anyone a smidgen from your hatred and loathing, is themselves a hateful liar.
How has that worked for you ? Neither Mueller nor Horowitz have backed up anything you have said, and they leave you owing an apology we will never get to all those you have defamed in the process.
You have doubled down on increasingly insane nonsense so many times, you are well into tinfoil hat teritory.
Trump did not do that to you.
I did not do that too you.
You have done it to yourself.
And you are still chasing the holy grail, you are still hoping Trump gets caught in bed with a 13yr old – boy preferably, because nothing short of that will vindicate your hatred.
Reverting even half way to rational would require self acceptance of some pretty vile acts on your part.
You have said so much that was so vile and bitter, that has no foundation, that there is no way back for you short of so miraculous hail mary that proves Trump is thoroughly evil.
This is what is wrong with slurs and insults as arguments.
We all make mistakes. We all end up on the wrong side of facts sometimes.
It is hard, but we can survive admitting we got a fact wrong.
But a factual error is orders of magnitude less consequential that a false moral judgement of another. If you accuse another of being a liar and are wrong – that is more than an error of fact. That is far harder to back down from, to walk away from. To recover from having done.
I would love to go back many years and give you the opportunity of going forward differently than you have, to not make the same mistakes.
I do not bear any animus to you.
But I can not change the things you have said here or the consequences of them.
I can not give you back your integrity.
I did not take it, you threw it away.
Trauma wounds from Assault Rifles
(Don’t forget to click on images button)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-m&tbm=isch&q=ar+15+bullet+wound+photos&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-8sfOvdTmAhXRop4KHaRqBy8QrNwCCEwoAw&biw=1043&bih=762&dpr=2
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=beheadings&t=canonical&iax=images&ia=images
https://reason.com/2019/12/23/the-case-for-creating-constitutional-small-claims-courts/
https://reason.com/2019/12/25/give-dont-govern/
I agree with all of the policy positions that Ron has outlined…however, I also agree with Dave that Trump has not caused any of our current problems and cannot, by himself, solve them. I do not give a hoot about his personality to the extent that he may or may not be rude, inappropriate, egotistical, etc. I assume that there are many, if not most, powerful men and women in the highest levels of government who are not very nice people. Nancy Pelosi, for example. Adam Schiff for example. Hillary Clinton, for example. And I see no evidence that Trump has used his office to enrich himself, and a great deal of evidence that many of those in Congress have used their office for exactly that. Joe Biden, for one, who owns the most expensive estate in Delaware. (And, his son, who just bought a 2.5 million dollar house in Beverly Hills…with money earned from influence-peddling).
The impeachment of Trump is entirely personal. And it has been executed with no due process for the president or his party. I am one who believes that Democrats are opposed ~ personally opposed ~ to anyone who voted for Trump, and will attempt to punish average citizens for that “crime.” Jay is a good example of that mindset, as he almost never addresses me or Dave as anything but deluded, brainwashed morons.
Nothing Trump has ever said rises to the level of the things that have been said about him, and, more importantly, his supporters. There is no discussion, no give-and-take on that side. No acknowledgement that Trump’s policies may have helped the nation. No outward recognition that there may be reasons to support some of his policies in a bipartisan way ( this, despite the fact that House Democrats just quietly passed the USMCA and the bloated budget – of course, Pelosi took credit).
Just personal hatred. And they’re going to try and run on that. That alone gives me every reason to vote against them, because that kind of power, ini the hands of people who hate their fellow citizens, will be very dangerous.
Priscilla,
I remember my mom telling me ” keep your damn mouth shut” when bullies or others kept mouthing off, I would react and I was the one in trouble at school.
Watch any NBA or NFL games and one opponent will continue running their mouth until he eggs on his opposition that results in a foul.
Democrats are doing everything they can to get under Trumps skin
And when you have tendencies, if not full blown paranoid personality disorder, Trump falls for their trap.
As I have always said, it is not voters like you that vote GOP and dont swing back and forth, it is the 1/2% of voters in 3 states that will not vote for Trump because if his obnoxious personal behavior.
“As I have always said, it is not voters like you that vote GOP and dont swing back and forth, it is the 1/2% of voters in 3 states that will not vote for Trump because if his obnoxious personal behavior.”
Ron, I agree that it would be helpful if Trump could be less aggressive in his tweets about specific people, and just let his policies and positions speak for themselves. But, I’m not sure that many even know what his policy successes are, because they are literally never reported on…or if they are, he’s not given credit for them. But, he can reach millions by tweeting about them, and, if he also throws in an insult about Nancy Pelosi, or some other Democrat, it gets widely reported.
Republicans have always had to struggle against a biased media, and it’s only gotten worse. Trump was treated pretty well by the media in 2016, because he generated big ratings. But, the media has learned its lesson, and he won’t get any publicity in 2020 unless it’s bad. He’s already floated the idea that he won’t do any debates, which I’m sure is a bluff, but if he were to boycott the debates, hardly anyone would watch.
I guess my point is that Trump is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He stays quiet and no one knows what he believes or what he has accomplished. He tweets something that includes a nasty insult, and it gets reported on, but many people wonder why he has to be so obnoxious.
Damned if I know the answer to this.
” But, I’m not sure that many even know what his policy successes are, because they are literally never reported on…or if they are, he’s not given credit for them.”
He has 64 million followers on twitter. He can get his message out. I suspect 64 million twitter followers is greater than most any newspaper or cable news cast. Most cable viewers are less than 250,000 per hour. 64 million is more eyes than all sporting events in America except the Super Bowl. Advertisers pay dearly for 60+ million eyes.
So again I say twitter is his main communication tool. He should say over and over and over how good everything is and that word gets out. But he is a paranoid individual that can not accept criticism and has to lash out about anything from hand size (‘and its relationship to other sizes) to impeachment.
I am completely conflicted because I support 99.9% of his domestic policies and many of his foreign policies. But the guy is a complete mental case. I bet he doesn’t sleep at night for fear of someone sneaking up on him nor will he sit in a chair not allowing a wall behind him for the same reason.
Ron, you may not be wrong about his mental issues. He is an admitted germophobe…
And I agree that his use of Twitter could be less distracting and more focused.
On the other hand, it’s not entirely irrational for him to be paranoid about people trying to harm him, and, while he may be neurotic, he is as honest and hardworking a president as I’ve seen in my lifetime. And by honest, I mean that he is not corrupt. If he were, we would certainly know by now, as he has been the most investigated politician in Washington.
I was conflicted about him for a time, but I have come around to believing that a normal politician could never tolerate insane level of treachery and abuse that he seems to withstand. Most others would have long since resigned or been otherwise driven from office.
Normal people can’t be presidents anymore.
“Normal people can’t be presidents anymore.”
Amen to that.
If your not bought off by some organization and answer to them, they will do anything to remove you from office. That is why term limits will never pass. Those with the power outside of government as well as our security agencies will never allow that to happen.
Do you think the people who care are oblivious to what Trump has done to the judiciary ?
Do you think many people are ignorant of the state of the economy ? of low unemployment ?
Do you think people are oblivious to the trade war with China ?
We can debate whether Trump has said the good news 100, 100,000 or 100,000,000 times.
But people know.
“Do you think the people who care are oblivious to what Trump has done to the judiciary ?”
No. People who vote, Yes
“Do you think many people are ignorant of the state of the economy ?of low unemployment?”
No. People who vote, Yes
“Do you think people are oblivious to the trade war with China ?”
No. People who vote, Yes
The media does not report fairly on Trump’s successes – but regardless we KNOW them.
We KNOW the economy is better than under Obama. Maybe because we know the facts, or maybe just because we see the evidence arround us.
If we care about Israel – we KNOW what Trump has done – and if we do not, it does not matter if it gets reported.
We may not know Trumps energy policy, but we experience the benefits.
The media can fail to cover the markets – our 401K’s will still grow.
“Democrats are doing everything they can to get under Trumps skin”
Absolutely.
Trump is doing the same.
Who is “winning” ? Trump has taken on the entire left, the press, the democrats and lots of republicans. In doing so he quite often comes of badly.
BUT it is difficult to argue that those he is in conflict with are doing better.
Obama (with help from the left, the press, …) painted a carciture of Romney, that stuck and cost him the election. Romney either failed or did not try to do the same.
Schumer warned Trump about messing with the IC. Trump failed to heed that, and they have come after and damaged him. But Trump has damaged them – and the left, and the democrats, and Schumer and the press in that conflict.
Again Trump does not have to out run the bear. He just has to outrun his opponents.
Jay will be unbeleiveably smug if by some miracle the silver bullet to “get Trump” is ever found. But the more likely and already existing scenario is that he is ever more bitter and ever more likely to beleive ever stupider nonsense about Trump.
And Jay is no different from – the left, the democrats, the media, in that.
Trump is incredibly good at getting his opponents to double down on STUPID.
And worse to actually do stupid – even WRONG things to get him.
Few will EVER respects Adam Schiff or James Comey again. They have claimed the moral high ground and been caught knowingly lying about others.
I would not – Trump does not do that ever. This is a bit nuanced – because Trump says many of the same things that Schiff or Comey have said. And he exagerates and sings his own praises, and he accuses others of lying. But he never wraps himself in virtue. He never sets himself up as a saint.
This was observed in the context of his sexual daliances. Trump has the support of evangelicals in part because he does not challenge their moral authority. He does not claim moral authority of his own.
I am not explaining this well – but it is important – it is part of why it is highly unlikely that his enemies will not likely ever cut the ground out from under him.
AND why Trump is very succesful at getting THEM to pull the rug out from under themselves.
Throughout the past 3 years trump has danced up close to the flame – but never touched it, or atleast not gotten caught.
But he has provoked and continues to provoke his opponents to do so.
Trump did not destroy Schiff – he has destroyed himself. Schiff’s hatred of Trump has caused him to do and say STUPID things, to act immorally. They same with Comey, and to a lessor extent Pelosi and all the rest of his enemies and opponents.
“And when you have tendencies, if not full blown paranoid personality disorder, Trump falls for their trap.”
If you beleive Trump is paranoid – you have fallen into his trap – not the other way arround.
Paranoid people make mistakes – big mistakes, ends justify the means mistakes.
Mistakes like Adam Schiff publishing the counter memo to Nunes that we now know not only is WRONG on every point – but that Schiff KNEW is was wrong. Schiff’s hatred for Trump was so great he KNOWINGLY did a BAD THING. That is what Paranoia looks like.
Priscilla,
The way we explain what we do and the way we choose what we do are not the same.
When we explain something most of us focus on one or two points.
But many many things go into our decisions. And each of those factors has different weight.
Some of Jay’s criticism’s of Trump are correct. Where we point company is regarding their weight.
Of Jay’s complaints that are actually true pretty much everything that Jay thinks is consequential, determinative – I do not, nor do an awful lot of other people.
I think Bill Clinton is/was a bad person, significantly worse than Trump. But with respect to domestic issues he was a very good president – better than Trump.
I wish Trump was a better person than he is. I wish that it was actually possible for him to have a temperment like Romney and still govern as he has. I am conflicted because as things are today, no republican with Romney’s temperment could get elected.
I am also concerned about the country – I have been alive a long time. We were more divided in the 60’s. There was more violence, more racism. All the carping that we are the most divided we have ever been is complete garbage.
By every objective measure we are much better off today than 60 years ago.
But there are differences, there are things that actually are worse.
The left is NOT the left of the 60’s, It is a progressive left, not a liberal left. It is in fact very illiberal. Further the left is much more cohesive – not in ideology – no one can tell from day to day what the progressive left actually believes. The left is more united – in conformity.
Whatever the “party line” tomorow – “the left” will get behind it lockstep. If tomorow the “woke” decided that Islam was evil – the left would quickly oppose islam. If the elites decided that war was good, the left would get behind that.
We have conformity on the left in a way that I do not think has ever occured in the US before.
And the most dangerous facet of the left today is that they do not give a crap about “the rule of law”. Its as if the weather underground took over the entire democratic party.
This lawlessness pervades alot of society today – not just the extreme left.
Comey, McCabe, Strzok, …. are not “woke” or the elites of the left. But they have been inculcated by the left to the extent that they do not subordinate what they want to the law.
We are also seeing that in “faux impeachment”. The entire process was a sham. There was no crime, there was no due process, there was no evidence. Trump is guilty of being someone they do not like.
Alot is made that this was over policy – and even that is not true.
Right or wrong there is nothing Trump has done that Obama did not do with little fan fare or outrage. This was not a power struggle between the house and the president. This was not a conflict over US foreign policy – those were just pawns in the way this played out.
This is about the left’s belief that they are entitled to rule. They are not seeking ideological domination – there is not much of an ideology left.
It is just about domination and destroying anyone in their way.
Anyone who prefers seeing Narcissistic Personality Disorder Donnie in office for another term over Biden is suffering from terminal stupidity.
The idiots on the left touting Bernie over Biden are as brain dead as those Trumpanzee Cultists on the right.
Jay, send me one of those T.S. buttons. I will wear it proudly as blocking the dems healthcare policies, unfair trade policies, green deals, climate treaties and social programs taking from Caesar what belongs to Caesar to give to others is something I can not support. Trumps narcissism does little of the lasting damage than that of the democrat policies .
Bill Clinton was a narcisicist too, and a sexual preditor.
Hillary Clinton is an altogether different kind of preditor.
Regardless, we can argue our subjective personal diagnosis of people we have never met and yet are sure we know how their minds work forever.
You get to express your judgement of things you can not know – such as what is in the head of another – in your words, and in your vote. That is it. You do not get to impose them by force on the rest of us.
And slurring everyone who does not share your clairvoyant judgement changes nothing – except destroying what little respect anyone might have for you.
As to Bernie/Biden – by the mind meld clairvoyance criteria you seem to think is determinative – Bernie – every other democrat, is a better candidate than Biden.
The sole criteria that distinguished Biden in any positive way from the rest of the democratic field is not policy, is not personality, is not motives, is not corruption – Biden loses or is indistinguishably bad on all of those.
Those who support Biden over any other democrat do so for ONE reason – his potential to appeal to the blue collar democrats who are otherwise going to vote Trump.
Biden’s only quality of any consequence is the fact that he is the democrat least likely to get mopped all over the floor by Trump.
Dave, you keep saying Trump talks in the positive communicating his accomplishments. I say he comments little on the accomplishments and runs his “mouth” on the negatives. So here is an example of his holiday.
Starts out with Christmas message to the country : “While the challenges that face our country are great, the bonds that unite us as Americans are much stronger. Together, we must strive to foster a culture of deeper understanding and respect — traits that exemplify the teachings of Christ.”
Then:
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with “no pressure.” She said it must be “bipartisan…
86.2K
10:12 PM – Dec 25, 2019
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
· 12h
Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with “no pressure.” She said it must be “bipartisan…
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
…& overwhelming,” but this Scam Impeachment was neither. Also, very unfair with no Due Process, proper representation, or witnesses. Now Pelosi is demanding everything the Republicans weren’t allowed to have in the House. Dems want to run majority Republican Senate. Hypocrites!
61.7K
10:12 PM – Dec 25, 2019
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats said they wanted to RUSH everything through to the Senate because “President Trump is a threat to National Security” (they are vicious, will say anything!), but now they don’t want to go fast anymore, they want to go very slowly. Liars!
54.6K
7:18 AM – Dec 26, 2019
What this shows me is a man that has a writer that creates positive messages that appeal to many Americans, and then the delusional president creates these comments without censorship and civility stirring up anger in the 20% or so radical base he thinks is going to get him reelected.
The guy is a mental case with good policies but suffers from paranoid personality disorder.
Yeah, it does seem that Trump’s social media guy is a lot better at this than Trump is….
This is not a resolveable conflict. You beleive something different than I do.
I would hope that we both agree that the media near universally focus on the negative.
BTW though they do so more with Trump than anyone, that is still fundimentally their natural state.
If ANY president spent half an hour listing the accomplishments of their presidency and added a depractory remark about the speaker of the house – the news all day would be about that remark.
I am not railing about that, just noting it is how things work.
While I think that Trump talks more about positive things than you do, I do not think that is very important.
What will influence voters in elections is more their perception of reality and less what they are told to beleive.
One of the fundimental principles of marketing is that you can not get people to buy something that on some level they do not already want.
You can change their timing, You can get them to buy your car instead of someone else’s.
It is far more important that Trump create the economy that people want, than that he talk about it.
As I check the news – I see stories about retails sales up, of wages rising, of the dow and S&P rising of a deal with China, of unemployment way down.
Trump talks about those things – but he is incapable of making us beleive good is bad and bad is good.
Dave, concerning media and Trump.
You are old school. You continue to comment about the negative coverage that the traditional media writes about Trump. You believe most people follow those media outlets. Newspapers are going out of business, cable news prime time has no more than 4M viewers daily, with most no more than 3M and news magazine a thing of the past. I have three grown kids, married. 39, 37, 35. All three and the spouses have probably never had a newspaper in their hands, they watch T.V. only when special programming occurs like their college football games, select streaming movies or super bowl. Ask them if they heard ” X” about some political issue and the answer is no.
Unless that issue appeared on their phones they have multiple times in their hands. If it is on twitter and they follow someone, they know. They are not much different than others between 25 & 45.
So where you are old school believing like Trump does, that the media makes a huge difference. I am new school believing traditional media makes little difference in the large picture ( a few pixels out of millions), while twitter and other social media makes up most of the pixels in the picture. Every time Trump comments negatively he reaches 64 million followers with the negative news. He is doing the democrats bidding.
My point, let the dying media do their business that is largely ignored by most other than old farts like me who still reads papers and watches news on TV and play to those that follow issues on social media, bombarding them daily with positive economic news. Like the democrats know, say it enough and its true.
I did not say that the MSM is dominant as it was in the 60’s.
I have only said that that Trump’s MSM coverage is more nagative by far than any prior president. It is not even a close call.
Absolutely different forms of media that are provided by the internet are dominating more and more. I am not blind to that I think that is fantastic.
Even those are often dominated by complete Trump negativity – BUT the breadth of options means that whatever your POV you can find many places that fit you.
It also means that all of us have the oportunity to hear all sides of political debates – unfortunately few of us take advantage of that. But the avaiablility of multiplicit options is something that we have never really had in my lifetime before.
BTW I am already on the record that I DO NOT CARE about the tilt of the media.
I am a big proponent of actually free markets. I would kill off youtube, Google FB, … protection for defamation lawsuits – if they engage in viewpoint based censorship.
But beyond that I am very happy with the new media world.
BTW Trump is not blind to it either, His ability to capitalize on social media was a major factor in winning the election.
I beleive that it is unwise to attribute success to luck – particularly repeated success, just as it is rarely wise to attribute failure to malice were incompetence will do.
People who succeed are quirky – there is also some luck involved, but fundimentally you do not succeed without in some form being very good at some important aspect of what you are doing, and good enough at everything else. And when you succeed multiple times in multiple domains, those attributes compound.
just as Trump – I have been proven right about most everything I have said about the past.
I have never beleived this Trump Russia nonsense from the start – because it never made any sense. The Trump/Russia nonsense requires you to beleive things that are only true in movies,
Billionaires are not better at Spycraft than James Bond, and do not engage in activities that are likely to be caught and alot of work for no benefit.
If it were legal for candidates to pay russia to influence US elections – no one would do it.
But russia efforts to influence ordinary americans are ludicrously stupid.
Sensible Conservative Appraisal of Steele Report.
No the judgement does not belong to Horowitz.
The entire purpose of Horowitz is NOT do deprive us of the responsibility to make our own judgements about issues of right and wrong, about misconduct.
Your tweet assertions take morality outside the domain of individuals and make us sheep beholding to the elite.
The value of Horowitz is two fold – first to as objectively as possible bring forward the FACTS, so that there is less of this “your facts” vs. “my facts” garbage.
And second to break a tie that never should have existed. To speak with authority that the left will hopefully recognize saying – “This was wrong, and you know or should have known it”.
It is to compel them to confront their own consciences and quit lying to themselves.
And we are not even close to processing the significance and implications of Horowitz.
Just ONE of the many things he has established, is that by mid January 2017 there no longer existed any basis for continuing to investigate the Trump campaign.
That means EVERYTHING that occurred afterwards was not merely corrupt and illegitimate – but it was KNOWINGLY so.
This is as if Republicans investigated Obama for Fast & Furious and after 3 years discovered the program was actually a Bush Program.
Nor is the the only thing in the report that is going to take time to process. To understand fully the implications. But it is ONE thing that is damning.
It is as an example one of the reasons that I am shocked that Judge Sullivan has not either granted Sidney Powell broad discovery or just dropped the Flynn case entirely.
Everything Horowitz found about CrossFireHuricane applies to Flynn.
Flynn is mostly under the same umbrella, The misconduct in Flynn is either exactly the same misconduct, or it is near identical conduct by the same people.
Horowitz has not just undermined XFH, he is destroyed the foundation for everything that followed.
Horowits does not go into Mueller, and he does not go into motivations beyond taking down what people state about their own actions.
But we are left to ponder why on earth Rosenstein would appoint a special prosecutor.
By the Time Mueller was appointed Rosenstien KNEW that the foundation for CrossFireHuricane was gone. Further he KNEW that the FBI had overreached.
Horowitz has essentially put a stake through the heart of the holy grail of the left’s Trump Russia Collusion nonsense.
Horowitz has provided a strong legitimate justification for Trump to fire Comey solely based on continuing the illegitimate CrossFireHuricane investigation.
Every Claim Comey made regarding his interactions with Trump now looks different.
Trump “pressured” a corrupt FBI director to end a corrupt investigation – there is no means for that to be wrong.
Trump “pressured” a corrupt FBI director to end an investigateion of Flynn – something else Comey was doing that was WRONG.
“Public support for Trump conviction at all-time high, poll finds… Fifty-five per cent of those asked said they were in favour of the US president’s conviction by the Senate, a figure which has shot up from 48 per cent the week before.”
https://news.yahoo.com/public-support-trump-conviction-time-091925963.html
But but but … the poll must be wrong, because dhlii said the nation was rejecting impeachment since the House hearings.
Who cares if once close US allies think the US is led by a dangerous dufus who eroded trust in our nation! Our new friends in North Korea and the Kremlin will more than make up for them!
“ 41% of Germans believe President Trump is more of a threat to world peace than North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping or Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to a YouGov survey reported by DW.
Details: 2,000 Germans participated in the survey, which was conducted between Dec. 16 and 18. Kim Jong-un came in second at 17%, followed by Putin and Khamenei at 8% and Xi at 7%.”( axious.com)
Trump should make the Germans happy and return to them all the Jihadi’s that we are holding that have come from germany to help ISIS.
Obama won the nobel peace prize based on the adultaion of the very same people polled here.
How did that work out ?
Probably these same people still think Obama is a “man of peace” despite the fact that he spent nearly as much as Bush on mideastern wars.
RCP still has the average of all polls DROPPING.
Regardless, I need not address this.
Like everything over the past many years – from BEFORE Trump.
You could be right.
But based on your past track record, the odds are small.
I am not concerned.
You should be.
I am now seeing polls predicting Democrats lose the House.
Just a few, and its early, and I am not betting money on anything.
The odds of democrats holding are lower than before.
But beleive what you want.
Who knows – maybe Trump will get caught in bed with a 13 yr old boy.
But I am not putting money on that.
You can do what you want.
Its your money.
Its your integrity
Its your reputation.
Now here is one that is going to make Jay feel conflicted. How does one complain about Trump “lies” on this when one supports the involvement he lied about.
I have no problem saying Trump “lied” during the campaign and agree with Amash!
“When Pres. Trump was elected, I was hopeful he would bring our men and women home from endless wars like Afghanistan. Instead, he nearly doubled the number of troops there. Even after reductions, there are still thousands more troops there now than when Pres. Obama left office.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 26, 2019
Its time Trump tell those in the middle east adios and get our troops out of there. Its time for those wanting more freedoms to fight for them and not run to Europe escaping the fighting.
There are about 4.000 more Troops in Afghanistan now than when Trump took office.
There will be the same number in a few months. Draw down to 8600 was announced a month ago.
Trump has FAILED to keep his promise with regard to Afghanistan.
He has however gotten us almost completely out of Syria – and certainly out of fighting in syria.
He appears to be getting us out of Nigeria.
Both Amash and Gabbard are highly critical of Trump’s handling of the mideast – but in completely the opposite way of nearly all other criticism of Trump.
And Gabbard and Amash appear to be right.
I have points of disagreement with both. But in this area they are right.
Trump has kept SOME of his promises in the mid-east.
It is way past time to get the hell out.
Time is not going to make this better.
“He has however gotten us almost completely out of Syria – and certainly out of fighting in syria.”
Well whooping ding $+#@. We had about 300 special ops assisting in 2016. Trump sends troops in and then takes them out. Big deal. Your thinking is like government thinking with budgets. Few there, send in 4000, headlines read when troops removed ” Trump cuts troop involvement by 4000 in “XYZ”.
He doesnt get fredit for cutting something he increased.
First on endless war – like Trade – Trump is WRONG,
Like Trade Trump is much better than Clinton or any other 2020 democrat except possibly Gabbard.
Trump gets no pass from me on still fighting in the mideast.
He promised to get out. He hasn’t.
I understand all the things he has had to deal with. I grasp that after much fighting and consternation that he opted to give “the generals” a chance.
They failed.
It is way past time to leave.
Just to be clear – I do not give a shit if these soldiers do not end up back in the continental US.
What I care about is that they are not out shooting and killing or being shot and killed.
There are legitimate times and places for that. The mideast today is not one of those.
Whether they go to Saudi Arabia, Okinawa, or North Carolina is a different issue – so long as they are not in combat where we have no consequential interests, the specific where is a far less important debate.
There are currently 4000 more troops in Afghanistan than on inauguration day 2017
Just another statistical abnormality, right DACS. (DUMB ASS CLIMATE SKEPTICS)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) – Alaska is set to finish 2019 with a record average high temperature after a year of extremes ranging from a sweltering summer and rampant wildfires to vanishing sea ice and winter rains where heavy snows were once the norm.
Well Jay, you cant call me a DACS, but you can create one for me anyway.
I have no doubts the climate has changed. It has changed for eon’s and will continue to change. In the 1600’s we had a little ice age and we have been warming ever since. But greenhouse gases were not the cause until just recently when that guy that created the internet began harping on them causing global warming.
Go to Weatherbell.com and begin listening to the Saturday update. Each Saturday Joe gives a free weather forecast and provides science to the reason the earth has warmed and it is not due to greenhouse gases.
There are two sides to each theory.
And if you really want something done, then start with China cutting 25% by 2030 if that is what the USA has to do. None of this “you can keep increasing until 2050 and then in another whatever number of years you need to be back down to 2030 levels (not even as low as today)”. That is just total climate change solution B.S. Obama just did a great sales pitch on the liberal; left.
Final data for 2019 is not in and probably will not be until June after lots of adjustments are finalized.
But the satelite record – which is the most uptodate and the best record for the planet as a whole, is showing 2019 will be nearly the same as 2017, slightly warmer than 2018 and less warm than 2016.
From 1998 to the present the Trend is so close to zero that any claim up or down is statistically meaningless.
Yes, Jay, there was a heat wave in Anchorage this past summer. I remember reading about it. One day it actually hit 90, the hottest day recorded since a heat wave in 1969 caused the temperature to reach 85.
In 1969. That was 50 years ago, and the record was just broken this year.
And, I just checked my weather app ~ tomorrow’s high in Anchorage will be be 1, with snow starting in the evening and lasting through Tuesday.
I believe in climate change. The earth does seem to be warming. And it’s not the first time the planet is believed to have warmed, like 600,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were lower. The way to deal with climate change is to adapt. Humans are incapable of controlling the climate.
The apocalyptic, Greta-Thunberg-hysterical, climate change believers, who tell us about mass extinctions ready to happen over the next decade? It’s like a cult.
Why did the Obama’s buy a beach mansion in Martha’s Vineyard for $15 million? Don’t they know that the coastline is gone in just a few years? Come on, they don’t believe that ~ yet they’re trying to sell the rest of us on it.
Don’t count your chickens before they have hatched.
Alaska is in the midst of a SEVERE record cold snap running 20F below norms.
It started with 10 days left in december and is likely to last into january and likely to drag the state yearly average back to norms.
There is currently more arctic sea Ice than the past 10 year average, but less than the past 40 year average.
Regardless, there is ALWAYS a record high somewhere on the planet – usually about 100/day. And ALWAYS a record low – again about the same number.
There is ALWAYS some place on the planet that is warmer the past year than ever before, and ALWAYS some place that is colder.
2019 Currently looks to be about .1C Above the average for the past 20 years. Probably about the 6th warmest year in the past 20.
Average warming since 1979 is 0.11C/decade – nearly exactly the same as the past 200+ years
Further there has been no significant warming trend since 1998.
At the current rate the earth will be somewhere between .25 and .5C warmer in 2100 than at present.
My personal read of the Tea Leaves is that impeachment is dead. That Pelosi is never going to send it to the Senate, that the Senate does not want it – not republicans, not democrats.
But that is just my view into the crystal ball. And impeachment Trial in the Senate can be many things. Just as the House rode roughshod over due process and did what it damn well pleased – which it is free to do, with only the ire or voters as a check, the same is true of the Senate.
What I hope and expect they will not do, is repeat the farce that occurred in the house.
The house willfully refused to address the most fundimental issue – was the request to investigate actions in 2016 “justified” – regardless of whether we are talking about investigating Biden or other 2016 activities. The fact that Joe Biden is a 2020 political rival subjects Trump’s actions to heightened scrutiny, but it is NOT determinative in and of itself as to whether Trump’s actions were an abuse of power.
Frankly I do not beleive any testimony is necescary at all to establish that Trump’s request met the standard necescary to be legitimate. Joe Biden’s own public remarks create sufficient foundation to start an investigation. But it is likely that Trump will want to call both Biden’s as witnesses, and he has every right to do so. And decent Trial Lawyers are going to have a field day with the Biden’s. Nor are the only witnesses Trump is likely to call.
Many of the witnesses that Schiff Called, Trump is likely to want to cross examine. Republicans got very limited opportunity to do so, and Schiff barred damaging lines of inquiry.
There is substantial evidence that Yavonotvitch was actively interfering in foreign policy and in efforts to request information and evidence from the Ukrainians and in squelching the Ukrainine’s own efforts to investigate corruption involving americans.
The testimony of several house witnesses has strong indications of perjury on several subjects. Especially corruption in the Ukraine. Frankly the entire Democratic meme on Ukraine is a self contradictory mess – Shokin was corrupt – but after he was fired everything was perfect, yet at the same time Ukraine is being corrupted by Russians selling false propoganda.
The fact is that Ukraine is possibly the most corrupt western nation. Nothing coming from Ukraine is trustworthy – it is likely the Russians are excercising influence – it is also reasonably well established that the US has been too. Our inability to trust anything coming from Ukraine does NOT make things better for Biden or democrats – it makes them WORSE.
As to the witnesses democrats want:
Who cares ? I highly doubt Democrats will get what they want, but even if they did, they will not have anything compelling enough to convince anyone but a democrat.
I was opposed to Republicans fixating on the QPQ – that is not the issue.
The only relevant issue is whether there was sufficient justification to request an investigation, and none of these witnesses can answer that. They could testify that Trump was prepared to do almost anything to get the investigations – so long as reasonable suspicion exists it does not matter what he did.
My guess is that no one in the Senate wants a real trial – not even Schumer,
That this ploy of Pelosi’s that he is backing is purely a face saving effort and that getting what he wants would be a self punishing act.
The person best served by a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses – is Trump.
More yawn 🥱
The Trump Impeachment has happened.
IMPEACHMENT is a charge.
It’s forever writ.
And as the Senate jury has announced in advance they won’t objectively try the Impeachment charges, the House has no constitutional mandate to forward them.
Also, the House can construct additional Impeachment charges if new evidence of Trump impeachability is uncovered – likely to happen when SCOTUS rules to release non-presidential taxes and documents that will show money-laundering or similar unethical or illegal machinations.
Still, it would be advisable for the DEMS to hold off sending any impeachment charges until AFTET the 2020 elections, for reasons strategic and practical. Why risk a Senate trial before the election when the GOP has guaranteed they will find him innocent and use that ‘vindication’ for election propaganda. But if Trump wins in 2020, the Dems can recharge him again. They may have enough new reasonable Senate Republicans after the election for the required two-thirds removal vote.
PREDICTION
If Trump runs and wins with Nimrata Haley as VP (his best choice against the Dems who will have a female VP) even with a majority GOP Senate, Donnie would be found guilty of any impeachment charges against him because Republican Senators by and large detest him. They would rather have a semi normal Nikki as President than DumbAss Donnie who personally attacks anyone who won’t kiss his ass- and with four years before they’d have to worry about Trump-hate-fallout, they’d boot him down the road.
I wonder how this happened?
(Like asking if leaving your safe open had anything to do with the robbery)
What are you talking about, Jay??
You’ve never heard of Obama’s failed red line, Aleppo, etc.? This has been going on for years.
So, you’re suggesting that the Syrian civil war is our fault?
Or maybe you’ve belatedly realized that the $150 billion in cash that Obama gave Iran was not a good idea, because they are allied with Russia?
Trump promised to end the islamic state and go home.
He did not promise and few of his supporters and most of the country does not want him to shed US blood to fail at solving the problems of the mideast.
Priscilla, did you notice Trump’s Xmas present to Vlad?
“Russians Take Over 3rd U.S. Base in Northern Syria…
On Thursday, Russian troops took over an air base that had been controlled by U.S. forces near Raqqa—the onetime capital of the Islamic State. The Russians, who are allies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have also occupied former U.S. airbases in Qamishli and Tabqa in recent weeks. Trump announced in October that the U.S. was withdrawing from Syria ahead of a Turkish incursion into Kurdish areas.“ thedailybeast.com
Getting out of syria means SOMEONE is going to take control of our bases in Syria.
That is a tautology.
Further it is something those of us demanding withdrawl understood from the start.
If Russia wants to waste blood and treasure proping up Assad – let them.
Jay, the way I see it, it’s better that we abandon an airfield than continue fighting a war that we had already won. You did note that the article says “the onetime capital of the Islamic State?” Emphasis on “onetime.”
Yep, we defeated and destroyed ISIS. So we’re out of there…
Who are we ?
Conquerors ?
I do not support sending US soldiers to destroy ISIS – While ISIS is evil, they have not committed an act of war against americans.
Like various kurd facts, Iran, Turkey, the Saudi’s their enmity and violence towards each other is their own business. It is not ours to use force to favor one side over another.
We can pick and choose who we support – thought it would usually be wiser not to and just condemn bad acts regardless of who commits them, but sending our soldiers to kill and die requires OUR interests to be in jeopardy.
We are not a colonial power – or at least we usually pretend we are not. We have no interest in Syria.
We part ways on the defeat of ISIS, Dave. Given the acknowledged threat to the United States posed by ISIS and Al Qaeda, I believe that the destruction of the ISIS caliphate in Syria was in our national security interest.
While there is a great deal of interopertion and crossing between ISIS and Al Qeda there is one fundimental difference.
Al Qeda is more fundimentally a terrorist organization. Its objective is to use terror to drive the US out of the mideast. That is why Al Qeda has attempted many operations against the US.
ISIS is focused on re-establishing an islamic caliphate. They are perfectly willing to use pretty much any means of violence necescary to do so, but they are focused on holding territory and establishing an islamic nation.
As I said the lines are blurry and often the same people move from one group to another.
But MOSTLY ISIS is not a threat to americans in the US.
Both groups are evil, but despite the movement of people between them they are not interchangeable in goals and methods.
ISIS is also far easier to defeat. Just about the stupidest thing you can do facing US forces is try to stand and hold ground.
Whether you think ISIS is a national security threat – depends entirely on what you beleive the US role in the Mid-East is. The bigger the role that you give the US in the affairs of mideastern nations the more of a threat ISIS is.
Trump campaigned on the destruction of ISIS and then leaving Syria.
That was NOT a particularly difficult task. It was a pretty standard military operation that Armies have trained for for centuries.
I do not personally give a crap about Syria. It is not our problem, and we should have stayed out of it. Asad is evil. ISIS is evil, The YPG Kurds that Jay swoons over are not good guys.
There are no good guys and we should not be in the middle of various bad people killing each other. If the Russians and Iranians want that mess – let them have it.
Frankly US Fracking has made the mideast nearly irrelevant to the US in terms of national security. If we have some desparte need to unfork some country over oil – Venezeula is in our back yard and far more meaningful.
Mid-Eastern oil is primarily a european issue – so Why aren’t the Europeans doing more ?
Even Al Qeda is not fundimentally anti-american. Al Qeda members are litterally the people we worked with in the mideast to Frack the Russians in Afghanistan.
Why we have chosen to make the same mistakes the USSR did is completely beyond me.
Al Qeda never would have targeted the US but for our involvement in the mideast.
And has made clear that if we get out they will leave us alone.
While no one should make our decisions for us using threats and extortion.
We have no compelling reasons to be in the mideast.
Let these people kill each other.
Priscilla, Jay seems to be emblematic of 95% of society where its fine to send our troops to countries where tribes have fought for hundreds of years as long as a member of their family is not part of the military involved.
This i why, even with three kids, boy and two girls, that I have supported required military service of two years by everyone after high school. Viet Nam started, no one cared until the white, middle class young men began getting drafted and killed. Then all hell broke loose in America because people began paying attention since it impacted them or could personally.
Its very easy to say we need to fight ISIS, protect the kurds, protect Saudia Arabia, etc until your kid has joined the Army and is being sent to protect cowards who for the most part refuse to fight for themselves. Europe was overrun by young males, teens to 35 from Syria just recently because they would not protect the country Jay wants us in losing our young lives.
I have no problem with special ops chasing down terrorist that attack us like OBL, but other than that, its time other countries stand up for themselves. Why are we involved with the middle east when we are not going into central and south America clearing out cartels creating much of our drug problems and border issues?
Ron – Like you I’m in favor of reducing troops in foreign conflicts.
Except when and where necessary.
That includes protecting South Korea militarily, agreed?
And any other nation we are bound to defend by treaty, correct?
Hunting and decimating ISIS was/is necessary- using special ops as you suggest makes sense.
But turning our backs on our Kurdish allies was cowardly, and unnecessary.
And I also agree in mandatory military service, like the Israelis do- but that hasn’t lessened Israeli military action in bordering countries with Iranian influences.
As in most things, I’m looking for middle ground MODERATE balance. TRUMP HAS WHACKED EVERYTHING OF IMPORTANCE OFF BALANCE.
We have no treaty with YPG. We have an actual treaty with Turkey.
We made no promises to YPG. We provided them arms and the oportunity to fight a common enemy. Doing so required getting the agreement of the Turks, part of that agreement was that the Turks would NOT act militarily in Syria until ISIS was defeated – to avoid direct confortations between YPG and Turkey, and that Turkey would take care of millions of refugees and when ISIS was defeated move them into a sort of turkish protectorate in Syria.
That is what they did.
So there is no treaty with YPG, and no agreement with YPG.
But you think we are obligated to intervene and oppose someone who is an actual ally with whom we actually have an agreement (and Treaty).
Your application of what you claim to be your values to the specific circumstances is not even close to consistent with those values.
“As in most things, I’m looking for middle ground MODERATE balance. TRUMP HAS WHACKED EVERYTHING OF IMPORTANCE OFF BALANCE.”
Yes we know Neville Chamberlain – you are fully prepared to sacrifice half of Czechoslovakia in return for a paper with Hilter’s signature promising peace in our time.
We should have compromized and let Hitler kill half as many Jews,
We should strike a deal in the Mideast that sacrifices half as many US soldiers.
That is your idea of moderate.
“But turning our backs on our Kurdish allies was cowardly, and unnecessary.”
That is your belief. I do not believe that myself. The kurds are an ethnic group that has been fighting someone , Syrians, Turks, Iraqi’s, since the early 1920’s when Britain and France carved up the middle east divvying up resources. If this crap was caused by the Europeans, why are we sending our young to die?
BULL SHIT! How about we let those that broke it fix it and allow them to send their young to die. This endless war philosophy that the USA has to be mother, father, grandma and grandpa protecting and fixing others problems is driven by those that have no blood in the war.
I would be less judgemental of other countries. Not because you are wrong – you probably are not.
But it is not our responsibility to figure out whether the kurds or Syrians are cowards or not.
We merely need to decide what WE are going to do.
There are times when it is in our interest to send our soldiers to fight somewhere..
I have not seen one of those in a long time.
I know why we went to afghanistan. I have no idea why were spent more than a few months there.
I have no idea why we have gone anywhere else in the mideast.
What is often forgotten regarding Benghazi is that it happened because the US decided to depose Gadafi and the result was Chaos, and terrorism that we STILL are dealing with.
The US decided to depose Sadam – and the result is ISIS.
Assad, Sadam, Ghadafi are not good people and not our friends. Getting rid of them was NOT our business either.
Our efforts to depose foreign leaders have had near universal bad results.
We have wasted blood and treasure making things worse.
When I see 18-35 year old middle eastern men running from war while we have men running into the war, then I feel justified being judgemental and calling them cowards.
90% or more of the conflict at TNM, in the US and the world would go away if we quit presuming we knew what was in the minds of others.
Regardless whether those fleeing Syria are cowards or not is not relevant to whether we should step in. Unless there is some clear national interest at stake the answer is no.
“As in most things, I’m looking for middle ground MODERATE balance. TRUMP HAS WHACKED EVERYTHING OF IMPORTANCE OFF BALANCE.”
Self-awareness is not your thing, Jay.
If the American people, as a whole, are opposed to the idea that we should send our young men and women to fight and die in wars that are not in the interest of protecting our sovereignty and national security, then why would withdrawing from one of those wars, because of an ethnic minority that temporarily aligned themselves with us, be whacking “EVERYTHING OF IMPORTANCE OFF BALANCE?”
Unless you honestly believe that every war in the ME is an attack on US sovereignty.
Which, of course, you don’t. If, all of a sudden, Trump decided to send in US troops, to support the Kurds, you would undoubtedly be screaming hysterically that he was doing the biddiing of Vladimir Putin. Or something like that….
The problem for you, Jay, is that everything is about one thing. Trump.
And, when it comes to Trump, you are about as moderate as a bolshevik.
To the extent we are still killing and being killed in the ME without a compelling justification I am opposed to Trump
But the only candidate whose position on the Mideast is closer to mine is gabbard
And she is not getting elected and I am at odds with her on other points
In the real world no Candice for any position will have my total agreement
The right answer is not always compromise
Moderate need not inherently mean middle
Some choices are between good and evil
We do not compromise with evil
Some choices are between the known and unknown
We have no right to force others to hazard the unknown because we chose to take the risk
Most of the time
Even when especially when there is much we do not know
The correct choice is individual freedom over collective action
It is also the moral choice
Sometimes that is the left choice sometimes the right
But it is not the middle choice
Splitting the baby is the slow round to hell
I thought you hated Turkey ?
NUMEROUS Seals confirm account of Gallagher’s brutality.
But Trumpsters continue to dance with the Devil..
Jay, there was something very rotten in Gallagher’s unit. To the extent that he was a leader of that unit he bears some responsibility.
But exactly what the problem is, is difficult to decipher.
Absolutely – lots of Seals from his unit have said some really horrible things.
None of the allegations have been proven.
Many have been falsified.
That does not make Gallagher innocent of everything.
It also does not make him guilty.
It does however point to very serious problems with many of those who “turned Gallagher in”.
But let me repeat – the most serious accusations have been FALSIFIED.
In some cases by forensics, in others by photographs, and in some by testimony, even confessions,.
I do not know the truth. Neither do you. Nor does the NYT.
But I do know that Gallaghers versions of various events are supported by the facts – when we have facts. The version of his numerous detractors is NOT.
That is possibly the most damning fact against Gallagher – what was Gallagher like that many of his men would file provably false allegations to get rid of him ?
That is NOT a good leader.
But sanctions require proof, the result absent new actual facts seems appropriate.
“ But exactly what the problem is, is difficult to decipher.”
No, it’s easy to decipher, he pretty much did as charged.and you know it.
“No, it’s easy to decipher, he pretty much did as charged.and you know it.”
Interesting that you jump directly to the one conclusion that we KNOW is false.
He was acquitted on every consequential charge. If you were more familiar with the case, you would know that he was NOT found “not guilty”, he was essentially found innocent.
Many of the charges were factually impossible. He was accused of things that could not and did not occur. It was self evident that many of those reporting his acts were indisputably lying.
And all of this is PRETTY EASY TO DECIPHER. I have not gone to the trouble to identify precisely which of those coming out against him in the NYT article have lied in court or to authorities. But many of them have.
My GUESS is that this is much like the Caine Mutiny. That Gallagher was for whatever reasons a poor leader. In the military the failures of a unit are the failures of its leader.
If so many in his unit were willing to lie to get rid of him, there is some problem beyond their lying. Gallagher’s claim was essentially that they were cowards. That is possible, but it is very very hard to beleive of a Navy Seal Unit.
Regardless, the specific crimes he is alleged to have committed did not happen.
I would be anguished too, if I was part of a failed mutiny.
I guess that “describing their leader in grim terms” wasn’t enough to send him to prison for life…
At one time I was more familiar with the specifics. Regardless the actual charges against him were proven false. Not only did another soldier confess to the murder that Gallagher purportedly committed – but the terrorist did not even die as the allegation specified.
For other Allegations Gallagher and his unit were not in the places at the time the alleged events occurred.
I have a great deal of trouble beleiving that so many navy seals are cowards – as Gallagher alleges. But it is absolutely true that they were mutinous.
The Caine Mutiny is an excellent study of that.
I’m spending the day after Xmas draining my kitchen sink with my new TACKlife power Drain snake – should save me $hundreds of future plumber payouts.Great tool! $99.97
Trump is spending the day after Xmas at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, his 67th day at his course in West Palm Beach, his 232nd days on a golf course he owns in his 1,072 days in office.
So far our Taxpayer paid Trump golf tab is $118.3 million. We could have provided 118 million TACKlife tools to unblock clogged pipes in the US instead. Multi-Billionaire Donnie can certainly afford to donate that money for cleaning out some US crap, instead of just creating it
We have been through this over and over – change the law.
I’m glad you’re happy with taxpayer money going into trump owned business.
Why don’t you spend your own money at a Trump business as a sign of approval for a president lining his pockets that way while in office.
Oh, wait – isn’t there supposed to be a law against that in the Constitution?
“I’m glad you’re happy with taxpayer money going into trump owned business.”
Back to mind reading.
I am not happy with tax payer money going to private businesses.
I do not care WHO owns them.
“Why don’t you spend your own money at a Trump business as a sign of approval for a president lining his pockets that way while in office.”
I have never read such a logically bizzare argument in my life.
“Oh, wait – isn’t there supposed to be a law against that in the Constitution?”
There is not. I beleive all the emoluments cases have had spikes put throught their hearts.
You do not get to make up the meaning of the constitution.
The Prez, being Prezadental
(his future in public will be worse)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trump-slams-virginia-restaurant-for-being-filthy-but-inspectors-fou.html
Dont eat at Mar-a-Lago if your don’t want to.
Don’t eat at Red Hen if you don’t want to.
We shoudl get rid of health inspectors, they are a waste anyway.
If a resturaunt is filthy – patrons are capable of grasping that and can leave.
You do know that 2018 was almost 2 years ago ?
“The Trump Impeachment has happened.
IMPEACHMENT is a charge.
It’s forever writ.”
I am not interested in the legal debate here. I do not care about it.
But LEFT Academics have argued that there is no impeachment until the articles are delivered to the Senate. That is consistent with other legal processes.
As to history – absolutely this will be noted – as the only attempt to impeach without an actual crime, of the most political impeachment since Andrew Johnson, and depending on what happens in 2020 as the most stupid thing that democrats have ever done.
“And as the Senate jury has announced in advance they won’t objectively try the Impeachment charges, the House has no constitutional mandate to forward them.”
Your argument is crap – the house is not obligated to do anything. They can make up whatever reasons they want.
The house did not come close to due process – or to objectivity. They absolutely refused to address the only question that matters – was the request for investigations justified by existing evidence. Failure to even contemplate that is about as prejudging the outcome as you can get. As has been repeatedly noted Elected democrats talked about inmpeaching Trump after he won the GOP nomination. Motions to impeach were offered before his first day as president. It is hard to get more unobjective than that.
The house can do as it pleases – so can the senate.
“Also, the House can construct additional Impeachment charges if new evidence of Trump impeachability is uncovered”
That is true whether they forward articles or not. That is a ridiculous straw man.
“likely to happen when SCOTUS rules to release non-presidential taxes”
There is no means on the planet – except in your adled brain that fighting that is an impeachable offense.
But if you want a prediction – SCOTUS is not giving Congress tax returns – the 2016 law precludes congress from requesting the tax returns of specific individuals.
SCOTUS probably will give the NY AG tax returns – but if these leak there will be criminal prosecutions.
“documents that will show money-laundering or similar unethical or illegal machinations.”
Mueller has already plowed this field. Your engaging in wishful thinking.
“Still, it would be advisable for the DEMS to hold off sending any impeachment charges until AFTET the 2020 elections, for reasons strategic and practical.”
This is one area that you are ABSOLUTELY legally wrong.
If Pelosi does not forward the articles prior to the end of the 116th congress they DIE.
Pelose can start all over in 2021 – if she retains control of the house. But she can not forward to the Senate in the 117th congress articles of impeachment from the 116th congress.
“Why risk a Senate trial before the election when the GOP has guaranteed they will find him innocent and use that ‘vindication’ for election propaganda.”
You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. You will never get that on this bunk. Does not matter who controls the Senate in 2021.
“But if Trump wins in 2020, the Dems can recharge him again.”
The house can impeach as many times as it wants. Forwarding or not forwarding the articles to the Senate has zero effect on that.
“They may have enough new reasonable Senate Republicans after the election for the required two-thirds removal vote.”
That would be enough new UNREASONABLE republicans.
If you want to do this – do it right. Go back to the house, and do the investigation properly.
The house does not even have pending challenges to Trumps assertions of executive priviledge in the courts. No court has ordered production of the witnesses they are asking for in the Senate. If McConnell actually agreed to these witnesses, Trump could exert executive priviledge and it would take 3 months minimum to work through the courts.
Next, in the house allow REAL cross examination of witnesses – that is how you actually get at the Truth. Allow the minority to actually ask and get answers to their questions. Allow the minority to call witnesses – the only minority witness permitted int he House was
Johanthan Turley a democrat who voted for Clinton and still damned the House on constitutional grounds.
Almost no one watched the house impeachment hearings. They did not care.
Do you understand that – democrats were doing the most consequential thing that the house can do, and no one paid any attention.
“If Trump runs and wins with Nimrata Haley as VP”
Trump is running with Pence.
I think Haley would make and excelent VP but this has already been decided.
“(his best choice against the Dems who will have a female VP)”
Don;t bet on it. One of the leading candidates is Sherrod Brown as that would likely give them Ohio and that would radically increase any democrats Odds.
Last I checked Sen. Brown is male, but those things change rapidly these days so who knows.
Most studies on VP choices have demonstrated that the choice of VP has ONE effect on an election – it usually delivers the home state of the VP.
And the objective is not to run up the popular vote, but to win the election.
To do that you have to win key states, not bump female voters.
BTW, Why do you think that a female VP candidate is going to work better for D’s than a Female presidentical candidate did.
“even with a majority GOP Senate, Donnie would be found guilty of any impeachment charges against him because Republican Senators by and large detest him.”
Now you are capable of reading GOP Senators minds ?
BTW what happened to guilt VS Innocence ?
We do not prosecute and convict people because we hate them.
Last, if Trump is re-elected impeachment is DOA. No matter how bad it is to impeach just before an election it is 1000 times worse to impeach immediately after.
If Trump wins in 2020, and you wish to continue them impeachment charade you will not merely need a new charge – you will need a far more compelling one. Atleast an actual crime.
“They would rather have a semi normal Nikki as President than DumbAss Donnie who personally attacks anyone who won’t kiss his ass- and with four years before they’d have to worry about Trump-hate-fallout, they’d boot him down the road.”
You have this odd Idea that impeachment is just another election – except held by the Senate to overrule the voters.
That concept was laid to rest at the Johnson Impeachment.
BTW you have a couple of Senate democrats who have already come out and said absent stronger evidence the House has not made its case yet.
That should be 100% of both parties.
Pelosi failed. She tried to “shoot the moon” and fell short.
BTW there is already one prediction that the GOP will pick up 41 house seats in 2020.
They only need to pick up 18 to flip the house.
I think 41 is wishful thinking – but who knows. There is likely lots of anger at the 30+ moderate house dems who ran promising to work with Trump and to be bipartisan.
Democrats have at the very least sacrificed the integrity of these candidates at the alter of their Trump hatred. And possibly their seats.
Pelosi has made sure that THE issue in 2020 will be impeachment.
And Trump is going to have great fun with that.
Note; a month ago Biden’s Twitter posts were only getting a couple of hundred ‘likes.’
Now he’s getting 7k to 10k likes per post.
He’s solidifying support.
He’ll be a better President than Dumb-Fuck-Donnie.
US politics will return BACK to Normal!
Less divisiveness.
Less Anger.
Less vicious stupidity.
Less shame for the nation abroad.
Less indifference to the rule of law.
Less hateful insults to disagreement.
Less toilet-flushing & windmill war stupidities.
Less enthusiastic embracing of tyrants and dictators.
Less estrangement of allies.
In other words – a more moderate temperament like Biden’s will replace Trump’s hideous divisiveness, engendered by his polluted personality.
With Trump gone I might even become more civil (exempting to dhlii who will persist running his mouth no matter the issue). Former posters might even return – duckie, where are you?
“Note; a month ago Biden’s Twitter posts were only getting a couple of hundred ‘likes.’
Now he’s getting 7k to 10k likes per post.
He’s solidifying support.”
If that is your standard – Biden is toast. Trump is getting double, tripple quadrupple that number of likes per post. He is getting almost that meany retweets.
“US politics will return BACK to Normal!”
Trump is not the problem. People like you are.
“Less divisiveness.”
You and I can not agree even on fundimental facts, that are trivially demostrable, and you do not care substituting your emotional judgement for fact.
You have lied – about Trump, About anyone who has not condemned him to your liking, you are not alone in that and you have been doing it long before Trump showed up.
Ignoring facts and arguing by slander are not new, they did not suddenly appear when Trump went down the escallator. All Trump changed was the balance of power. He does to you what you do to him. And that has proven effective.
Trump has proven that if you do not aggressively defend yourself from the slanderous attacks of the left, if do not fight fire with fire, you can not get elected. Romney, McCain lost. Trump won. Nor is this limited to republicans – Democrats like Gabbard face the same thing. Do not hew to the shifting woke ideology of the moment and you will be called a russian agent or other ludicrously stupid slurs. And worse the media and many on the left will repeat and beleive absolute nonsense. This is Joe MacCarthy all over again.
No Jay – when Trump is gone, however that happens, things are not going to be less divisive.
No one is going to forget who you are and what you have done.
No one is going to forget the slander and the lies.
“Less Anger.”
You are the one that is angry.
“Less vicious stupidity.”
You are the one that is viciously stupid.
“Less shame for the nation abroad.”
I do not give a fig what Germans think of the US.
I do care how we act. Trump has told Europeans that they must shoulder a greater share of the cost of their own defense. I think that is quite reasonable. I doubt that Europeans do.
US Defense expendatures as a percent of GDP are double the TARGET for NATO, Most NATO countries are not spending half the target
I am sure they are pissed. Defending the nation – one of the absolute imperatives of a government comes at the cost of all those vaunted social programs.
The US has been subsidizing European Socialism light for decades.
To the extent such things are legitimate at all, it is the responsibility of the US government to do so for its own people. Not Europe.
Conversely Russia has threatened Europe with cutting off its gas supply. Trump has guaranteed Europe that the US will backstop its Energy Requirements against any Russian extortion – though he has demanded that Europe seek Energy sources that are less subject to Russian Extortion. He has been able to do this because he dropped Obama’s ludicrously stupid anti-energy policies.
Do you think Biden will continue any of this ? Biden has promised a return of Obama.
You rant about Trump being a Russian Puppet – yet based on actual evidence – that was Obama. Putin will be ecstatic to have Biden as president.
Under Biden we will return to shedding more blood in the mideast, and Russia holding a gun to the head of the Europeans.
But we will be less ashamed ?
I am ashamed of you.
“Less indifference to the rule of law.”
That is absolutely laughable. As of yet no act of Trump’s has ultimately been found unconstitutional illegal or criminal. Myriads of acts of Obama have been found unconstitutional 9-0 by SCOTUS. Trump has rarely lost with SCOTUS and I do not think ever 9-0.
Trump is restoring the rule of law.
Your faux impeachment is the perfect example.
You tossed process and rights that go back as far as the magna carte to impeach – because you had the power to do so.
Is that your idea of the rule of law ?
IF you can not respect the rights of those you hate, you will not respect those of anyone, and you are lawless.
“Less hateful insults to disagreement.”
No one on TNM comes even close to substituting insult for argument to the extent that you do.
You do not actually disagree – you just insult, and slur. Nor are you alone. That approach to discussion of anything pervades the entire left and you NOT Trump have flooded all discussion with hate as a substitute for argument.
This is self evident. We live in the most diverse least discriminatory country in the world at the least discriminatory moment in all of human history, and yet if we were to listen to you or the left – this moment is not the best, it is the worst, It is worse than slavery, it is worse than the KKK and lynchings.
If your are that out of touch with reality – YOU are the problem.
“Less toilet-flushing & windmill war stupidities.”
Yes, we can go back to toilets that do not flush, dishwashers that do not clean dishes, and windmills that murder raptors.
All will be right in the world. This is the perfect example of leftism.
Whether something works is irelevant,. All that matters is that you can turn a blind eye to the fact that it actually makes things worse and feel good about yourself.
“Less enthusiastic embracing of tyrants and dictators.”
Yes, we should go back to ignoring Kim Un until he nukes the US.
I can not even make sense of where you are in the Mideast ?
On varying days you are elevating Erodigan as a hero and Saudi Arabia as Tyranical, and then reversing, such that Turkey is the Villan and the Kurds our one true ally.
You like to rant about Putin – but you want policies that empower him.
It is more important to publicly insult Putin than to actually do anything about him.
I guess that should not surprise – you want dishwashers and toilets that use less water for each use. You do not care if they actually clean dishes or flush excrement.
“Less estrangement of allies.”
You want a weak europe that Putin can roll over, but for US sacrificing its sons and daughters, and then you want to kow tow to those weak european allies – when they are blackmailed and extorted by Russia.
That is your idea of a better relationship ?
“In other words – a more moderate temperament like Biden’s will replace Trump’s hideous divisiveness, engendered by his polluted personality.”
Yup, you can make up the Blue Biden hats now – MASA – Make America Small Again.
“With Trump gone I might even become more civil”
Will you apologize to those you have lied about, slandered, slurred ?
You can be civil or not as you choose. You can not lie and be considered truthful,. You can not slur and slander and be considered moral.
Any of us can be forgiven for being wrong, no one can be right all the time. It is not a moral failure.
Lying about and slurring and slandering others is a moral failure and it is not easily forgiven.
Certainly without real change on your part which is completely absent.
“(exempting to dhlii who will persist running his mouth no matter the issue)”
I do not give a fork whether you are civil – to me or anyone else.
But you have lied – and not just about Trump, or me, but most everyone here.
You owe half the world an apology you are never going to deliver.
In the even that Trump loses and Biden is elected – that will not change who you have shown yourself to be.
Wow!!! Jay might be right. We may want to rethink our votes in 2020.😂
https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-warn-global-outrage-levels-will-reach-point-of-no-return-in-2020
Amen
http://www.startribune.com/we-live-in-the-luckiest-era-in-history-and-here-s-why/566445002/
More grounds for additional Trump Impeachment Charge.
Last night Dufus retweeted the name of the alleged whistleblower.
The intel employee who reported alleged abuse of authority to the IG is a legally protected WHISTLEBLOWER. & Trump is required to protect them. 50 USC 3234.
To cover his ass he’s now tweeting the whistleblower “is not a real whistleblower’ – an additional violation of the actual law.
Gangster In The White House
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/
Of Course he is unrepentant. He has not committed a crime – even the house has not found an actual crime – and that BTW completely undermines your claim that the WB is a “real WB”.
There is no provision in the Act you cite for protection for reporting policy differences.
Oddly Pelosi and Trump are sort of on the same page regarding the Senate Impeachment Trial.
Pelosi wants witnesses – So Does Trump – lots of them.
Trump wants a full Trial, and he wants the opportunity to DISPROVE the allegations against him and to PROVE the conspiracy against him.
Absolutely that is “Unrepentant”.
Only the left thinks that the innocent are required to repentant.
If any laws had been broken – the House would have noted them in Impeachment.
They didn’t, because there are not any.
God, it is worse than I thought.
Trump – linked to an article that named the alleged Whistblower.
Eric Ciaramella
Eric Ciaramella
Eric Ciaramella
Eric Ciaramella
Now Trump can retweet me and commit 4 crimes!
I would ask if you think before posting this garbage – but an actual reporter was atleast as far into tin foil land as you.
It is not a crime or violation of any law to share public knowledge.
It is also not a crime to speculate on something – even if you are right.
And it is not a crime to out a whistleblower – especially not an imaginary one.
You have been drinking left wing koolaide too long.
REAL Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation from within government – presuming their reports are accurate. The statute does not promise them anonymity.
No prior whistleblower has been anonymous.
The idea of anonymous whistleblowing is antithetical to the process.
First – false reports ARE punishable. Further, we assess credibility – where we do not have evidence by questioning the accuser. That has not been done. Further, while the WB is protected from government retaliation for legitimate reports, his sources are NOT, In many cases these are people who have leaked classified information, and they need to be held accountable. If they had wanted protection – they should have come forward themselves.
Finally this “WB” is not a whistleblower, Hearsay has another name – Gossip. We do not treat gossip credibly. Most of us do not do so in our personal lives. We do not do so in our courts, we do not do so in law enforcement. The IC IG mangled the requirement that a WB have first hand knowledge.
Next – how is it that you know Trump tweeted the name of the WB ?
No one in government has told Trump the name of the WB. The only way we are pretty sure who it is, is because the Compaint itself reveals enough information that we have been able to find the person who meets that criteria. The Press has reported the likely WB’s name.
So either all of us are arguing about the wrong person, or we are posturing over protecting the anonymity of someone who is not legally entitled to anonymity and everyone knows who is anyway.
Only left wingnuts think there is something wrong with speaking about something everyone knows.
Even in Espionage cases, it is an absolute defence if the information is already public.
Finally – as to the sacredness of WB;s – Obama prosecuted and jailed them.
Have you read the code section you cited ?
There is no promise of anonymity.
There is no promise that you will not be villified.
Further the section requires a lawful disclosure of information – hearsay is not a lawful disclosure.
I would further note that 8 different working groups in DOJ – none of which were influenced by Barr reviewed the WB compalint and not one of those groups found the complaint to meet the requirements of the law.
Further the IC IG indicated that the WB displayed numerous indicia of bias.
This is particularly disturbing in the instance of Hearsay.
We are once again running dow the same rathole that got you all into trouble with Crossfire Huricare.
You have sold the IC IG – and then the house of representatives the equivalent of the steele Dossier – a truckload of inuendo and gossip from a biased source with an obvious axe to grind.
You have once again used garbage to foment outrage throughout the country.
Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with AG Barr in investigating misconduct involving Ukraine and US citizens some of which was during the 2016 election, and some of which involved Joe Biden.
While thus far we have no actual evidence except gossip of any force being used, if you need to beleive Zelensky was subject to coercion – fine. That is not relevant The US threatens foreign leaders all the time. Diplomacy is entirely carrots and sticks.
There remains only one relevant question – was there reasonable suspicion justifying the requests. The answer is trivially and unequivocally yes.
END OF DEBATE.
So we are once again going do the rathole of using politically motivated gossip to state an investigation of legitimate acts, while pretending they are crimes.
Ciaremiello is not a WB, he is a political actor.
He is the likely source of atleast one whitehouse leak early in the Trump Presidency,
He should be questioned under oath. And he near certainly will be before this is over.
So Trump does something that does not violate the statue to someone who does not meet the requirements of the statute, If trump is wrong about the person – he is a CAD, but not a criminal, If he is right he making public something that is already public.
BTW Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for relevant portions of Ciarmeillo’s emails.
It is going to take some time, there are going to be redactions, but ultimately they are going to get them.
Im sure this just another mutiny of economists, right Priscilla..
“President Donald Trump’s strategy to use import tariffs to protect and boost U.S. manufacturers backfired and led to job losses and higher prices, according to a Federal Reserve study released this week.
“We find that the 2018 tariffs are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices,” concluded Fed economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, in an academic paper.
While the tariffs did reduce competition for some industries in the domestic U.S. market, this was more than offset by the effects of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs, the study found.“
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-study-finds-trump-tariffs-backfired-2019-12-27
Of course the report is correct. Tarrifs are a stupid idea. I have said that for years – since before Trump.
Yes they increased prices and cost jobs, and the economists noted that there were other possible areas of negative impact they did not explore.
I remain opposed to Trump’s tarrifs and trade wars.
But I am STILL not going to go full bull goose loon over small negatives in a overall positive picture.
Under Trump the economy continues to create jobs – well past the point economists have called “full employment” – that is not supposed to be possible, but it self evidently has occurred.
I may chide Trump for a mistake, But I am not going to impeach him over it when – on net he is doing 50% better than Obama.
I would however further note with respect to this study that it is incomplete.
EVERY policy has winners and losers. This study looked either only at losers, or only at the net in narrow portions of the economy.
It is my strong expectation that the overall effect it more negative than the authors concluded.
But that speculation is not a fact until it is confirmed. This report is not sufficiently broad to assess the overall economic effect – rather than just specific negative effects.
I would note that this is also not unusual – the Fed also conducted a Study of TARP that found that it made things worse not better. We did not impeach Bush and Obama was re-elected.
This is Trump describing Comey in a tweet today:
“ A Dirty Cop at the highest level. Scum!”
You really have to be a despicable lump of shit to speak this way as President.
You have to be even more bereft of conscience and character not to speak out about it.
To remain silent to this kind of low-life boorish utterance is disgraceful.
I truly have no remaining respect for you two Trump enablers, constantly continuing to defend Trump’s contemptible behavior: your shameful dereliction of objectivity has rendered you pathetic.
If your a Trump apologist/enabler, Trump’s tweets reflect your values.
Remember when Trump mocked that disabled reporter, Priscilla?
Didn’t you slough that away with excuses he wouldn’t act that way as president, it was only campaign hoopla. But the level of his bombast and insult has increased exponentially. That you embrace a vile unstable narcissistic fool who continues to corrode standards of presidential behavior tattoos you with the Scarlet Letters : TF – for Trumpster Fool.
“Remember when Trump mocked that disabled reporter, Priscilla?”
Did Trump mock a reporter ? Yes – he has mocked many of them, as well as lots of people who are not reporters. He has mocked Adam Schiff, so how lots of other people.
He does this all the time.
Did he mock the reporters disability ?
You are reaching to claim that.
Hear is video of Trump doing exactly the same thing to several people – including Ted Cruz.
None of the others are disabled.
Further minutes before his remarks about the reporter he did exactly the same sequence of gestures about a general who was not disabled.
You can take offense that Trump mocks people.
It is offensive.
But this had nothing to do with disability.
“Didn’t you slough that away with excuses he wouldn’t act that way as president, it was only campaign hoopla. ”
I do not recall any such remark from Priscilla,. I remember Trump saying he would behave differently as president. I did not beleive that. And Trump is still using the same gestures to mock people – he is just more careful to make sure none of them are disabled.
“But the level of his bombast and insult has increased exponentially.”
Nope, it is about the same.
Regardless, it is a basis to vote on – one factor among many, not to impeach on.
“That you embrace a vile unstable narcissistic fool”
Clinton ? Bush ? Obama ? you have described several decades of president.
“who continues to corrode standards of presidential behavior tattoos you with the Scarlet Letters : TF – for Trumpster Fool.”
You can beleive this or not, you can vote based on it. that is about it.
65 million people felt differently
Yes, I beleive that when you lie under oath – you are a crook – that is my values.
Aparently that is not one of yours.
I beleive that when you foist a fraud on the courts – you are a crook.
I beleive when you get a warrant for someone you KNOW is innocent – you are a crook.
Carter Page was a CIA asset – and the FBI knew it. He reported all the contacts he had with Russians to the CIA and helped the FBI prosecute a russian spy.
Your hero lied to the FISA court about that. Presdented forged documents, and altered evidence and then SWORE that the evidence he presented was true.
That is crooked.
“ A Dirty Cop at the highest level. Scum!”
Dirty usually implies taking bribes. Todate there are no allegations of Comey taking bribes that I am aware of – though there is financial corruption involving McCabe.
It would be more accurate to describe Comey as corrupt – outside the law.
Read the Horowitz report – that is accurate.
“You really have to be a despicable lump of shit to speak this way as President.”
Horowitz used more technical words but essentially said the same thing.
FBI under Comey violated procedures – i.e. BROKE THE LAW, Violated peoples rights, lied under oath to the courts, forged documents altered evidence, hid exculpatory evidence.
That is pretty lawless and corrupt.
“You have to be even more bereft of conscience and character not to speak out about it.
To remain silent to this kind of low-life boorish utterance is disgraceful.”
To whitewash the criminal acts under color of law of Comey and his band – THAT lacks conscience and character.
Read the Horowitz report – then come back and tell us all about how Comey is a saint.
Way back in August Horowitz refered Comey to DOJ for CRIMINAL prosecution. Barr declined for now because it would look to political.
“I truly have no remaining respect for you two Trump enablers, constantly continuing to defend Trump’s contemptible behavior: your shameful dereliction of objectivity has rendered you pathetic.”
So your defending a man that Horowitz said needed prosecuted for crimes, and your slandering the rest of us because we are not outraged that Trump called a Crook a Crook ?
“Didn’t you slough that away with excuses he wouldn’t act that way as president, it was only campaign hoopla. ”
No, I don’t believe that I did.
But if Roby is lurking, he would know for sure. He remembers everything I’ve ever said here…unless I was agreeing with him. He sometimes forgets those times 😉
That you do not NOW CONDEMN Trump as president acting as he does, condemns you, Priscilla.
We have asked you thousands of times to show us the actual crime we are to condemn
You fail to do so
Tweeting public information is supposedly heinous
Because according to you it is from racists and nazis
That is ludicrously stupid
The truth is not false because Hitler said it
And there is not a racist or nazi to be seen
We are all supposed to be outraged by conduct that is legal and moral
Because ao false standards that are not even violated
Oh, please, Jay. Stop being such an hysterical drama queen.
I do not recall anyone here ever saying That
Trump is the only person I know who has said that
If jay wishes to jump on a trump broken promise
That is an actual one
But jays comment is typical
Mis representation and false accusations
I am very tired of people who have no morals claiming the moral high ground
Contra jay I am neither a trump supporter or defender
Grasping that trump is less bad than the prior two presidents or than the alternatives is not a ringing endorsement
Ranting that trump is lawless and an existential threat by those who find Obama or any current democrat acceptable is dangerous
The only threat we face right now is from the left
We will survive trump
We will in many ways be better off
In a few we will be worse
We likely will survive a democratic resurgence
But it is hard to think of any way we will be better off
Just a few short years ago it would have been unthinkable for an American president to encourage the outing of a whistleblower, like Trump has done, intentionally endangering an intelligence community professional…
Those of you who applaud him doing that, or don’t speak out against it, are deplorable.
“Just a few short years ago it would have been unthinkable for an American president to encourage the outing of a whistleblower, like Trump has done, intentionally endangering an intelligence community professional…”
You mean those anonymous whistleblowers like Daniel Elsberg ?
Linda Tripp ?
Frank Serpico ?
Karen Silkwood ?
Mark Whitacre ?
Coleen Rowley ?
Bradley Manning ?
Frank Snepp ?
Ralph McGehee ?
William Sanjour ?
Fredric Whitehurst ?
Karen Kwiatkowski ?
Marsha Coleman-Adebayo ?
Jesselyn Radack ?
Richard Maok ?
William Binney ?
J. Kirke Wiebe ?
Edward Loomis ?
Glenn Walp ?
Steven L. Doran ?
Sibel Edmonds ?
Sgt. Frank “Greg” Ford ?
Robert MacLean ?
Joseph Wilson ?
Richard Convertino ?
Joe Darby ?
Samuel Provance ?
Renee Dufault ?
Richard Levernier ?
Russ Tice ?
Thomas Andrews Drake ?
Thomas Tamm ?
Shawn Carpenter ?
Rick S. Piltz ?
Gary J. Aguirre ?
Rosemary Johann-Liang ?
Michael DeKort ?
Mark Klein ?
Cate Jenkins ?
John Kiriakou ?
Anthony D’Armiento ?
Robert J. McCarthy ?
Cathy Harris ?
Blake Percival ?
Joshua Wilson ?
Carmen Segarra ?
David P. Weber ?
Edward Snowden ?
John Crane ?
Ben Strickland ?
John Tye ?
J. Kirk McGill ?
John Bitterman ?
James S. Pars ?
What do all of theses people have in common ?
We know who they are.
Almost all of them are Federal Government Whistle Blowers.
Many of them are CIA, NSA, IC Whistle Blowers.
All were BEFORE Trump.
Many were fired.
A few were criminally prosecuted.
Some were even Jailed.
In Wikipedia’s list of Whistleblowers – there is a single John Doe – that is an unnamed employee of a private company that forwarded internal documents to Wikipedia.
So what we have ONCE AGAIN – is you and the left LYING.
Whistle Blowers have no right to anonymity.
In fact I can not find a single prior instance of an anonymouse government whistle blower.
Despite the WhistlBlower act – they also have no real protection from persecution or prosecution.
So, they were all Presidents?
I don’t recall any of those elections.
But it nice to see you frittering away so much time on nonsense -sorta equivalent to Trump’s daily tweet barrages
“So, they were all Presidents?”
No they were all whistleblowers who were publicly known
I found only one example of a WB that has not been identified
That is one person who leaked corporate documents to Wikileaks
There are no secret government whistleblowers
You are selling a false narative
You have created a standard that does not exist
And manufactured a crime out of violating it
There is no such norm
There is no such standard
There is no such crime
If you want the law to be different change it
“I don’t recall any of those elections.
But it nice to see you frittering away so much time on nonsense -sorta equivalent to Trump’s daily tweet barrages”
Jay you are out in la la land
You posts are increasing incoherent
Increasingly I am concerned for your mental health
Seriously
Figure out what you need to calm down
You still do not seem to grasp the huge logic problem you have.
If Eric Ciaramella is the WB – Trump did not out him. The press did, or more accurately the ICIG did by providing enough information to identify him.
Trump linking to, or retweeting publicly available information just is not what you claim it to be.
And if Eric Ciaramella is not the WB – then you are beating Trump up for repeating an eroneous ID made by the press.
Regardless, the only thing unusual here is that the WB’s name is NOT public.
You recognize many of the names on my prior list. Government WB;s are not anonymous.
Many of them become public figures – often infamous ones.
“ Trump linking to, or retweeting publicly available information just is not what you claim it to be.”
You continue to be a simpleton defending Trump as you do. Shame on you. If Trump retweets publicly available information on the web written by Nazi’s or other racist sources, by your perspective that’s OK.
Back to the everyone you do not like is a nazi or racist
Please identify the massed army of nazis and racists threatening the country ?
We are in the least racist moment in the history of the world
I am not defending trump
I am fighting your insanity
Your criterion for judging trump a problem would be disasterous if it became the norm
It won’t because even you only hold those you hate to your batshit standards
Is trump sending Kim a Thank you for denuclearizIng New Years card?
Another example of the nanny state, and this time republicans, sticking their noses into lives they need to let live as they so choose.
https://www.aclumich.org/en/press-releases/aclu-defends-amish-communitys-religious-freedom-against-lenawee-countys-threat?fbclid=IwAR11eq3fpf2Cytp4vDUz13jCXldB8iWPCVubElPiZpBLVR1mIJ3JAq953Fk
According to Christiansfortruth, “There is an open but undeclared war against the Amish in America because they refuse to participate in Mystery Babylon, and if real estate speculators can’t price them out of their own areas, the counties can use cynical and draconian enforcement of their ‘health’ codes to force them out.”
Why cant Republicans keep their noses out of peoples private lives. From local government to the feds, they think they can control from how people live to a womans body.
And Jay, forget anything Trump or Democrat. He has done nothing in this issue and I have commented many times about Democrats forcing their beliefs on people.
And for the most part, no one cares.
Republican or Democrat, any big government type wants to control as much as they can.
Fed study:” Tariffs have hurt manufacturing employment and increased prices.”
Really? Who woulda guessed Trump would find multiple ways to fuck up international trade?
But not to worry, we’re getting $$$ Billions from Mexico for the Wall.
https://www.axios.com/fed-tariffs-manufacturing-prices-9b66d154-3596-4801-a3e9-31fc0ba1a615.html
Oh God, no! Trump has done something that experts disagree with – impeach now, Constitutional Crisis !!
Trump has made lots of things I count as mistakes. And pretty much everything he has done some one thinks is a mistake.
That makes him a completely normal president.
I would be ecstatic if we barred government from doing anything there was not unanimity or near unanimity behind. And Our constitution is actually structured to attempt to make that the case. But the constitution has not proven sufficient impediment to thwart dedicated groups from experimenting with government.
As to Tarrifs – whatever their damage, Trump has brought an economy 50% stronger than that under Obama. If Tarrifs are a gargantuan mistake – Trump must have something even more consequential right.
So Jay – Why is the economy running on average 50% better than under Obama ?
Why is growth just under 3% under Trump and only just under 2% under Obama and Bush ?
If Trump has screwed up with Tarrifs – what is it that he has gotten right of such consequence to overcome the harm of Tarrifs and then some ?
Toss around blame – I will join you Tariffs are a bad idea. But if you wish to be taken credibly, you must give credit where it is due as well as blame.
I do not honestly think Trump deserves that much credit either. All he has done is pushed a few obstacles out of the way and left the free market with the understanding that so long as he is president he is not going to choke it further.
But that just make Obama all the worse. If Trump is a C+ President Obama is a D-.
So where is your blame for Obama for failing at just about the easiest thing a president can do – mananging a recovery ? With one other notable example post recession recovery has never been less than 7% for a couple of years. The other exception being the last time Government tried to manage recovery by dicking arround in the economy – aka the great depression.
Regardless, I will join your criticism of Trump’s tariffs.
But they do not exist in a vaccum. If you can not be honest about the economy as a whole – why do I care what you say about one part ?
And another.
https://www.fox26houston.com/video/639331?fbclid=IwAR2BIk6nj-RjTzBojPkWXjT5OwY7KYjaqCviD_KR1EvSpQuVa65PPzUYS9o
Dont mess with Texans!
https://thelibertyherald.com/2019/12/29/texas-church-shooting-stopped-by-two-armed-parishioners-legally-carrying-guns/?fbclid=IwAR1YapSPvz0ppjLQm03x6SecREJo8udNiEsdGfKCiNn3wdzEBoemTYj6E9U
Seriously. I recently got a Facebook request from a man who I knew many years ago, when I brielfly lived in Houston. He’s born and bred Texan, lived in the Houston area his whole life.
As we were catching up, on Messenger, I happen to ask him , out of curiosity, how many guns he owned. Now, he is a very gentle person, very far from the stereotype of a swaggering Texan. Stopped hunting years ago, because he loves animals, and couldn’t bear to shoot them.
He said he wasn’t sure how many guns he had. His wife, who is now suffering from some cognitive issues due to illness, can no longer shoot, but he says that she had a concealed carry permit (as he does) and owned several guns, maybe 6 or 7, that are locked up in a safe box now.
He said that he was sure that he had 5 loaded guns in the house, but not sure how many unloaded ones in his safe. When I expressed surprise that he had so many loaded weapons, he said “Well, you know, if someone broke in through the back door, I wouldn’t want my only gun to be in the front of the house.”
So, yeah. I wouldn’t mess with Texans, lol!
I thought the Senate and/or the president are supposed to prevent wasteful house bills from being enacted.
Looks like all three branches are spend crazy
Looks that way, for sure. Fiscal responsibility is, for the time being, non-existent. Just think how much worse it will be under Medicare (Medicaid) for All and the Green New Deal!
Jay, the House can hot blame anyone for this mess other than themselves. If Pelosi farts in public in CA, it is not the Presidents responsibility to control her gastric system. It is hers and hers only!
For years congress has delegate authority to develop budgets to the President, but until the constitution is amended, it is their RESPONSIBILITY and theirs alone to create spending and revenue bills. They have failed for years. Its time to clean “house”.
I do not unfortunately expect the court to completely roll back congressional delegation – as they should if they are being faithful to the constitution. But there is a strong likelyhood that this SCOTUS term will see atleast one major decision that will reign in congressional delegation to the executive.
Baby Steps.
While constitutionally – pretty much all government power is shared to some extent, the primary responsibility for spending rests with the house. All spending bills CONSTITUTIONALLY must originate in the senate.
Typically the president prepares a budget – I do not beleive that is constitutionally required.
It is just an effort by the executive to excercise some control of the process.
Typically that budget is close to meaningless as congress does as it pleases.
Absolutely the Senate and president have a say. But primary responsibilty lies with the house.
Just as in foreign policy the primary responsibility – to an even greater extent rests with the president. Congress’s ability to direct foreign policy is primarily limited to its control of money. With some supplementary power through oversight.
While responsibility is not distributed equally – the spending problem of the federal government requires the acquiescence of both congress and the executive.
Please provide Article and Sec of constitution that you refer to about Senate and spending. i can only find section concerning revenue and further info where founders considered revenue ” monitary” which would include spending since spending did not occur without revenues.
It was not until 1921 with the Budget and Accountability act that the President was required by congress to submit a budget. That is when THEY DELEGATED AUTHORITY, but they CAN NOT DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY.
Responsibility for revenue and spending rest SOLELY with congress!!!!!
I am not disagreeing – except that SOLELY is not the same as PRIMARILY.
All spending bills must originate in the house. pass both chambers and either be approved by the president or the presidents veto overriden by congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origination_Clause
I would not the discussion and history. I would particularly note Graysons objection to allowing Senate amendments, as that is precisely what the senate did to pass PPACA.
In 2009 the house Passed PPACA in one form. The senate rejected it. Then Kennedy died, and Brown was elected in MA.
Democrats had basically until xmas to pass PPACA, it was not possible for the house to pass a bill the senate would accept in the time available. So the Senate took another house appropriations bill, by amendment removed the entire bill, and substituted the senate version of PPACA. The house then had to accept the senate version without modification – or there would have to be another Senate vote and Brown was going to vote it down.
PPACA in any form was going to be a disaster, but in this instance we got a not well vetted bill from the Senate with an unusal process and no way to fix it. From 2010 on. Any effort to change any part of PPACA would have resulted in its repeal. This is also why Obama acted lawlessly and just made things up regarding PPACA as he went along. Because PPAA would have failed catastrophically and quickly had it been implimented as past. but there was no way to fix its problems with republicans being able to block it in the senate and later the house.
OK, let me try this as you and I have a complete inability to understand the others comments.
We hear over and over and over:
Bush 43 increased the deficit $xxxxx due to his wars
Obama increased the deficit $xxxxx due to his programs to spur the economy
Trump has increased the deficit $xxxxx due to his tax cuts.
That is what the uneducated in America believe who have no understanding of the constitution. That is what Jay comments any time deficit and debt is in the news.
This is only true because Pelosi, Boehner and Ryan refused to direct the House to do its job ( along with others going back years) by leading the House to balance the budget. Then they send it to the senate and they compromise until an acceptable balanced budget is drafted. That is sent to the president, they sign ir veto, if vetoed, congress does its job and overrides.
Today, with low interest rates, the interest on the debt is $480 billion. If interest rates ” normalize” to historical rates, that $480B becomes $1T without any further debt increase.
Point: All congress wants to do is buy votes by spending money, giving the President a blank check to spend anything they want because they are looking to continue their carreers, blame the president for the deficits and get reelected all while the president does not worry about a deficit since they only run again one time. And American buys this cesspool of political media B.S.
Occasional deficits are not the problem.
Large and growing national debt is. Our debt is greater than 100% of GDP.
There is a great deal of economic research that strongly suggests that debt in excess of 100% of GDP increasing chokes the rate of rise in standard of living.
And that it is increasingly impossible to recover from as it grows.
Overall interest rates are controlled by government. However, the interest on the debt is controlled by the market for debt – i.e. Foreign investors.
If I recall correctly Government bonds are at fixed not floating interest.
It rates skyrocket that effects what we must pay for NEW borrowing. Not payment on old borrowing But there are complications as we are constantly refinancing our debt – also not a good thing.
Nearly all politicians from both parties – whatever they say are not serious about debt.
Our debt is a serious problem – that we need to confront and that will be harder to address the longer we wait.
BUT it is not the largest problem we currently face.
Above supposed to be in response for Ron.
I never read anything from the Word Press comments. Only e-mail, so I responded to your comment Jay. Not sure where it landed.
Priscilla I hope your friend has those 5 guns out of easy reach. Texas leads the nation is accidental gun deaths by children. Also way up there in accidental gun shootings nationwide – about a dozen the last two months per Google search.
Not surprising. There are irresponsible idiot parents in all states, and of all political persuasions. This guy has no children/grandchildren, so it’s unlikely, to say the least.
About 50% of the country owns guns. There is no version of the gun statistics that does not indicate that accidental gun deaths are not that high on that basis.
More children are killed each year by drowning or poisoning in the home than by guns.
I do not think 50% of the country owns pools.
Jay, please give the link to the google search for accidental gun deaths for children. I cant find it under a number of different searches. All i can find is total deaths and Texas is not in the top 5. USA Today reported on 3/19/19 73 total accidental deaths nationally, so can they actually develop a statistic per thousand population to actually rank states?
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-leads-nation-in-unintentional-shootings-by-14175860.php
jay, thanks. Interesting article. The one thing that was missing was how many of these shootings happened in the child’s home and how many at friends and relatives. If a parent leaves a child at another home, they really need to make sure the home is safe the same as their own. Some people dont have the common sense of a knat. My son-in-law’s sisters father-in-law gave her 10 year old son a 410 shot gun for Christmas. Knowing this family and their red neck ways, giving guns is like giving video games.
So your data is by a texas gun control advocacy group.
Just to be clear – I do not think they are any more wrong than anyone else.
But they are unlikely to be right either.
Also your figures are not per capita. Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the US.
I would be happy to support getting better data on this.
It is probable that our national statistics on cancer or heart disease deaths are pretty accurate. I beleive that those are reported by hospitals.
But data reported by state and local government to federal government is garbage and usually under estimates – though we also get massive over estimates when “experts” try to fix it.
As I noted in prior posts, the available data for gun deaths varies by a factor or 10 between sources.
That makes is very hard to draw conclusions.
I would further note that most of this data is actually much better int he US than the rest of the world – even Europe.
Recently some accademic reported that the US had far more mass shootings per capita than anywhere else in the world. There was some serious criticism of his methodologies – and much data seemed to be just made up.
But this provoked a more serious study that found that european statistics for mass shooting deaths are pretty much non-existance (as is much of the rest of the world). relying on news reports of mass shootings, the US did not make the top 1/3 of countries in the world and most of europe was worse.
The study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that seven states — West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee — all suffered from disproportionately high rates of unintentional firearm deaths.
Just for the record the data on accidental shootings is all over the place – the numbers offered by various official sources vary by a factor of 10.
Mostly this should not surprise the quality of LOTS of our government collected data is incredibly poor. We know as an example that shootings by police are greatly under reported in official statistics – police departments mostly do not supply data to the federal government, the best source is surveys of the news.
I would also refer you to RadleyBalko’s book “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”, not specifically because of accidental shooting statistics, but as a source that nearly every public statistic we have on many many – particularly politically charged issues is crap. Much of the time they are just plain made up. A politician makes a claim in a speach – it it suddenly becomes accepted truth and then slowly increased each year without any foundation.
I wonder how long its going to take for Americans to understand congress, and specifically the House, based on constitutional responsibility, has failed. You can delegate authority ( from the House to the President), but you can not delegate responsibility. That being sound fiscal management and balanced budgets.
https://thelibertyherald.com/2019/12/30/the-national-debt-is-out-of-control-and-nobody-in-d-c-is-concerned/
Homeowner woos: my sewer pipe is backing up.
Plumber on the way!
For his amusement I’ve placed a photo of Trump in a MAGA hat over the drain cap.
The problem with your sewer is either of your own making or that of your municipality.
Yet, once again you seek to blame Trump.
I wasn’t blaming Trump for the sewer backup; I was making an obvious association between him and sewer sludge. It was an insult not an accusation. Duh.
Are you getting enough sleep?
You’re brain seems to have slipped into snooze mode. 🥱
Jimmy Carter
Elon Musk
Bill Gates
Pope Francis
the Dalai Lama,
and Warren Buffett.
Are all greater men than either of these.
Trump has been a better president in 3 years than Obama in 8.
Hopefully Sanders will never get to be president.
Schiff is a liar of the first order who if democrats had any sense would be drummed out of the party.
What I find most interesting here – is that the very people who have credulously bought the biggest piles of shit ever offered, are completely oblivious to their own guilibility and to the fact that they have spent the past 4 years selling this obvious pile of schiff.
The first time the claims of Trump as somehow tied to Putin came up, I noted that you had to be brain dead to buy this. That is before the steele doessier, Before any of this mess.
Beleiving in Trump/Russia collusion has ALWAYS required beleiving that Trump and his people are concurrently brilliant and stupid. That they are masters of spy tradecraft, and at the same time too stupid to grasp that the tremendous amount of work needed to get a minuscule amount of help from Putin whose trolls are so obviously clueless about americans that they think gifs of Hillary as a potatoe will tip the election.
Yet half the country – including purportedly wise people like Chuck Todd, Dean Baquet, and Rachel Maddow actually beleived all this nonsense.
At the moment the press apears to be turning on Rachel Maddow.
While she deserves it, at the same time there is tremendous hypocracy. Maddow was at worst the top cheerleader for the Steele Dossier – but the most prestigiuous papers in the country published the same crap Maddow sold on her show.
Regardless, it is evidence that even Rhodes scholars can be complete idiots.
While Mueller and Horrowitz has not merely disproved Trump/Russia Collusion they have burned it to ash. Horowitz only barely found a basis to investigate – and only that because the standard to start an investigation is nearly non-existant.
And still he found that by Jan 2017 the FBI had lost even that weak basis AND KNEW IT.
But everyone should have known this.
From the begining the Odds against Trump/Russia collusion were enormous.
TeaParty Joe Walsh has it right again:
“ Think about it: Trump would rather get impeached for obstructing Congress than let any witnesses testify. I mean, those witnesses must have some damaging evidence that Trump did wrong. Really wrong.”
Baaaaad Boy Donnie Guilty Of Obstruction and Misuse Of Presidential Power.
Still channeling deadbeat joe ?
So what was Obama hiding regarding Fast & Furious ?
IRSGate ?
U1 ?
Benghazi ?
What was Rosenstein hiding from the house ?
It is pretty much commonplace for the executive to attempt to preclude even block congressional access to people and information from the executive.
It is pretty common to do so when there is no good argument.
Typically one of two things happen – congress and the executive negotiate. Congress drops its effort to seek everything including the kitchen sink and the executive agrees to provide specific witnesses for specific times on specific subjects. OR The courts sort it out – usually favoring congress over the president – but not always. Typically that can take as long as 2 years. But historically the courts have expedited such requests during impeachment and decisions are made in about 3 months.
Currently house democrats have NOTHING subpeona’d for impeachment. They chose not to go to court and instead proceded with faux impeachment as a rush job.
They could have had whatever documents and witnesses they wanted – with the courts permission had they proceeded more appropriately.
But they were rushing among other things to try to get ahead of Horowitz and Durham.
As noted before – presidents refuse to provide congress witnesses and documents all the time. IS EVERY president hiding something really awful ?
Further, nothing prevents the intelligence committee or the judiciary commitee from questioning these witnesses now. It will likely take several months – though my guess is that if democrats agree to due process – allow the presidents lawyers to be present and to cross examine witnesses, allow the minority and the president to call witnesses. Provide transcripts of the prior witnesses BEFORE questioning the next ones. Only hold National Security related hearings in a SCIF. No fishing expeditions. Inform the witnesses of the subject matter they are to be questioned about.
I would remind you that Mueller and the house played games with this and entrapped Stone and Cohen. Why do you think any of these people want to testify given that they already know that house democrats are deliberately trying to set perjury traps.
If we actually followed the REAL LAW, perjury requires that you know ahead of time the subject matter you are to be questioned on. That after you testify you are provided with the oportunity to review your testimony with your lawyer and make corrections.
Stone in particular was afford NONE of that.
When you run hearings like a start chamber – you can not get witnesses.
Nobody wants to testify. God forbid they should forget to mention something exculpatory and get charged and convicted of perjury for failing to provide all the evidence that proves they did nothing wrong.
I would further note – everyone is trying to compare the house with a grand jury and the senate with a regular court.
That comparison is imperfect.
But to the extent we are following it. Prosecutors are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions in court. You bring your evidence to the trial. At the start of the trial – the defence knows the prosecutors case. The court knows the prosecutors case. One of the first motions filed at nearly every criminal trial is a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. The prosecutor is obligated to prove with evidence already on the record – such as witness interveiws and grand jury testimony that all the elements are present and each is ALREADY proven more likely than not. That is just to get into a court room.
Courts only rarely let prosecutors call new witnesses for their case in cheif.
All these rules – are part of many centuries of western legal development that we call due process. The purpose of which is to judge matters on actual evidence and to protect peoples rights.
“ Still channeling deadbeat joe ?”
Still channeling disrespectful donnie in name calling? Didn’t you say your family once described you as a parent murderer? How would you like seeing that appellation defining anything you post?
The test of your boring what-aboutism post side-steps Joe’s assertion: if those witnesses could absolve him of using threat of withholding money allocated to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, why is he preventing them from testifying? Answer: because he’s quid-pro-guilty.
Channeling Trump ?
I guess so – You pushing lies told by an idiot and I am calling you on it.
Sounds alot like Trump.
Regardless, I do not take my positions based on Trump.
I am actually critical of him in numerous areas – including the mideast.
But not in the “whatever Trump does is wrong” way you are.
There is no good reason to be there – we should get OUT. Trump is doing that – badly, tepidly, unconvincingly.
You want to attack Trump on that – I am with you.
You want to attack him for getting hoodwinked by Mattis and the generals – right behind you.
I do not even support OUR destroying ISIS – that is not our Job. That was a fake objective created by Obama when his actions regarding Syria were just an incoherent mess. He created this “Get ISIS” narative as a way to try to make sense of what he had already done.
To be clear ISIS is not good people – but they are not why we went into Syria, and but for the fact that Trump promised to drive ISIS from Syria before leaving. I would be even more critical of him. But ISIS is out, it is time to leave.
“Didn’t you say your family once described you as a parent murderer? How would you like seeing that appellation defining anything you post?”
You really want to go there ?
I owe Joe Walsh nothing. He is a public figure and he has made a mess of his life.
I would be happy to leave him alone if he did not feel compelled to hypocritically excoriate others.
Why you continue to use him as a source. I can not understand.
I am actually happy that Joe Walsh is the best you can do.
As to my personal circumstances. If you really wish to repeat PROVEABLE LIES – go for it.
It is not like you have shown any interest in truth elsewhere. It is not like you have not lobbed baseless slurs all over the place.
As to the “facts” the accusations were pretty much as false as “Carter page is a Russian Agent”.
Turns out Page was a CIA source. OOPS.
I was accused of overdosing my father on drugs that contributed to his death.
There is a complicated explanation for why even if I had done what I was accused of it would not have been wrong – my father was dying one way or the other. He chose which problem he felt was worse.
But I do not need the complicated explaination – because about 9 months before he died, I changed his doctor to one who eliminated all medicines except for paliative care. And before that I replaced the OC drugs that he was taking like candy with a placebo.
Put simply he had not had any of the drugs that purportedly killed him in almost a year.
Like Carter Page the accusation is backwards.
Page was not spying for the Russians he was spying for the CIA.
I was not giving my father drugs that killed him. I took all the drugs away.
BTW hair and fingernail and tissue tests from the autopsy confirmed that.
But if you want to make the same mistake you did with Trump/Russia – be my guest.
Prove yourself to have no morals again and again.
“ I owe Joe Walsh nothing. He is a public figure and he has made a mess of his life.
I would be happy to leave him alone if he did not feel compelled to hypocritically excoriate others.”
More hypocritical double standard bullshit.
Trump’s a public figure who has made more of a mess of his life than Walsh: multiple divorces, affairs while married (including sex with another woman the night his youngest son was born); multiple sexual assault & harassment accusations (at least 16 women have accused Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior); sexual payoffs to porn stars for silence (and lying about the sex and the payoffs); dozens of complaints of business contractor cheating, shady associations with gangsters in New Jersey, foundation charity fraud —yet you’re allegiance to him remains sickeningly sycophantic, this despite the FACT that he’s a Serial Liar, Serial Business Failure, Serial Narcissistic Rage Insulter. And yet you’ve never once excoriated him for his history of accumulated misbehaviors.
You seem to share a bond of narcissistic affinity with Donnie’s smug psyche. Two profiles of annoying self-righteous wrong-headed indignation.
“Trump’s a public figure who has made more of a mess”
No one has claimed Trump is not a legitimate target for scrutiny.
Nor is anyone condoning all of his conduct.
With respect to his “sexual conduct” – I consider much of what you mentioned bad conduct.
I promised my wife that my sexual relations would be exclusively with her – and I have kept that promise. But that is not the norm today, and those on the left tell us that not only isn’t it the norm, but that divorce is acceptable, that you are free to have sex with whoever you please. You have even said that lying – under oath about sex is acceptable.
All those and more still bother me. But you tell me that I should be outraged by them – when they apply to Trump, but not Franken, or Biden or Clinton.
Addressing some of your other claims. Paying people for silence is perfectly legal.
Most of my clients require me to sign NDA’s, Thus far no one has alleged that Trump’s conduct with Daniels was illegal – you can not pay someone to keep evidence of a crime from law enforcement.
Nearly all the allegations of “inapropriate sexual behavior” are inconsequential compared to those that have been proven regarding Clinton. Clinton is/was a sexual predator. There is no credible evidence that Trump is more than the guy who camps under the mistletoe looking for a free grope. Bad ? Absolutely. Not much different than Biden.
I would be happy if our leaders were people who kept their promises to their wives.
Which of our leaders would that be ? Kennedy ? Johnson ? Clinton ?
If you have been in business for 40 years – someone has accused you of cheating.
If you do business in NYC you do business with gangsters – many of whom are in city hall.
Allegiance to Trump ? Are you nuts ? It is the left that has told us all not to care about these things. Not to care that Bill Clinton raped people and lied about it under oath. That the Clinton’s were engaged in fraud and influence peddling in their charity.
I would be happy if we could hold all politicians to the same standards you wish to hold Trump to.
But I am not interested in one standard for Trump and another for everyone else.
Or one standard for democrats and another for republicans.
Trump’s actual and alleged failures are fair game – though you DO get judged based on your accuracy in portraying them.
But you have gone far past attacking Trump. You are constantly slandering anyone and everyone who does not share your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And you wonder why we are increasingly bitterly divided.
Our divisions are between the far left and the rest of us. They have little to do with Trump.
They do not even have to do with ideology as leftism has lost any connection to ideology.
Our divisions are driven by the fact that the left – with the help of the media, democrats and you constantly assert – WE CONTROL YOU.
Republicans can only nominate candiates that the left can beat. That will not defend themselves against rants of racism, sexism, or any other ism of the moment.
The left must have veto power over everything.
Name any even slightly controversial issue today – and increasingly EVERYTHING that someone on the left disagrees with is automatically controversial where we can have a discussion based on facts, logic, reason ?
Whether it is major issues like gun control or Global Warming, or it is minor issues like is it ablism to require students to be on time for class – if you attempt to present a view at odds with some left leader – you are evil, you will be denounced, slandered, possibly physically beaten.
It is not even permissable to inquire about the facts, decisions must be made based on the view of the loudest victim who steps forward.
On many things – there is not even a concensus on the left. This is not about ideology, it is a cult of victimhood.
What you call “whataboutism” is the difference between having principles and being a hypocrit.
If two things are nearly the same and you are on one side on one and the other side on the other, and have no explanation besides “whataboutism” – then you are a hypocrit and without principles.
We already know that.
But the fact that you must hide inconsistencies in your positions behind accusations of this ism or that – just calls attention to it.
I am not the only person here who has noted that your position on almost anything seems to be driven entirely by Trump.
If Trump does something – it is bad. If others do the same thing it is good.
the only determining factor with you seems to be opposition to Trump.
“what about” that ??
“if those witnesses could absolve him of using threat of withholding money allocated to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, why is he preventing them from testifying?”
In the real world it is always those making a claim of wrong doing who have the burden of proving it.
You have had a raft of witnesses. While many are sure that there was a QPQ – not one had direct evidence of it.
Personally, I do not care if there was a QPQ
BTW Trump did not ask Zelensky to manufacture dirt on Biden. He asked Zelensky to cooperate with Barr in a number of investigations including Biden.
If you want an impeachable offense it is not a QPQ you have to prove, but that Trump did not ask for cooperation in investigations, but that he actually threatened Zelensky if he did not MANUFACTURE dirt, NO ONE has testified to anything like that.
As to reasons that Trump might not want these people to testify – or that they might not want to themselves – that is trivial.
Since the start of this mess, democrats and their agents have sought to magnify the slightest errors or inconsistancies into criminal misrepresentations and then sought to jail people for them.
What you have done to Page, Papadoulis and Flynn is repugnant.
Nor are they alone – many others who managed to keep out of jail, have noted that they were bullied, questioned for as much as 70 hours, repeatedly accused of lying and threatened with prosecutions for lying – when they were telling the truth.
I would never voluntarily allow myself to be questioned about anything by these immoral bozo’s.
What is obvious to some of us – is that Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller and his team, Schiff, use the power they have to threaten and coerce people into LYING, and jail them if they do not lie for them.
Why silence from you three who were railing last week against US foreign military intervention ?
BAGHDAD (AP) — Dozens of Iraqi Shiite militiamen and their supporters broke into the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad on Tuesday, smashing a main door and setting fire to a reception area, angered over deadly U.S. airstrikes targeting the Iran-backed militia. U.S. guards fired tear gas and palls of smoke rose over the grounds.
Is there some kind of contest I am not aware of ?
If I do not comment on some happening before you I am morally debauched ?
We should not be in Iraq – does that make you happy ?
That said I have zero problems with retaliating against Iranian backed militias that have killed americans.
And I do not care if they throw a hissy fit and violently protest at a US embassy.
Thus far the embassy in Baghdad has not fallen and the US ambassador has not been murdered.
But yes, if we got out of Iraq where we do not belong, all of this would be Iraq’s problem.
Dave “We should not be in Iraq – does that make you happy ?”
You, Priscilla and I ( the three referenced) support getting the hell out.
Jay supports staying there and getting our young killed.
So leaving makes him unhappy, not happy!
I’m not in favor of staying in Iraq..
Where did you get that idea?
I was in favor of getting out soon after Sadam was gone.
I WASNT in favor of pulling troops from Turkey to jeopardize the Kurds, the way dumb Donnie did. Or in favor of him escalating bombing in Iraq last week.
Strategic placement of international US defense forces is like a symphony – If you have an inept conductor in charge of the performance noise, not music, is the ear shattering outcome.
I’m neither an isolationist or neo-con war monger.
Jay, you are sending mixed messages. I think your unhealthy hatred for Trump is causing you to make comments that indicate your support positions you do not.
Ever since the issues with the increase of troop strength in the middle east and the subsequent draw down, you have been railing about Trump and his removing troops from Syria.
You can’t have it both ways. You cant criticize the troop draw down and support leaving them their to support certain groups of people.
They are either their dieing, or they are out. There is no way Americans are going to be in middle eastern countries that have been fighting for thousands of years between ethnic and religious groups and not be kiled.
We had no legitimate basis to “get Sadam” – Bush’s “pre-emptive” war doctrine was crap at the time.
“Getting Sadam” worked really really badly.
“Getting Ghadafi” did not go so hot either.
The fact that some thug rules a country does not make it our business to get rid of them.
We were justified in forcing regime change in Afghanistan – because they participated in an act of war against the US. We should have destroyed the Taliban and left.
We did not “pull troops from Turkey” – we pulled them from inside Syria.
We do not owe the YPG anything.
We actually did make a commitment to the Turks that if they would take millions of syrian refugees, that as soon as ISIS was defeated, we would allow Turkey to relocate them into Syria. That is primarily what is going on. YPG wants control of the portions of Syria that ISIS was driven out of. Turkey wants part of that to return Syrian refugees
There is no love lost between YPG and the turks.
But it is not our job to sort out their animus. BTW the Peshmerga is NOT aiding YPG either.
This is not about “the kurds”, it is not even about Syrian Kurds. It is about a specific faction of specifically syrian kurds – the YPG that is the militant arm of the PKK – which is the Kurdish Communists, in both Syria and Turkey and have been designated a terrorist group by NATO for a long time.
While we worked with them to defeat ISIS – they did so because they wanted ISIS defeated to, and they wanted our weapons. We owe them nothing.
They are not “the good guys” nor are the turks. No one in the mideast is “the good guys” including us. Which is alone a very good reason to get the frack out.
Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan
How well is that symphony going ?
Grow up Jay. the military is a blunt instrument – not an orchestra.
It is no more or less precise under Trump than Obama.
The most fundimental differences is that Trump seems to get that.
The US military DESTROYS things. That is what they do.
They are not there to “send messages” – unless the message is “we are going to destroy you”
Clinton, Bush II, and Obama were completely inept commanders in chief.
No I do not think that is Trump’s “forte” – just as the economy is not either.
He is just better than the prior 3 presidents who were completely inept.
“I’m neither an isolationist or neo-con war monger.”
Fine – why are we in the mideast ?
Mattis just wrote a book explaining why he thinks we should be there – and myriads of other places. And he has no interest in leaving. Mattis wants a strong US military presence FOREVER in much of the world. He wants us to intervene in all kinds of conflicts.
AND STAY.
Is that what you want ?
If not – WHY ARE WE STILL IN THE MIDEAST ?
What US interest has us killing others, and being killed ?
What are we fighting for ? Who are we fighting for ?
I am not an isolationist either. But I am tired of this shit.
Go watch Burns “Vietnam” – our leaders knew that the fate of the world did not hinge on Vietnam in the early 50’s. We were not fighting for anything. I understand GW I, I understand going to Afghanistan, but I do not know why we are still there.
I do not understand GW II or Libya, or Syria, or why we are still in Afghanistan.
Absolutely these are bad people over there. There does not seem to be any actually good people.
ISIS is bad, Asad is Bad, YPG is bad, Erodigan is Bad, ……
I do not know what Jay, or the left, or the media or the democrats want.
They want to get the fork out – until Trump wants us out.
Then whatever Trump wants – they do not want.
We should be strong in the mideast – except when that means attacking militias that pound on the gates of the US embassy.
We should investigate the crap out of Trump and anyone vaguely near him based on skanky schiff that makes no sense. Like Carter page as a russian asset or Trump asking for social media adds from Putin.
But when Biden admits to extorting Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired – and it turns out that prosecutor was investigating his son – do not get within 1000 miles of that.
Trump is a liar, liar, liar!!!!! Except so many claims that were supposed to be lies have turned out to basically be true. Further the counter claims of the left, the media, democrats, jay – all false.
I am past making sense out of any of it.
For far too many people – what they want seems to be the opposite of whatever Trump does – no matter what that is.
“ But when Biden admits to extorting Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired – and it turns out that prosecutor was investigating his son – do not get within 1000 miles of that.”
That’s a distortion bordering on lying.
Sad to see you starting off 2020 with bullshit.
“That’s a distortion bordering on lying.
Sad to see you starting off 2020 with bullshit.”
Nope, I was very careful what I said.
We KNOW from his own words that Biden extorted Ukraine to get Shokin fired.
We KNOW from US documents that Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden.
Those are FACTS. There is ZERO doubts about them. Anyone arguing otherwise is stupid or lying.
There is ALOT more. But much of that is probable – not certain, the above is CERTAIN.
We have good reason to beleive that VP Biden KNEW that his son was being investigated by Shokin.
We have good reason to beleive VP Biden was not just protecting his son but protecting an oligarch, as well as other americans, and american organizations.
We have good reason to beleive that VP Biden KNEW he son was engaged in influence peddling in Ukraine.
We have good reason to beleive that VP Biden KNEW he had a personal conflict of interest that precluded him from being involved in Ukraine.
We KNOW that people close to VP Biden knew these things. We just do not YET have his staff telling him what they were told by the State Department.
You don’t understand the timeline, dumbo.
“Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin’s ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.
Shokin’s office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.
The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/
Burisma paid a fine and the CASE WAS CLOSED in 2012.
You’re spouting Dishonest Trump bullshit propaganda.
“Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin’s ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.”
It is correct that NABU says that – it is also absolutely false as a matter of fact.
We have a flury of emails from Hunter Biden’s attorney’s as well as the FBI and State department AT THE TIME Shokin was fired that prove otherwise.
We KNOW that Hunter Biden was scheduled to be interviewed by Shokin the day after he was fired.
“Shokin’s office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.”
So why all the activity in the FBI, State, and Biden’s attorney’s ? Why was Shokin SCHEDULED to interview Hunter Biden the after he was fired ?
“Burisma paid a fine and the CASE WAS CLOSED in 2012.”
False – the case against Burisma was ongoing in 2018 – and Burisma paid two large fines in 2018. And continues to be investigated.
Further this is not confined to Ukraine or Burisma, there are investigations into money laundering involving either the Bidens or Burisma is several countries, as well as inquiries for information concerning money laundering that have continued into 2018 atleast.
“You’re spouting Dishonest Trump bullshit propaganda.”
Nope – facts. Not only facts, but I have made the case for an investigation of Biden using ONLY US sources of information – documents obtained through FOIA requests in the US.
Since you like this disprove a negative things – why was Shokin fired ?
There is to this day no actual evidence that Shokin was corrupt as claimed.
There is not even a specific claim. No one has alleged that oligarch X had Shokin in his pocket. Shokin retired and is living on a state pension. He is not living high on the hog.
Why was firing Shokin so important that the VP of the United States had to threaten to withhold $1B in loan guarantees to get him fired ?
You do understand that your USA today story is a bunch of facts that are true – but incomplete slathered with spin ?
Absolutely Shokin would not have been fired but for outside pressure – that outside pressure was CREATED by Biden, and Sorros.
The FBI/DOJ team in the US that was working with NABU was under Biden’s guidance.
Absolutley Burisma and other foreign companies in Ukraine and elsewhere seek to hire promient americans for their INFLUENCE. Cofer Black among them. But atleast Black as a former ranking CIA potentially had something meaningful to contribute. what did Hunter Biden have to contribute besides his leverage with VP Biden ? Was he knowledgeable in the region ? In Gas or fossil fuels ? On corportate governance ? Did have have any meaningful connections – besides his father ?
Next, you cite lots of diplomats (many of whom were likely involved in this) as saying there was nothing there. But you have the under oath testimony of numerous of your own purported witnesses against Trump that there was DEEP concerns in the state department.
One of YOUR witnesses even testified that he deliberately killed aide programs that Hunter Biden might have become invovled in.
So clearly this narative that this was resolved at the time and everyone knew there was nothing there is FALSE. YOUR WITNESSES TESTIFIED THERE WERE CONCERNS and that they took ACTION.
And BTW why no whistleblower complaint about this ?
Why no complaint for Mr. Ciarimeillo ? He was heavily involved with the Ukraine, he must have known about this ? Why can’t we atleast question him on this ?
an official Ukrainian government memo shows that Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about Ukrainian prosecutors.
Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to the Ukrainian government memo and Burisma’s American legal team’s internal memos.
1) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”
2) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
in a “newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court,” Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation.
“The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified
“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin reportedly said.
Burisma’s accounting records “show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton’s administration.”
Just days before Shokin’s firing, Painter met with the second highest official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there.
Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar reportedly emailed Painter afterward: “With regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the government’s reshuffle.”
Ukraine’s Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter
Painter reportedly asked one of the Ukraine embassy’s workers to “open the door for meetings with Ukraine’s prosecutors about the Burisma investigation.” Blue Star would eventually pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor’s office, according to Solomon.
At the same time, Blue Star worked in concert with an American criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. That case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues
On March 29, 2016, the day Shokin’s firing was announced, Buretta reportedly asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down.
However, Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin’s firing. Buretta, Tramontano, and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star’s memos,
Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor’s office provided to Solomon, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.
“They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,” the memo reportedly stated.
The memo also reportedly quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies:
Jay, there is alot more – what I just provided was only part of it. Some of what I provided is from Ukrainian sources, some of it is from Correspondence from Burisma lawyer to the Ukrainian prosecutors provided by Ukraine. Some of it is US correspondence obtained through FOIA requests of State and DOJ/FBI, Some of it is from private US sources.
Most of it is fairly easy to confirm.
FIRST – the claim that the Burisma investigation was dead in march 2016 is complete Bunk.
It has been ongoing sporadically for almost a decade and involves countries other than Ukraine.
The Claim that Hunter was not involved is garbage. Lawyers from US firms representing Hunter were dealing with prosecutors in the Ukraine. Hunter was supposed to be questioned.
The claim that Shokin was corrupt is highly dubious.
The claim that Shokin was not agressively investigating corruption is highly dubious.
Here is John Solomon’s response to Lt. Col. Vindeman testifying to basically what is in your USA Today article.
Solomon provides a point by point rebutal. 28 specific facts with links to documentation – much of it from the US government, or even the testimony in the impeachment hearing
https://johnsolomonreports.com/author/jsolomon/
Ron; yes, I think some troops should remain in Syria at this time.
Yes, I filter everything through a Trump prism of suspicion, same as I would if he was a dean at an all girls high school.
Despite Trump’s earlier assertion he was removing all US soldiers from the area, subsequent Islamic State activity has dictated that about 500 U.S. forces will remain in northeastern Syria, alongside Kurdish-led forces to continue pressuring them. Trump had said ISIS forces were defeated there, remember? So I was right to question the moron’s misguided assertion.
And no, I don’t want to see Americans die overseas in combat – but we do have an all volunteer Military; we can best serve and protect them by not electing an inept fool as commander in chief. Hopefully he’s ex-prez Schlump in a few months.
Happy Trump-Free 2020 to you and family, Ron. I’m signing off to get in a celebratoryNew Year’s Eve mood. 🍾🍾🍾
Jay, finally we can discuss policy.
There have been hundreds of mistakes by multiple countries beginning wuth the Brits who created the mess when they used colonial powers to dictate the borders in the middle east. That created the Kurds problem because the Brits did not create their homeland.
Fast forward to Desert storm. Why 41 thought we needed to remove Iraq from Kuwait is his decision to know. Maybe we had some reason other than oil, but I did not support that mess either. However, 41 handled it the best way, removing Hussein.
We go ten+ years and then 9-11 occurs. Iraq had nothing to do with it, but maybe some of those involved were Iraqi’s. But it was not state sponsored, but 43 saw it a chance to finish “daddy’s war”, so he made up lies about WMD’s and took out Hussein.
All hell breaks loose in middle east since one of the linchpins in stability has been removed. That allows ISIS to grow and cause havoc in the middle east. Thousands of young middle eastern men flee to Europe. We send men into Syria to protect those left.
Why? Where is Saudia Arabia? Where are their young fighting? Where are the Brits? French? Germans?
My war policy is a result of thousands of lies the government has fed the American public since Viet Nam. ” We have to stop the communist in North Viet Nam because if they take South V.N. Then Cambodia, Thailand and eventually Australia will fall. So we lost 50,000 and countless injuries based on government lies.
I dont care if my neighbors kid volunteers for the military or not. Their life is not worth 500 middle eastern lives when no one else in the world will place that same price on defending the world.
I am not an isolationist. But I do stand by which ever country is being attacked that that country commit their blood to the war before we do. And no Americans will be committed to civil wars because that is never going to end well, regardless if who wins. And that goes for the Kurds since they have fought for years against many.
Americans have been told too many lies to believe the shit they tell us. Now that so many hate Trump they understand what people like me have felt for years, but since they supported those in office, they drank that cool-aide.
My hope for the future us people like you who finally have seen the light do not go back to believing politicians are telling the truth. Unless its Jesus himself coming back as president, I will believe little of what they say.
“Yes, I filter everything through a Trump prism of suspicion, same as I would if he was a dean at an all girls high school.”
You should be suspicious of all politicians, of everyone who might in one way or the other take advantage of you.
But ultimately you have to figure out who to beleive and how much you can trust them.
As well as who not to beleive.
You can have any criteria you want. But we do actually know ways to improve your odds.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus – that is not a rule of law, but it is an excellent rule of thumb. You, the media, the left, democrats have spent 3+ years telling us that Trump is just one massive lie after another.
While no one is claiming that Trump is incapable of lying or of shading the truth, the actual record has him not merely head and shoulders above other presidents and politicians, but above the media – which is supposed to be our stewards of truth.
On issue after issue that you have all claimed Trump lied – turns out he was telling the truth.
You say Mueller did not “exonerate” Trump – maybe not, But Horowitz absolutely did.
Before Horowitz we did not know of most of the malfeasance involved in this.
But the reasons for disbeleiving were self evident from the start.
Everyone who has been selling Trump/Russia collusion SELF EVIDENTLY has poor judgement. We call those who believe highly improbable claims conspiracy theorists,.
The press is turning on Rachel Maddow right now. Not that she does not deserve it, but she is nothing more than the extreme of almost all the press. Very few in the media – did not chase after this fraud. The press did almost nothing to question any of this, and when it did and found parts lacking, it ignored that and continued to beleive.
And then we have campaign promises, we can quibble about who is paying for the wall, or other details. No president has ever done such a good job of keeping campaign promises.
Even ones I think he should not have.
So do I trust Trump ? Not on my life. But do I have good reason to trust him more than Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, the media, you ? Absolutely.
So far all the people outraged over Trump have a far far worse track record for integrity than Trump. You are not to be beleived – because you have earned that distrust.
Do I trust Trump ? No, but I trust you and the rest of the TDS crowd less.
Are their US troops in combat in Syria right now ?
You say Trump said he was removing all troops – please cite where he said that ?
He removed troops from between the YPG and the Turks.
You say there is continuing ISIS activity in Syria – again cite.
You say that US Troops are engaging ISIS in Syria – again cite.
Some of this might be true – but your track record for credibility is low.
What I understand is that the US troops removed from combat are guarding Syrian oil fields.
ISIS was defeated as force holding teritory and claiming to govern. That BTW is the fundimental distinction between Al Qeda and ISIS. Islamic terrorism has not been defeated. Many of those who fought for ISIS are still fighting and even engaged in terrorism elsewhere. Some probably still dream of an Islamic State. But any connection between that dream and reality is gone. As a force capable of holding teritory and governing people – ISIS is gone.
But islamic terrorism remains.
Jay, i just read about this. So whats your point.
43 f’ed up by removing Hussein. Had he left Iraq as it was the middle east would not be the mess it is today. Those people would be dead because Hussein would not.put up with that. And ISIS would never have been created with three strongmen leading Syria, Iraq and Iran.
And wasn’t this in response to some compound we took out a few days ago in Iraq? Why did we do that? From an interventionalist point of view, please explain that to me.
While we should get out of Iraq.
This started with Iranian backed militias killing a US civilian, and several iraqi’s with rockets.
Trump retaliated – whether we get out or not – that is appropriate.
Now the militias are fuming.
BTW there are lots of protests in Iraq – including AGAINST these militias.
“ North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has said he is ending the suspension of nuclear and long-range missile tests put in place during talks with the US… Mr Kim also said his country would soon introduce “a new strategic weapon”. (BBC)
Does this mean Donnie isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize, as Fox commentators promised?
Jay, you may want to read up on impeachment. It is not a strictly judicial process, it’s a poltical process, outlined in the Constitution. And the President, although he is absolutely entitled to due process and other rights under the law, has no say over how the House conducts the impeachment process, nor how the Senate conducts a trial.
Neal Kaytal is trying to gaslight people into believing that Trump has been accused of a crime, which he has not, and that the Senate trial must be conducted according to the judicial guidelines which are applied to a criminal trial.
He has clearly been successful in gaslighting you…
You are correct that the house and senate can each do much as they please. The guidance in the constitution is minimal.
The senate can, and I beleive should just outright dismiss for failure to present a legitimate claim. Just as the house gets to decide what is impeachable in its view – so does the Senate.
Everyone is bandying about models – the house as a grand jury, the senate as a petit jury.
assertions about due process and following the rules.
All of this is true, and none of it is true.
The house and senate are each free to do pretty much what they please. There is no review or appeal process for impeachment.
Trump is not entitled to due process, The house is not entitled to a hearing, much less witnesses.
The “court of appeals” for all of this, is VOTERS.
All the complaints about process will not be decided by the federal rules of procedure, but by the voters in November.
And the huge problem that democrats and Katyal have is that having abandoned any semblance of due process in the house, having not called witnesses in the house, they are hypocritical in demanding the senate do what they want.
I beleive the least partisan thing the senate can do, is vote that the house articles do not make an impeachable claim. Even if they must do so on a party line vote.
The house demands for witnesses are not credible. They had and still have the ability to compell through the courts the witnesses they claim to want.
Using THEIR trial model – no judge on the planet is going to allow a witness that the police or prosecutors or the grand jury could have interviewed had they wanted to but failed to do so OR were barred from doing so by other courts. It would never happen.
Prosecutors are required to show up at Trial with their entire case ready. Trials are NOT further investigations.
Unfortunately the Senate has little out but to in some way participate in this farce.
Trump wants a giant production trial. Trump wants to call lots of witnesses.
While I would personally like to hear from all those people under oath – that should not occur as part of some Impeachmemnt show trial.
But exactly the same is true of Schiff and house democrats.
I am not a big McConnell fan, but in this instance he is right. Whatever the Senate does, it should be short and swift with the least fan fare possible.
The house and senate can continue to pursue this as they please as part of their normal business, Republicans in the senate can investigtate Biden, Burisma, …..
and democrats in the house can fight through the courts to get these witnesses they purportedly want.
Katyal knows much better than this.
Every defense attorney in existance will strive to deny the prosecution of any witness that it can. Will demand due process, will demand that hearsay and other inadmissible evidence be prohibited. while at the same time seeking to call as many of its own witnesses as possible.
Trump and his team are doing exactly what one would expect.
Further Trump is NOT the impediment here. McConnell is. Trump is publicly demanding a trial. and he is demanding his own witnesses, He want Ciaremello, he wants the Bidens, he wants Shokin. He wants Schiff.
The pivotal issue is NOT what Trump may or may not have said to who. Just about the worst you MIGHT be able to prove still results in innocence, if there was sufficient basis to request an investigation – which there OBVIOUSLY was.
BTW even if your garbage claims were true – that would not change anything.
Shokin WAS investigating Burisma and specifically looking to question Hunter Biden, but even if that was not true, the question is not what do we know now, but what did TRUMP know at the time of the call. Biden’s public comments are sufficient all by themselves to justify the request.
But if there is a trial Trump would be absolutely free to further build his claim that the request was justified.
McConnell does not want a Trial – just as much because he does not want Trump to drag the Senate into this, as because of some concern about Schiff’s alleged witnesses.
The house is free to go to court – which they have not done, to get these witnesses to testify in the house. They can then present whatever they get in the Senate.
Trump and the minority should have been free to call the witnesses they wanted in the House, so that the Senate did not need to be tied up in this political spat between Trump and Schiff.
Nothing has stopped you from getting this testimony
This is not about getting testimony it is about trying to abuse the process.
‘ The house is free to go to court – which they have not done, to get these witnesses to testify in the house.“
Sigh. Let me explain why that is a morally obtuse response;
Trump holds a dinner party at a restaurant he doesn’t own.
He leaves without paying the bill.
The restaurant management telephones him, asks to be paid.
Trump: ‘You’re free to sue me.”
Pretend that was Biden.
Gonna defend him with your usual rationalization dance?
“Sigh. Let me explain why that is a morally obtuse response;”
What does morally obtuse mean ?
My response was clear.
“Trump holds a dinner party at a restaurant he doesn’t own.
He leaves without paying the bill.
The restaurant management telephones him, asks to be paid.
Trump: ‘You’re free to sue me.””
In your hypothetical – which bears almost no relationship to what has actually occured, The restaurant has the alternative of calling the police – theft of services is a crime.
In the real world – subpeona power is not absolute.
Any party to any legal proceeding in the world can subpeona witnesses or documents. I have personally issued atleast 20 subpeona’s.
I could have subpeona’d you for your tax returns of to testify. I would just need to go to the courthouse and pay $10 for the form for each subpeona. I do not even have to tell them who or what I am subpeoning or what relevance it has to the case. I just need to be a litigant in an open case.
If I were to subpeona you – it is likely that you would respond “what the fork ?”
You could:
Go to court to seek the subpeona squashed.
Just ignore it in which case I would have to go to court to get it enforced.
The court would decide – whether I was permitted to subpeona you – I do not have final authority to decide that myself – nor does the house.
The enforcement of subpeona’s is not the same as a lawsuit. It is a request from the court for an order. There is no trial, almost certainly it is resolved by briefs and arguments on the law. If there are relevant facts disputed – which there rarely are, there might be a brief hearing.
If the house asks for a court order to enforce their subpeona, Trump MUST respond with an assertion that the law does not require him to comply with the subpeona.
There are near infinite numbers of reasons Trump could offer, but there are very few the court would seriously consider. Regardless, If Trump provides a legal assertion of a privildge that is recognized, and meets the requirements of that priviledge – the subpeona will be denied, and if he does not it will be granted.
There are also myriads of intermediate outcomes. Trump can argue that the subpeona is overly broad, or that complying is impossibly burdensome – as an example if the House subpeonad the tax records for the entire Trump family through to their arrival in the US.
Or that he was not given sufficient time, or that the subpeona requests information that for any of a large number of reasons can not be provided.
The likelyhood is that the courts WILL allow the House to subpeona witnesses and documents. But it is also near certain they will significantly narrow the scope of the subpeona.
That also should not surprise you in the slightest.
As noted above – while there was litigation involving my fathers estate going on – as one of the litigants, I could have subpeona’d anyone. But just because I did so, did not mean the court was going to enforce my subpeona.
You would not want it otherwise – or I could file a lawsuit locally against someone having nothing to do with you and then subpeona you and require you to travel accross country to comply.
Trump did not do anything equivalent of “holding a dinner party” – he asked the House for nothing. There is no agreement between the house and the whitehouse to provide witnesses or documents.
“Pretend that was Biden.
Gonna defend him with your usual rationalization dance?”
Biden briefly claimed he would not comply with Trump Subpeona’s to testify if there was a senate trial.
Biden is free not to comply. If he fails to do so, then Trump must go to court to get the subpeona enforeced. That is the proper process.
In the instance we are currently dealing with – it would not be a crime, or morally wrong to refuse to comply with either a house subpeona or a trump subpeona to testify in the senate.
It would be the responsibility of whoever issued the subpeona to get it enforced by the court.
When they sought to do so both parties would have the opportunity to present arguments regarding why the subpeona should:
Be enforced as is.
Quashed
Or narrowed.
That is how the process works.
With specific respect to the house Subpeona’s of the executive – this is extremely common.
The house has STILL not received materials it subpeona’d during the early Obama administration.
Again you missed the point.
Are you really that much a dullard?
The PERSON who initiates the WRONG is morally responsible to right it.
The PERSON who didn’t pay the bill (without reason) is morally responsible for correcting that wrong.
Are you suggesting “thou shall not steal” isn’t a moral imperative?
Are you suggesting if no legal means are initiated to recover the unpaid bill, skipping out on the bill wasn’t immoral?
Trump has immorally OBSTRUCTED the right of the people to hear testimony of consequence. It’s censorship of the public’s right to know the truth.
And you do know that the CATO Institute agrees with me, right? They were as outraged at Trump’s stonewalling congressional requests for documents and witness testimony as I am.
“ Legal experts sounded the alarm last week after the White House declared it was refusing to cooperate with House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump… The categorical stonewall Trump just announced is clearly an impeachable offense.
But none of this was surprising from a president whose contempt for the Constitution and democratic norms is exceeded only by his ignorance of them. This is a man with a visceral hatred for freedom of speech and the press, who sees dissenters as un-American and journalists as “the enemy of the people.” He’s an authoritarian by instinct who swoons over dictators and lashes out at the independent judiciary, rejects Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and fancies himself above the law. Trump’s daily assaults on core American values are genuinely too numerous to name.”
So dhlii- let me remind you in the 2nd day of 2020, as I did throughout preceding years, to shove your trump quisling propaganda up where the sun don’t shine
“The PERSON who initiates the WRONG is morally responsible to right it.”
And there lies your problem – fallacious circular reasoning.
The fact that your resturant analogy clearly does not fit (and that you have the analogy wrong) should have given you a clue.
There is no obligation for any of us to provide others whatever they want.
That should be obvious.
The resturaunteer’s bill must be paid because there was an agreement and the customer did not keep that agreement. But even in that analogy – the resturaunteer is OBLIGATED to seek their payment – not the shirking customer. Because in that instance there is a potential crime involved the resturaunteer can seek the aide of law enforcement, But the resturaunteer can NOT enforce the agreement on his own. He can persuade law enforcement or he can sue. He can not steal your car as payment.
With the scenario you are addressing – there is no agreement between Trump and the House. There is no mutual exchange of obligations.
The house is unilaterally making a demand. They do not get to decide for themselves whether that demand is legitimate. That is precisely why we have the courts (and laws).
Further you seem to be of the delusion that this is binary – that the whitehouse MUST provide whatever the house wants, and that they can have whatever witnesses they want and ask whatever they want. That somehow the constitution afforded the house infinite investigative power, that it made the lord high chancel in a police state.
That is not how things are. The house is entitled to as much or as little as the law allows, what that is, is determined by the courts following the law. Not by the whitehouse, and not be the house of representatives.
You are arguing about morality – and you are arguing a position that is morally wrong.
You are litterally arguing Leveranti Beria – “show me the man, I will show you the crime”
In the real world the courts do not care about your moral preening, Morality is a RESULT, not an input.
“Sentence first, verdict afterward”
Red Queen, Alice in Wonderland.
“The PERSON who didn’t pay the bill (without reason) is morally responsible for correcting that wrong.”
Courts – not the president, not the house, determine whether an act (theft) occured, and whether the act has a justification.
You keep confusing the prosecutor with the judge and jury. Accusation with guilt and law.
“Are you suggesting “thou shall not steal” isn’t a moral imperative?”
This is not about stealing. It is not about any action that has actually been found under the law to be wrong. You have the cart before the horse.
Sentence first, Verdict afterward.
“Are you suggesting if no legal means are initiated to recover the unpaid bill, skipping out on the bill wasn’t immoral?”
I am suggestion that we can not presume to know whether an action was moral or immoral, and more importantly impose sanctions for that action without an inquiry that follows the norms of due process set by the law.
“Trump has immorally OBSTRUCTED the right of the people to hear testimony of consequence. It’s censorship of the public’s right to know the truth.”
We get into this with you constantly – there is no such right.
There is no right to hear testimony, no right to know “the truth” whatever that is.
The fourth amendment makes it clear that the power of the state to explore is CONSTRAINED, and that it can not do so just because it wants to know something.
While the fourth amendment does not apply to Trump’s actions as president.
The general principle – that there is no power of infinite inquiry remains.
The burden the House must meet is LOW, but it is not non-existant.
The house is not entitled to whatever it might wish to know.
It is entitled to what the constitution and the law allow it.
And COURTS determine that.
The house is not the arbiter of the limits of its own powers any more than Trump gets to determine the limits of his.
It is near certain that the courts will require Trump to produce documents and witnesses.
But it is also likely that it will not allow the house to go on a fishing expedition.
IF Cato actually agrees with you they are wrong – and they are on the wrong side of a core libertarian principle.
You do not decide process by expected outcome.
Sentence first, verdict afterward.
It is highly likely the courts will get the house most but not all of what they request.
I fully support extremely broad oversight by congress.
There are very few reasons if any that the executive can deprive the congress of oversite information. I do not accept even national security as a valid claim between congress and the executive.
That does NOT however mean that the house is unilaterlaly entitled to how whatever it wants however it wants, and to do with it whatever it wishes.
While I do not beleive the executive has much control of WHAT it must provide congress. I do beleive that it is entitled to some control over HOW that process is handled.
I would hope we would agree that while congress can demand and receive top secret information, that it should not do so in open session, that those in congress and their staffs who are not cleared should not have access.
That is one example.
I also do not beleive that congress can demand someone testify under oath without defining the areas of inquiry before hand.
The house should not be allowed to use its hearings as a means to entrap people into perjury by asking them about questions that were not expecting, and then prosecuting them for inaccurate recall.
We have had LOTS of that in this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense.
It is CRIMINAL, and it MUST end.
What Mueller has done with Papadoulis, Flynn, Vad Der Zandt, even Stone and Cohen is not
law enforcement – it is CRIMINAL abuse of power.
Horrowitz has just told us that the FBI KNEW before Trump’s inauguration that there was nothing to investigate, that the basis of the investigation was GONE.
Comey knew that. McCabe knew that, Rosenstien knew that. Ultimately Mueller and his henchmen knew that
The entire Mueller investigation is exposed as an ABUSE OF POWER, as LAWLESS.
This does not become any more lawful – just because the House does it.
There is no PUBLIC RIGHT TO KNOW – all rights are individual, not collective.
The house is not free to conduct another witch hunt. It is entitled to whatever information and witnesses the COURTS decide – following the law and constitution.
Legal experts do not get to decide what is an impeachable offense – regardless we can play dueling experts til the end of Trump.
Turley one of the best constitutional experts on impeachment there is, says NO to your claim.
But in the end – The house has free reign on what it considers an impeachable offense.
As does the Senate, and in the end the voters have the final say.
I think the house has made a mistake. But I have NEVER argued they are not free to make that mistake.
Just as the senate is perfectly free to dissmiss (and should) this “faux impeachment” as not stating an impeachable offense. Both the house and the senate get to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense answerable only to voters.
It would be very wise for the senate to set a bar much higher than the house has, or we will end up with the equivalent of the British Parliment and votes of no confidence.
As to the whitehouse “refusing to cooperate” – that is the NORM. It has been the norm in every impeachment inquiry – Both Nixon and Clinton fought every request all the way to the supreme court – and BOTH won some and lost some. If the house bothers to take their demands to court, I expect the same result.
It is absolutely totally normal for the executive to stonewall congressional inquiries.
If that is a basis for impeaching Trump – then every President in US history must be impeached.
I support broad powers of inquiry by the house into the executive. But I do not support ANY branch of government unilaterally getting to decide what the limits of its own powers are.
There is nowhere else in out legal system where we claim obstruction when a person REQUIRES that part of government making demands of them to prove in court legal entitlement to whatever they demand.
There is no such crime in US law of “obstruction” by requiring some part of the government to dot every I and cross every T and get the permission of every single court through the supreme court for whatever they want – even when the courts unanimously decide the request is legitimate.
The contempt for the constitution is yours and that of the left.
There is no instance in the constitution where any branch of government is given absolute power. There is no instance where the legitimacy of the power of one branch over a 2nd is not adjudicated by a third.
I support a very broad entitlement of congress to obtain information from the executive.
But I do not support congress ever deciding anything without review.
I would further note this entire issue is nonsense.
IF democrats somehow got McConnell to do their bidding – all that would change is that the Senate would have to go to court rather than the house to get these witnesses.
OR Trump would negotiate the terms for their testimony with McConnell.
The latter actually being the most likely. Do you really want Trump and McConnell deciding what Witnesses Schiff and Nadler can have and what questions can be asked ?
This is essentially in the Senate now. McConnell is just as free as Pelosi to make this a partisan process. When the house does as it pleases without any respect for due process – why do you expect the Senate to behave differently ?
There are only TWO ways to resolve this.
The first is in the courts. Either the house or the senate must go to court to get these witnesses, etc.
If the house wants control of that, then the house should go to court.
I am not hearing anyone who is saying that the house is not entitled to go to court to enforce its subpeonas.
If this is resolved at the senate – it is near certain to be resolved by discussions with Trump and McConnell.
It would be trivial right now for McConnell to sit down with Trump and agree what witnesses will be permitted, and what questions will be asked of those witnesses.
I would be shocked if Trump and McConnell could not work that out.
Though I doubt you would like the results.
If Nadler and Schiff want these witnesses and want the same ludicrous process they had in the house – they need to go to court themselves and hope they can sell the courts.
The only thing stopping you from having these witnesses is the courts.
If you beleive what you are claiming – argue that in court, and question these witnesses in the house if you can win.
The only people I see acting outside of the constitution is the democrats.
The house can go to court to get all the things it claims it is entitled to.
Though unlikely the court could even sanction Trump if it thought his claims were too weak.
Adjudicating the limits of the powers of the president and the house in COURT is following the constitution.
It is also something that every president for over a century has done.
the Supreme court found an assertion of executive power of President Obama unconstitutional 9-0 more times than any other president in history.
And we are still litigating power grabs by Obama
I do not think Trump has lost in the Supreme court 9-0 yet.
And overall his record with SCOTUS though not stellar is better than every modern president since Reagan.
The claim that Trump is authoritarian is obvious nonsense.
Nearly all challenges to Trump are not claims that he has expanded the power of the president, but that he has contracted it. That he refuses to continue the unconstitutional actions of Obama.
What you and the left are most angry with Trump about is not that he does not follow the constitution. But that he has not continued the unconstitional and lawless actions of Obama.
Whew… if it wasn’t for the billions they saved from Trump’s tax reduction, we’d probably be seeing double that many increases.
“Drugmakers from Pfizer to GSK to hike U.S. prices on over 200 drugs reut.rs/36glteS”
Poor old Joe, so out of touch.
“Anyone who can throw coal in a furnace can learn to code”
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/biden-to-coal-miners-learn-to-code/ar-BBYtLRi
Who knew that coding was that easy? Wow, good thing I dont depend on coal for heat because I tried one time to learn coding and totally failed, so I guess I would have froze to death if itvworks bithbways.
“Learn to code”, is a meme – and a relevant one. It was not intended to be taken literally.
Everyone can not code. But most everyone can find a different job that pays better and is more productive.
If that were not true rising standard of living would not be possible.
The problem with Biden’s remarks is that he took “learn to code” literally.
The 2nd problem – with both that remark and an earlier one that he was prepared to destroy millions of jobs to advance a “green agenda”, was the presumption that government is free to frack over people to (fail) to acheive some policy objective.
BTW there is atleast one pollinge service that is now predicting Trump will win Virgina – against any current democratic contender.
I think that is unlikely – but if Virginia is in play – nearly the entire country is in play except maybe MA, NY IL, and CA.
If Virginia is ever a close election – Trump will win easily.
Dave “The problem with Biden’s remarks is that he took “learn to code” literally.”
You and i live in totally different universes. Even with Jay’z and my almost total disagreement with politics and people in politics, I think we live in the same universe.
The problem with Joe’s remarks is not “HE” took that literally. It is because millions take his remarks seriously. How many people have any idea what it takes to code? All they do is pick up their “dumb down” device, access whatever they need as long as their is some app to allow that to happen and move on.
The nimrods that vote to support green new deals have no idea if what he said is right or wrong. Their tribe believes it, so they believe it.
Clinton, Biden and the left, beleive it is OK for government to decide who will get to keep their job and who will not. Nor is this limited to jobs.
This is where I appear to live in a different world from both of you. It is not governments job to
put its thumb on the scales, to make ANY of those choices – not about what jobs should stay or which should go, not about what foods we should eat, not about what healthcare we should have not about …..
That does NOT mean that those things will not change, that your job will remain forever, that ….
We as individuals WILL make choices that in aggregate WILL result in “winners and losers”.
Some jobs will stay – for now. Some will go. You bemoan that ordinary people freely choose “cheap” chinese products over expensive american ones and the consequence is lost US jobs. You bemoan that somehow this is unfair. Of course it is. No working conditions for the chinese are NOT the same as those for americans. How well does that argument fly when it is robots not foreigners who are taking the jobs ? No one gives the robot family leave, health benefits, ….
Free markets highly incentivize producing more value with less human effort. That is the single most important driving force to higher standards of living.
You can not have higher standard of living without constantly finding ways to produce more with less human effort. And less human effort ALWAYS means the destruction of existing jobs. ALWAYS.
All changes – whether driven by the free market or by government have positive and negative effects. All have winners and losers.
But the incentives of free markets assure that most if not all the time the net effect is rising standard of living – more of us doing better.
Further specific to “jobs”, there is no constraint on our ability to make productive use of human effort. When the drive to produce more with less frees 5, or 5million people from their jobs. There will ALWAYS be something for them to do. In a perfect world we want them to find some new job that is of greater value than what they did before “learn to code” or just about anything that is of more value than your prior job. But even if some end up with a LESS valuable job – if they go from coal miner to trash collector we are STILL over all much better off.
Absolutely nothing has changed since the luddites. It does not matter whether you are being replaced by a machine, or an illegal immigrant, or you are outsourced, or your factory moves to china. The short term effects on you will be negative, but the short AND long term effects on society as a whole will be positive. But YOU will still need to find a job – hopefully a better one. Whether that is as a trash collector or a web developer or any of millions of other possibilities – some we have never heard of is up to you personally.
But when government makes the choices – the same harms occur, people are displaced from their jobs and have to find new ones. But the gains are not the same.
Rising standard of living means producing more than humans value.
What “humans value” is NOT decided by government – not ever, and regardless of what people might claim. Nor is it decided by mutual agreement, or concensus or democratically.
It is ONLY decided by the choices each of us make as individuals every day.
You rail because you say the goods made in china are “cheap junk”.
But american consumers have chosen to buy them. And absolutely that was the choice of consumers. If consumers on the whole thought the stuff from china, was “cheap junk” not “a better overall value” they would not have bought chinese goods.
Walmart does not dupe consumers with cheap junk from China. Consumers are free to buy or not. If they were more likely to buy more expensive and better american goods – they would have and that is what Walmart would sell.
That is how greater human value is decided.
Not by you are me imposing our will on everyone.
Not by govenrment.
Not even by Walmart.
We each have a voice – our willingness to part with what we have earned in return for some goods or service offered. If we buy – we have spoken, if we dont we have spoken.
This is the only system of “voting” in existance that highly accurately reflects ALL our values and preferences and does so as holistically as possible.
Ha.
Can they learn to understand windmills?
ps- I first learned basic code at age 40.
My wife teaches it to 10-12 year old school kids.
Very interesting! I wont tell my friends programming medical systems, automotive computer systems and one programming aircraft computer systems that those dudes in Appalachia digging coal out of the mountains are smart enough to do their jobs.
Guess thats how Boeing ended up with hundreds of planes grounded.
Jay, are you really saying you think some marginal student in West Va that ends up a coal miner could learn to code?
There is infinite demand for people with the ability to program.
There is far more demand than people. Even within segments the supply is not close to demand.
I am an embedded software engineer. I write the code that goes in medical centrifuges and laser communications controllers, and devices that detect nuclear materials coming through our ports, or that goes into engine control units in cars.
This is difficult work and we do not have a fraction of the number of people necescary to do what we want to do.
One of the big projects I am working on is a dirt cheap embedded system that is extrermely powerful that will allow much less capable people to do the same work that I do.
If we succeed – and someone will succeed. that will allow script kiddies to do my job.
That is huge. The more people who can do what I do, the more powerful wonderful things we will have.
I think that we are just barely scratching the surface with IoT and alexa and google assistane and Siri and … we have the ability today to do life enhancing things we have not been able to do before.
What I think is coming is so consequential that I can not even guess the ways it is going to change and improve our lives.
While I do not think that every coal miner can or should “learn to code”. Those who know how to code now, have job security for atleast the rest of my life. We are many many many decades from supply exceeding demand – if we ever get there.
Whatever you are doing – if you have the skills necescary to code – even badly.
There is a good job available for you.
But everyone does not have the skills to code – not even badly.
Dave, now we can get specific.
Biden said anyone who can throw coal in a furnace can learn to code.
I believe individuals are born with specific “DNA” (for illustrative purposes only) where they are good at science, math, arts, music, mechanical, etc.
I dont believe you can make an artist out of a mathematician unless that person had artistic abilities to begin with.
And unlike Biden, I dont think you can take a coal miner that has problems with anything mathematical and make them a coder. I just dont see it happening. My grand daughter is good with music and art, very advanced, but her math skills are limited and even my wife, a math major, cant seem to get her to understand the theories, steps, procedures, whatever in math at the grammer school level.
Everyone is not a musician – I certainly am not.
Life is not fair. It can not be made fair. I have talents that others lack, and lack talents others have.
We are not equal. I can have sympathy for those who in some way started with less.
A few differences can be “fixed” but mostly our differences can not be “fixed”.
My problem with Biden is NOT “learn to code” or even that everyone does not have what it takes to code. “Learn to code” is not supposed to be litteral – though Biden used it that way.
It is a an acceptable response to whiners complaining that life is not “fair”.
It is NOT acceptable public policy. It is NOT acceptable for GOVERNMENT to distort the playing feild driving people out of jobs for some public good.
It is NOT acceptable for government to impose some regulation – “for our own good” that results in one or 10 thousand people losing their jobs.
Coal miners are likely losing their jobs no matter what. They should prepare for that and learn some other skill that they CAN do that will make them valuable.
But Government may not force the issue. It may not cost them their jobs prematurely.
Ultimately the “playing field” can not be leveled, and government efforts to do so make things worse not better. This is where I part company with you on several issues.
DAve, Dave, Dave, Dave, please! Please stop thinking voters are like you. They are not. They are like Jim Jones followers drinking the kool-aide. To millions across the country, Bidens “learn to code” was not a figure of speech. They take it literally.
Why else would we have ended up with Clinton and Trump as the 2016 candidates? It sure was not because they were the best candidates possible. It was the gullibility of voters buying their B.S.
I do not think voters are like me.
I also do not think Voters are nearly so guilible as apparently you do.
That is not that they do not make mistakes.
But most of them DO NOT buy the koolaide.
By means I do not often understand – they quite often make good choices.
I think Chosing Trump over Clinton was smart.
And as much as I dislike lots of things about Trump – I do not think the rest of the GOP 2016 field would have made better presidents.
No I am not a Kasich fan. And as much as I “like” some of the other choices better.
I do not think they would have done so well as president as Trump has.
They are insiders. part of the system. They were not nearly as capable of undoing what Obama had done.
Overall, no- there may be a few hidden programming talents among the miners population, but typical working-class miners certainly can learn to program/use a multitude of other tools and instruments in new blue collar jobs. The 1st gen Mexican Plumber’s who unclogged my water pipe had a computer-aided cable-snake with camera to scope the insides for holes and determines distances. Also had a sonic reader to trace sewer pipe depth & location under my driveway.
Biden obviously misspoke in referencing ‘programming’ – likely he didn’t mean mathematical coding; but more sophisticated retraining. He confused a term of use, but was offering sound advice; coal mining is a dead end profession; adapt to new tech to survive.
I’m disappointed that you jumped on that Anti-Biden Fox News Click Bait. You’ve already solidifying your own anti-Biden stance, accentuating minor negatives and eliminating his pluses. Like Gerald Ford, Biden may not have the sharpest mind or sparkling public speaking talent, but he has Ford’s non-confrontational non-divisive moderate temperament – exactly what was needed to soothe the nation’s battered psyche after the Nixon debacle, exactly what’s needed now. Of all the Dem candidates running, he has the best chance to quick start the healing process the nation needs desperately.
There are many reasons Biden is being slammed for this remark.
First while it is figuratively true, it is not literally true and Biden offered id fairly literally.
Then because it is an article of faith among those on the left that “Learn to Code” is an evil racist, sexist, ableist or some other vile ism, and Biden offering something that many on the right have asserted, must be condemned.
I have no idea what Fox might have said. but I can guess.
For me it is just another example of the hypocracy of the left.
When someone not on the left says this they are excoriated as racist, or the perpatrators of some other ism.
But the last and biggest problem with Biden’s remark was its origen.
Biden is not saying – if each of us through our own individual free choices determine that your job as a coal miner or whatever is not necescary – then you should find another job.
Biden is say that when the elites of government such as himself decide that your job should go away, then you should kowtow and learn to code.
It is not the legitimate role of government to decide whose job survives and whose does not.
Jay, interesting comments from Tulsi.
“From The Hill:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) predicted Monday that it would be more difficult for House Democrats to remain in control of the House following passage of articles of impeachment against President Trump.
In a video tweeted Monday evening, the 2020 candidate for president wrote that Trump’s chances of winning reelection had been “greatly increased” because of the House’s vote.
“Unfortunately, the House impeachment of the president has greatly increased the likelihood Trump will remain the president for the next 5 years,” Gabbard says in the video.
“We all know that Trump is not going to be found guilty by the U.S. Senate,” she added.
In 2020, we will have a new president in the White House. How many of you do NOT want that to be Donald Trump? I certainly don’t. Unfortunately, the House impeachment of the president has greatly increased the likelihood Trump will remain the president for the next 5 years … pic.twitter.com/FRRlbWHyo7
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) December 31, 2019″
Tulsi is a putin puppet, a russian agent – she can not be trusted !!!!
There are lots of conflicting indicators at the moment. And things could easily change between now and November.
But MOST indications are that the house impeachment effect ranged from no impact at all to a negative impact on democrats.
I beleive that Republicans need to flip 18 seats to retake the house.
There are something like 35 democratic seats in “Trump country” – these are districts that went to Trump by approx 10pts and elected a democrat to the house in 2018.
(some of them elected a democrat in 2016).
The senate race in 2020 STRUCTURALLY favors democrats – Republicans have most of the seats being contested. The odds in 2020 favor Democrats gaining in the Senate. But not flipping it. But many projections have Republicans actually gaining in the Senate – particularly after impeachment.
Further, it is likely to take a long time for the results of this to fully play out.
We are only starting to see the impact of Mueller and Horowitz. There appears to be a full on effort by the left to scapegoat Maddow right now.
Maddow is the poster child for the bat shit anti-trump left.
But there is nothing that Maddow has said that half the press has not repeated.
Maddow is just proof that idiots can be Rhoads scholars. That the academy is blindly owned by the left.
I have no idea what is going on right now other than the impeachment nor do I need to know or care to know. When the time comes, I will pay attention and then question what I see and hear. But I do see many different comments you make concerning everything taking place.
If only a fraction of those have legs, the GOP will have much to work with in the coming election to counter the mountains of crap Trump gives them. He is the master of “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” (W.C.Fields)
Democrats have doubled down on idiocy and in doing so they have lost the attention of the people.
You are not paying attention – I completely understand that. More and more people are NOT.
The more irrelevant what is going on in washington becomes the more likely Trump is re-elected.
The democrats strategy – to the extent they have one, since 2016 has been to foment outrage.
They have been more successful at that than I expected, sustained outrage is extremely hard to maintain. If that was not true – Clinton would have been impeached.
We are now starting the 2020 election season in earnest.
We have had 6 months of democratic pre-pre-primaries.
During which the democratic candidates have appealed to their extreme base and completely lost the interests of the country.
Is anyone watching the democratic debates ?
Does anyone care about the candidates ?
We have done the Mueller investigation, and the Faux impeachment – all have fizzled, none have produced anything of substance.
The left is losing energy – or more accurately the portion fo the left that is sustaining outrage is diminishing.
Trump’s supporters are increasingly energized.
So in Nov. 2020 who is going to vote ?
Are the pussy hat #resist people going to vote in greater numbers than in 2016 or 2018 ?
Are Trump supporters going to vote in greater numbers than in 2016 and 2018 ?
Are the number of people voting based on the economy going to be greater or smaller ?
Are those who are increasingly uninterested in the democratic debates or faux impeachment or the msm going to be voting enmasse against Trump ?
If you can not get them to watch a democratic debate, or care about impeachment, how do you expect to get them to vote against Trump ?
I also warned last year that Mueller destroyed the credibility of the press, the left, democrats,
Horrowitz has made that problem substantially worse.
There is little doubt at this point that what occured within Comey’s FBI was very wrong and inexcusable.
Purportedly Indictments are coming SOON. I doubt people will pay much attention to the details. But they will take note of the fact that people are being indicted.
That makes Trump more credible and his detractors less.
Trump very successfully painted Mueller are biased. The fact that he found nothing anyway really boosts Trump. Then Horowitz delivers the coup de grace. Tough Horowitz did not speach of Mueller, if the FBI investigation was no longer legitimate after mid January – the Mueller investigation was never legitimate.
Trump’s attacks on Mueller, the witch hunt the deep state all have increasing credibilty.
Increasingly those who call Trump a liar turn out to be liars.
Now the left is trying to paint Barr and Durham as partisan. This is going badly – because they have no credibility.
I did not think democrats would be so stupid as to bet on this hail mary of faux impeachment.
But they did. Gingrich was punished in 1998 when he had an actual crime – when he came up with something. Pelosi came up with nothing. I do not think 2020 is going to go well for democrats.
Between now and Nov. I can see many things going Trump’s way. I can see few speed bumps. And Trump is already at parity with potential democrats. He is doing better than Obama did at this time.
“ Tulsi is a putin puppet, a russian agent – she can not be trusted !!!!”
We agree on something!
No Jay we do not agree. That was sarcasm, and you know it.
You are deeply channeling your inner Joe MacCarthy.
You complain about Trump – but you are the one who uses slurs to silence.
Ron- who is your House rep?
Some dimwit from Boone N.C. called Virginia Foxx until yesterday. Redistricting changed that and I am not sure who it is because eliminating jerrymandering by the courts put us in some jerrymandered district that I have no idea who and what it includes.
I will find out, but its cut out liberal voters in our area to create a couple liberal leaning districts, making the one we are in much more GOP.
Jay I misspoke. I think she is still the rep until next election
Scary looking woman, I bet she frightens school children and dogs.
You need to vote out the GOP in your district, Ron — you’re surrounded by them like doomed Texans at the Alamo.
Well Jay, years ago this district was a “swing” district and we went back and forth between GOP and democrats, but they were blue dogs and moderates. Then in the early 90’s along came legislation or a ruling that blacks needed their own districts so they could be represented in congress. That created the 12th district and one other in N.C. the 12th Mel Ott represented for years. Snaked up interstate 85 from Charlotte to Durham, in some places just the width of interstate 85. What that did was removed the liberal voters from our district and ever since it has been GOP. First Richard Burr, more conservative than his predecessors, but still would support either position based on the issue and then Foxx, after Burr was elected to Senate. Foxx was far right, this district is far right and the democrats, in their wisdom, don’t run moderates against her, they run democrats that are in the Warren, Sanders, AOC wing of the party. They come from the city council, usually black, call out the cops as racist anytime a black man is arrested (exaggeration, but a point of reference), totally supports gun control in gun territory and if you make more than $100,000, your in the rich that can pay more taxes. So Foxx continues to defeat her opponents by almost 60% or more each election. Now we are in redistricting for multiple maps because those two black districts caused too many white districts and that jerrymandering is illegal. And I have no idea who the rep is for 2020 since we have been jerrymandered to another district.
So now we are to vote based on appearance ?
Of course we vote on appearance.
It’s one of a candidates most important qualities.
To think otherwise shows an incompetent assessment of reality.
Smart politicians are aware of appearance perception.
If they’re not naturally photogenic they adjust their image, and turn it to their advantage.
Case in point: Bella Abzug, who took a gawky blocky face and body and transformed herself via hats and demeanor into stylish Battling Bella, an immensely popular politician.
Warren, who has a face to sink a thousand polls, should take heed if she wants to regain traction in the primary race.
You are free to vote on whatever basis you want.
But I could give a crap whether our president is one of the “beautiful people”
And I don’t have much respect for those who think that is important.
Will we never learn. Bush 43, Obama, Trump. Three war mongers in the same pod.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/02/iranian-military-leader-qassim-soleimani-killed-airstrike-iraq/2800808001/
I do not think Trump has done enough to keep his promise to get out of the mideast.
But I have no problem with Trump attacking the militias that killed and american and serveral Iraq’s.
And presuming the claim that Soleimani had and was orchestrating attacks on US diplomats is true, I have no problem with taking him out.
And I understand that BOTH actions might increase tensions in the short run.
I did not support Trump staying in Syria to kill ISIS.
ISIS is evil, but they are not our problem.
I do not support the non-withdrawl withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan.
we should get out.
But I fully support Killing people who kill americans.
I was glad that Trump backed down after Iran shot down a US drone.
That was an act of war – but only US technology was “killed” no americans were.
Trump was right not to shed blood in retaliation.
But the milliatias have been launching rocket attacks that have killed people – includining americans.
I have no problem with – Kill amercans as we will kill you.
Even if that stirs up a hornets nest.
I am slightly more skeptical regarding Soleimani – mostly because I do not know whether to trust the claims about him. But if he really was doing what the media is reporting he was doing. Then I have no problem with our taking him out.
That does not change the fact that we should get out of these countries.
I agree that taking out that terrorist was a good move.
I’m not being sarcastic.
We’re you?
But what I see ahead from Trump as the 2020 election comes closer in time is a limited but news-dominating war with Iran – his scheme: in war time presidents are kept in office. BTW – I predicted that here months ago.
And you will be one of those certain to continue to back him as president when that happens.
“But what I see ahead from Trump as the 2020 election comes closer in time is a limited but news-dominating war with Iran – his scheme: in war time presidents are kept in office. BTW – I predicted that here months ago.”
There are three parts to your comment.
1). Could this result in escalating conflict with Iran – I think that is likely.
Trump’s campaign, a major conflict between him and Obama – the reason Flynn is being pummeled by “the deep state” is Trump(and Flynn) absolutely rejected Obama’s policy of Appeasement with Iran.
A reversal of Obama’s Iran policy has an will continue to put us in conflict with Iran.
While I am not a proponent of Saudi Arabia, We can oppose one tryany without siding with another. Overall SA is the lessor evil. But still not a nation we should call friend.
2). I agree that wartime presidents get re-elected. Pretty much ALWAYS. If tensions rise with Iran – though there will be increasing criticism of Trump regarding Iran, at the same time it will increase the probability that Trump gets re-elected.
3). If Trump deliberately wanted to provoke war with Iran to get elected, he would have done so almost a year ago when Iran downed our Drone and US forces were prepared to launch serious attacks on Iran, that would have resulted in worse conflict than this will.
And a fourth point. In the end speculation about motives does not matter.
Did the possibility that this could boost Trump’s re-election factor into his decisions – you can not prove yes, and I can not prove no ? It is possible. But that is not the question.
If we decide that only those without motives we do not like can act – then no one can act.
If the attack on the Iranian Terrorist general would be legitimate if done under similar circumstances by Obama in the last year of his presidency, then it is legitimate for Trump.
This is also true of this Faux impeachment nonsense.
If there is a legitimate basis to investigate the things Trump requested investigating – the possible political benefits of motives are irrelevant.
Any president that does his job properly boosts his odds of being re-elected.
Once we go down the road of questioning the motives for otherwise legitimate acts we have decided that only some chosen people are free to enforce the law, or act to protect US interests.
—
I am not happy about this. I think it WILL result in more conflict with Iran.
I think it WILL make it harder to get out. And I am upset by both of those.
But I also beleive that both the choice of attacking the militia after they killed an american and taking this guy – and several militia leaders out. Was the right choice.
Even if there are bad results.
“And you will be one of those certain to continue to back him as president when that happens.”
I expect him to get us the fork out of the mideast. That expectation is not changed.
I expect that he will retaliate against harms done to actual americans. That expectation will not change.
Sometimes those two expectations will be in conflict.
We will have to play it by ear as things occur.
What is not likely is that even if I disagree with a choice Trump makes, that I will jump to he is evil, the worst president ever and must be removed instantly.
God help me (domestically), I would take Bill Clinton back as president – If we could keep him far away from women. He was abysmal in foreign policy, but probably better than Trump domesitcally – though if I get to chase utopia, I want the best elements of both of their domestic policies. But Trump is better in foreign affairs.
Domestically Trump is better than every president since Reagan except possibly Clinton.
In foreign affairs he is better than every president since Bush I.
But he is far from perfect.
Unlikely you – I can live with better than the rest. I do not need perfection.
Modification: I agree i was happy that the SOB was blown up- too bad he wasn’t killed earlier; but Trump’s action was an act of war conducted without congressional approval, a constitutional no-no — right-right?
Jay, really? When was the last time a president went to congress for war authority? Seems to me just after 2001. Bush requested and received “authorization of the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any “associated forces”. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.”
So once again congress delegated authority and did not reign in 43 when he added “al-Qaeda and other militant groups” So no president needs to go before congress when acting under this AUMF.
But anyone going before this congress needs his head examined. Tell Schiff anything and if it has to do with Trump he would have it on every cable news and main stream news agency before Trump could get out of his office. He would do anything to undermine Trump. But again, congress can piss and moan about any actions the president takes and its their fault!
30% of the people are going to believe Trump violated the constitution, 30% are going to believe he followed the authorization, and 6% are either not paying attention or could care less.
Was this a good idea ?
I think so, but I am open to discussion.
We likely will not know for a long time.
Was it unconstitutional ?
No. To claim that it was requires impeaching 2/3 of the presidents since Washington.
Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion without an act of congress.
We can change the constitution if you wish – and I would likely support limiting the presidents unilateral military powers short of war, but as the constitution currently stands the president can kill terrorists in foreign countries without prior authorization of congress.
A president isn’t supposed to have any constitutional authority to start a war, only to conduct offensive war once it is declared by congress.
Yes, presidents have constantly ignored the War Powers Clause, but congress has never asked the Supreme Court to rule directly on the matter. Now, with an inept untrustworthy fool like Trump leading us down another slippery mid-eastern slope of war with religious fanatics, this might be a good time to take the matter to SCOTUS.
Jay, please read the AUMF of 2001 and the interpretation by Obama in 2016. Iran has long been classified as state sponsor of terrorist activities since 1984. Therefore, their military is considered a terrorist sponsored group. That makes their generals terrorist. That makes their generals targets under the interpretation by Obama.
That is my take on it. If Obama does not agree, he should never have signed off on his 2016 interpretation in Dec, 2016.
I do not need an AUMF here.
These people were terrorists. They had just successfully killed americans and others, in a terror attack. They were fairly openly plotting more.
It IS the job of ANY US president to punish that and to the extent possible thwart that.
I am paying close attention to things moving forward.
But I have no problem with what has occurred so far.
“A president isn’t supposed to have any constitutional authority to start a war, only to conduct offensive war once it is declared by congress.”
Correct – but that has never been viewed as precluding US presidents from using FORCE, even committing “acts of war” to protect US citizens or to punish attacks on US citizens.
“Yes, presidents have constantly ignored the War Powers Clause”
This is not an example of that.
“but congress has never asked the Supreme Court to rule directly on the matter.”
It is not going to. In most of the instances that you seem to oppose – Congress would lose.
“Now, with an inept untrustworthy fool like Trump leading us down another slippery mid-eastern slope of war with religious fanatics, this might be a good time to take the matter to SCOTUS.”
Go ahead. There is no Trump can not kill a terrorist leader, but Obama can clause in the constitution.
Dave, after Viet Nam, congress should have realized any AUMF should be specific in scope and limited in lenght. There should never be the use of “other” in the scope because other gives the president a crack big enough for a 767 aircraft to go through. Remember, In December 2016, the Office of the President Obama published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and “other militant groups.”
So yes, this AUMF was required. But they should never have said “other”. That is like a job description that includes job responsibilites of “and other duties assigned by supervisor”, It should have been specific in nature and limited in length.
I am fully prepared to agree with you (and Jay) that Congress has abdicated to much of its power regarding war to the president. And I would like to see that reversed.
I can list inumerable actions of US presidents in my lifetime that required congressional authorization but did not have it.
THIS is not one of those. Depending on how things go forward – we MIGHT find ourselves in an actual hot war as a consequence of this.
But that does not alter that Killing this guy was inside Trump’s constitutional powers under the circumstances.
There is also another complication in the modern era that poses a constitutional problem.
We have the ability to unleash awasome force against enemies in incredibly short periods.
And to some extent our enemies are able to do the same.
It is arguably not possible for Congress to act as quickly as is often necescary.
But that is a differnet issue.
40% not 6%
“Modification: I agree i was happy that the SOB was blown up- too bad he wasn’t killed earlier; but Trump’s action was an act of war conducted without congressional approval, a constitutional no-no — right-right?”
Yes, but the constitution prohibits waging war, not acts of war.
Clinton bragged about killing Ghadafi – without congressional approval.
If you want to require congressional approval for acts like this – go ahead. I do not have a problem with that.
I do not have a problem with reigning in the power of the executive to rain violence on others.
That is something that should be considered by many heads before moving forward.
but you are trying to make an argument that this is highly unusal. Its not, and you know it.
We have directly or indierectly not merely killed generals, but murdered world leaders. Kennedy even gave approval to the murder of an ally – Theiu
If you want to impeach Trump over this – go right ahead. See how well that works.
I was not a fly on the wall in the situation room, but my GUESS is this went more like this.
The oportunity came up to take out the militia leaders that were killing americans in Iraq – not heavily covered is that several hezbollah affilited militia leaders were killed in this attack.
Then it was realized the this Iranian general was also present.
He was already on our wish list, but the political implications of targeting him individually were to high a bar.
But Trump or someone said. There is a difference between going after him, and allowing his presence at a conclave of terrorists from killing them.
He put himself in a place were it is legitimate for us to target him.
He was not killed in Iran in his home or in his office.
He was killed in Iraq meeting with terrorist militia leaders.
Well, looks like Trump’s unilateral act of war is drawing criticism:
“ If we are to go to war w/ Iran the Constitution dictates that we declare war. A war without a Congressional declaration is a recipe for feckless intermittent eruptions of violence w/ no clear mission for our soldiers. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve better.”
Those damn lefty Dems didn’t waste much time attacking the decision, right dhlii?
This is total Bull Shit. Where have these assholes been the last 18 years with our men and women dying. F them, if they can’t say something when thousands were in danger and many have already died, then they have not earned the right to say anything now.
Just because they hate Trump does not give them any justification to say something now. In fact, it gives them less!!!
There are alot of people who oppose this, and they do not all share the same reasons.
Some of those reasons are blatantly partisan, or just TDS.
But some of the opposition is principled.
This really really puts the nail in the Obama Iran deal. It is unlikely that even if Biden were elected he could revive it. If you favor the Biden Iran deal – you oppose this.
There are also alot of people who support this and they do not all share the same reasons.
I support it. But I am concerned that it may make is harder to leave Iraq, and we should leave. But I have read pundits claiming it will get us out quicker, though I do not understand their reasoning.
This is a legitimate area of public debate.
The only thing I have an issue with is the hypocracy of many of those pissing on Trump.
Glenn Greenwald has been speaking out about US violence in the mideast for two decades.
I would expect the is completely up in arms about this – and I will listen to him, and may even be persuaded by him.
Conversely Obama and Clinton assassinated or arranged for the murder of people they did not like – even rulers of countries.
Not really interested in Clinton or Obama claiming this is wrong.
Not really interested in the former Obama staff claiming this is wrong.
But I would be happy to debate this on the merits, as opposed to
Orange Man Bad!
My sarcasm above.
That was Rand Paul, minutes ago…
“That was Rand Paul, minutes ago…”
What was RP minutes ago ?
Context please
Good cartoon.
If this is “wag the dog” – why didn’t Trump attack Iran after they shot down the US Drone ?
He was prepared to do so. That attack would have been more significant than this action.
Absolutely this will help Trump win the election.
Did it factor in his decision ?
Maybe.
We will see what happens, but I do not think there is much chance this will start a war.
Iran will look to retaliate. But they will not do so directly. They will do so through terrorist proxies. Irans sponsorhip of terrorists is of groups that operate in the mid-east – not groups that push attacks throughout the world. So there is little risk of a domestic reprisal in the US.
Primarily this makes US soldiers in particular in the mideast more likely to be attacked by terrorists.
Mumm.
“ .@SecPompeo says the U.S. strike was based on intelligence about imminent strikes by Iran.”
But didn’t trump condemn our intelligence agencies as inept crooked anti-Trumpers who couldn’t be trusted?
Is irony equatable with sarcasm?
“But didn’t trump condemn our intelligence agencies as inept crooked anti-Trumpers who couldn’t be trusted?”
Actually, no, he never said that. He has condemned the conspiracy to spy on and sabotage his campaign and presidency, by specific leaders of the FBI, DOJ and CIA, who have made clear that they were opposed to his election. Not the same thing at all.
By the way, I agree with Jay that taking out Suleimani was a good idea. Iran has been at war with us for the last 10 years, and we have tried appeasing them and paying them off, which has resulted in an escalation of attacks and violence. Allowing them to get away with the killing of an American and an attack on an embassy, the way Obama did, is a necessary retaliation. Appeasing an enemy that has been chanting “Death To America!” by sending billions in cash to finance terror attacks was never going to stop the escalating violence.
Suleimani had the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands.
He condemned the SAME AGENCIES over and over.
Stop kissing his lying butt.
What happened to your crocodile tears about bringing home American soldiers dying in the Middle East? THOUSANDS MORE ARE NOW IN TRANSIT THERE.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/03/thousands-more-us-troops-deploying-middle-east-response-iranian-threats.html
Why do you presume we are not serious about not having US soldiers in harms way for no good reason ?
I Still want our soldiers out of the fighting in the mid-east to the extent possible.
Nothing has changed.
That does not mean that I am knee jerk opposed to sending troops to defend americans that might be attacked in response to our actions against Iran.
I do not think anyone here is a pacifist or isolationist.
The Iraninan general and the Hezbola Miliatias were part of efforts to kill americans.
I have zero problem with killing them.
I have zero problem with protecting other americans from retaliation in response to killing them.
I still want us out of the fighting in the mid-east.
If we are going to have an embassy in Iraq. I expect that marines will be put in harms way to defend it.
No one is saying that US troops should NEVER be used.
Only that they should not be used where we have no self interest.
I do not want US troops used to protect the YPG.
I absolutely want US troops to be used to protect US embassies.
I am not sure where all this is going.
I beleive I agree with what Trump has done thus far.
But the Iraqi’s have asked us to leave Iraq.
And we should do so. I am waiting to see what Trump will do now that they have asked.
I think there is a strong possibility Iraq may end up in a civil war.
We made a huge mistake long ago taking sides with the shites in Iraq.
Iraq has three powerful groups – shites, sunis/bathists and the kurds.
Both both and Obama did a shitty job of trying to arbitrate between those.
Anyone who thinks that they know how any of this will turn out, is full of crap, Jay. But so is anyone who thinks that the better idea would have been to do nothing and allow the Iranians and their Hezbollah militias, flush with the hundreds of billions that Obama gave them, to continue attacking American citizens and embassies, is even more full of crap.
I suppose I could believe that Obama thought that appeasing Iran, and giving the mullahs handreds of billions in cash, which they used to slaughter Americans, was a smarter and more effective strategy that targeting their terrorist leaders and eliminating them.
Neville Chamberlain thought that getting Hitler to sign a piece of paper promising peace if Germany got what it wanted was a good idea too.
Priscilla- Trump is a short sighted fool.
The worst sort of fool to make decisions like this.
What he’s done (without congressional consultation , against the law) is EXACTLY what you raised as reason not to vote for Clinton’s, she’d get us into war her war if elected.
Now trump is marching us off to war. He’s violating your own presidential standards of behavior, yet you continue to kiss his inept ass with rationalization after rationalization .
Shame on you. At the very least you should be calling for moderation and consensus – those Americans who will die when this escalates (it will) are not all Trump cultists like you – they shouldn’t be sacrificed as pawns in trump’s reelection campaign.
“Priscilla- Trump is a short sighted fool.
The worst sort of fool to make decisions like this.”
Maybe, that remains to be seen. But no more a fool than Clinton, Bush and Obama.
“What he’s done (without congressional consultation , against the law) is EXACTLY what you raised as reason not to vote for Clinton’s, she’d get us into war her war if elected.”
Not against the law. If you wish to change the law go ahead. Kennedy gave his impramatur to kill Theiu. There are myriads of other examples.
Lets quit making up the law, just because Trump is involved.
“Now trump is marching us off to war. He’s violating your own presidential standards of behavior, yet you continue to kiss his inept ass with rationalization after rationalization ”
Can we wait to see what actually happens ?
I do not have a problem with killing the Iraqi General or the Hezbolah malitia leaders.
I do not have problems with bring troops in to secure us against Iranian retaliation.
I think we should take Iraq’s request to leave to heart – and leave.
I think Iraq will turn into a mess if we do.
So be it.
“Shame on you. At the very least you should be calling for moderation and consensus – those Americans who will die when this escalates (it will) are not all Trump cultists like you – they shouldn’t be sacrificed as pawns in trump’s reelection campaign.”
Maybe it will escalate. Can we wait to see exactly what happens ?
Rather than presume.
Despite the fact that it is John Bolton and the rest of the neo-conns wet dream I do not hink we are or should “go to war with Iran”.
I do not think Iran will retaliate directly – but we should have to see.
But I do think they will do so through proxies, and we must be prepared to deal with that.
But you have already decided to convict everyone of hypocracy because even though we want Trump to honor his promise to leave Iraq. We do not want him to allow terrorists and the nations that sponsor them to murder americans unpunished.
Jay, I find you ~ shall we say ~ less than credible, when you claim to be anti-war. You are pro-Obama war, and you would have been pro-Clinton war, which you were, assuming you accept the conventional wisdom that the war against Libya (“We Came, We Saw, He Died, hehehe!”) was General Hillary’s idea. You’re not anti-war, you’re just anti-Trump…
I believe that Trump is trying to get us out of the ME by forcing Iran to the negotiating table.
Do I think it will work? I don’t know….I’d like to say that I’m optimistic, but I’m really not.
Trump has talked about negotiating with Iran, but he’ll probably move toward regime change, just as Obama moved toward appeasement. If the exit strategy isn’t clear, each party falls back on its default position.
And the exit strategy is never clear. So, I’m not optimistic, but I have some hope.
“ You’re not anti-war, you’re just anti-Trump…”
I’m neither pro or anti war – it depends on the war.
Trump is a self aggrandizing fool.
His words, judgment are not to be trusted.
That’s the opinion of 94% of Democrats and 72% of Independents, per recent Gallup poll.
After nearly 4 years of watching him operate, 65% OF ALL Americans DONT TRUST HIM!
An untrustworthy President is a danger to the nation in times of strife.
What part of that are you too dense to understand?
If you cared more about the nation than your trump floozie worship you’d be asking for a better Republican candidate.
Who do you support for the Democrat nomination?
“I’m neither pro or anti war – it depends on the war.”
But you do not treat others the same.
“Trump is a self aggrandizing fool.
His words, judgment are not to be trusted.”
Nor are those of the neo-cons, or democrats, or … You.
“That’s the opinion of 94% of Democrats and 72% of Independents, per recent Gallup poll.
After nearly 4 years of watching him operate, 65% OF ALL Americans DONT TRUST HIM!
An untrustworthy President is a danger to the nation in times of strife.”
If true – then he will be voted out of office easily in November.
But I think you know that is not likely.
“What part of that are you too dense to understand?”
What part of elections is how we deal with that don’t you understand ?”
“If you cared more about the nation than your trump floozie worship you’d be asking for a better Republican candidate.”
Trump’s has alot of warts. Rand Paul is not challenging him. I can’t think of another republican that would be a better choice. No current democratic contender is a better choice.
I likely will vote libertarian – so long as they actually put up a better choice.
I do not disagree with many things you say about Trump.
Where I disagree with you radically is your claim that Trump is either unusual or worse than our other choices.
He is not. In fact he is not merely better than our other choices, he is better than the past two, and possibly 3 president.
That is not saying much.
But it is more than enough to get re-elected.
Whether you admitted or not, I think you have a clue that is likely too.
Biden 2020
Back To Normal Govt Disfunction – Away From Donnie’s Dystopian Dopiness
In what possible way do you actually think Biden is a better choice than Trump ?
We are having a sort of Re-Run of 2012.
Republicans ran Obama-Lite and lost. Biden is Trump-Lite.
Lets stick with the real thing.
“ In what possible way do you actually think Biden is a better choice than Trump ?”
Asking that question is as obtuse as asking who is a better role model for your children, Harvey Weinstein or Ted Lieu ?
“Asking that question is as obtuse as asking who is a better role model for your children, Harvey Weinstein or Ted Lieu ?”
That is the response of someone who does not have an answer.
Regardless, I did not ask about role models. There are few presidents I think would be good role models. Certainly not Clinton.
The question was ?
“ In what possible way do you actually think Biden is a better choice than Trump ?”
BTW, I do not know what will come of this or whether there is anything there. But alot ofd strange things have happened in Hunter Biden’s paternity suit.
First Biden filed to block, and later seal the financial records he was obligated to provide, which the court did.
Then a third party filed claiming that Hunter had lied in the documents he provided – given that they are sealed I am not sure how they would know. But they also claimed they had evidence for the court that Biden had lied, and that he had engaged in money laundering, and that there was a criminal money laundering case open against him.
The judge through out the filing on legitimate procedural grounds – just as another judge through out the House demand for Bolton’s deputy’s testimony – also on procedural grounds. i.e. Not on the merits but on a failure of process.
The third party then filed a procedurally proper motion and the judge on his own recused himself.
This is highly unusual. Regardless, there are growing hints that Hunter Biden’s issues in the Ukraine are the tip of the iceberg of the political corruption involving the Biden’s.
You are correct – but I have said these people have an abysmal track record.
BTW almost no one has specifically claimed they are “partisan”. They might lean mildly one way or another politically. But they are all power elites used to ruling the world and not happy that Trump is frequently ignoring them.
That is not the same as being “anti-trumpers”
I have called some of what has gone on a “soft coup” – and it really is that.
It is NOT a democratic coup against republicans. It is essentially Schumer’s – “don’t mess with the IC they have 50 ways from sunday to screw you over”.
The unelected elites are after Trump because he his excercising his constitutional power to set policy contrary to their directions and often without consulting them.
It is a contest over who controls the foreign policy of the US.
The voters through our elected leaders or “the deep state”.
Do I trust IC assessements tha tIran is preparing an attack ?
Would I order a strike on an Iranian General with terrorist links who was meeting with a bunch of terrorist militia leaders who had just killed an american even though I do not trust the CIA ? Probably.
So ?
I do not trust the CIA, the FBI, the NSA.
That does not mean I will ignore EVERYTHING that EVERYONE in those organizations does.
One of the great losses in the Flynn Fiasco is that Flynn was going to go in and audit, reform and clean out US intelligence apparatus.
That did not occur.
So do I trust a CIA assessment that Iran is preparing an imminent attack ?
Probably not.
Am I prepared to kill an iranian general strongly linked to terrorists AND a bunch of terrorist militia leader who DID attack the US – just in case ?
Sure.
There are many reasons to do this, just as there are many reasons not to.
It is unlikely that any single reason was the entire basis.
“ One of the great losses in the Flynn Fiasco is that Flynn was going to go in and audit, reform and clean out US intelligence apparatus.”
Is that snuggling up to Russians for Money Flynn?
Lying under oath Flynn?
Transferring nuke tech to the Saudis Flynn?
You’d trust him with crucial US intelligence agency apparatus?
BTW, I have a great deal for a trusting soul like you on cryptocurrency stock. Really, I’m informed former Flynn partners at IP3 International are backing the currency. That should put your mind at ease. How much can I count you in for?
Flynn like Carter Page was working with the CIA. He was briefed by the CIA before every contact he had with Russians and debreifed afterwards.
Please cite specifics for your accusations.
I am unaware of anyone claiming Flynn was paid by Russians.
No one has claimed Flynn lied under oath.
Would I trust Flynn ?
Much more so than the people who fired him for:
Opposing the Iran deal,
For wanting to look into unmasking and other illegal surveailance activities during the obama administration.
Ron – more Tulsi today on Fox:
Sorry about the add at start- but Rupert needs more bucks$$
Did not get anything but the ad
Try it again- but click the end add butt9n at bottom right soon as it appears:
The post above that Ron went bonkers over after I hinted it was made by a lefty Dem— that was Paul’s exact quote:
“ “ If we are to go to war w/ Iran the Constitution dictates that we declare war. A war without a Congressional declaration is a recipe for feckless intermittent eruptions of violence w/ no clear mission for our soldiers. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve better.”
Rand paul is right on this. He has been critical of many middle east decisions. He opposed the AUMF ‘s multiple times, supported Trumps decision to withdraw from Syria, against all who lost their minds over the issue with the Kirds, has opposed the Patriot Act and has almost 100% of the positions I support in war and security issues.
But Rand Paul is not the leader in congress. McConnell and Pelosi are. When the original AUMF was voted on and renewed, Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, Boehner or Ryan were. Rand Paul was only one vote and his libertarian leanings made that appear to be questionable ” wacko” for most of the country.
I like Rand Paul. He is right more than he is wrong. He has been consistent on this issue, unlike the Trump haters that just take whatever position is opposite Trumps. He earned the right to question Trumps decision, unlike all the others in congress that voted to authoriz the AUMF’s.
Trump is not Rand Paul.
I like Rand Paul – alot. I am probably in 100% agreement with the quote you provided.
I am likely far closer to Rand Paul that Trump on many many issues.
I am watching carefully – because Trump could well screw this up.
But thus far Trump though shy of Paul’s position, is far from the war mongering that dominates BOTH the right and left.
I do not see this action as unjustified or requiring congressional authorization.
But it is without any doubt a dangerous action – even if I beleive a necescary one.
And I will be paying attention as we move forward.
“If we are to go to war w/ Iran the Constitution dictates that we declare war. A war without a Congressional declaration is a recipe for feckless intermittent eruptions of violence w/ no clear mission for our soldiers. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve better.”
Nothing I disagree with.
This MIGHT result in a war. But Trump did not declare war, he did not go to war.
He killed a terrorist – one who several past presidents considered killing.
He killed him immediately after he participated in killing americans.
I do not want americans starting wars without congress.
I do want presidents retaliating for terrorist attacks against the US.
Ron, is your local NC media covering this?
“The entire 1st Brigade Combat Team from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division is heading to the Middle East.
The soldiers are based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina”
Reminds me so much of Viet Nam troop movements. Again congress needs to do its jib, recend the AUMF that allows for attacking ” other militants and force the president to withdraw completely from the M.E. But they dont have the balls to do that so 43, Obama and Trump could pull whatever they want and provides Democrats wuth an issue they can call Trump out on. What better situation could they ask for, especially in an election year?
Congress does NOT need to authorize troop movements.
Put more dough in my pockets trump is addressing reporters at Mar-a-Lago about his strike order to kill that top Iranian general – media has to pay access fees to set up there and taxpayers additional money for extra security.
Rumors circulating that trump discussed the strike in advance with govt guests at Mar-a-Lotsa Dough, but didn’t notify any high ranking Dems, as is customary in these kids of war-like assassinations. what’s the over-under he notified Vladdie in advance?
Local news not on until 6. I have been making and putting up new molding in the house, so have not seen news yet. But if its about the 82nd, they will be coveting it since thats is the airborne group that gets screwed each time a president decides more troops will die.
Not only troops throughout the Middle East, but diplomats and diplomatic staff and visiting American politicians and high profile US businessmen and women.
Lets go last to first.
High profile US businessmen and women.. Get the F out or die. If your stupid enough to be there as a civilian, your death is no big loss.H
Visiting American Politician..same response, but death would be a lessor loss than stupid business person.
Diplomats and staff.. Should be on alert to evacuate in short notice. Military there only to protect and assist with evacuation.
Sorry I cant buy the crap supporting these wars. If someone in the embassy is killed, use special ops to hunt them down and neutralize them.
Mostly I agree.
I have ZERO problems with US Marines defending US embassy’s – including increasing the forces at the embassy in response to threat levels.
I think it is wise to evacuate embassies – particularly of non-essential personel.
But I do not think it is required.
If special forces are the best way to kill terrorists – fine. But I do not presume they are automatically the only choice.
So what is it that you would want ?
That Trump should ignore the consequences of this – like Obama ignored the possibility that terrorists would attack a US consulate on the aniversary on 9/11 ?
Or that taking out Ghadafi would result in anarchy in Libya that could get americans killed ?
I would prefer Trump did what was customary – presuming that it was actually customary.
But I am more concerned about his following the law.
And despite nonsensical claims to the contrary – thus far he has.
That would NOT be the same as prior presidents.
How Iran, and the rest of the nations who find us contemptible since 2016, and many of our traditional allies who Trump has antagonized, see this:
The US executed a top official of a foreign government, not the head of a non-state terrorist group, a commanding general of a sovereign foreign nation.
When you elect a fuck-up, things get fucked up.
Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism.
the Iranian General was unequivocally part of Iran’s efforts to engage in terrorism through proxies.
He was not killed in Iran. He was not killed in meetings with Iranian military or politicians or the Iraqi army or politicians.
He was killed while meeting with the same terrorist millitia leaders that murdered an american recently.
He was not there to discuss peace..
I have zero problems with this.
Under the specific circumstances this was justified.
It arguably would not have been justified under many other circumstances.
Among other things – I do not think that anyone is claiming the terrorist militia leaders also killed were not a legitimate target.
I think killing a state actor of a state designated as a sponsor of terror, while meeting with terrorist leaders in a foreign country after killing an american is about as justified as you can get.
It certainly seems as if “short-sighted” Trump is working with some very accurate, and ongoing intelligence, when it comes to killing the bad guys with surgical air strikes, Jay.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-taji/air-strikes-targeting-iraqi-militia-kill-six-army-source-idUSKBN1Z229P?__twitter_impression=true
Apparently, the dead include Qais Khazali, one of the people the US named as responsible for storming of US Embassy in Baghdad.
“Cut off the head of the snake and the body will die.”
Khazali deserves to have been killed.
I hope the SOB suffered.
But what are we going to say to those Americans killed or kidnapped in retaliation and their families? That they’re being sacrificed for the greater good? Those two dead creeps have hundred’s of thousands of terrorist followers. You think they’re just going to shrug off those high profile assassinations? Revenge is ingrained in their cultures.
You remember the part where the US does not negotiate with terrorists.
That pretty much means – we have to be willing to kill the bad guys, when it is justified,
EVEN if that means that they might retailiate.
Otherwise we might as well give up.
I believe I have been very clear in my positions concerning the middle east. But I am completely confused with Jay and his positions.
Jay complains that we abandoned the Kurds and we should have stayed to protect them from people who wanted them dead. Fine, i understand, even though i dont agree.
Jay just posted that the death of Soleimani was going to bring reprisals and deaths of Americans. His position is Trump overstepped and should never have done this, that is was reckless and a few other unflattering things. Fine, i understand that, even though I do not agree after reading different accounts. I still believe we should never have been there, civilians should not be there and sanction should remain on Iran for reasons they are there.
Now read this :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/qassem-soleimani-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-american-soldiers
But according to this article, Soleimani was already responsible for over 600 American deaths and planning more.
So my question for Jay is why do you support killing those that want to kill Kurds, but you do not support killing those that plan and execute the killing of Americans.
Repeat: I’m glad he’s dead. It was a SYMBOLIC execution, soothing our collective outrage for revenge.
But he’s undoubtedly already been replaced by another general, who will be expected to seek revenge. Do you think if one of our head generals was assassinated by a foreign president, the military wouldn’t elevate another capable general in replacement, to carry out the national policy?
The only way to change Iranian national policy is to change Iranian national leadership. The two options to do that are full on WAR, or full on DIPLOMACY. The war option with Saddam didn’t turn out so good; attempted Iranian regime change would be 100 times worse.
And correct me if I’m wrong – hasn’t Iranian truculence spiked in proportion to Trump’s behaviors toward them?
“ Iran and its populations have thousands of years of history in the region. That doesn’t get “rooted out” with assassinations and missile strikes. These relationships — among Revolutionary Guards cadres and between the guards and their allies abroad — are deep, and they do not rely on one figure. In fact, Iran has already named General Suleimani’s longtime deputy, Ismail Qaani, as his successor.”
(NYT)
The question is not whether “your glad he is dead”.
It is was it acceptable given the bad things he did to americans to kill him ?
AND whether the possibility of retaliation precludes killing those who kill americans ?
Iran has been a bad actor – they were a bad actor long before this.
Many of the people killed by this general were killed WHILE Obama was negotiated his sweetheart deal with Iran.
This likely effects our relationship with Iran.
But mostly by bring it out into the open.
Iran has been actively using terrorist groups to kill and maime americans for decades.
Now we are not trying to pretend we are freinds. While we tolerate their killing americans.
Yes, regime change is the only way to fix this.
Yes, that should be our goal.
BUT it is NOT our job to bring that about by force using US soldiers.
I have no problem punishing Iranian acts of terrorism. I have no problem appropriately punishing Iranian retaliation.
If that retaliation is significant enough – I have no problem with Congress declaring war on Iran.
But I do not expect any of those things.
I (mostly) do not expect DIRECT retaliation for Iran.
I mostly expect them to engage in the mideast through terrorist proxies.
That should not result in war.
Absent Iran participating in something similar to 9/11 I am opposed to going to war with Iran.
I think Iran will avoid acts that will result in war.
That does nto mean they will behave.
More Quid Pro Quo No-No From Trump-o
“ WASHINGTON — The Trump administration disclosed on Friday that there were 20 emails between a top aide to President Trump’s acting chief of staff and a colleague at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget discussing the freeze of a congressionally mandated military aid package for Ukraine.
But in response to a court order that it swiftly process those pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit filed by The New York Times, the Office of Management and Budget delivered a terse letter saying it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails — not even with redactions.” (NYT)
But didn’t Devious Donnie say he wanted we the people to have full knowledge about his obstruction of government behavior?
I said long ago – I do not care if there was a QPQ.
That is not the relevant question.
Beyond that – this remains a nothing burger.
The likelyhood of your establishing anything from these emails is ZERO.
To get anywhere you need discussions with the Ukrainians.
It does not matter what US officials were telling each other.
It matters what TRUMP told Ukraine.
And even that – not so much.
To the extent possible I would like these emails released. That is a different issue.
Though there are complexities here. FOIA is probably not sufficient a tool, There are potentially legitimate reasons to refuse a FOIA request.
There are far less reasons to resist a request of congress.
But the house has not gone to court for these documents.
And a federal court just ruled against ordering a WH official to testify to the house.
Because the house had dropped the demand for his testimony.
Demands between the house and the executive are settled by the courts.
The house is never going to get the outcome it wants if it does not even bother to follow through.
Told you so—
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/trump-claimed-in-2011-2012-that-obama-would-start-war-with-iran-to-get-reelected
If you can’t trust what he says, how can you trust what he says? (Get it?)
Trump makes 90 false claims during final two weeks of 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/politics/trump-90-false-claims-final-two-weeks-2019/index.html
Even FOX Mother Tucker gets it right:
And in this time of concern today, where is Donnie-boy?
Golfing again…. 🏌️♀️
Really, Dave – and you too Priscilla – is this a sane way for an American President to respond via Twitter?
Trump just now:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently….
….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
…targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”
Can you imagine another nation – even China or Russia – reacting with that kind of belligerence, threatening a smaller nation’s historical and cultural locations? Or imagine the international outcry if North Korea threatened South Korea or Japan with outright war crimes like Trump just did?
This is the kind of shit-for-character idiot you want to remain in office? This is the kind of banana republic dictator ravings you want defining America for decades to come?
You’re watching the long term sliming of America by a detestable fool.
Those who don’t demand his removal NOW deserve nothing but contempt.
Meh.
You’re just used to the kind of politicians that quake in their boots when an Iranian mullah threatens the US, and then they beg Iran not to hurt us and we’ll give them lots and lots of money. And once the mullahs get that money, they funnel in into proxy wars and worldwide terror attacks.
Ronald Reagan destroyed half of the Iranian navy in one day, in 1988. Iran talked a lot of smack about ‘death to America” after that too. But they only do this sh*t when America has a leader like Carter or Obama, who Iran knows will never retaliate.
Today, Iran threatened to blow up the White House, but called Trump a “terrorist” because he said that any such move would result in Iran being hit “very hard and very fast.”
I was watching football last night, and CBS was telling everyone “We are on the brink of war!!!” without any context. Democrat politicians were quoted, saying how “revered” and “iconic” the darling terrorist Soleimani was in Iran.
They ignored a major interview with David Petraeus, who said that Trump’s actions may have been exactly what was needed:
” I suspect that the leaders in Washington were seeking to reestablish deterrence, which clearly had eroded to some degree, perhaps by the relatively insignificant actions in response to these strikes on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia, shipping in the Gulf and our $130 million dollar drone that was shot down. And we had seen increased numbers of attacks against US forces in Iraq. So I’m sure that there was a lot of discussion about what could show the Iranians most significantly that we are really serious, that they should not continue to escalate. …”https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-03/gen-petraeus-qasem-soleimani-s-killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance?fbclid=IwAR1TRggBoSyN-la1qkv013IY2k4ZybZhXoA8KMlI-1ZYIUg-mi0tUoKhbYg
Don’t get all flustered at a war of words. The ball is in Iran’s court….they can talk a big game, but there won’t be any escalation of the war that they’ve been waging against us, unless they escalate it.
Tell it to Tucker – or didn’t you hear what he said above?
There WILL be an escalation of the kind of extraterritorial military clandestine operations the Iranian General was supposedly blown up to prevent .How scatter-brained are you to think those kind of terroristic assaults against Americans aren’t going to increase now in number and intensity?
1. I like Tucker. But I didn’t realize that he is infallible.
2. Hellooo, Jay!! Iran has been conducting “clandestine extraterritorial military operations” since the 70’s. The last time a president took retaliatory action was Ronald Reagan, and -surprise!- terroristic assaults against Americans declined.
3. I can sometimes be scatterbrained, it’s true. Not related to Iran. Or Trump.
“Tell it to Tucker – or didn’t you hear what he said above?”
I watched Tuckers eSo you tntire show. I had no problems with it. It was critical of what Trump MIGHT do. We all have concerns about what Might happen.
“There WILL be an escalation of the kind of extraterritorial military clandestine operations the Iranian General was supposedly blown up to prevent .How scatter-brained are you to think those kind of terroristic assaults against Americans aren’t going to increase now in number and intensity?”
So you tell me that if we kill the people who kill americans that their replacements are going to kill americans. Why is it that is supposed to have me quaking in my boots ?
Self evidently if we DO NOT kill them, they are going to kill americans.
Reagan? You’re living 40+ years in the past? No wonder your present perceptions are addled. And your Reagan memory is hazy. Does Iran Contra ring a bell? He authorized weapon sales to Iran in trade for hostages – like Obama releasing frozen funds for the Iranian nuke agreement.
My point, dear boy, was that Operation Praying Mantis did not cause WWIII, and the targeted killing of Soleimani won’t either.
We can discuss Iran Contra some other day. It was not Reagan’s finest hour, but comparing it to Obama’s pathetic toadying to Iran is not accurate.
We’re not talking about WWIII, dear Trump toady, we’re talking about VietNam redux.
Whatever metaphor you choose – we as a nation have to persue it.
We are already deeply into the Vietnam model in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Syria.
Trump did not get us there. It remains to be seen whether he will get us out.
If he fails, that makes him no better than Obama or Bush. It certainly does not make him worse.
Killing the Iranian General does not drag us into a new Vietnam. Atleast not without our choosing to do so.
I hope that Trump takes the Iragi’s seriously and leaves. but he may not. We need to get out of Afghanistan too.
Both will likely result in bloody messes after we leave. But staying accomplishes nothing beyond delaying that event.
The game we are playing with Iran is different. The chances of Iran going to war with the US or the US going to war with Iran are slim. The likelyhood of Iran trying to do harm to us through proxies is arguably no greater than before. They were already doing that.
For all the sabre rattling Iran is not likely to do anything that would dramatically escalate.
They have major internal problems of their own.
Aparently english is not your first language. What Trump said and what you calim he said are not the same.
But I guess you are oblivious to the firebombing of Dresden, or Tokyo, or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Or do you dont think those were “at a very high level & important to Japan/Germany & the Japanese or German Culture culture” or do you beleive that someone besides FDR made those choices ?
“Can you imagine another nation – even China or Russia – reacting with that kind of belligerence, threatening a smaller nation’s historical and cultural locations?”
I do not have to imagine it- we have done it
“We could, obviously, destroy You with our arsenals,” Pres. Obama told Kim Un
Obama also threatened to cut off North Koreas food supply a nation on the verge of mass starvation.
And here is Hillary threatening Putin.
Do I have to dig up more threats by presidents ?
“Or imagine the international outcry if North Korea threatened South Korea or Japan with outright war crimes like Trump just did?”
Retaliating for an act of war is NOT a war crime.
“This is the kind of shit-for-character idiot you want to remain in office? This is the kind of banana republic dictator ravings you want defining America for decades to come?”
You keep making this claim that Trump is different. Yet the actual evidence is that he is not.
Aside from his New York accent his “threats” are little different from other presidents.
“You’re watching the long term sliming of America by a detestable fool.
Those who don’t demand his removal NOW deserve nothing but contempt.”
The country is doing well. You however seem to need a chill pill.
By the way, Jay, Nancy Pelosi called the President’s actions “Unauthorized,” (although most say that it was authorized under the 2001 AUMF ~ we are legally in Iraq, and Soleimani was conducting military operations against us (better known as “war”).
Queen Nancy is the Speaker of the House ~ one of the most powerful people in the country, if not the world. She is perfectly capable of wrangling her caucus to repeal the 2001 AUMF ~ And, may, including me, would be in favor of that. The Senate would probably pass it as well, and there is a good chance that Trump would sign it.
So, I wonder why she behaves like a bystander, who can’t do anything about this? Could it be that she sees political benefit in war? Maybe a bunch of dead and wounded soldiers would give the Democrats something to campaign on?
Or do you think that she simply doesn’t know that she could repeal the AUMF, and take back the lawful role of Congress to declare war?
“Queen Nancy”! 😈 Guess I am influencing someone!
Repeal the AUMF? No way.
1. Removes election year issue when Trump acts
2. Puts public perception of responsibility back in Congressional court
3. Requires congress to be proactive in future actions/ops instead of reactive
Pelosi does not want congress involved in these decisions. It is much better politically for her party to complain when any actions are taken.
Yes, Ron, I quite like to refer to our House Speaker as Queen Nancy, and picked it up from you 😉
In left wing nut world where Jay and Nancy live if you say something it must be true.
Bush sent us there, Obama and Trump refused to get us out. All responsible for American deaths in useless war. Americans unwanted in Iraq targets by terrorists. Maybe this will get us out!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/05/iraq-expel-us-troops-iran-gen-qasem-soleimanis-killing/2817992001/
Once again I say any country that will not stand up to terrorist is not worth one life. And here, the Sunni and Kurdish officials did not vote because it appears the want Americans to stay. Guess if they oppose the Shia members, they get “lost” in Iraq.
Yes, the Sunnis and Kurds didn’t even attend the session, and the declaration is very wishy washy, and doesn’t provide any deadline for “expelling” Americans. So I’m gonna take the odds on our not leaving.
The problem is that Iraq has largely become an Iranian puppet state, and Hezbollah controls the militias.
Which should make people wonder…what the hell are we doing there, “protecting” an Iranian puppet state?? After all of these years, this is what we created?
I thought the whole idea of our becoming energy independent was that we wouldn’t have to stay any longer, because Iran couldn’t threaten us with an oil crisis, the way they did in the 70’s. Heck, we are now the world’s largest exporter of oil, and we’re still there. I realize that we can’t just pick up and leave, but I hope that Trump has some kind of exit strategy.
Priscilla, I would have no problem with us leaving. But before doing that, I would go to the Europeans and tell them that we will begin withdrawal and if they have interests they want protected, then they need to mobilize troops and send them to Iraq. Send your ships to keep open the straight of hormuz.
They will tell us “you broke it, you own it”. We have many responses for that given so many critical comments from the Europeans about killing the general and our pull out from the Iran agreements and not supporting us in that.
One has to wonder if Obama had not returned the $400M plus $1.3B ( total $1.7B) to Iran, would they have been able to fund Hezbollah to the level where they have more missiles and weapons than many countries, fund activities in Iraq that turned that country into an Iranian puppet, spread unrest to Yemen and other terrorist activities, allowing Soleimani to create the environment to kill 600+ Americans.
However, those troops should not be returned to America. There are true moderate middle eastern countries that are our allies and I would support leaving them in those coubtries, like Kuwait. This does not mean I support Americans being their first line of defense, but the deterrent to aggression before something like Kuwait happens.
I am what some would call a Jacksonian when it comes to foreign policy. Keep out of other countries policies, support the allies when needed and kick ass when attacked. Each issue may require moderation, but that is the beginning point.
Why worry just because a nasty narcissistic megalomaniacal miscreant former reality TV star with thin orange skin, conducive to yapping vulgar temper tantrums while in charge of the world’s most powerful military, threatens to commit war crimes attacking cultural sites?
Hell, if ISIS-Taliban-Terrorists and Pudgy No. Korean Dictators can get away with it, why can’t Devious Double-Chin Donnie?
We got it. Facts don’t matter “Orange man Bad”
.@PeteButtigieg to @jaketapper on Iran strike: “It seems like more people at Mar-a-Lago heard about this than people in the United States Congress, who are a co-equal branch of government with the responsibility to consult.”
Another Trump Cultist Prediction: if Buttigieg becomes a serious contender in the primaries you will see numerous Media rumors about gay sexual encounters with young boys, and other ugly innuendoes rhyming his last name with anal sex. And whenTrump nick-names him Back-Door Peter you’ll shrug it off as unimportant.
This stuff is tiring. There is no evidence that Trump is a homophobe. His administration is more gay friendly than Obama’s.
We get this crap from people like you all the time.
Lob false accusations of this ism or that and then claim to tbe the good goods for attacking “the haters”.
When you call someone a racist or homophone or … you had better be right.
Otherwise, it is YOU that is the hateful, hating hater.
But we knew that already.
Maybe I’m too critical of Trump’s execution of Soleimani. It seems to be accomplishing the stated objective of both men: expelling American troops from the Middle East.
Today Iraq’s parliament passed a measure to expel all US forces. And ISIS is also applauding today: the US military announced its suspending anti-ISIS operations in Iraq.
What Soleimani couldn’t achieve in life, his martyrdom in death might well accomplish. And if those American forces are kicked out of Iraq, Trump can take bragging rights for Iraq troop reductions (ignoring their deployments elsewhere close by) and Trump Cultists will applaud…
I do not care that US troops are overseas.
I care that we are asking them to kill and be killed without a compelling US interest.
Define compelling reason
Define compelling reason however you want. We can debate that independently.
If our government – Trump/Obama/Bush/Clinton wishes to send our soldiers out to kill and be killed, It must offer a reason that is a “compelling US interest”.
That means it must benefit the US.
It is not our job to pick and choose winners and losers in messy foreign conflicts that do not involve us – not if we are killing and being killed to do so.
It was only the Shi’ite, Iran-supporting members, Jay. THe Sunnis and your favorites, the Kurds, did not even attend the vote, and they don’t want us to leave. And, there is no time limit on when we have to be “expelled.” It was a show vote.
But I’d like to see us get out as soon as possible. We’ve got other, pressing priorities,
(Or now that you know that we would be “abandoning the Kurds”, do you want us to stay?)
Let’s abandon the Kurds, so they’ll reduce their efforts against ISIS.
Happy now?
Soleimani deserved to die. So did Saddam. So did Gaddafi. Killing them didn’t help us long term; but produced the opposite
Soleimani’s execution was a tactical success that will prove a strategic failure. US position in Iraq weakened; fight vs ISIS compromised; Iran stronger in Iraq, two nations mourning murders of citizens. Iran stronger with Russia. Iran stronger internally, rallying around a dead hero.
And Trump, basking in cult adulation, true to form, was at his golf course today.
The only examples of state or group sponsored foreign terrorism in the domestic US in the past several decades has been by Al Qeda.
For all its anti-american Rhetoric, as well as the rantings of a few loan wolves with no actual links to ISIS, ISIS itself has never even attempted a terrorist act in the US.
The fundimental difference between ISIS and Al Qeda (many of the “people”) have moved between groups, is that ISIS is strictly focused on establishing itself as a military and political power in the mideast. In establishing the Caliphate. ISIS has been tied heavily to acts of terrorism IN THE MIDEAST, they have shown no real ability – beyond making claims of responsibility, in actually engaging in organized acts of terrorism outside the mideast.
This is also true of the Iranian sponsored Hezbollah Militias – again their focus is within the mideast.
Though Trump adopted the policy of killing ISIS during the 2016 campaign, that was primarily to make an otherwise pacifist campaign look strong. Defeating ISIS as a force on the ground was an acheivable and definable goal – distinct from the nation building that Bush and Obama were doing. Further it was not new. The crush ISIS policy was conceived by the late Obama administration as making sense out of the incoherent actions of the Obama administration in Syria.
We do not need to stay in the mid east another day because of ISIS.
defeating them was likely NEVER a compelling US interest. Hounding their remants certainly is not.
Killing Soleimani might prove to be a mistake. Though I suspect not.
There is a huge difference between killing Soleimani and killing Ghadafi or Sadam.
Soleimani is a ranking actor in a nation sponsoring terror. Killing him is retaliation for scores of acts of war, and terrorism. It is a THREAT of regime change, but it is NOT actual regime change. Killing Ghadafi and Sadam was an effort at regime change.
The use of force ALWAYS has unintended consequences – and those involving Soleimani could prove nasty. But the unintended consequences of external efforts at regime change are far worse.
Iraq is in chaos and has been for two decades, As has Libya since taking out Ghadafi.
Most of us would be happy to go back tot he mideast of Assad, Ghadafi, Sadam, Mubarak.
Let the people of these countries sort out their own leaders. We can provide moral, and possibly even material support from the outside.
Without staking our own moral impramatur on the next generation of despots, or sacrificing americans for the confused wants of foreigners.
The Bushies did not understand why the very people engaged in acts of terrorism against us right now did not welcome us as liberators in Iraq. That Shiite majority that wants to throw us out and excoriates us, is the very people oppressed by Saddam.
Killing Soleimani does not make us responsible for a new government in Iran.
But it does empower the Iranian people to do so if they want to.
We can cheer from the sidelines. But THEY must change their country. No amount of military force make people govern themselves well.
Amazing Trump can golf and accomplish all the things he has managed as president at the same time.
Hidden in lots of this – in our fixation with the mideast. In the rantings about russia is that there is a major US defense posture shift that has been slowly progressing over a decade that is redirecting the focus of the US military to Asia.
China, not Russia has been defined as the future great power that our military has to be prepared to counter. Our military is being restructed to do so. Changes in our navy, in our relations with countries like Tiawan. Japan, South Korea, even Vietnam are focused on containment of China. We are rebasing soldiers, and ships focused on asian rather than european or mideastern priorities.
While Trump’s behavior as president – the pressure on NK and China are consistent with that shift. The shift significantly predates Trump.
Yet more and more our news is fixated on conflicts in the mideast – which are much more of a european problem today than an american problem.
US Energy independence has created enormous political freedom and power for the US.
We do not need to give a crap about the mideast – it is the Europeans and China who are dependent on mideastern oil.
Our concerns about Russia are proimarily limited to Russia using its Oil and Gas as leverage with Europe. Which is why Trump guaranteed European access to US natural Gas, substantially undercutting Russian leverage with Europe.
Yet, still here we are with way to many in the CIA, and State department retrenched in the past. Still fighting the cold war, still fixated on Russia, and the mideast.
And those dinosaurs airtime on the MSM and from the left, because Trump is implimenting a foreign strategic policy that not only did he run on, but that more quietly our government has been moving to for a decade.
Yet Trump is portrayed as out of touch, and clueless.
Report; Trump notified Russians of Baghdadi raid before telling congressional leaders
Putin’s traitorous Puppet Puking on protocol.
There are Russians in Syria with Guns who could cause US Special Forces serious grief.
Who among the military forces in the area get notified and how early is up to those who have to perform the mission. The whitehouse would be responsible for providing notice.
Once again you continue to try to conflate ordinary operations with malfeasance. We tell the Russians lots of things, And some we keep secret. What we tell them, how quickly we tell them and what we do not tell them depends on OUR interests – it is not cast in stone.
Reagan reveal the Stealth fighter to the USSR in the midst of the cold war. He did so deliberately. He gave them a huge jump on being able to thwart it. But doing so would also have required the USSR to spend millions that they did not have. That was the entire point of telling them.
In this case I would immagine the special forces team did not want to encounter russian forces during the raid.
I would further note that Russia seems to be better at protecting US classified secrets than Hillary Clinton or Eric Ciariemello.
Jay, when a military ops is going down, you only tell those that won’t blab it to the press or your enemies. i suspect this word was give minutes before the missiles were fired.
But you do notify appropriate opposing party politicians of the outcome BEFORE you announce it to Russia and the press, as Trump did.. Obama had the political courtesy to alert Republican leadership about Ben Laden’s death before releasing the news publicly.
Trump’s – who is supposed to be President of the nation – once again has shown his fucked up divisive disregard for bi-partisan governance. This is NOT the way to govern a democratic republic; it’s the way fascists govern.
Jay, my sarcasm flew right over your head. With this one and so many that miss their mark with Dave, I need to revisit my sarcasm techniques.
So, straight out, I would not tell Democrats in congress either. They cant be trusted.
And until congress repeals the AUMF, as it appears Pelosi might be willing to support, any president is authorized to go after anyone that is considered a terrorist posing a threat to the USA, USA assets or individuals. That includes military that 600 deaths can be traced back to this general. There is no requirement that military action under the AUMF to notify congress.
I do not support any large or extended military combat operations without a declaration of war. If this guy was a general in Iran and he was designing operations to kill Americans, then that was state sponsored and congress should have voted on declaring war on Iran, giving authority to the president to go after Iranian assets to protect Americans.
I also know there are times when specific terrorist will be targets. OBl. Under those conditions, special ops, limited in scope and length would be authorized, but nothing 15+ years long and thousands of boots on the ground.
However its fixed, “other individuals” should never be given to any politician in any authorization for military action. Obama showed how crazy that is with his interpretation in 2016.
I would not only support Pelosi withdrawing the AUMF, I would argue that any chamber of congress (or the president) can withdraw support for ANY law or regulation, and if they do that law becomes void.
The constitution makes passing a law difficult. It requires broad support to do so.
What is lost is that not only should a law, regulation, act of congress require super majority support to pass. It should require that same support to be SUSTAINED to remain in effect.
Every single instance is unique.
The attack on Bin Laden did not have any risk of confrontation with Russsian military.
The attack on Bhagdaddi did.
The Bin Laden attack did have risks associated with Pakistani forces – but we did not trust them not to notify Bin Laden so we did not coordinate.
Our military did aparently trust Russia enough to provide them with prior notice to reduce the risk of a violent confrontation with Russians.
Notifying congress is entirely different. If there is no legal requirement for prior notice, generally the fewer people who know the better.
Does Trump cut democrats out of the political process ? Absolutely.
But he did not start that way. He has dealt with 3 years of constant attacks by democrats, and refusal to work together – even where there was common ground.
There is little difference between your remarks and those of Schiff or Pelosi.
You are treated less civilly by me – because you do not treat me or anyone else here civilly.
You presume that everything is a moral issue, when often it is not, or you are on the wrong side of morality. And because you think everything is moral and you are on the side of the angels you feel free to insult everyone. You do not bother – almost ever to make arguments. You just toss out insults as if they are arguments.
So why does it surprise you that you are not treated with respect ?
Respect is not a right, It must be earned. You have not earned it.
Nor have democrats and the media.
WASHINGTON (AP) — “President Donald Trump insists that Iranian cultural sites are fair game for the U.S. military, dismissing concerns within his own administration that doing so could constitute a war crime under international law.“
The Scumbag Sociopath is no better than ISIS.
In Iraq, between the fall of Mosul in June 2014 and February 2015, ISIS plundered and destroyed at least 28 historical religious buildings. Now the lowlife creep-President is threatening to destroy thousands of years of culture without qualm.
Everything is a war crime.
Let go Jay.
No one cares.
Well if this don’t beat all,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-obama-tie-gallup-most-admired-man-poll-2019/
Who would have thought!?
If that doesn’t tell us something about how evenly divided the country is, nothing does.
Jay,
This is a major part of why you and democrats are not taken seriously about Trump.
It is one thing to decide before an election who you are going to vote for.
It is altogether different to decide that if you do not lose the election, you are going to alter the outcome by whatever means necescary.
You wonder why so many talk about a “coup” – it is remarks like this. This is what a coup looks like. Rep. Green does not fortunately speak for all democrats. But he does unfortunately speak for alot of them. Including you.
You do not and did not accept the results of the election. Pretty much no one beleives that any of the littany of Trump irratiations that you rant about each day are a reflection of honest evaluations.
Sentence First, Verdict after.
You decided the outcome you wanted, you have not accepted that the american people voted for a different outcome. and you are going to bring about that outcome by any means necescary. The events of any given day are sold by you in whatever spin it takes to push that outcome. Whatever Trump has just done is evil – because you have decided before the fact that Trump is incapable of doing good – not even by accident.
More Biden contradicting himself
Good Grief, you guys are Still at it?
Why?
What would any of you do if the power went out for a week in your area and you had to get a life?
Addicts in need of a 12 step program.
Just one step would do, step outside in regionally appropriate attire, breathe fresh oxygen, move your bones and get fit.
Or you could launch the same endless set of insults and putdowns at each other sitting on your “loathsome spotty behinds” (to borrow a phrase from Monty Python, spotty is Britspeak for pimply) day after day until the clock runs out for you.
I’ve dropped 30 pounds since I gave this pointless nonsense up, along with following the news. I literally climb or ski to the top of one of several local mountains every day, without fail, no exceptions. By now I am not even breathing hard at the top and I need to find some taller mountains.
But jeez, what I’ve been missing! I could be sitting here banging my head against the wall after first priming myself for the conflict by reading the daily red meat propaganda from the talking heads.
When I pass, that is what I will probably regret most, that I did not spend more of my time wrenching my guts about political assholes and their followers.
Congrats on your new commitment to fitness, Roby.
👍👍👍👍!
Amazing!
You have spent along time away, outside the world of politics and ….
The world has not come to an end.
Trump is still president.
But tanks are not rolling down mainstreet.
Marshall law has not been declared.
Trump has not closed a single newspaper,
The economy is growing pretty well
unemployment – particularly for minorities declines
Standard of living – particularly for the working class increases.
Probably every complaint you had before you left – and then some still exists.
But none of them have truly diminished the quality of your life or anyone else’s.
Your post is extremely well taken – but even you seem to miss the most important point.
The world is not ending. It will not end because Trump was elected, it will not end if he is reelected.
You are as free as you were before.
You have found, without taking conscious note of it that one of my big claims is true.
all the malthusian claims that the sky is falling are FALSE.
In fact things are slowly getting better.
This was even true when Obama and Bush were president – though the rate of improvement was lower and the rate of infringement on liberty slightly higher.
But the world was sill not nearing the end.
You would have to agree that you and jay are like a Pit Bull and Rottweiler caged together would you not?
I am having fun. I do not think Jay is.
But Roby haven’t you noticed how much worse things have gotten since you abdicated confronting Trump & Pals here? (Wagging finger).
The stock market has risen.
Standard of living has risen
Unemployment has dropped,
Particularly for minorities
Wages have risen.
particularly for minorities.
We have a trade deal with Mexico and Canada.
We have an interim deal with China.
illegal immigration is WAY DOWN.
Trump has put more solid federalists on the courts than all judges Obama appointed in 8 years.
The Islamic State is no more.
Bahgdadi is dead.
Soleimani is dead.
The US is the worlds largest producer of oil.
If this is your idea of things going to hell.
“Please Sir, Can I have more ?”
https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/1212976832544460801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1212976832544460801&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepostmillennial.com%2Ffederalist-writer-banned-from-twitter-for-speaking-out-against-iran%2F
Why shouldn’t the senate take the House demands seriously ?
Because the house does not take their own demands seriously and even the courts have recognized that
Another asinine response from the bowels of retarded reason.
“Iraqis and Iranians who just a few weeks ago were protesting the Iranian regime are now protesting the United States. The Iraqi parliament just voted to expel U.S. troops. So much for Pompeo’s vapid boast that Iraqis would be “dancing in the street.””
So – how do we get those outraged Iranians to shift outrage back at the present Iranian leadership?
I doubt this statement was accurate.
Prior to the US attack on Militia leaders, that sparked the embassy attacks, there were protests in Iraq against the militias. After there were protests against the US.
The protestors in each case were DIFFERENT PEOPLE,
Advice to Nancy:
Add the following impeachment charges: pardoning war criminals, promising to commit war crimes,
This impeachment is dead. It was Dead before it started.
the house can impeach for any reason it pleases – that does not mean it should.
The power to pardon is in the constitution, you can not limit it without amending the constitution.
What are called war crimes are not crimes. They are violations of treaties. They are more the equivalent of breach of contract. There are numerous treaties the US has refused to sign on to, because refuse to allow our soldiers to be prosecuted in “international courts” – that is a wise decision.
Ultimately even nuremburg was a mistake. In return for our public show trial of the ring leaders – who would have been tried and prosecuted and probably executed by the countries the actual crimes were committed in.
There is no sane reason for international courts. They are counter productive.
War Crimes Trump has a better recollection of Hitler and Mussolini then of Nuremberg.
The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Was the US prosecuted at Nuremberg ?
Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler weren’t prosecuted at Nuremberg either; they committed suicide before they could be apprehended.
But it’s doubtful Trump – a great fan of Hitler by his own admission – would follow Adolph’s example and give up the media attention that trial would afford him.
But if he did take his life, like Bormann he could be tried in absentia, tho only Fox and National Enquirer would give that trial more than passing attention.
Back to the nazi nonsense.
Yes, Trump is dying for a Senate Trial. And Trump is chomping at the bit for witnesses.
The Bidens, Schiff, Ciarmiello.
But can we let go of the war crimes nonsense.
I do not think there is a single consequential person left or right that does not think that Soleimani’s death is not a good thing.
To the extent there is any discussion at all, it is over the potential reprisals.
Trump had a terrorist killed, one responsible for hundreds of american deaths and injuries.
No one in the US is shedding tears.
Your war crimes rant is nonsense. There is pretty much no one that does not want Soleimani dead, or think that killing him is justified – the entire argument is about whether the unintended consequences of killing him are worthwhile.
Almost no one is saying Trump should not have killed Soleimani because killing him is not justified.
Lots of us – myself included are worried about the unintended consequences.
Trump is now sending all kinds of mixed messages about leaving Iraq.
Ranging from it is stupid that we are there, to we are not leaving until the Iraqi’s pay for the airbase we are using.
One marine general is telling troops to prepare to leave during the night. While Espy and DOD are denying that we are leaving.
It is hard to find people who know something about Iran, but from what I can glean from those who seem to be knowledgeable, Soleimani is not likely replaceable.
His deputy may try to continue his efforts, and may even know all the right things, But Soleimani had personal connections throughout the mideast and the world of islamic terrorism that are not going to be replaced easily. Further he was a rising political start. He was being groom for higher positions and given he was already #2 there is not much place to go.
To some extent he may be irreplaceable. It is possible that killing him has made it significantly harder – not impossible, for Iran to continue to wage its proxy war of terror, that quick efforts to retaliate might not be possible. I would further note that we did not just Kill Soleimani alone – we took out a large number of Hezbollah millitia leaders in Iraq. The very organizations that would likely lead any retaliation may not have the ability to do so for a long time.
This is also a big deal because it strikes at Iran’s most potent weapon in the mideast.
Iran’s power in the mideast is because of its ability to use terror by proxy, and we have not only cut off the head of that but sent a clear message that we are prepared to cut off any future heads that might grow back. It is not going to inspire others to do Soleimani’s job well.
And again a significant portion of the Hezbollah militia leadership in Iraq has just been decimated.
I would further note that Trump has just sent a strong message accross the world – to Kim Un as an example – that Trump is prepared to take very strong steps.
In public and in his tweets – which you ignore, Trump is also sending a message to Iran. Yes, he is telling them that he will reign fire and brimstone on them if they retaliate.
But he is also saying that he wants peace and is prepared to negotiate.
With Iran, With North Korea.
He has also said that he does not give a shit about your “faux impeachment” and that other world leaders should not either. That he is as strong as president as ever, and that he will do what it takes.
You bitched that democrat leaders were not informed of this before hand.
I do not like reading minds, but that too might have been a message – to them, and to the world. That he does not feel the need to placate democrats.
Pelosi told the world that democrats had to impeace quickly – because Trump had to be reigned in. Trump has just given Pelosi the finger.
And just so you are clear – whether Trump is right or wrong in that, does not get decided by the pundits, or the media, or Joe Walsh. It gets decided by voters in November.
What are you smoking ?
It is unlikely there is going to be a trial of anykind.
Impeachment is done. Put a fork in it.
Unless democrats are real stupid – which they have been too often thus far, they are going to stop before they damage themselves more.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Biden is the only hope democrats have in November.
That all the other candidates are dwarves. The democratic debates have been a political disaster.
Even Biden has been seriously wounded by all of this.
He is not still in this because he has come through unscathed. He is still in this because way to many powerful people do not want ANY of the other democratic candidates.
If you go forward with impeachment – no matter how it is done, it is going to be a contest between Trump and Biden, and it is going to be in a venue that is not good for Biden.
Johnathan Turley has just come out and said that if there is a trial – Hunter Biden must testify.
That is going to go horribly for democrats and specifically for Joe Biden.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/07/i_faced_soleimanis_forces_dems_are_mourning_a_war_criminal_142098.html
Typical trump horseshit.
Name any Dem mourning his death.
Name any Dem saying anything good about him.
Give me their names and I’ll condemn them.
“Typical trump horseshit.
Name any Dem mourning his death.
Name any Dem saying anything good about him.
Give me their names and I’ll condemn them.”
I guess you do not follow posts on THIS BLOG.
I have posted several tweets etc. from various democrats and/or left wing nut reporters
You did not respond, much less condemn them.
While you are not obligated to do so. Your the one who constantly plays this “If you do not condemn what I demand that you condemn in the words I choose then you actually support it” game.
At the same time you have just said you would do something, and yet you did not.
Why should anyone trust your judgement ?
You are not only ignorant of the facts in the real world, parroting nonsense about Carter Page that has been known false for more than a year and was established conclusively as false beyond any doubt and made public by Horowitz about a month ago, that was probably the MOST SIGNIFICANT FINDING of the Horowitz Report.
And you aren’t even aware of really easy to digest posts on THIS BLOG.
Nor do you follow my posts anymore than I follow yours: as I’ve stated before, I only read about 1 out of 5 of your responses, about the same percent of attention I give to boring advertisements.
Per Horowitz Report: Yes, I’ve read it. Have you?
1. Yes the evidence to justify FISA warrants were inconsistently applied (and in one case intentionally misapplied) but overall those sneaky Russia-cozy bastards deserved FBI investigation.
2. The investigation into Russian meddling was in operation prior to Steele’s Dossier. If you read the IG Report you must know that. Start with Chap 3 for the sequential events that led to the FISA applications, including specific intelligence from a trusted major European nation that the Russians were trying to recruit a major Trump campaign player to accept info detrimental to Clinton. But you’d know that if you read the report in full.
And Carter Carter Page WAS already the focus of a Pre-Existing FBI New York Field Office Counterintelligence Investigation, per Horowitz:
“The OGC Unit Chief told us that of all the individuals associated with the Trump campaign best positioned to have received the alleged offer of assistance from Russia, Carter Page “quickly rose to the top” of the list because of his past connections to Russian officials and the FBl’s previous contacts with Page. As reflected in the FISA applications described in Chapters Five and Seven, as well as in other FBI documents, NYFO had an interest in Carter Page for several years before August 2016 and had interviewed him on multiple occasions because of his relationships with individuals the FBI knew to be Russian intelligence officers.
An FBI counterintelligence agent in NYFO (NYFO CI Agent) with extensive
experience in Russian matters told the OIG that Carter Page had been on NYFO’s
radar since 2009, when he had contact with a known Russian intelligence officer
(Intelligence Officer 1). According to the EC documenting NYFO’s June 2009
interview with Page, Page told NYFO agents that he knew and kept in regular
contact with Intelligence Officer 1 and provided him with a copy of a non-public
annual report from an American company. The EC stated that Page “immediately
advised [the agents] that due to his work and overseas experiences, he has been
questioned by and provides information to representatives of [another U.S.
government agency] on an ongoing basis.”
NYFO CI agents believed that Carter Page was “passed” from Intelligence
Officer 1 to a successor Russian intelligence officer (Intelligence Officer 2) in 2013
and that Page would continue to be introduced to other Russian intelligence officers”
So, when Page’s name surfaced in Steele’s report as a possible funnel of Russian access to Trump’s campaign, the FBI would have been negligent to ignore that possibility., and not investigate him throughly.
Nor do you follow my posts anymore than I follow yours: as I’ve stated before, I only read about 1 out of 5 of your responses, about the same percent of attention I give to boring
“Per Horowitz Report: Yes, I’ve read it. Have you?”
Yes, but sorry, you clearly have not.
“1. Yes the evidence to justify FISA warrants were inconsistently applied (and in one case intentionally misapplied) but overall those sneaky Russia-cozy bastards deserved FBI investigation.”
It is amazing that in a short sentence you can get so much wrong.
The FBI did not investigate “those sneaky russians at all”.
They investigates Carter Page – who they knew or should have known was a CIA asset, and therefore absolutely everything about his contact with Russians – which they got wrong, was NOT suspicious.
Had the FBI told the FISA court that Carter Page was a CIA Asset they never would have gotten the warrant PERIOD.
And that ignores you the mess you have made of the evidentiary standards for a warrant.
Horrowitz found that the FBI NEVER had the probable cause necescary for a warrant.
The had the reasonable suspicion necescary for an investigation – just barely.
These are completely different evidentiary standards.
“2. The investigation into Russian meddling was in operation prior to Steele’s Dossier. If you read the IG Report you must know that. Start with Chap 3 for the sequential events that led to the FISA applications, including specific intelligence from a trusted major European nation that the Russians were trying to recruit a major Trump campaign player to accept info detrimental to Clinton. But you’d know that if you read the report in full.”
Again quasi accurate. The information came from Andrew Downer, Australian, not european, it did NOT come through normal chanels, but was forwarded to the FBI through the State department. The Trump Campaign “player” was Papadoulis was was a BIT PLAYER bot close to major. And that entire line of inquiry had died BEFORE the application for the FISA Warrant.
“And Carter Carter Page WAS already the focus of a Pre-Existing FBI New York Field Office Counterintelligence Investigation, per Horowitz:”
There was NO Pre-existing investigation of Carter Page.
The portion of the Horowitz report does NOT say there was, it states and OPPINION expressed by some of the people Horowitz Interviewed. It does not state a fact or a finding – other that that was the Oppinion.
Yes, Carter Page had prior contacts with the FBI – it would not be even slightly surprising that Page came to the attention of the FBI while he was making contact with Russians at the direction of the CIA. And in fact Page worked with the FBI to PROSECUTE a Russian Spy.
It is near certain that the CIA told the FBI that Page was an asset probably as early as 2010. It is near certain that Page told the FBI that he was a CIA asset prior to that. Given that the FBI worked with Page to prosecute a Russian Spy it is certain that the FBI new that Page was NOT a russian asset.
The best that you have here is that the top floor of the FBI was thoroughly incompetent.
But we know better than that.
But you can agree or disagree with all of the above – though it is all facts.
You STILL trip over a HUGE problem. BEFORE the first application for a FISA Warrant, the CIA emailed the FBI and informed them that Page was a CIA asset.
This is exculpatory information. All “Ex Parte” legal processes REQUIRE the presentation of ALL exculpatory information. This is a FUNDIMENTAL Legal principle. It applies to all procedings before a court – civil or criminal.
Failure to provide exculpatory information that you know of in a warrant application is not only a serious ethical and procedural violation it is a far more serious False Sworn Statement, than anything Mueller prosecuted.
And Horowitz found More that that the FBI failed to provide Exculpatory information.
It found that the FBI INVERTED the email converting it from exculpatory to inculpatory.
That is a CRIME. Further absolutely everyone who was part of this investigation who was aware of that is guilty of CONSPIRACY to commit that crime.
NEXT – from your own citation:
“The EC stated that Page “immediately
advised [the agents] that due to his work and overseas experiences, he has been
questioned by and provides information to representatives of [another U.S.
government agency] on an ongoing basis.”
In plain english Carter Page told the FBI in 2009 that he was working for the CIA.
That single sentence leaves the FBI with one single further thing that it can do.
Contact the CIA to confirm Page’s claims, which they did, and the CIA confirmed.
Absolutely everything from that moment on is completely irrelevant.
Of Course a CIA Asset would have contact with Russians and pass them the information that the CIA wished to provide that Russia.
“So, when Page’s name surfaced in Steele’s report as a possible funnel of Russian access to Trump’s campaign, the FBI would have been negligent to ignore that possibility., and not investigate him throughly.”
False. The FBI knew in 2009 that Page was a CIA Asset, and they confirmed again in 2016 that he was a CIA Asset – and wierdly spun, Page ALSO worked with the FBI to prosecute Russian Spies.
Margot Cleveland notes that though the IG;s report rarely addresses Mueller, that many of its findings apply to Mueller, Not only did Mueller seek and receive an extension to the FISA warrant using the same application that the IG found deeply flawed. Mueller and Rosenstein offered the same garbage to the FISA court AFTER they knew this was all crap.
Further Mueller – not merely in the FISA applicaiton, but also in his report, continues the nonsense that Carter Page had inappropriate contact with Russians while FAILING to note that Pabge was working with the CIA at the time.
Many of Horowitz’s findings are damning.
But the page one is especially so.
Page was the target the FBI and Mueller setup to go after Trump.
Yet, he was absolutely innocent and THEY KNEW IT.
But for Comey, Mueller and their gang – actual innocence does nto matter.
Carter Page was someone that they could by ommitting important facts, make look guilty enough to get the warrant they needed to spy on Trump.
The ends justify the means.
It is OK to spy on and target people you know are innocent – if that gives you a way to spy on Trump.
Whatever you might think of Trump – what has been done to Page, Flynn, Papadoulis – even Stone, is despicable.
IT was done by Comey, by the cabal at the FBI, by many at DOJ, and by Mueller and his team. It was criminal abuse of power.
There must be consequences.
This must not ever happen again.
I do not give a frack if you want to investigate Trump or future politicians.
You do not go through innocent people to do so. You do not lie about them to get warrants to spy. You do not tell judges that they are an agent of a foreign power when you KNOW they are working for the US.
Those of you that support this are more reprehensible than any accusation you have ever made of Trump.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/06/inspector-general-report-shows-special-counsel-replicated-fbi-abuses/
“ Page was the target the FBI and Mueller setup to go after Trump.”
Page was the target of FBI FISA investigations PRE Trump.
Seems he’s was acting suspiciously, passing documents to Russians with ties to the Kremlin in 2012/2013 as reported by the Wall Street Journal: “Russian spies tried to recruit Page as an intelligence source; and Page passed documents to an agent of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service.”
By your loony judgements they should have ignored his continuing Russian involvements in 2016, when he was touting his influence with the Trump campaign at the same time he admittedly “had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin.”
Pray for American Troops
“The US military has confirmed that Iran has launched a barrage of rockets on the Al-Asad base where US troops are based. Other US facilities in Iraq are also reportedly under attack.”
Atleast something we can agree on.
I suspect all precautions have been taken to insure their safety. This is not like the attacks on Marine barracks or attacks on ships that were complete surprises.
But if Trump is 1/2 the man Reagan was after they attacked one of our ships and we destroyed over 50% of the Iranian naval fleet, then the military already has key targets that will have devastating impacts on the Iranian economy and military complexity. The way to stop Iranian aggression is to do things that weaken the regime that allows the public ways to remove them from power. In the past the regime goes to the line and stops because they do not want major domestic problems along with foreign issue.
Ron,
I do not have the answers here. I doubt Trump does, or you do.
We are all playing it by ear. One of the problems with Both Iran and North Korea is any presumption that we are dealing with rational actors.
I would personally chose to avoid actions that made the economy worse for ordinary Iranians.
They have launched an attack with IRBM’s.
I would target their ability to repeat that.
Take out their missile facilities – at least to the extent that we can – which is likely reasonably good.
Keep this simple. What ever force Iran uses – respond by degrading that force.
Leave the choice to escalate up to Iran.
We also have to be careful of talk of regime change.
All of us would like that. But unless we are actually prepared to invade Iran as we did Iraq, which congress would not likely authorize, the iranian leaders need to beleive they can survive this, or it will get completely out of control. There are strong indications that Iran’s leaders only have nominal control of the country. If there is a popular uprising, the current leaders are in deep shit and they know it. Any transition in power in Iran is not going to be peaceful, and everyone currently with power will near certainly be killed or punished in a revolt.
We do not want the current leaders to beleive they have nothing to lose.
“Page was the target of FBI FISA investigations PRE Trump.”
What Rock do you live under ?
Have you been paying no attention at all ?
Have you heard of this guy Horrowitz ?
Fake News.
You are really paying ZERO attention.
Can you please actually read the Horowitz report ?
Can you please actually learn something outside your own bubble ?
Allow an actual FACT to get in maybe.
“Early on, Horowitz found that an unnamed government agency, widely acknowledged to be the CIA, told the FBI that it was making a mistake about Page and that he was working for the agency as an “operational contact” in Moscow. Indeed, he was working as an asset for the CIA for years. While it was falsely reported that Page met with three suspicious individuals there, he had no contact with two of those individuals. More importantly, Page did the right thing and told American officials about being contacted by the third person, because he felt they should know.”
The “acting suspiciously” you are claiming is WORKING FOR THE CIA.
Page was contacted by the Russians – as far back as I beleive 2010. He reported these contacts, and was subsequently used by the CIA to catch Russia agents.
One of the MAJOR findings of the Horowitz Report was that the FBI was TOLD by the CIA that Page was a CIA asset.
Absolutely the Russians attempted to Recruit Page. This is not secret, and Page went to the CIA and aided them in investigating, and feeding information to the Russians that were “recruiting” him.
In other parlance he was a “double agent” working for the CIA,
I am sure that Page passed things to the Russians – whatever the CIA wanted him to pass to the Russians.
Page was working for the CIA AGAINST the russians for SEVERAL YEARS prior to the FBI FISA Warrants.
“By your loony judgements they should have ignored his continuing Russian involvements in 2016”
Yes, the FBI should not have been investigating Carter Page after the CIA told the FBI that Page was a CIA asset
Not only do you have the FBI LYING to the FISA Court, but by proceding against Page they interfered with an ultimately detroyed his usefullness to the CIA.
There were actually stories about this for a long time. There were rumours that Page worked for the CIA, There were stories that Page was seeking permission from the CIA to reveal that he was working for them. And Ultimate Page did publicly assert that he was working for the CIA. And you the media, the left claimed it was all just lies by Page.
Except that the CIA knew that Page was a CIA asset, the FBI knew that Page was a CIA asset, and Mueller knew that Page was a CIA Asset.
And they knew this while they were telling the FISA court that he was a russian asset and using as evidence against him his contacts with Russians under the supervision and sometimes direction of the CIA.
BTW exactly the same thing is true of Flynn’s contacts with Russia.
He was briefed by the CIA prior to every meeting with any russian or trip to Russia, he was debriefed after those Trips. He was given information to pass on to the Russians.
You are actually fracking with the GOOD GUYS in your stupid efforts to “get Trump”.
Every single person in the crossfire huricane team or Mueller investigation who was aware that Page worked for the CIA – and that is MOST OF THEM, and allowed FISA warrant applications asserting that Page was a Russian agent to be filed using his work for the CIA as the evidence against him should be FIRED, Many of them should GO TO JAIL.
I am hard pressed to think of much worse that law enforcement can do than to swear to the courts under oath that someone they know is working for the CIA against the Russians is actually a Russian asset that they want to investigate.
Defamation laws unfortunately do not apply to court proceedings. If they did Carter Page has a monumental defamation lawsuit against the US Government, as well as many FBI and Mueller agents individually – that he should win.
What the FBI did to Page is FAR worse that what CNN WaPo and MSNBC did to Nick Sandman
MacCarthy excellent as usual, points out that Trump can not have committed an act of war or violated international law in killing Soleimani Iran has publicly and repeatedly said that it was at war with the US for the past 40 years. Soleimani was actively engaged in prosecuting that war. He was doing so through the use of Terror, and the US had declared Iran a sponsor of Terrorism.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/qasem-soleimani-strike-enemy-combatant-terror-commanders-fair-game/
That the media and the left is flipping out over the Babylon Bee is hysterical.
The media feeds us a daily dose of bullshit that is far worse than the satire of the Babylon Bee.
This just reinforces the observation that the left has killed comedy.
I liked John Stewart – he was funny. He was also political. But that was OK.
I used to like Colbert – he was funny.
He has not been funny in a long time. It is not that he is not funny because he is attacking conservatives. It is that the left ideology is so much of a straight jacket that humor is impossible. Re-runs of the daily show would likely have to be censored to suck out the humor.
I listened to bits and peices of liberal Gervais giving Hollywood its comeupance.
Gervais was unfortunately not funny either – because his jokes were very very close to being literally true.
And that is the problem with the Babylon Bee story about democratrs demanding that flags fly at half mast for Soleimani – it is far too close to the truth. It should be funny, but it is not, it is not just beleiveable – as Harsanyi reports – the Washington Post called Soliemani revered.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/attacks-on-the-babylon-bee-are-attacks-on-free-expression/
So, um, Trump is the bad guy, for ordering a hit on the terrorist mastermind who bears responsibility for over 600 American deaths (that does not count the many others, including his own countrymen, that he killed).
On the other hand, in the last 24 hours, Iran 1) fired more than a dozen missiles at Iraqui military bases 2) Accidentally (?) shot down a Ukrainian airliner, with one of those missiles, killing 180 people and 3)Failed to control a state sponsored funeral for the great terrorist, Soleimani, and, as a result, 56 Iranians were killed in a stampede.
Iran is refusing to turn the black boxes of the crashed airliner to Boeing, clearly intending to claim that it was Boeing’s fault, despite many eyewitness accounts of the plane being blown out of the sky.
But the Democrats say Trump is the bad guy…..Yep, Queen Nancy says so, so it muct be true!
With most every issue that comes up today, if you replaced the world Trump with the word Obama, 50% of people would hold the opposite position on the issue.
We are not going to “fix” Iran. We have neither the right nor the power to do so.
One would hope that we had learned that from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, ….
We can not make Iran(or NK) into a good country. We can – within some constraints FORCE Iran to do SOME things. Doing so REQUIRES the willingness to use FORCE.
We can attempt to thwart their nuclear ambitions – with sanctions, and if those do not work with bombs and missiles and ultimately troops on the ground.
The exact same is true of any other form of undesirable conduct – such as exporting terrorism.
Regardless, when you say that you are going to compel another country to behave as you wish. That could ultimately require the use of force – and if they continue to misbehave – escalating to the point of war.
Obama chose a different tack. That resulted in significantly less direct conflict between the US and Iran, but it resulted in Iran growing in power as a bad influence throughout the mideast.
Ultimately we as a nation must decide the level of FORCE we are willing to use to compel another nation to behave as we wish.
WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
Clauswitz
Obviously I do not trust Iran, and given the plane is nearly new and well maintained and the timing the mechanical failure claim is dubious.
But I have not heard anything beyond speculation that the iranian military might have accidentally brought this plane down.
I have heard separate claims that it was brought down by the rockets fired at Iraq, and that it was brought down by anti-aircraft fire.
But claims are not facts. I would expect lots of rumours at this time.
Given the complete failure of the Iranian IRBM attack, I am inclined to hope that Trump lets this go. Just as he did the downing of the drone some time ago.
Do not get me wrong, this was an actual act of war. Further I am surprised that Iran directly attacked americans, rather than through terror and proxies.
I think Trump would be fully justified in taking out Iranian missile sites. Part of me really wants him to do just that. It would not be WRONG to do so. But it would take another step towards the brink.
But what CAN be done, what is even justifiable, and what SHOULD be done is not always the same.
If Trump choses not to escalate given the lack of US casualties. This might end and Iran actually looks impotent.
And MAYBE we can get past this.
A Conservative on Conservatives
I agree with most of this; does that mean I’m conservative?
https://thedispatch.com/p/the-rights-bullsht-problem
I am libertarian not conservative. Thought there is alot of overlap there are serious fundimental differences. Socialism is a testible ideology. It does not work. It can not be applied perfectly, and it fails in all imperfect applications – hence the constant NTS falacy.
libertarianism is ALSO a testible ideology, unlike socialism it does work. It works in the non-utopian real world. It works best when applied as purist as possible, but it works even in imperfect applications.
Goldberg’s article is very interesting, but it makes a number of logical fallacies of its own.
“Every government policy involves some trade-off between competing goods.”
This is quasi-fallacious. It is another assertion that compromise is a principle rather than a value. Murder(unjustified killing) is illegal. We do not compromise on that. There are no tradeoffs. There are some accepted justifications for killing – self defense, defense of others, under some circumstances defense of property. These are not trade offs. If someone asserts that it is OK to kill jews or blacks, we do not engage in “trade-offs”. No reasonable person on the left or the right would do so.
But inherent in Goldbergs remarks, and inherent in the entirety of the lefts politics is that even principles are subject to trade-offs – compromise.
That trivially fails from reductio ad absurdem. If we are always required to engage in trade-offs if we are never obligated to hold to any principle, then the entire political process will be gamed by the side most willing to assert outlandish claims – because the other side will be obligated to compromise with them. That ultimately means the left will ultimately get whatever it wants no matter how stupid the demand is – incrementally.
This is a LOGICAL FLAW in Goldberg’s argument and in all systems that elevate compromise to a principle.
I would further note that Goldberg’s description of conservatism is essentially accurate.
It is why conservatism is not an ideology, and why ultimately conservatism engages in any conflict with the left at a strong disadvantage.
It is also why conservatism borrow so heavily from classical liberalism.
Conservatism is not inherently free market. It is not inherently a champion of individual liberty. As I have noted conservatism is NOT an ideology. It is not a system of principles it is a system of values. The core value of conservatism is that whatever is currently working – however badly should not easily be supplanted with something unproven.
That is wise advice and it is the core value of conservatism.
But it is NOT a principle. It does not oppose change, it merely requires it to be cautious, Nor does it tell us which direction to proceed from the status quo.
Golberg’s second logical error is to equate inequality with injustice.
Enormous amounts of inequality exist in nature. These do not constitute injustice.
Robby is musically gifted, I am not that is inequality, it is not injustice.
Some people will do batter in the world as a result of hard work, others will do so primarily through natural talent. That is inequality, it is not fair. It is NOT injustice.
The moment you equate inequality with injustice, you have unwittingly accepted socialism.
Jay, The Dispatch is the very UN-influencial website of hard-core never-Trumper neocons, who now support Democrats.
Some of them, like Jonah Goldberg, have interesting opinions, but they are totally 100% anti-Trump. all the time. Just like you. Nothing wrong with that, but, keep in mind, they are not speaking for the conservatarian populist Trump base.
If you’re serious about being a moderate, you should stop seeking out solely anti-Trump sources. I mean, it’s hard sometimes to read thoughtful opinions written by people who totally disagree with your personal point of view. I read Goldberg, David French, libertarian Nick Gillespie, and leftists Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. They are all never-Trumpers, but they are just as tough on many on the left as they are on Trump.
As it is now, you claim to be a moderate, but your baseline positions seem to be unconnected to anything except your extreme Trump hatred.
I like Golberg. I like him alot. He was an important conservative voice prior to Trump’s election.
But he is one of the conservatives that Jay loves – like George Will, who can not reconcile the imperfections of Trump with their conservatism.
Early on Goldberg points out that Socialists are inherently utopian. That every failed example of socialism is not real socialism, because it is not True Socialsim.
But he and Will and many other very important conservatives make exactly the same mistake with Trump – except for one major difference.
Socialism fails – PERIOD, perfect, imperfect, ….
Trump is not my idea of conservative (which I do not care much about) or libertarian.
He is very far from pure libertarian. But unlike socialism half assed libertarianism WORKS.
Not as well as more well done, but better than less.
Trump is FAR FROM PERFECT, but he is far better than Obama.
Further Trump might yet prove to be the most libertarian president of the past 50 years.
That does not make him an actual libertarian. But I am not going to impeach the best I can reasonably hope for.
Ron, rants that the GOP is broke because it produced Trump as president.
Romney. Kaisich, Hunstman, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, and a long list of other 2016 contenders all SOUNDED like better choices. I probably would have chosen any one of them personally over Trump. But I do not think a single one of them would have accomplished as much.
The amount of deregulation occuring is incredible – both large and small regulations are biting the dust, and people are not dying – dropping like flies.
Even a left wing author I beleive at the atlantic had to conceed that the Trump judicial nominees as both numerous and stellar. These are people who clerked for the supreme court or federal appelate judges. Trump has already within 4 years almost matched Obama in 8 years in filling positions and will be ahead of Obama before the end of his first term. These are also young judges who are going to be on the court for a very long time.
Illegal immigration is WAY down – I beleive by a factor of 5 now.
Tax reform is moving capital from foreign nations back to the US.
This was an absolute no brainer it is surprising how long it took.
Despite the current mess we appear to be moving towards a better relationship to the mideast – SLOWLY. Again I would like to see more and faster, but if Clinton had been elected we would have invaded even more countries and still be there and I do not think that any other republican would have had the cohones to push as hard as Trump has – which is NOT hard enough to get us out.
We are in a better place with respect to China. Real progressis being made in peacefully containing China militarily. DoD decided that its primary theater of operations would be China over a decade ago. Now we are finally restructuring forces to reflect that – despite all the rants here about Trump cozying up to Putin. Outside of a few cold warriors most “experts” understand that Russia is not the most consequential threat we face today.
Regardless we are dealing with China. We are getting allies to stand with us regarding China and North Korea. Tiawan and Japan are strengthening their millitary – particularly their navy.
Relations with Vietnam are improving. China’s problems are multiplying,
while i am not a huge fan of Trump’s trade wars I am following the data and though damaging, the impact is not nearly as b ad as expected. trade is so globalized that impacts are mitigated.
I have not gotten everything I wanted from a President – not even close.
But I do not think Ron or Rand Paul could have actually accomplished as much.
And that is where I part ways with Will and Goldberg. They are both absolutely right, Trump is no conservative, no libertarian. But an actual conservative or libertarian would not have succeeded as well on things that conservatives and libertaerians value.
And Contra Goldberg – Trump has gotten plenty of criticism from conservatives, and republicans and even me. But no, I am not as critical as I was of Obama.
But that only SEEMS partisan. If no one was criticising Trump – there would be much more need to speak out. Instead every batshit crazy attack in existance is floated every day.
If I complained more about Trumps many but small issues, my voice would be completely missed in the tidal wave of batschiff crazy faux outrage.
Contra Goldberg there is no need for conservatives, libertarians, republicans, etc to add their voices to the harangue over Trump. The din is so loud and so exagerated that no one would notice.
And as I started, why should I shit over the best president in 20 years. Possible the best president since Reagan ?
Goldberg started out by noting that the prefect is the enemy of the good.
And finished by buying heavily into the same fallacy he started criticising.
I will be happy to discus with moderates democrats, republicans, even left wing nuts RATIONAL changes to our laws that would shift some of the power back to congress where it belongs.
I beleive in stronger congressional oversight. The stone walling that Obama got away with was criminal. What subordinates in the Trump administration got away with during Mueller was even worse – how is it that a republican house can not get information from the Trump DOJ and FBI to exonerate Trump and expose malfeasance during the Obama administration ?
I think the house impeachment hearings are a farce. But I do not have a problem with the House spinning its wheels on this. If the house managers want bolton to testify – they can drag him to the house.
The house is bringing a crappy case to the Senate. It should die quietly. If the house beleives there is more – they have their own committees where they can call witnesses. No one is stopping them.
Dave, one thing I believe has happened over the past years is both Obama and Trump have rendered congress impotent. Much of what Obama did was through E.O’s. Much of what Trump has done is through E. O’s. Most of Obama’s were repealed by Trumps. And congress sets in the pot unwilling to ____, allowing both president powers they should never have. From environmental issues, health insurance issues to climate and commerce issues, congress has renounced their authority to the president.
So the next president can take their procedure for E.O’s and go one they further, all while house and senate members either have a poop hemmorrage or wet dream praising the action that person takes.
Right now the left is having the poop hemmorrage over Trump. Both sides should be very concerned about congresses lack of control that they constitutionally were given, but what they have delegated.
Presidents have been usurping the powers of congress since Washington.
Obama is a big step towards an imperial presidency.
There is nothing inherently wrong with an EO.
But an EO is a directive to the Executive as to how to perform a constitutionally mandated task.
An EO can not make law.
An EO has no power over US persons.
An EO has no power over congress.
An EO is not permitted to infringe on individual rights.
An EO must be a directive to impliment an enumerated constitutional power.
Both Obama’s and Trump’s “muslim ban” EO’s are actually examples of legitimate EO’s.
They are a directive about how to excercise a power delegated to the president by the constitution.
“From environmental issues, health insurance issues to climate and commerce issues, congress has renounced their authority to the president.”
Everyone of these is a power that if given to the federal government at all, was given to congress.
Trump rolling back regulations is actually returning power to congress.
Off the top of my head the only instance I can think of Trump taking an expansive view of executive power is his emergency wall funding gambit.
While he actually acted inside the law, he was also acting in defiance of the intentions of congress.
Just because Pelosi is not happy with something Trump has done, does not make it an expansion of the presidents power.
On regulation, PPACA, the Dreamers, Trump has REVERESED overreaches that Obama instituted and returned the power to act to congress.
Undoing overreach is not also overreach, even if one party in congress thinks it is.
“Dave, one thing I believe has happened over the past years is both Obama and Trump have rendered congress impotent.”
Ron, I generally agree, but I think that, to a greater extent, Congess rendered itself impotent by passing the War Powers Act after VietNam. I would also go back to Clinton, and not that he used the War Powers Act without Congressional approval in Kosovo.
The executive branch has usurped accrue power that is not being wielded by the congress, but the Congress has proactively yielded its own power.
The War Powers act was necescary. Albeit could use revision.
The constitution leaves the president near omnipotent in foreign policy and military leadership
It delegates to congress:
The power to declare war.
The power to control spending.
The president has and should have the power to act unilaterally in myriads of military capacities that require quick decisions.
I do not think there is any sane division of power between the president and congress that would have deprived Trump to power to kill Soliemani.
He was a designated target from a country identified as a sponsor of terrorism.
An oportunity to “get him” could come up any time. You just can not consult congress everytime that occurs.
I think Killing Soleimani was a “flash in the pan”.
i.e. I do not think Trump (or Obama) would have acted BUT FOR:
A recent attack by Iranian backed terrorist militias that Soliemani was tied to that resulted in an american death. The recent attacks on the US embassy. The quickly appearing intel that he was meeting with terrorist militia leaders outside of Iran.
I think that Trump and advisors said – we have him under the circumstances that most justify taking him out. We have a short window, and they decided to do it.
I think the presence of several other terrorist leaders at the same time was highly relevant.
Though I think we wanted Soliemani, I also think we did NOT want to give this other significant targets a pass because Soliemani was present.
There are obvious political issues associated with Killing Soliemani, but we can not convert him into a talisman that PREVENTS taking out the terrorists he associates with.
Anyway, the point is this is a decision that can not easily be shared with congress.
The war powers act is an attempt to define the undefined areas between the constitutional powers of the president and those of congress.
If the war powers act is flawed – we can and should change it.
90 days was not long enough to accomplish much in the vietnam era.
By the time of GW I the largets tank battle in world history took place in the midst of an enormous war that took a few days.
GW II was accomplished with fewer troops in a bit over 30 days.
Libya was accomplished with no troops on the ground in under 90 days.
Syria took a long time, but did not require anything that would have violated the war powers act.
I do not think congress should interfere with operations like taking out Soliemani or deployment of troops – either ordinarily or in an emergency such as in response to the embassy attack.
But I do not think that things like “the surge”, Libya, Syria, … should be done without congress.
Golberg laments tribalism among conservatives.
He might as well bemoan the sun rising.
Humans are inherently tribal – all social organisms are tribal.
It is not unique to conservatives, it is not even particularly dominant in conservatives.
It is not strong in conservatives, it is weak in actual liberals but tribalism is dominant in the modern left. It is the primary distinction between liberalism and progressivism.
Progressives – as opposed to liberals – both past and present are fixated on group identity. early 20th century progressives were incredibly racist. Modern progressives have made assorted distinctions race, sex, orientation, (some) religion into a form of meritocracy.
The more oppression points you have the more credible you are.
Without respect to anything else.
That is just a different form of tribalism – and an extremely powerful one at that.
BTW Tribalism IS a system of values that involve tradeoffs – it is not based on principles. When tribalism is elevated to principle – either with claims that the white race is inherently superior or that your score in the diversity lottery makes you inherently superior – tribalism becomes dangerously evil.
But tribalism is NOT inherently evil. Each of us is better able to understand and relate to other humans by virtue of our shared attributes.
those who are black in america have ONE(or many) shared experiences that help them to communicate and understand each other.
All the elements (and then some) that the left fixates on with respect to identity, are token of membership is various tribes, and provide for a shared understanding of the world.
Blacks tend to better understand blacks, women other women, musicians other musicians, minesotan’s other minesotans americans other americans. trans other trans.
Our identity attributes are NOT inherently a bad thing, they are a good thing.
Any two people placed together can probably find some common tribe they both belong to, that will allow them to communicate.
But that shared identity could be small or large depending on the specific individuals.
Yay, you continue to be the Prince of rationalizations…
Prof. Haidt is a liberal and probably the preeminent evolutionary sociologist of the past 50 years.
Tribalism is not inherently good or bad. It is sometimes good, and sometimes bad.
It is an inherent facet of humanity Though much of Goldberg’s editorial is good. There is also multiple fallacies present. including the fallacy that Tribalism is inherently bad.
pointing out logical errors, is not rationalization.
But as usual you toss about words without any tie to their meaning.
https://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/positive-effects-of-tribalism/
White supremacy is a form of tribalism. black lives matter is a form of tribalism, LGBTQ+ is a form of tribalism, conservatism is a form of tribalism, progressivism is a form of tribalism.
Pro-choice and prolife are tribalism. ideology is a form of tribalism.
Humans are inherently tribal. That is a fact of life, it is not inherently evil it is often good.
Regardless, it is an immutable human attribute.
Ron P and Bernie Sanders share anger that poorly paid (by our standards) chinese workers are taking jobs from americans.
That is pretty naked tribalism. Ron and Bernie may not agree on the remedy and may not share any other tribal identity, but both share the same us/them tribal identification with US workers.
“Conservatism isn’t supposed to be a tribal identity.”
Wrong, humans are inherently tribal. All shared group identities – whether chosen or not will become a tribal identity.
“tribalism requires drawing a stark line between Us and Them.”
False. Tribalism is primarily about finding shared identity, NOT unshared differences.
Regardless Tribalism does not REQUIRE a stark line between US and Them.
Our tribal identities are multiplicit and overlapping.
Goldberg makes and incredibly important observation that accurately explains exactly the problem he is bemoaning, while being at the same time oblivious to its significance.
“The same goes for one tribal group after another. The only variable is that the more acute the sense of victimhood and powerlessness, the more intense the pull of solidarity is (which is one reason why whites don’t traditionally feel uncomfortable criticizing other whites—because white identity is actually much weaker than the left imagines it to be). All of this is natural. When the tribe feels threatened, it closes ranks.”
White identity HAS been much weaker than the left imagines it to be – BECAUSE whites have been dominant and have not bee threatened in the past.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Alinsky
The rise of identity politics on the left has inherently resulted in broadening the scope of those outside the meritocracy of victimhood that are being attacked.
I have repeatedly said here, that you irreconcilably alienate people when you insult them, when you call them racist, homophobes, mysoginists, hateful, hating haters, Deplorables, those clinging to their bibles and guns.
Everyone not on the left – not just conservatives is being forced together, closing ranks as the left continues to insult, slander, slur them.
Absolutely Trump engages in the same tactics – but he did not invent them.
Further there is a difference between Trump and the left.
Trump actively seeks the largest possible tribe. He is mostly careful about his attacks – though they are sometimes less than articulately expressed and always misrepresented in the press.
Conversely the left oddly seeks to attack slander malign the largest possible portion fo the country. the left actively seeks the smallest possible tribe – handicapped black MTF trans lesbian muslims, by disregarding all forms of oppression except a small pollitically acceptable set, they create a victimhood heirarchy of merit while casting everyone else as evil “other”
And you wonder why you are going to lose in Novermber ?
I am disappointed at Goldberg’s buying into the left’s mischaracterization of all comparison as “whataboutism” and presumption that “whataboutism” is merely about hypocracy.
Our entire system fo law and government is developed on the foundations of comparison.
If A is legal and B is congruent with A, then B is legal.
If Biden’s extortion of Ukraine in April of 2016 is legitimate Trump’s actions in August 2019 are also legitimate. Trump’s actions are a subset of Biden’s.
If you accept one act as illegal, the congruent act by those in your tribe is still ilegal.
Conversely if you accept and act as legal – the congruent act by those outside your tribe is also legal.
This is not merely about hypocracy. Hypocracy is merely holding self contradictory positions.
Acting on them is more than hypocracy. Criminalizing an act that you have treated as legal or legalizing and act that you treated as illegal on a tribal or hypocritical basis is MORE than tribalism or hypocracy it is CRIMINAL. The use of force without justification is criminal.
the arbitrary (hypocritical) use of force is always criminal.
The latter 1/3 of Goldberg’s editorial is just a rambling rant.
If Trump extorted Ukraine to fire a prosecutor looking into the misconduct of his son in Ukraine – he should be impeached, and they charged and convicted.
As I noted before Trump’s conduct is a SUBSET of Biden’s.
As of yet we have no proof of extortion, no QPQ, and no personal benefit.
The use of government power for political benefit is NOT the same as the use for Personal benefit. Under different circumstances democrats would grasp that.
There is likely no circumstance where the use of legitimate power with the expectation of PERSONAL gain is not a crime. No amount of other legitimate benefits overcomes the inherent corruption of seeking personal gain.
Personal benefit from the outcome requires recusal. President Obama or Sec. State Kerry could have done exactly what Biden did, without obvious corruption.
Political benefits are not autmoatically disqualifying. They are a reason for scrutiny.
If something is politically beneficial for VP Biden it is likely politically beneficial to Sec. State Kerry and President Obama. A choice that is arguably the right choice but has political elements can not take be made by the standard democrats are using to impeach Trump.
Government could not function – all acts of an administration prolitically benefit or har the president as well as all political appointees.
The impeachment article of the house asserts that no one in the executive can ever ask for an investigation into criminal conduct where there is a political benefit. It makes crimes committed by opposing politicians uninvestigateable.
If anyone is an authority in rambling rants, it’s you.
And your 90% beats his 1/3 for sure.
But really, it’s pathological the way you disparage opinion from your betters.
And yes, it’s no fun for me to see you contort into tight knots of denial when confronted with reason. Luckily Trader Joe’s has a special on Irish Whiskey this month.
A fallacy is a fallacy – whether it comes from you, me or Goldberg.
Pointing out fallacies is not “contort into tight knots of denial”
Reason is not – someone making an argument that you think sounds good.
It is someone making an argument that is supported by facts and conforms to the laws od logic.
Goldberg is far batter at that then you.
But he made atleast two significant logical errors.
The most interesting error Goldberg makes is the very error he admonishes Socialists over – the utopian one that he miss identifies as No True Scottsman.
He is trying to impose the same kind of Utopian standard on conservatism as he notes is the flaw in socialism.
With respect to some of the criticisms Goldberg levels at Trump and conservatives.
Hypocracy is the greatest sin of all.
Hypocrisy is the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
Those targeted by #metoo were guilty as much if not more of hypocracy than of sexual harrasment.
Trump has not sold himself as virtuous in that fashion.
Those on the left do not understand why christian conservatives can vote for a philanderer like Trump. Trump may not have been sincere in his apology for the access hollywood Tape, but he has never sold himself as virtuous. He is a sinner, not a hypocrite. One of the biblical adages of evangelicals is “hate the sin, love the sinner”, Christ broke bread with tax collectors and harlots, but excoriated hypocrites who sold themselves as virtuous.
The Swamp King attracts Swamp Dwellers
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/trump-donor-imaad-zuberi-to-plead-guilty-to-obstruction-of-justice/index.html
Zuberi is also a longtime Democratic donor and was a major donor on fundraising committees for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The activities describe in the article either are not or should not be a crime.
Individuals have the right to give their money to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Absence actual evidence of bribery, this should be outside the scope of government. Obstructing (even lying) the government prying into things that are none of its business is not a crime. None other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg has said so in supreme court oppinions.
‘The activities describe in the article either are not or should not be a crime“
As you so often advise: if you don’t like the law, change it. Till then shut up and respect it.
I do not need to change the law – these laws violate the constitution.
Nor do I want to change the law. That would presume that government is making laws that are inside its legitimate domain. It is not.
What I want is SCOTUS to apply the constitution as it is written and properly determine that law outside the enumerated powers of congress OR violating individual rights – especially rights within the bill of rights are unconstitutional.
Re changing the law per your aggrieved response anytime I mention Trump;s egregious travel expenses:
“Mnuchin seeks delay of proposed disclosure of Secret Service spending on presidential travel until after election”
The Dems want an accounting now. And I’m sure you have no objection to that. Because it’s information that should be available to voters who may want to alter it, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mnuchin-seeks-delay-of-proposed-disclosure-of-secret-service-spending-on-presidential-travel-until-next-year/2020/01/08/8769ea28-30da-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html
Does the secret service have a budget?
Who passed the budget?
Who approves over spending of a budget?
Does congress require a quarterly accounting of the S.S. spending compared to budget and why or why not?
You have a point Ron.
But the point is not that this information should not be made public expeditiously.
But who is actually responsible for controlling SS Spending, the answer is congress.
Though Jay seems to think Trump. But Jay thinks everything is Trump’s fault.
File A FOAI request. The courts will determine if that information can be made public quickly.
Have congress request the information. If Trump challenges it – the courts can sort it out.
I do not find this information particularly important regarding voter information and the election. The determination of what the presidents travel costs can be is set by laws that are already passed.
But I am not opposed at all to this information being made public – even quickly.
FOIA laws already exist.
Further there is not a public right to know about the private lives of other people – as in you have no right to Trump’s tax return.
But there is a public right to know about government spending and actions.
This is not meaningful information regarding an election,
This is not information I want to know.
But I have ZERO problem with your demand for this information,
If I were a judge ruling on a FOIA motion I would rule against Mnuchin.
Ron- good questions.
And I’d like to know how much $ the Secret Service is paying directly to @realdonaldtrump’s businesses.
So file a FOIA request – I will be happy to weigh in, in your favor.
I will be at odds with you when you start ranting about emoluments again.
I would RADICALY cut the budget of the SS.
Trump’s stark mental impairments are now unleashing global catastrophes: mental health professionals warn:
“The Dude’s got too much crap waddling between his ears”
OK – that’s my diagnosis. Here’s more qualified opinion.
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/donald-trumps-mind-mental-health-professionals-from-harvard-the-air-force-and-more-reflect-on-the-meaning-of-the-soleimani-assassination/
By definition your source is unqualified. It is unethical for a psychiatrist or psychologist to diagnose someone that is not a patient.
GOPers now realizing they’re getting marginalized by Trump cult fascism
And this:
“Rand Paul just now accuses Lindsey Graham of putting on a “fake drape of patriotism” after Graham suggests Paul’s demand for a War Powers debate empowers the enemy.”
Yo, Dave, these guys should stop adding to the noise, right…
I fully suport Lee and Paul’s demands for a public debate on the presidents war powers.
I have no problem with discussion of this. If Graham is claiming this is somehow unpatriotic Graham is wrong. i am not a Graham fan – espeicially in military areas where he is the biggest hawk in govenrment.
But both Lee and Paul are wrong about one thing – the claim that Trump was required to have authorization by congress to do this.
What he did was fully within: the constitution as written, and the war powers act.
It was also consistent with the conduct of prior presidents.
If we wish to change that – we can change the law or amend the constitution.
I would fully support substantially reigning in ALL presidents war powers.
I would not support a change in law that required congressional authorization for this act.
Lee appears to have an absolutely legitimate gripe about the briefing he was given.
I would have no problem with establishing as a standard what Lee claims the constitution does, But as a matter of constitution and law, an AUMF or declaration of war is not necescary for millitary action.
I beleive the current state of the law is any commitment of US forces to a conflict for more than 90 days requires an AUMF or declaration of War.
The constitution is NOT that specific, but it clearly allows some military action by the president short of war.
If you or Lee or Paul who was also in the video wishes to change the law or the constitution, they are free to do so.
And I would support them.
Obama committed an act of war against Pakistan in the raid on Bin Laden.
There were myriads of Obama drone strikes that were similar acts of war.
Killing Soliemani – who was in Iraq at the time meeting with Terrorist leaders, is not outside the current law, or the constitution, and it is LESS so that many thing Obama did – Libya as an example.
I am open to debate that this is NOT how things should be. The US military is capable of completely obliterating medium sized nations in less than 90 days.
But I am not interested in crocodile tears that Trump has done something unusual.
WAshington put down the Whiskey rebellion without congress.
Typical Jay~ if Lee and Paul were supporting a Trump action, as they do 90% of the time, you would call them Trumpanzees, or worse.
When they stand against him on policy, you applaud. But not on principle.
It’s always about Trump for you, not the Constitution…
Priscilla you’re getting to be more and more a consistent Trump-cult looney
Lee and Paul are objecting to Trump administration disregard of the constitutional authority of congress.
Do you agree with them or not?
If not, why not?
Jay, I listened to your twit where Lee was ranting about this action taking place, He said somethig to the effect that a declaration of war or AUMF had to be in place for this tyoe of action to happen.
He needs to research the current AUMF, In 2016 Obama created an interpretation of the current AUMF which state “other and associated forces” when identifying terrorist organizations.
Rand Paul has been consistent in his opposition to this war. He is NOT a GOP’er in the GOP’er sense of the word. He is a Libertarian that ran as a GOP’er becasue third party individuals stand a snowball chance in hell of getting elected.
Mike Lee is a GOP’er, but does not understand the current AUMF. Trump worked within its limits as defined by Obama. If Mike Lee does not like that, then he needs to convince 99 other senators to vote to repeal that AUMF and create something different.
I agree that we need a new Congressional authorization for any new military action in the ME. But retaliatory action for Iranian attacks on US bases, US citizens and US embassies, committed by a nation that has repeatedly stated that THEY are at war with US is a different thing. If you had opposed our regime change war against Gadafy, or supported Trump’s decision to remove our troops from the Syrian-Turkish border, I might find your position more credible.
How do you justify leaving troops in the ME, without allowing them to hit back when attacked? Do you just want them to be missile fodder?
Amen.
Every argument Jay makes is conditioned on the presumption that Trump is wrong – whatever he has done Trump is wrong.
Assume that and THEN figure out why.
I want us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
I want us out of military adventures and nation building.
Trump promised that and though he is doing BETTER than Obama or Bush he is NOT delivering, and I am angry about that.
At the same time I have ZERO problem with killing Soleimani.
Trump has decided not to retaliate against the rocket attack.
I WOULD Have.
I would take out as much of Irans missile capability as possible in strikes confined to targets on missiles.
Iran used those missiles against both us and foreign nations without appropriate justification.
That is an Act of War. Killing a terrorist is not.
I would NOT go beyond their missiles. Iran may be at war with us, but we are not at war with them.
So even though I want us out of conflicts int he mideast – atleast as much as Lee and Paul (and Amash and Gabbard), i am not going to warp the constitution to give congress more control over the military than it has.
Paul and Lee are write in general about policy. In this case they are WRONG about the constitution.
As to Jay – if it involves Trump, you can be certain Jay will pick Trump is wrong, about everything all the time. i do not think there is anything Jay would not argue to get rid of Trump.
And every argument you make is in favor of Trump, no matter how much you opposed a position in the past. You JUST PROVED THAT answering my Paul/Lee comment:
“ I do not agree with them in this case.
Usually I do.”
DUH! You don’t see the irony of your own hypocrisy.
I have told you repeatedly that Trump will have to do what the courts decide regarding witnesses, documents, claims of priviledge, tax returns …..
I have told you repeatedly that I do not think that the government – whether an NYAG or the house of representative should get at Trump’s personal records or taxes absent probable cause of a crime. And that standard has not been met – even though you think that Trump’s existance is probable cause enough. Conversely I think that the courts are likely to give the house much of what they want in terms of documents and witness, and that is appropriate.
I would hope that the courts put constraints on that to reign in the witch trial nature of procedings in the house. But I am a big fan of broad congressional oversight.
But going to to toe with congress is not something I give a shit about.
Not obey a final court order – that is serious business. When Trump refuses to comply with a court order after SCOTUS is ruled – then come talk to me. Then tell me Trump is a totalitarian. Clinton took everything to the supreme court. It is EVERYONE’s right to appeal as far as they can in any legal proceeding, and it is not a crime to fight and lose.
I am fully supportive or broad FOIA requests – whether Judicial Watch is doing them or some left leaning group.
Our personal lives are nobody else’s business – not even if we are president.
But there are very very few things that government should be permitted to do in secret.
You and I agree on that. Our only disagreement seems to be that you think that it is vile and evil and impeachable to not release some bit of information you are demanding – even if the courts have not weighed in. I want as much as possible made public. I do not see how the Secret Service Travel spending is something that qualifies as a legitimate government secret.
But we have courts to decide that.
I do not think that EVERYTHING government does must immediately be made public.
And if the standard is MOST but not all, someone must decide – and that is the courts.
You seem to like the courts when they decide as you want, but are fully prepared to go rogue and lawless when they don’t.
I admit to being appoplectic over some decisions of our courts. I think some decisions are so stupid the judges MUST be dissmised.
But I am not advocating that we ignore those, that we do not obey them.
I am glad they are appealed – and that most of the time the stupid decisions are overruled.
But whether they are or not, we abide by the decisions of the courts. If we do not like them.
Change the constitution, change the law, change the courts.
In the meantime we follow.
You seem to have a problem with that.
You want to circumvent the courts – even when they are likely to give you what you want.
And your accusing me of hypocracy ?
In many many instances my disagreements with you are:
Whatever you are ranting about – it is not the end of the world. It is not even serious, if you are right. I may not disagree, but I am not going to blow the world up over a minor issue that will work itself out int he end.
Or where you want what you want, and you want it NOW, like some derange 4 year old.
The House did a rush job on impeachment – so the Senate should fix it for them.
No! If you want witness, go back subpeona the witnesses and go to court and get those subpeonas enforced. It is not the Senates job to fix the mistakes the house made.
I think the house managers should be permitted witness AS FOLLOWS:
Anyone they have had testify in the house, who can testify to direct evidence of misconduct.
Right now I think that would be Sonderland, and he is not going to help you much.
If you think Bolton will help – drag him into the house and question him. If you get anything helpfull, THEN you can bring it to the senate.
I suspect despite the games he is playing that Bolton will prove to be a damaging witness for democrats. He will rant and rave about Trump’s foreign policy not being neo-con enough. Given the oportunity he will tell the house we should have bommbed Iran into the stone age over shooting down the drone.
But he will not give you what you want to impeach.
But if you think otherwise – get him to testify in the house.
One issue after issue you want everyone to go apeshit crazy, to change all the rules, to abandon the rule of law, to go full on lawless to get what you want.
Even if I agree with SOME of what you want. I am not going to burn everything to the ground to get it. Calm down, act lawfully, follow the process.
“Lee and Paul are objecting to Trump administration disregard of the constitutional authority of congress.
Do you agree with them or not?
If not, why not?”
I do not agree with them in this case.
Usually I do.
I do not think that killing Soliemani was an “act of war”, but even if it was, an act of war though it should not be done without serious consideration first is NOT barred by the constitution.
I do not think our founders ever intended the requirement in the constitution that congress most vote to declare war, to mean that Congress had to approve every single type of military action.
While I support a very broad requirement for going to congress to get authorization.
I do not think that what we have done in Libya and Syria was constitutional.
At the same time, I am not sure that I even beleive congress can pass a law that would be constitutional that would prohibit the president from killing a terroist planner, in the act of meeting with other terrorists, who had killed hundreds of americans, and was in a meeting outside his country.
There would be absolutely no question that killing Soleimani was constitutional but for the fact that he was a highly ranked general in Iran.
I would note that WITHOUT CONGRESS, the US has been behind numerous coups in history that resulted in people getting killed.
Kennedy tried to kill castro – without congressional approval.
He Killed Diem in vietnam.
Some of possibly all of these acts were WRONG, but they were not unconstitutional.
If we completely eliminate Trump from any discussion I am 1000 times more libertarain than you are.
I am far more likely to find the acts of ANY president unconstitutional.
I am far more likely to require the president to get congresses approval.
I am far more likely to bar congress from infringing on liberty.
And yet – if you add the word Trump to any issue – and you Jay are practically an anarcho-capitalist. You jump to the far libertarain extreme of me – and I am pretty extreme.
I happen to agree with you that Congress can get testimony and documents of ALMOST anything they want from the executive – though NOT from private individuals.
So you can have Bolton and all the documents you want from the exectuive, but not Trump’s tax return.
In most instance I will give those same records to the people through FOIA.
There is a right of the people to know what their government is doing.
But though I think the oversite power of congress and the right of the people to know what their government is up to is very broad, it is not infinite – and that is why the courts sort those things out.
The house should have been provided the documents and testimony it requested on fast and furious, on benghazi, on IRSgate, on …. On the FBI investigation from Rosenstein.
I do not think national security is ever a bar – just restrict the information to people in congress with a security clearance and prosecute them if they leak.
I do not think ongoing investigationas are EVER a bar.
If congress wishes to F’up an investigation, that is their perogative.
BUT Congress should still have to go through the courts when the executive does not cooperate.
That is what the courts are there for – specifically to resolve conflicts between the authority of the president and that of congress. NEITHER is omnipotent. Neither is entitled to do whatever they please.
I think the current balance of power has shifted FAR too far towards the executive.
But house democrats are NOT looking at any of the areas that congress needs to take back power – a big one being regulations. To the extent that regulation is even constitutionally allowed, it is the role of CONGRESS not the executive.
We have one president rolling back regulations made by other presidents.
We have one president undoing the unconstitutional acts of another.
If regulations were enacted by congress:
we would have far fewer
The president could not expand them or shrink them unilaterally.
At the same time as I beleive that Trump like every other president is exceeding his contitutional power, Congress can not take back that power EXCEPT through the courts.
I do not think Lee and Paul are bitching about the action.
They are bitching about the poor briefing they got.
Though there is a bit of a claim from both that Trump acted outside his constitutional authority.
They are WRONG!
While I think it is inside of congresses power to constrain the president on acts such as these. The constitution leaves a great deal of the military power near unilaterally in the nads of the president.
I am not even in agreement with them that this constitutes an “act of war” – though I do not thing the constitution prohibits the president from taking actions that might be “acts of war” without congress.
Iran has said that it is at war with us and has been for 40 years. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism – that would be a violation of international law for those who care about such things – an act of war.
Soliemani was responsible for Irans terroism program.
He was outside the country engaged in planning acts of terror, meeting with terrorist leaders.
To me this seems exactly the type of thing that the constitution intentionally left in the hand of the president.
While Libya and Syria are precisely what the constitution intended to have to go before congress.
Un oh… more windmills for Trump to attack… the Danes better duck…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-denmark-windpower/denmark-sources-record-47-of-power-from-wind-in-2019-idUSKBN1Z10KE
Jay, if we are to produce that much power from wind mills, two things need to happen.
1, Unlike a very small country like Denmark, transmission lines have to go for miles from the farm to the power plant. T Boone Pickens abandoned his projects due to the very high cost of developing that network.
2. Denmark has very different NIMBY laws. They have farms off the coast (Marta Vineyard blocked wind mills due to home owner views), wind mills were blocked in the mountain ridges of N.C due to home owner views.
We can do many of these things, but individual interests have to take a secondary to the projects. We begin with changing laws so property owners can do whatever they want with property and eliminating any zoning laws.
I think you have it backwards.
People should get to choose. Do you want a windmill with its benefits AND its downsides or not ?
government should not force that choice one way or the other.
Dave, my Libertarian and your Libertarian views on property ownership seems to be 180 degrees different.
If I own 5 acres of mountain ridge in N.C. Appalachian mountains or a barrier island off the Atlantic coast, why should Joe blow who owns property around me be able to dictate who I can give leases to for construction if wind turbines? I own the property, not them!
I am not sure where you get the idea we are in disagreement.
As far as I am concerned if you want to build a wind turbine on your property and your neighbor is pissed – SCREW HIM. It is your property.
If your wind turbine ACTUALLY harms him – such as because the pile of dead birds underneath becomes a health hazard to him as your neighbor – then he can file a tort claim against you.
There is no role for government in whether he or you can build a wind turbine on your property.
If that proves to be a stupid idea – that is your problem.
If it proves beneficial – more power to you.
I do not beleive in GOVERNMENT building codes and zoning laws – and BTE I am an acknowledge expert on both. I have testified many times in government proceedings. over code issues. To be clear when I am testifying, I am not seeking to change the law, but get my clients as much liberty as they can within the law.
This goes to my recent post to Jay.
You do not have to like the law as it is, you can beleive it is unconstitutional – as I frequently do, you are still obligated to follow it, until you can change it – unless you are prepared to go to jail over it.
I have no position on Windmills, solar, …
EXCEPT that government has no role in those decisions.
I think there are lots of problems with many alternative energy sources.
But one of the functions of markets is to solve those problems.
In my personal view Wind is a Niche power source.
But that does NOT mean it is entirely stupid. Only that government involving itself will ensure that we do stupid things with wind.
The same with Solar PV.
Jimmy Carter actually killed of Solar Hot Water by subsidizing it.
He created a boom, that was unable to sustain itself after subsidies ended.
And people got a bad taste and there are still few companies willing to invest in Solar Hot Water, This despite the fact that a Solar Hot Water panel has a 3yr payback in most of the country.
Solar Hot water is even a quasi viable heat source in most of the country. The “problem” is that you can provide 80% of the heating needs of an ordinary home in most of the US with a 7yr payback. But to reach 100% the payback jumps to 15 years which is not economically viable. Without 100% you need a heat source that will provide heat on those times (january, February) when Solar Hot Water falls short.
Windmills have lots of problems – but there are SOME places where they are very cost effective. My guess is Denmark is one of those. Texas also appears to be, as are ports of CA. But in many many many places Windmills work poorly.
But when we involve government – we make poor choices.
Jay, I have strong suspicions that if you owned property overlooking the ocean in Mission Beach or Coronado you would be resisting anyone wanting to install wind turbines off the coast 1/8 to 1-4 mile like so many are in Denmark
Ron, I live near Griffith Park.
If they wanted to install windmills high on the hills there, and that would reduce my utility bills, I’d consider a yes vote.
As to the eyesore effect of wind turbines, the street adjacent to mine is lined with eyesore power lines like this – too bad they can’t find better transmission solutions.
You do not need to vote on this.
If you want a windmill – put one up.
If they are such a good idea – you will reap the benefits.
But quit the crap about trying to force all the rest of us to do as you wish.
I do not care if you are trying to force us to put up windmills or force us NOT to put up windmills – as I suspect you will learn all about if you try to erect on on your property.
You do not need to vote about things in a free market. You just do them.
If you have made a wise choice – you benefit. If not, you lose.
It is a near perfect way to handle things.
No force involved.
No voting needed, no policy debates. If something is a good idea – it will take off. lots of people will do it. Early adopters will get a windfall.
If it is a bad idea it will fail, and early adopters will lose out.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept ?
Leave people free to make their own choices.
You and I can have a debate about windmills and abotu what Trump said – some of it is right, some wrong, much of it is exageration, but the same is true of what advocates of windmills say.
It should not be in Trump’s power to decide if you can have windmills.
It should not be in YOUR power to determine if I can.
If we actually want to try to address the facts.
Someplaces windmills make sense. most places they do not.
They are a suplimental source of electricity.
You said you would favor them if they cut you electric bill.
They might. But they also might raise it – is that OK with you ?
You should get lower electric costs – if you make wise energy decisions. And higher costs if you make unwise ones.
It is the inventive of gains from good choices and the disincentive of losses from bad ones that disciplines our choices.
Unsurprisingly when government gets involved that discipline is weakened or destroyed and the wisdom of our choices is no longer driven by the right incentives and we get bad results.
Jay, two comments. If your view is already messed up with power lines, then one more will not make much difference.
And if you believe poser companies when they say wind and solar will cut your power bill, then your belief in people is as messed up[ as those who believed Trump saying Mexico was going to pay for the wall or he was going to get us out of the M.E. wars.
Power companies will never lower your bill! The only way to do that is to install the wind mill yourself or install solar and even then it won’t cut your bill until 15 or so years into the install.
Amen.
Jay has gone bonkers over windmills.
Trump is not perfectly accurate about windmills, Nor are their advocates.
Trump exagerates some of the problems, their advocates ignore their problems.
So long as windmills are not government subsidized or forced – I do not care much,
Build windmills in your backyard if you want, or don’t.
Your choice.
It that choice proves wise – you benefit. If it is poor, the cost is on you.
Yay! Trump is curing cancer in the US!
https://twitter.com/frankelrichard1/status/1215294661054672896?s=21
Here is the actual video that you are all whigged out about.
You can like it, not like it, but once again – Trump does NOT say most of the things you claim.
If you can not accurately represent what he says – why should we beleive you about anything ?
Pray, Motherf****rs
And what are we supposed to take from this ?
My god some evangelicals are asking their congregations to vote for Trump !!!!
Its the end of the world.
All you have here is a bunch of people saying things. Like any such collection you can find much wisdom and foolishness.
If any of this inspires fear in you – they you are afraid of free people. You are afraid of people who do not share your views or values. You are afraid that you might once again lose the election to someone you do not like.
Honestly Jay, why do you think any of this is scary ?
Huh? What does the nonsensical Trump windmill rant have to do with the nonsensical Trump claim about cancer?
OK so if we are going to talk about nonsensical claims by the president, lets talk about nonsensical claims by some democrats claiming the budget increase given NIH was responsible for this decrease.
In Politicos article they write “Better cancer screening and prevention techniques, as well as a new generation of drugs that target specific proteins in tumors, have vastly improved survival rates for diseases like lung and skin cancer. Several of those drugs were approved by the FDA in 2014 and 2015, well before Trump’s presidency.
Experts also point to declining smoking rates, particularly among youth. Tobacco use had steadily fallen for two decades before teen vaping reversed the trend in 2018.”
So what has the NIH created about screening?
What has NIH created about prevention?
What has NIH done in development of target drugs?
What has NIH done about reduced smoking?
The first three the NIH is a small player, if any , in those fields. Drug companies develop the drugs, not NIH and NCI, not NIH does most of the cancer research in this country.
Reduction in smoking has been an effort for years by states and other agencies, with little impact from NIH.
So both the democrats claiming the NIH budget increase and Trump claiming “good news from the administration” are exaggerations.
Come on Jay, give credit where credits due. ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT IS A F’in LAIR!
“Huh? What does the nonsensical Trump windmill rant have to do with the nonsensical Trump claim about cancer?”
Acording to YOUR link, this “Trump Rant” is the source of the claim that Trump said Windmills cause cancer.
I did not hear that, did you ?
If you have a better source than the one you provided – I am listening.
But this appears to be another of those Made up Trump stories.
Trump says the production of windmills produces toxic fumes, and some left wingnut says trump said windmills cause cancer.
Regardless, you need to check your source.
I would think after Mueller and Horowitz you would have learned that most Anti-Trump stories are mostly false.
WordPress is posting responses onto wrong comments.. above aimed at trump’s cancer claim.
“ And what are we supposed to take from this ?”
If you didn’t get the message from watching, you ain’t gonna get it from ‘splaining…
I can find lots of far more bat chit crazy stuff said by those on the left.
Worse still, those on the left are actively advocating the use of government force to get their way.
I did not hear anything on your clip beyond some evangelicals saying that God thinks you should vote for Trump,
I do not think God gives a shit who you vote for.
Regardless, it does not offend me in the slightest that people say you should vote for their prefered candidate, and that is all that your entire video is, a bunch of people you do not like saying they would like you to vote for a candidate you do not like.
That is called free speach.
Assholes and idiots on the left and the right – even Russians have it by right.
Trump’s Terrific Tariffs At Work:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump to restructure the United States’s top trade relationships have cost American companies $46 billion since February 2018, and U.S. exports of goods hit by retaliatory tariffs have fallen sharply, according to an analysis of Commerce Department data.
Jay please, you are smarter than this. For every action their are consequences. Labor unions go out on strike, workers lose thousands during the strike on a short term basis, but over the long run the increase in salaries and benefits is a long term benefit and they make up what they lost.
If Trump sticks with his current plans and he is reelected so the final long term plan can be nailed down, this whole mess will end up like the union workers outcome. Only if the plan is terminated before it comes to the pre-planned conclusion will it have been a net loss for the country.
Its just like my hospital refusing to sign contracts with managed care companies years ago. It costs us money during the period we did not have that contract, but once the insurance company accepted our proposal, we made more than we would have under theirs without the holdout.
?/? Ron ???
Just pointing out that trump’s tariffs overall economic negative.
I thought you agreed with that ???
Jay, yes, I will agree that the tariffs have had some impact on the economy. I would even go as far as to say maybe 1/2% on economic growth, maybe 200,000 jobs and some salary reductions.
However, Dave is the one dead set against tariffs. He is full force for free trade, no matter the impact, good or bad.
I am the one in full support of Trumps trade policies.I am not a free trader, I am a fair trader. You open your borders to our products, we open ours. You slap on 25%, we slap on 25%. You steel our technology, we slap on more tariffs. And right now, his policies are working to open China to our products.
I am an absolutist on Free trade.
But I do not buy any idiotic claim made just because it supports my position.
There is absoltuely no doubt that exports are down as a result of Tarrifs.
But the 46B number is NOT credible. I am not sure that 4.6B is even credible.
The best experts I have heard insist that in the global market we have today – short of a broad global trade war, that the impact on individual nations – and PARTICULARY the US or tarrifs of the kind we are dealing with with China are miniscule.
The products China was buying from the US it is buying elsewhere. There is not sufficient market elasticity to supply the global need for Soy as an example without buying Say from US farmers.
Conversely depriving China of the US as a market for Chinese goods has a strong negative impact on china. They have no alternative market. If we do not buy their products, the rest of the world is not buying more.
The harm of US tarrifs on chinese goods is on US consumers – not jobs, and not us exporters.
I do not think we should do that.
But I am not going to lie and make the impact greater than it is, or pretend it is different than it is to score points.
I will argue against these Tarrifs based on their ACTUAL impact. Not made up nonsense that is just Orange man bad nonsense.
I do agree that Tarrifs are overall negative.
I do not agree that the economy and specifically exports are worse off under Trump – because the data shows the reverse.
I have no doubt they would be up even more but for tarrifs.
But how much more is pure speculation – and your 46B number is not credible.
According to Trading Economic Us Exports are up 40B since 2016 and 80B since 2010.
I am not especially interested in someones claims about what /commerce department data says is what might have been in some hypothetical world.
Exports are NOT down, they are UP.
This is a change of subject.
Does anyone think Pelosi could be holding articles of impeachment until the nomination of a democrat candidate is about settled? Holding the articles would allow the senators to stay on the campaign trail until that was settled. Then the articles would be sent after they had returned to D.C. and the trial would be held closer to the election. ( A by-product of a delay for campaigns)
I have no idea what Pelosi is doing, and I do not think she does.
The longer this goes the less people will care.
Yes, that smart strategy was suggested by numerous online commentators (me included 😏) before Pelosi announced she was holding off forwarding impeachment charges. She listened.
Not submitting the charge proved to be a good move, contrary to dhlii’s wrong assertion the strategy would quickly lose Dem support – but the polls have shown little change in approval for Dems or Trump. In fact, the proportion of voters who support impeaching Trump has gone up according to polling averages calculated by the FiveThirtyEight site – dhlii praised that site in the past, until they started showing numbers confounding him…
They should hold on to the impeachment charges until after the election: the GOP controlled Senate has LOUDLY announced they’re going to reject the charges. Why give Trump OJ Simpson opportunity to brag he was found innocent of the charges when he’s guilty?
Dump Trump’s Rump.
MASA: Make America Sane Again.
Some things are not worth arguing with you.
If you want to beleive that Pelosi is a political genius, that this has worked out well for you – go for it.
There is no need to save you from your delusions.
But please quit attributing things to me that I have not said nor done.
538 is a poll aggregator. There are good things about it and bad. Nate was excellent at baseball statistics. He does nto seem to grasp that political statistics are quite different. Further he has allowed personal biases to tilt his polling even more as time goes by.
Have I said nice things about nate and 538 in the past – certainly. but that is far short of “praise” or holding them up as any gold standard.
In the past 5 election cycles, I beleive 538 has been dead right twice. They have also been just about the worst 3 times. That track record is pretty average. It is about the same as rasmussen.
Sometimes I use 538 – specifically because they have a left bias – to refute YOU.
Because when you make some nonsense claim about the polls and even 538 does not support it – your just off in lala land.
You should think about that – because I quite often use sources that i do not hold very credible but that you do to refute you.
Please quit claiming that I have praised a source just because I have used it to refute you.
If I use Rachel Maddow says you full of Schiff – that does not mean I am praising Maddow. It just means she is less full of Schiff than you.
Aside from your putting words in my mouth, I am tired of arguing polls with you.
it is clear you do not live in the real world. If there are ten polls and 9 contradict you – you are going with #10. If everyone shows a trend – your bucking the trend.
BTW 538 has impeachment support DOWN 6 points from its high among democrats and 2+ points overall. So you can not even read your own sources correctly.
Wishful thinking is not an argument.
With respect to holding on to impeachment until after the election. Do whatever you want.
The house can impeach as many times as it wants. There is nothing that is gained by holding onto impeachment. If the democrats hold the house and gain the senate – they can impeach again. The odds of ever getting 66 votes in the senate are zero.
Whether they win the house or lose the house the current articles of impeachment die with the end of the current congress NO MATTER WHAT.
There is no way that democrats can continue impeachment in 2021 unless they hold they house. And if they do, there is no reason to hold on to the current articles.
Pelosi has already gamed this too long. McConnell already has the votes to proceed using the Clinton impeachment rules. It appears that he can not have a vote to dismiss the house articles if they do not present them – without changing Senate rules, and though he can succeed at that there are good reasons not to. There are a growing number of Democratic senators who want this to die. Pelosi can try to delay this – but the delay has political consequences for democrats. It keeps democratic senators away from fund raising, away from campaining Pelosi has given McConnell leverage in the 2020 election.
But go ahead, keep pretending that you are winning.
According to Rasmussen Trump’s approval is 6pts ahead of Obama’s in 2012 at this time.
And nobody was trying to impeach Obama.
Regardless, if you think this is a good strategy – keep it up. I see no reason to fight with you.
There is no reason to save you from yourself.
Ron, I think there are a couple of reasons why Pelosi is doing this: 1) the reason that you suggest, which allows Democrat Senators running for president to remain on the campaign trail, and also 2) allowing the Lawfare attornies employed by the Democrats to argue in court that Mueller grand jury testimony and privileged excecutive testimony are essential to their case, thereby allowing them to selectively leak what they already have. There is no doubt in my mind that Andrew Weissman has already provided the GJ testimony to Schiff and Nadler, but they can’t leak it until they get a judgement in their favor, or everyone would know for sure, what everyone already assumes.
Senator Hawley has introduced a resolution to dismiss the articles, if they are not delivered to the Senate in 25 days, which should speed things up. The Dems may even prefer this solution, since, instead of a quick acquittal, which would be embarrassing, they could claim that the dismissal was a partisan political ploy by Trumpanzees (ignoring, of course, that they previously insisted that due process and transparency had to be eliminated from the impeachment process, because getting rid of the President was so “urgent.”
In other words, the dismissal might be seen by some, on both sides, as a win-win.
If credibility with the courts was part of Pelosi’s strategy it was a failure.
Just recently the Court ruled against the House subpeona of Boplton’s aide.
Because the house was not acting seriously regarding the subpeona.
BTW the purpose of GJ testimony is not to “make their case”. If there was anything damning in it, it is in the Mueller report. The purpose of the GJ testimony is to expand their fishing expedition and release as much embarrasing information as possible.
Regardless, there was a reason pelosi needed to finish by Xmas. Nothing will be accomplished in 2020. It is an election year. Democrats will be campaigning. They do not have time to do any further serious work on impeachment.
One of the problems pelosi has created is that the same is true of senate democrats.
The real purpose of impeachment was to try to derail Durham’s investigations or discredit them.
I would imagine that Weisman is pretty busy now either preparing to defend himself or actually defending himself.
While Horowitz did not look at the Mueller investigation, he found some absolutely criminal conduct, and lots of likely criminal conduct.
There are few things that Horowitz found that do not apply to the Mueller investigation.
Horowitz found that the foundation for the investigation was GONE By mid January 2017,
Mueller was appointed in March. I could not have taken him more than a few days or weeks to grasp that he had no basis to investigate. An Appointment as SC does not create suspicion that does not otherwise exist. Every fact that Horowitz found, was known or knowable to Mueller, most of his team came from XFH. All the lies, malfeasance etc. continued. The FISA warrant was renewed TWICE by Mueller. Other Warrants and subpeona’s were issued. Mueller was obligated to follow the DOJ Rules (which are founded int he constitution and case law) More specifically he was required to follow the Woods Process – which he can not claim ignorance of, because HE was responsible for its creation. That process is supposed to prevent feeding this kind of garbage to the FISA Court.
Weisman is not busy heling house democrats, he is busy preparing his own defense.
Though the Mueller team gets a BRIEF safe haven as they start up, shortly after the SC investigation begins they are expected to know everything that the XFH team knows.
They are expected to KNOW that the primary source for the Steele Dossier said it was all crap, gossip and rumors and shit he made up. That some of it did not even come from him. That Carter Page was a CIA Asset,
How long after taking over do you give Mueller before he is obligagted to know everything Horowitz found ? days ? A month ?
Regardless Rosenstein knew, and Rosenstein appointed Mueller.
When Trump fired Comey Rosenstein KNEW (or should have known) that XFH was illegitimate. Remember Rosenstein wrote the memo excoriating Comey’s conduct that Trump used to Fire Comey.
Further Remember that at the time Comey was fired the FBI knew for 2 months that XFH was DEAD. Yet Comey and Rosenstein continued it.
This stuff is all extremely serious malfeasance, almost certain criminal. At the very least many of these people are accessories after the fact. Page has altready testified as well as stated publicly that he worked for CIA and FBI and other government agencies spying on Russians from atleast 2009 forward. That he told the XFH team this, and that he TOLD Mueller’s team this. Mueller was looking to fry everyone he could for “lying to the FBI” do you think he did not check every single item of Page’s inteviews ? Do you think he did not verify every single agency that Page claimed to work for ?
Yet, Page continued to be the target for 6 more months.
How many of the warrants and Subpeona’s that Mueller issued cited the same material that is in the Steele Dossier or the altered documents claiming that Page was a Russian rather than CIA asset ?
The very best defense that most of these people have is that they were incompetent boobs – keystone cops, the gang that could not shoot straight.
But Contra Comey that is not who these people were. All the people in XFH and the SC were the cream of the FBI/DOJ the best of the best, the top floors of DOJ/FBI
They are the people who know that you can not lie to the FISA (or any other court).
Weisman is not busy helping Dem’s sort through GJ material.
Ultimately opening up the SC investigation will prove more damning than helpful to Dems.
Try a more likely argument – the SC investigation went on for 2 more years to actively thwart providing the house with the information they asked for on XFH. It was an effort to delay and obfuscate while Mueller and his team looked for ANYTHING that might protect all those involved with XFH from exposure.
If only they could “get Trump” for anything, then the malfeasance that lead to XFH would not be exposed.
Despite the fact that our law precludes prosecuting even the guilty with illegally obtained evidence. Most people do not understand that. Prove Trump is guilty of something, and no one cares about the mistakes and crimes committed to do so.
But Mueller came up with nothing.
I have no idea why Judge Sullivan is taking the Flynn prosecution seriously.
Horowitz has demonstrated the investigation was corrupt. Powell has added more of the same with respect to Flynn. Flynn more than anyone was targeted. Flynn had lots of enemies in the IC and FBI and obama administration because of his opposition to the Iran deal. And because based on Adm. Roger’s findings of corruption and Malfeasance in the FISA process, Flynn was openly preparing to audit the entire IC.
Flynn was going to expose the FISA abuse, the Unmasking, the illegal searches done by outside contractors, and near certain was going to trip over the misconduct in XFH.
McCabe had an open axe to grind with Flynn who had testified against McCabe in a sexual harrasment lawsuit.
It is my understanding that Hawley’s “motion” can not be taken up without a rule change in the Senate, and that republicans have had no problem benefiting from Democratic rule changes but do not want to “‘go nuclear” themselves.
I do not think that McConnell is going to do anything that forces republican senators to have to make a vote they might have to explain unless he has to.
I do not think that Senate Democrats will force the issue for exactly the same reason.
No one in the senate really wants to touch this. They would all prefer it went away quietly.
Pelosi is now talking about forwarding the articles. We will see. I do not think she will.
There is strong opposition to trump among Christians who are Republican:
So you post a video that shows massive support for Trump among christians,
And follow it with a claim that republican christians are strongly opposed to Trump ?
Do you feel the slightest need to be consistent with yourself ?
Trump’s support among evangelicals in 2016 was weaker than Romney or previous republicans. It was tepid, but it was strong enough to win the primary.
In the general evangelicals were either going to vote republican or sit the election out.
Trump’s support in states with large evangelical populations was weaker than Romney’s
But no republican (short of Roy Moore) was going to lose Alabama.
I do not know if Trump will gather enormous support from evangelicals in 2020.
But I have ZERO doubt at all that his support among evangelicals will be greater in 2020 than in 2016.
There are two groups that Trump’s policies have strongly favored. Evangelicals and Blue Collar democrats. And they will be voting for him more strongly in 2020 than in 2016.
You don;t beleive that ? Who cares. If i am wrong you get to say I told you so in Nov. 2020.
If I am right – I have zero doubt we will get to look forward to 4 more years of “orange man bad” from you every day.
I do not think you are capable of seeing the world as it is.
“ So you post a video that shows massive support for Trump among christians,
And follow it with a claim that republican christians are strongly opposed to Trump ?”
Sometimes it’s mind boggling how dense you are.
The video doesn’t show massive support for Trump among Christians.
The video is A WARNING to Christians to beware UNCHRISTIAN false profits like trump.
The video is a catalog of unChristian behaviors, attitudes, beliefs expressed by Trump.
The video is a concomitant reflection of the views on Trump expressed by Christianity Today – that he is morally unfit to be President.
Comments to the video on line, including those of prominent Christians like Billy Graham;s granddaughter, clearly and intuitively understood the message presented in the video, and they applauded it. That those Trump anti-Christian behaviors shown escaped your own own moral indignation is a tribute to the success of Trump-cult brain-numb subservience.
Jay, I am not the one with the confusion problem.
The video has clips from numerous evangelicals. I am not going to debate you on the importance of those that it cites – as I doubt you have a clue about evangelicals, and because your argument fails whether these are important evangelicals or not.
There are only three possibilities:
1). The Lincoln project is making all this up – in which case you are pushing a fraud.
That is not the case, though they are stoking fires of religious division.
2). The christian leaders featured are inconsequential – in which case the Lincoln project AND YOU are “warning” us of a problem of no consequence.
Who cares if some fringe christian groups are saying something that offends you ?
3). Those featured are important – in which case your claim that Trump has poor support among republicans Christians is poppycock.
The “truth” is bits of all of the above.
The Lincoln project is engaging in a “daisy” type of negative add. This is indistinguishable from what you CLAIM Trump does with muslims – trying to scare people with christians for political purposes.
Some of those featured are significant and some are not.
Trumps support from christians in 2020 is tracking HIGHER than 2016.
That will NOT dramatically effect the election. It just means that democrats odds of winning States like NC, GA, TX or lower than 2016 and that those red states where christian voters are significant will be redder in 2020 than 2016.
But democrats were not winning those states anyway.
The battlefields REMAIN, WI, MI, MN, PA, OH – though unless Sherrod Brown is the Dem VP, Trump will win OH. As well as NV, and NH.
“ The video has clips from numerous evangelicals. I am not going to debate you on the importance of those that it cites – as I doubt you have a clue about evangelicals, and because your argument fails whether these are important evangelicals or not.”
The Evangelicals IN the video are shown as EXAMPLES of those sadly following wolves in sheep’s clothing, dummie. Those Evangelicals and other religious people I referred to applauding the video are doing so on social media.
What is wrong with you? Have you become so inured to Trump’s GLARING moral and behavioral faults that it’s impossible for you to correctly interpret the obvious purpose of those particular clips shown – as examples of inappropriate irreligious acceptance of Trump behavior?
Still can not read I see.
“The Evangelicals IN the video are shown as EXAMPLES of those sadly following wolves in sheep’s clothing, dummie.”
Completely misses the point.
If those featured are unimportant – the video is a fraud. It is amplifying an non-existant threat.
If those featured are important – your claim that Trump’s support among christians is declining is disproved – it is also disproved by facts.
Frankly, I found the whole video really stupid – much like the infamous Daisy add by Johnson.
Its message is “dont vote for Trump because ….. religion is evil”
I periodically attend a UCC church lead by Boy george and 2 female ministers where straight white men are an endangered species. These people hate Trump – nearly as much as you.
they are if anything more rabidly political than those in this video.
But they miss something huge. The modern left is a religion – and it is NOT a christian religion and it tolerates no competition.
Being a gay minority earns multiple victimhood brownie points.
But being christian wipes them off the slate.
Gay minority christians are still christians and in the dogma of the left christianity is evil.
And the left will come for them too.
“Have you become so inured to Trump’s GLARING moral and behavioral faults”
Again – those would be ? I am not pretending Trump is a saint – but he did not foment hatred to this day by lying about others and lying about Collusion. That would be you.
So no, I am not interested in your moral pronouncement. You have absolutely zero credibility on the subject of morality. I am not interested int he moral claims of those who have been caught repeatedly making false moral claims about others.
This is not about Trump – this is about you. And all those who have told lies about the morality and conduct of others, and expect to be beleived as they do more of the same.
“that it’s impossible for you to correctly interpret the obvious purpose of those particular clips shown – as examples of inappropriate irreligious acceptance of Trump behavior?”
I do not need to interpret the clips. Absent the adjectives they show what you claim. Some religious leaders supporting Trump.
How is that different from some religious leaders opposing Trump ?
When you say that I can not “interpret” this correctly – what you means is that i have not concluded that only bad religious leaders support Trump.
Yes, Jay – tell me and evangelicals what they are supposed to see in the video.
Because we all know that you think that christians and trump voters are retarded and can not think for themselves.
What I saw was a very stupid add attacking evangelicals first and foremost, and separately attacking them for supporting Trump.
What I saw was the adds that you imagine that Trump ran targeting Muslims in 2016 – except that not Trump or anyone else ran adds like this except targetting muslims.
What I saw was a more polished verson of calling Trump voters deplorables,
Which is not the way to get their votes.
What I saw was another stupid mistake that will alienate the voters you need to win the election.
What I saw was more evidence that Christians and particularly evangelicals are the new blacks in this country.
You think this add is a good thing ?
It was a very stupid mistake.
Purportedly at most 11% of the country is gay. You could not tell that from my friends – I think straight people are a minority among the people I associate with.
But I also live in a community with very strong christian evangelical groups – and some of those are my firends also, even if I disagree with them on many things.
Post Obergefel I advised my gay friends to declare victory, leave well enough alone and try to make friends with those who were once their enemies. Most modern christians still think homeosexuality is a sin, but Pope Francis borrowed his “hate the sin, love the sinner” approach to homosexuality from evangelicals, who today are perfectly content to leave well enough alone.
EXCEPT that not just gays but the entire left is turning the table on christians and conservatives, and hunting them down and persecuting them.
This is stupid for innumberable reasons. Wise people do not persecute a religion that revels in its history of martyrdom. And the left does nto seem to grasp the wisdom of leaving sleeping dogs lie.
You claim that there is some disconnect between christians and conservatives – and to SOME extent there is. But you are persecuting both christians and conservatives concurently – and you are driving them closer together not farther apart.
But keep it up proving you learned nothing from 2016.
Christians are not monolithic, absolutely you can peal a few away from Trump – probable the same ones who voted for Hillary in 2016.
regardless the NET movement is AWAY from the left. Whatever differences various christian groups may have with each other and with conservatives, the modern left is itself a hyper purist religion that is incompatible and intolerant of others.
IF you are conservative – no matter what values you might share with some on the left, they are still your enemy – not because conservatives hate progressives, but because progressives hate conservatives. They hate them whether they are religious or not.
If you are pro-life – the left hates you.
If you are christian – the left hates you.
If you do not want MTF trans boys showering with your daughter in HS – the left hates you.
BTW Jerushah Armfield is a longstanding critic of conservative white evangelicals including her own uncle, Billy Graham’s eldest son Franklin, who will speak at his funeral on Friday.
Is NOT a prominent Christian.
You can agree with the left on 90% of things. The left is still going to hate you over the 10% that you disagree.
This is the core problem of modern leftism, it has made the entire country villians.
That is not a model for winning elections.
Jay, I am not sure that I would even identify myself as a christian today – yet you have just attacked me as a Trump-cult brain-numb subservient, and piled on to lots of actual christians as part of that cult.
And you actually think that insulting all of them is the way to win elections ?
I do not give a crap what you think of me. Over the past couple of years your conduct has been so reprehensible. you have slurred insulted, lied and impugned not just me, but everyone who is not lock step with you. Any you have been repeatedly WRONG about both facts and claims of moral failure.
Your disrespect is a badge of honor for me.
Bur do you really thing that identifying large numbers of people as “cult brain-numb subservients” is the way to win their votes ?
Frankly do you think that hurling insults at almost anyone is the way to win votes ?
Even people who might agree with you on issues, are alienated by you insults, bitterness and willingness to persecute others.
it used to be “if you do not speak up for the homosexuals, there will be no one to speak up when they come for you”.
Today, it is if you do not speak up for white males, conservaitves, evangelicals, jews, there will be no one to speak up for you when the left comes for you.
There are a few points I would disagree with in this video – you are not going to control anything about Drugs so long as you have an FDA.
But ignoring the minor differences, the video repeats what is mostly well known if not widespread.
Health Care has little to nothing to do with life expectance.
Anyone who says PPACA saved lives or that repealing it is killing people is either ignorant or lying.
BTW this is true of so many things pushed on us by the left.
The so called party of science, pushes more pseudo scientific garbage on us.
Today we fight about so called fake news – most of the left media can not get simple facts about basic stories right, and sells us hysterical nonsense and is unable to engage in critical thinking.
For so many news stories on first hearing them the response so often is “wait ? This makes no sense ?” As an example why would a billionaire (and his campaign staff) risk prison to do something that he would almost certainly get caught at, to get inconsequential assistance from a foreign power that will have zero positive impact and could easily have a very bad impact, and would require him and his campaign team engaging in tradecraft beyond the ability of the CIA or GRU, when foir a few million dollars he can do the same thing himself – more effectively.
But so many people on the left NEVER thought – why we he do that ?
Half the country seems to think that an obvious bad idea is magically not bad, and actually was done and worked.
In the real world people do do stupid things some time – but it is NOT common.
It is not common even among very bad people.
Trump the evil criminal that the left paints him as (also a narative that does nto survive critical thinking), can not be both successful, evil, and serially stupid.
Stupid evil people GO TO JAIL – QUICKLY.
Serially successful people are rare, and you can not be lucky enough to be serially successful. Even if you do not scrupulously follow the letter of the law, you can not succeed serially if your judgement is not spot on almost all the time.
Even if you will break the law to get ahead, you can not be breaking the law without low risk and a very high probability of success.
” Health Care has little to nothing to do with life expectance.”
If this is so why:
Is death during childbirth down?
Is death and paralysis from polio almost non existant?
Is death from TB almost non existant?
I s death from flu and pneumonia so much lower today than in the early 1900’s
Is death from heart disease down 42% since 1940.
And there are many more.
With respect to heart disease – we do not actually know, and that lack of knowledge is leading to significant shakeups in medicine. Almost all the purported risk factors for heart disease are UP over the past 50 years. Heart disease spiked for unknown reasons. Though we conflated lots of correlation with causation, and fought to improve things that have actually gotten Worse – like obesity, and yet heart disease is DOWN?
I beleive the entirety of the rest of your attacks are changes in sanitation, process, and drugs that have made the first decade of human life far safer than ever before in human history.
Cleaning wounds, antibiotics, blood plasma – or even saline, all things that were implimented before WWII have made the odds of a child making it to 10 many many many times greater.
Conversly life expectancy for a 10 year old is little different than it was a century ago.
At the same time I will cede that I have MILDLY overstated the claim.
The findings of the Rand study (and myriads of other studies large and small is that HEALTH INSURANCE has little effect on outcomes.
That actually is because MOST healthcare has no impact on life expectance.
A few things – things that are surprisingly simple and cheap have an enormous effect – on the first ten years of life.
i do not think there has been a single change in healthcare since the 50’s that has had a fraction of the impact of even one of the few significant changes before the 50’s.
So, the Soleimani attack was in fact a response to Trump’s impeachment:
Well, I’ll be damned. There you have it. Someone posted something on the Twit that some anonymous source said Trump said he was under pressure by GOP senators to do something about soleimani to get their impeachment support. And its on the Twit, so it has to be true because nothing untruthful ever is posted on Twitter. Next to main stream media, Twitter is the best source of truthful rrporting.😠
It does not matter if it is true.
If the choices was otherwise justified, the fact that it might have improved Trump’s relationship with some GOP senators – so what ?
Everything a president does has political benefits and costs.
Generally we hope that a president doing their job is politically beneficial.
And THAT is on OUR hands.
As to the specifics – Does anyone beleive Graham was ever getting in Trump’s way on impeachment ?
But Killing Soliemani pissed off Paul and Lee, and likely had atleast a mildly negative impact with most “moderate” republicans – Collins, Romney, …..
Just about everything a president does pisses off some people and wins kudos from others.
But overall the claim that Trump did this to better position himself in the Senate regarding impeachment is ludicrously stupid – unless you beleive Graham was more likely to defect than Paul or Lee or Collins or Romney.
Only jay is capable of beleiving that – and aparently someone on twitter.
We often complain here about how hard it is to convey sarcasm online.
You were very successful with this one, Ron, lol.
I am going to start calling it The Twit, instead of Twitter. 😉
Once again you are offering the insanity that because there are multiple reasons to do something, only the one you do not like matters.
Trump benefits from Ukraine investigating Biden.
Regardless, there are legitiamte reasons to investigate Biden.
Trump benefits from the Trade war with China.
Trump benefits from his strong stance on immigration.
Trump benefits from Killing Soliemani.
Does the fact that Trump benefits answer the question of whether the action is right or wrong.
Obama added Soliemani’s name to the terrorist hitlist.
Absolutely Trump benefits from killing Soliemani with Senators like Graham.
But I would note that AS YOU POINTED OUT he is harmed with respect to Lee and Paul, and he may be harmed with respect to Collins and Romney and myriads of moderates.
On Net while killing Soleimani strengthens Trump’s neo-con flank. It weakens his moderate and libertarian republican flank.
This and a number of similar stories are turning out to be false “fake news” or spin.
Killing Soleimani has aparently been “on the menu” of options that have been presented to Trump as a response to Iranian acts for a long time – such as after the missle stricke against Saudi oil fields or the attack on US Drones – both of which came PRIOR to impeachment.
CIA director Haspel is on the record saying that she had advised Trump that it was a good choice and that the benefits of killing Soleimani ssignificantly out weighed the cost of resprisals. Further amazingly for the CIA she preducted that the likely Iranian response would be Iranian missle strikes on US bases in Iraq.
The claim that Trump did this to curry favor with GOP senators is illogical nonsense.
Certainly it improved his relationship with Graham, but Graham is already acting strongly in favor of Trump.
It clearly undercut his relationship with Lee & Paul and likely Collins, Romney and other moderates.
So put simply we have another of these stupid “russian collusion stories” – it is not necescary that what is reported “makes any sense” – because reporters and those on the left don’t even pretend to beleive that Trump acts rationally.
But we see that here all the time.
People who disagree with you are not acting irrationally just because they disagee.
Almost always they are acting consistently with the facts and THEIR values.
Apparently some Trump advisors were “shocked” when he picked killing Soliemani – not because it was a bad choice – as one NSA advisor noted – No one involved in national security would survive long if they wasted the presidents or others time with choices that did not belong on the table. The Advisors where “shocked” because Trump has consistently backed away from conflict, taking the weakest actions after the attack on Saudi Oil Fields and downing the US drone.
In fact many advisors were happy that Trump picked Killing Soliemani, that has been a strongly recomended choice since he was added to the list of potential reposnes to Iranian misconduct during the Obama administration. Many have strongly advocated killing him for years.
More Fake News.
From comments from some left wing talking heads who have commented like ” Bush and Obama both decided against this action” ( taking out Soleimani), this bad apple has been on the spooks radar for years.
The question then becomes ” which president showed more leadership”?
The ones that tied the hands of our military and allowed more than 600 Americans to get killed or the one that allowed the military to take out terrorist targets so more would not die at the hands of this barbarian.
It is very clear to me that none of the democrats have studied recent USA history because they have no knowledge of the 50,000 Americans who died in Viet Nam due to tieing the hands of the military and not allowing them to do what is necessary to protect our troops.
You can find out alot about Soliemani on Wikipedia. He was identified individually as a target in 2007. But from his appointment to head the Quds forces to his death he was both engaged in acts of terror against the US and operations that aided the US against Iran’s enemies.
We have had lots of ranting about the Kurdish forces in Syria – Soliemani was practically their leader in fighting ISIL. Soliemani also cooperated with the US briefly in targeting the Taliban.
For a long time, Soliemani orchestrated Shia affiliated acts of terror against the US while concurrently aiding the US in fighting Sunni terrorist groups, like ISIL, or Al Queda.
The choice of past presidents not to kill Soliemani is not determinative of anything.
We would have to know the exact circumstances of each situation.
For each instance in which Soliemani might have been ordered killed by a past US president.
we would have to know whether at that time his actions were more harmful to the US or beneficial.
We would have to where he was and how good the information was about where he would be.
If Obama said no to killing Soliemani in a mosque in Lebananon – most of us would grasp that his decision might have been different if as this time – Soliemani was in a convoy with Hezbollah militia leaders on the road, with very low risk of civilian casualties.
We can not presume that Bush or Obama would not have made the same decision Trump made under the same Circumstances.
In one of the liberal media outlets, they reported “In January 2007, then-Joint Special Operations Command chief Stanley McChrystal watched a convoy that he knew contained the Iranian commander cross from Iran — whose airspace the U.S. wouldn’t be welcome in — into Iraq, where McChrystal’s forces were able to operate. “There was good reason to strike,” the retired general recently wrote for Foreign Policy magazine, citing Soleimani’s responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers. “To avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow,” he decided not to. ”
when it comes to sending troops to the M.E. I am a dove. When it comes to keeping troops in the M.E., I am a dove. When it come to protecting troops that were sent to the M.E. in a senseless war, I am a hawk multiple times over.
When a top dog.in the war effort says “To avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow,” he decided not to. ” his ass should be fired on the spot. Under no circumstances should politics and “contentious” political fall out EVER be a reason to allow Americans to die in war! NEVER!!!L
You said you watched the series on the Viet Nam war. How much did politics play in how Johnson directed the generals in that one?
Each instance/opportunity, must be judged on its own.
I am not going to fault McChrystal without knowing alot more.
HOWEVER one thing is clue from the remarks if true.
At that Time region commanders had the authority to take out Soliamani aparently WITHOUT the permission of the president.
In other words Obama had delegated the decision to take out Soleimani to subordinates like McChrystal. That PRESUMES that Obama had accepted the potential blowback from taking out Soleimani as acceptable
So why a few years later, do we presume that Trump must have erred in making a decision that Obama had delegated to subordinates ?
To the extent vietnam will inform anyone who lived through vietnam about politics,
what you will learn that you did not already know was:
Policy markers and the DoD (and the president) had all rejected the “domino theory” particularly as it relates to vietnam, by the mid 50’s if not earlier.
That almost no one though vietnam was actually in the US’s strategic interests – FROM THE START. Johnson was the first president to decide that Vietnam was important. and he was advised and knew from the start that it was unwinnable.
Nothing about the political interference with the military that is in Burns vietnam will surprise you.
The political element that WILL surprise you is that the top military leaders were so thoroughly disconnected from the war itself.
While Johnson was telling Westmoreland and Abrams how to fight the war,
WestMoreland and Abrams were in complete lala land as to how the war was actually going.
In a prior post I noted that one of the weaknesses of the modern US military is its ability to hold ground. relatively small US forces are capable of defeating much larger military opponents. But we are not capable or structured to capture and hold ground. While we had the ability to do so in Vietnam, we fixated on destroying the enemy combatants – as we do today. that is fine if your objective is coming in dispersing and disempowering some opposition force. But the failure to hold ground in vietnam meant that the loyalty of ordinary vietnamese slowly shifted to the Viet Cong. Why ? Because the US and ARVN forces were not “protecting them”. Rushing in having a firefight with the VC, killing some until they disbursed and then leaving, was always followed by the VC returning, and all politics aside it is not the strongest army that commands loyalty, it is the one that day after day is right there.
The VC and NVA quite literally did to the US what the US did to Britian in the Revolutionary war.
And Our leaders – military and political, were told that this was not working, and they ignored it. West Moreland and Abrams were fixated on a war of attrition with an enemy that was capable of sustaining incredible losses – as well as the inevitable exageration of casualites inflicted when the focus of the war becomes body counts. the failed to grasp that because they did not control much of the ground in south vietnam, that most of the resources as well as manpower of the country was in the hands of the VC and NVA.
To re-emphasize – this was not just a problem of political leadership, Our military commanders completely failed to understand the conflict they were in, and their strategy was not going to work. That is NOT a consequence of political interference.
We have made variations of the same mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We appear to have been wiser in Syria.
The objective does NOT have to be US control of the ground. But it MUST be ending completely enemy control of the ground.
Everywhere we have gone in the mideast we have successfully “defeated” whoever we identified as our enemy.
but we have near universally failed to bring about stability.
Sometimes this is framed something like we know how to win the war, but not how to win the peace.
The fact is that we have a military capable of defeating pretty much any enemy.
We do not have a military capable of securing and holding large areas for long periods of time. Nor the political will to do so – and I would further argue the right to do so.
To be clear – I do not want a different military. The US is not a colonial power.
We have unbeleiveable ability to unleash destruction on our enemies. And increasingly on their leaders – and that is actually important.
Our Forte is destroying their valueable weapons, their assets, and their generals and leaders.
But decappitating an enemy and destroying all their assets does not bring about peace.
At best it provides the oportunity for the people of those regions to choose better government on their own, because they can stand up to a substantially degraded enemy.
But after we have destroyed some enemy as a force in being, the people of that region must restore order and good government themselves. Our forces do not have the ability to do so.
Our political leadership during vietnam was horrendous.
Our military leadership was atleast as bad.
We did almost everything wrong in almost every possible way from start to finish.
One of the things recognized very early on is that we needed to make those living in all the provences of south vietnam safe from the viet kong and later the NVA.
That is actually a pretty traditional military operation. It means occupying and holding ground.
Yet, from the beging of our involvement through the end we were focused on rushing in Killing people we identified as Viet Kong and leaving.
Our tactics lead to people outside the major cities increasingly identifying with the viet kong and not with the ARVN.
This continued through the war. At one point the US had over 600,000 troops in vietnam
That is about the same number as the Union Troops in the Civil War, about the same number as under the command of Eisenhower in Europe. Total UN forces in the Korean war never numbered HALF of that. But the Korean war was fundimentally different from Vietnam in that the first objective of the US military was to gain control of territory and the second to destroy the North Korean army.
Throughout the Vietnam War the US sought to hold bases, but not to restore military and political control of ground.
We raided. We went in drove out and sometimes Killed VC and NVA troops, we left and they returned.
That was a military failure more than a political one.
The vietnam war has had a tremendous effect on the US military.
from the rangers through the Seals some of the most important developments in US special force units of varying sizes relies heavily on Vietnam.
Military lessons learned in Vietnam make small units of the US military capable of taking on purportedly superior forces and destroying them – particularly if they stand and fight.
Our modern ability to deal with horrendous battlefield injuries with the high probability of survival started in Vietnam.
There were many successes that we have built on.
But we have also learned from failures. One of the most significant of those is that if your goal is to secure a nation and its people, you much capture and control teritory and you must deny it completely to the enemy – whoever they are.
ISIS has been far easier to defeat than Al Queda because they tried to be a government in being, to hold territory.
“Killing Soleimani has aparently been “on the menu” of options that have been presented to Trump as a response to Iranian acts for a long time – “
A long long time, as is the option of nuking Iran, executing the ayatollah, etc been on the menu of responses – and if trump follows thru on those options you’ll justify it with the same facetious trump-anus-kissing rationalization, right…
Jay, you have gone completely off the rail, lost all the bricks from your load and your house is oxygen deprived. Do you really believe using drones to take out terrorist is comparable to nuclear war?
Of course I know the difference, Ron.
It was an intentionally exaggerated comparison of choices to show the fault of dhlii’s “long time list” argument.
And I will credit Trump for showing restraint and not nuking Iran, or killing higher-ups in the Iranian hierarchy. And I repeat: I’m glad Soulimani is dead. And glad Iran showed restraint in responding. And glad Trump didn’t have to escalate, targeting more military strikes on “the list.”
In the short run, everything now appears to be stable. Except for the unintended collateral deaths of those airline passengers caught in the tit-for-tat following Trump’s decision (many of them Canadians, whose countrymen appear to be blaming Trump for setting the event in motion) Donnie can brag what a great job he did ridding the world of another Muslim terrorist, and plan who he’s taking out next to distract from Impeachment.
Jay, people are going to believe what they want, either based on facts or emotions. I believe they base that on their political leaning for the most part.
I blame Iran completely for the plane going down. Why did they not ground all flights during this attack? Most all countries will restrict air traffic over their country when military actions are taking place. That is because tensions are high and the likelihood of a mistake happening is high.
But I dont blame this on a junior officer making a mistake as they claim. I believe Iran shot this plane down on purpose, otherwise it would never have been allowed to take off. They shot it down so they could blame Trump and create more hate within the region towards the America. Life means nothing to those people. 150+ lives is just a means to an end.
And knowing the views of those running against Trump concerning the M.E., Iran would do anything to get rid of Trump and the thorn in their side.
You may be right, Ron; but I’m doubtful it was a high level intentional downing of the plane.
Read this if possible (Duck-Duck works):
It appears both the US & Iran & other diplomatic entities were in off-channel conversation, to prevent military escalation. Iran’s missile targeting indicates they were trying not to cause US military deaths.
Let me know if you can read it, and if it changes your mind about the downing…
No, requires subscription
If as Jay and NYT contend war has only been averted because of diplomacy behind Trump’s back on both sides, Then why didn’t the same forces keep us out of
Grenada,
Panama,
Nicuragua,
Iraq,
Somlia
Bosnia,
Afghanistan
Iraq,
Libya,
Syria ?
Honestly, I do not care. If Trump has so successfully terrified our own diplomats, and those of other countries that they are making progress they would not have otherwise – that is a GOOD THING.
Frankly aside from Spin all that says is that Trump has forced our enemies to negotiate in better faith by taking away the presumption that we would agree to anything.
Remember Trump is a negotiator. You can not get what you want in any negotiation if you start the negotiation from the premises that there is nothing worth fighting for,
There is no reason for the other party to negotiate if they beleive that standing pat will ultimately get them everything they want,.
The downing of the airliner was a mistake.
The premise of your NYT story is OBVIOUS crap.
If Trump wanted war with Iran he could have gotten it trivially.
Whether we are talking Iran, or NK, or China, or Russia or other beligerants across the world we are always addressing the same dilema that confronted both Neville Chamberland and Winston Churchill.
Every US president has to figure out whether they are dealing with a Hitler or someone who can be reasoned with. Or something in the middle.
Thus far Trump may have terrified the shit out of those on the left who seem to think that Neville Chamberlain was a war monger. But Trump has not started a new war.
The last president that did not start a conflict of some kind was Jimmy Carter. Trump inherited alot of conflicts. He has sabre rattled in some of them. He has won the few he promised to win, and he is moving albeit too slowly to get out of those he said he would get out of. He has threatened, and gone toe to toe with lots of the worlds tyrants. But he has not started any wars – or even new military conflicts.
There are no grenada’s Nicuragua’s panama’s Kuwait/Iraq’s Bosnia’s, afghainistan’s, Iraq’s, Libya’s Syria’s under Trump for all the sabre rattling.
I have constantly asked that you weigh actions much more heavily than words in assessing things.
Trump is inarguably the most verbally belicose, beligerant president we have had.
But by what he has DONE rather than what he has said he ranks at the opposite end of the scale.
I do not know that his confrontational rhetoric is the cause for the lack of actual confrontations, neither do you.
But it is self evident that neither Trump’s words or actions – despite your fears have lead to violence. Todate Trump is the LEAST military of the past 5 presidents.
I am surprised that Iran accepted responsibility for downing the airliner.
Downing the airliner was tragic.
It was Iran’s responsibility – just as the Vincense downing an Iranian airliner was ours.
These things happen in the midst of military conflicts.
It was a mistake on the part of the iranians. But conflict involves deadly mistakes.
I am not letting them off the hook, but I am not blaming Trump because Iran made a mistake, but I am also not attributing malice to something that was just error.
Because it is a ludicrous exageration it did NOT expose any faults.
Ron’s excerpt from McChrystal makes it clear that the Obama administration thought that taking out Soleimani was a decision of sufficiently small import that theater commanders had the authority to do so.
McChystall did not have the authority to nuke Iran or assassinate the Ayatollah.
He either had the authority to kill Soliemani or he is a liar.
Regardless, the point – which your exagerated response makes clear – is that you are incapable of any proportionality.
Every action Trump takes is wrong in your view and ever action is as outrageous as nuking Iran.
That is precisely what is dividing the country, and why the left is near certain to lose in 2020, and why it did in 2016.
We can not have rational discussions of ANY subjects.
It is not just that you make every disagreement on any issue to the extreme.
Even the issues themselves do not matter.
On conflict after conflict it is not the “issue” that matters,
it is the WHO.
If conservatives, republicans, trump, have a position – they are wrong without looking at the issue – because they are conservatives, republicans or Trump.
I doubt that anyone here thinks that you would oppose Clinton or Obama taking out Soliamani – that is not to say that you would support everything Clinton or Obama does.
But atleast you would actually think about the issue itself. ‘
But if Trump does it – you jump thoughtlessly to “its wrong”, “it is the end of the world”, “the sky is falling”.
To the extent you are different regarding republicans and conservatives as a whole, it is that you will support republicans and conservatives WHEN they oppose Trump.
I would have prefered to see Cruz, or Rubio, or Paul or any other republican elected.
BUT, I do not think any of them would have accomplished half as much of the things I care about.
Further, though the level of absolutely ridiculous outrage would have been “lower” – maybe twice the level of Obama, rather than 3 times, we would still be having this same bitter battle had Cruz (particularly) or Rubio or Paul been elected.
Outrage is a tactic and a strategy to avoid actually discussing the issues.
You are not capable of addressing any issue.
You do not have any position that is not “Orange man bad”.
If you ever had to accept that some choice of Trump’s was not absolute evil, I suspect your brain would explode.
All anyone on the planet needs to know is what Trump chose – and we know what your position is.
You accuse everyone else of being Trumpanzees – but you are the ultimate Trumpanzee.
He owns you thoroughly. He is your puppet master. He can make you do or say anything.
If he wants you to go down – he just needs to go up, if he wants you to go right, he just needs to go left.
The only person here whose positions can be entirely predicted by Trump is you.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Everything that has been inside of our ability has not been on the list of options we routinely consider.
Ron just noted that McChrystal had the oportunity and authority to take out Soliemani and chose not to.
Did McChrysial have the authority to nuke Iran ? To assassinate the Ayatollah ?
When a theater commander has the authority to do something, the president has allready accepted responsibility for any political fallout.
If as he claims McChrystal has the authority (and opportunity) to take out Soleimani and decided not to, that inherently means that Pres. Obama had already decided that McChrystal was free to kill Soliemani, or McChrystal would not have had that authority.
Frankly that we are debating this is more evidence of your insanity.
It is self evident that your argument is NOT – Soliemani should not have been killed.
It is that Trump should not have killed Soliemani.
That is ALWAYS your argument.
Trump has made lots of decisions in the mideast.
Many of which are at odds with my own choices.
I do not give a shit about defeating ISIS. I think we should never have gotten involved in Syria or Libya or Iraq, and we should have gone into Afghanistan, removed the Taliban from power and left.
I am disappointed that Trump is not getting us out of these conflicts fast enough.
Iraq is a mess. It is going to be a bigger mess if we leave.
If we leave that will empower Iran.
I do not give a shit. Iraq is the business of the Iraqi people.
But Iran was indirectly responsible for killing americans. I have ZERO problems punishing them for that. Killing Soliemani was a good choice.
Iran responded by using ballistic missiles to attack americans.
I would have responded by destroying lots of their ballistic missile capability.
Trump was more restrained.
I am not after war with Iran. But I would absolutely punish them any time they use force against americans – directly or indirectly.
Our presidents job is not the peace of the world. But it is the safety of americans.
Our soldiers, and our people.
“Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute”
has been US policy for two centuries. It is a variant on not negotiating with terrorists.
Naw, he’s not a mentally deranged narcissist…
Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149
Given that the Nobel committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama who went on to rival or exceed bush for war mongering drone strikes, civilian deaths, ….
Not really holding the Nobel Peace Prize committee in high regard.
Trump does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize – nor does Obama, nor does Al Gore.
I see that you didn’t dispute the charge that he’s a mentally deranged narcissist. Which verifies my assessment of you as a trump cultist who embraces a morally and mentally unfit president.
Poem To Those Of Trump Demented Perception:
You’ve lost your way.
Moral clarity eludes you.
The fog of pomposity encircles you.
The cacophony of verbosity overwhelms you.
You need an enema of objectivity
Shoved up your pompous rectum
To cleanse you.
“I see that you didn’t dispute the charge that he’s a mentally deranged narcissist.”
jay, you are not credible. I dispute everything you sayh. Your track record for truth is bad beyond beleif. If you said the sun will rise tomorow – I would have to check it.
” Which verifies my assessment of you as a trump cultist who embraces a morally and mentally unfit president.”
Make a specific moral claim about Trump and we can discuss it.
That is identify SPECIFIC conduct.
Further, while I will be happy to agree that some specific conduct of Trump’s lack’s moral foundations, you are not claiming Trump is a mere mortal, who has flaws like the rest of us.
You are claiming that his moral failures are on the level of Hitler.
To back that up, you are going to need much more than daliances with a porn star.
Every serious claim, you have ever made has been proven FALSE.
By objective standards whatever Trump’s moral failings – they are less than your own, and less than the past 3 presidents.
“Poem To Those Of Trump Demented Perception:
You’ve lost your way.
Moral clarity eludes you.
The fog of pomposity encircles you.
The cacophony of verbosity overwhelms you.
You need an enema of objectivity
Shoved up your pompous rectum
To cleanse you.”
Jay – self evidently clarity and objectivity of any kind eludre you.
AFTER Horowitz, you are still claiming all kinds of nonsense that Horowitz and Mueller have refuted.
Carter Page was a spy – FOR THE US. He worked for many government agencies, including FBI.
You are absolutely correct that to an uniformed observer outside the US government Carter Pages contacts with Russians would look very suspicious.
But the XFH and Mueller teams were neither outside the government nor uniformed – they were inside, informed AND obligated under the circumstances to confirm that Page’s contacts were not as a US agent. Obligated both as a matter of due process, and to avoid interfering with the activities of another US intelligence agency.
Regardless, they both KNEW and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
Further you keep trusting people who HAVE LIED. Comey tried to duck this by claiming that he is not responsible for operations of junior agents seven layers below him.
The problem is this was NOT seven layers below him. This was misconduct at the very top of the FBI and DOJ. Both XFG and the MY investigation were highly unusual in that they were run from DC by people on the seventh floor of the FBI – the administrators and managers, The Bosses, the cream of the crop. NOT ordinary investigators.
From the information available that is NEVER done. The DC office of the FBI is not an investigative office, it is “corporate head quarters” for the FBI.
Durham is currently running the investigation of the investigation from Connecticut, not the AG’s office in DC. The Cohen investigation was done by the SDNY offices of the AG and FBI. The NY Field office wanted the Clinton Foundation investigation and the Clinton email investigation and was denied. Hillaries bathroom mail server was in NY, not DC.
That is how investigations are typically done.
But you believed all those lies – and you continue to believe many of them.
We are not talking occasional errors, we are talking constant ones.
You are not credible, and because you have bandied false moral accusations like candy, you are not moral either.
No one else did that too you.
Your own choices both moral and factual did.
You do not have the integritty left to question anyone’s morality.
Reasons Trump Attacked Iran Terrorist Now:
50% Impeachment insurance distraction
10% Protecting US Embassies
10% Obama envy for bin Laden
10% Putin bragging rights over who’s tougher
10% Mar-a-Lago Club gossip fodder for members
10% Supporting Iranian protestors
0% Defense vs imminent attack
Mike Hatcher here. Wonder if I can post without providing an email.
Well Mike, apparently you can. Good to see you back. Did you want to share your thoughts on any subject? No? Ok, you must be just down because of that parlay on the Baltimore Ravens didn’t work out for you.
Hey Mike, good to see you. That Titans v.Ravens game was shocking, huh?
After watching the Titans put the smackdown on the Pats last week, they look like a Cinderella team that could go all the way.
You can also create an account on Yahoo, Gmail, etc and only use that for Junk. I created one for social media links because I was sick of getting ads and political comments whenever I accessed a site that asked for an e-mail. Then I just go in every couple of weeks and do a mass delete of everything in it. That way you can isolate Dave and Jays pissing contest.
U can also create an account on Yahoo, Gmail, etc and only use that for Junk. I created one for social media links because I was sick of getting ads and political comments whenever I accessed a site that asked for an e-mail. Then I just go in every couple of weeks and do a mass delete of everything in it. That way you can isolate Dave and Jays pissing contest.
Thanks Ron. I am in my mid fifties and really enjoying life, just never enough hours in the day. Not sure how often I will drop in.
a good clip on happiness/unhappiness
No one else gets your email unless you share it.
Jay, I’m curious about this whole “imminent threat” argument that the left is now using against Trump.
Do you honestly believe that a special operation targeting a terrorist leader needs to be argued in Congress, if a valid AUMF exists?
How would you characterize the imminent threat posed by bin Laden, when we killed him? He was essentially off the “battlefield,” right?
Does “imminent” mean the same thing as “immediate?’ And, given that the president is the commander-in-chief, isn’t the Congress’ attempt to restrict his ability to order a special mission to take out an enemy general in a war zone unconstitutional?
Imminent Threat of what ?
Trump has not sent US forces into a new conflict anywhere in the world in 3+ years.
No president since Carter has managed that.
We should not confuse deliberately fomented fears with reality.
We spent much of the cold war in fear of nuclear annihilation. No one is even arguing Trump risks anything close to that.
We are not going to war with Iran.
That was NEVER on the table.
It was POSSIBLE that our confrontation with Iran might escalate – Iran is entirely in control of that.
Trump’s message to Iran has actually been pretty clear.
DO NOT KILL AMERICANS! If YOU DO THERE WILL BE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
I am OK with that.
Iran is engaged in lots of stupid shit in the mideast that Trump and most of the rest of us Oppose. But Trump has NOT responded with violence to any Iranian actions that did not kill or threaten americans.
Iraq has asked us to leave. That is probably a stupid choice. But it is theirs to make.
It remains to be seen if we will leave. But I strongly suspect we will.
Iran will benefit.
With respect to all of your questions.
We have a constitution, laws, and a court system to resolve those and the balance of power between the executive and the congress.
Those same constraints powers and duties were in place with Bush and Obama.
One thing that is ablicable here that is how our system SHOULD work but does not, is that just as it takes a majority in the house, the senate and the consent of the president to make law – to authorize force, each – the president, the house, the senate, should for as long as that law or AUMF is inforce, unilaterally have the power to revoke it.
I have absolutely zero problems with house democrats unilaterally revoking the AUMF – if they choose.
our constitution addresses how laws come about. It is very weak on undoing them.
That is a mistake in the design of our system.
It should be hard to make law. It should be EASY to unmake it.
Priscilla;
The ‘imminent threat’ is a standard criterion in international law and American law to determine when nations may perform preemptive attacks in self-defense against physical attacks without first declaring a state of war. Imminent is described in international law as being “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of other means and no time for deliberations.”
The US 1973 War Powers Resolution states that a U.S. president requires congressional authorization to go to war, and congressional consultation before making preemptive strikes:
“SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”
Bin Ladin wasn’t taken out under ‘imminent threat.” He was a 9 year terrorist fugitive, indicted by US Federal Grand Juries on charges of murder and conspiracies to commit murder, and for attacks on federal facilities and embassy bombings. There was also an Interpol warrant out for his arrest. Periodically the bipartisan Gang of Eight was informed of the status of the hunt. Both Republican and Democratic administrations were in agreement he should be captured or killed. Therefore when Obama took him out there was no partisan outrage to the killing. Everyone knew the hunt was ongoing, and there was a long established agreement to accomplish it. Bin Ladin wasn’t a high ranking general in a sovereign nation – he was a fugitive. There was little if any concern the Navy Seal operation would lead to war with Pakistan.
Trump’s exercise in impeachment distraction is nothing like Obama’s. Trump was required to follow the established protocols for his ‘imminent’ threat attack execution, as the scramble by his administration for imminent proof shows. Trump was TOLD by his military of the danger of military escalation leading to war with Iran, a nation armed with missiles, jets, ships, and a standing army of 900,000. He didn’t consult with the Gang of Eight because there was no ‘imminent’ threat in the works (surely you agree Trump invented the 5-embassy in danger excuse ).
As your co-minded Trump cultist dhlii is so fond of saying: if his administration doesn’t like the ‘consultation with congress’ law, they should vote to change it. Instead Trump is flaunting his indifference to it, abrogating congressional powers to Indiscriminately use force as he chooses, per his twitter assertion:
“These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”
Enthralled as you are with the Pompous Ass Bozo President I’m sure your thrilled to the bone with with his braggadocio.
Jay, stop bitching about Trump and start bitching about the real problem, that being Queen Nancy and McConnell abdicating responsibility for use of military force.
In 2016 Obama greatly expanded the use if the AUMF before Trump took office. In response to this action, Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told The New York Times.”This administration leaves the Trump administration with tremendously expanded capabilities and authorities,”
Congress was warned! Others said the same thing! Why did Queen Nancy sit on the pot, refusing to introduce legislation way back then when Trump had just won an election based partly on reduced military actions. A new AUMF back then would be taking action to update the old one. Now its a reaction to a political enemies action. Very different scenario.
The precedent was set by Bush and Obama. If the democrats did not like it, why wait until Trump used it? Politics maybe and to hell with our troops?
Pelosi recently tried to constrain Trump’s war powers.
While I do not know the specifics of Pelosi’s resolution. as a generalization – I support winding down, closing past authorizations.
Further I beleive we SHOULD allow any chamber of congress to do so unilaterally.
In fact I beleive that any chamber of congress should have the power to unilaterally revoke any law.
Our constitution is not clear on that – it requires majorities int he house, senate anh the president to enact law, but it is never clear about what it takes to revoke law.
I would argue that when the support necescary to enact law no longer exists, that the law should be revoked. That means either the house or the senate should be able to unilaterally revoke any law – including AUMF’s.
While I do not know if I support specifically what Pelosi is doing.
I do support closing past authorizations.
Not because of Trump – they should have been wound down under Obama.
I wrote a long reply. But I have deleted it.
Here is Senator Wyden, Udall and Heinrich, in 2013 explaining why you are wrong.
That would be when President Obama killed a US Citizen extra judicially
Wyden, Udall, Heinrich: Use of Lethal Force Against Anwar al-Aulaqi Was Legal;
There is a very long list of people that Obama killed. The criteria you claim apply did not to any of these. Bin Laden is far from the only example of a killing by Obama. There were thousands of them. Most of them did not meet any much less all the criteria you claim applied to Bin Laden but not Soleimani.
Put simply you are full of “Schiff”.
I am not a proponent of drone strikes. I would like to see them far more rare than they are.
But again – if you want to preclude Trump from doing things that yhou had no problem with Obama doing – Change the law. Or in this case probably the constitution.
But lets end this made up nonsense and faux legal interpretation.
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-heinrich-use-of-lethal-force-against-anwar-al-aulaqi-was-legal-public-and-congress-deserve-more-info-on-targeted-killing-rules
Short of going to war, or spending money that congress has not allocated, the President is free to do pretty much as he pleases with the US military outside the US – that is how the constitution works.
The war powers act is an attempt to DEFINE the constitutional relationship between the president and congress. But it can not expand or contract what is in the constitution without being unconstitutional. We have essentially decided that combat involving US troops lasting more than 90 days constitutes War, and therefore the president may not do that unilaterally.
Of Course SCOTUS could easily find that unconstitutional. Put simply you can not modify the constitution by writing laws.
All of your fancy legal analysis fails trivially because it does not conform to historical norms.
It is made up by you, or the left in an effort to constrain This president from actions that few protested as other presidents did.
Has Trump sent US troops to fight anywhere where they were not already fighting at the start of his presidency ?
Can you name a president since Carter that can say that besides Trump ?
You want to argue that Trump is some unique danger, yet the evidence is that he is LESS likely to resort to military options than his predicessors.
Bush went to war over fake weapons of mass destruction. Obama got into Syrian as a consequence of false claims of the use of Chemical weapons.
And god alone knows why he got into Libya.
Obama ordered hundreds of drone strikes, killing thousands of targets – including many US citizens, and hundreds of innocent civilians.
There is no meaningful distinction between the legality of Obama’s use of Drones and Trump’s.
Can we atleast stop making things up ?
I am not happy with the US broad use of drone strickes. Trump promised to reign that in and does not appear to have done so.
But very few people are trying to pretend that Killing Soliemani is somehow specially wrong. 33
You say Trump killed Soleimani to distract from Impeachment.
Yet Trump brings Impeachment up almost every chance he can. He laughes at it, belittles, it, berates it, and talks about getting Schiff, The Bidens, the Whistleblower to testify.
If Trump wanted to distract – why is he bringing it up so much ?
Neither Trump nor republicans are hiding from impeachment. It is a political winner for the GOP. It has already brought in tens of money. It is already drawing GOP voters out.
You are really horrible at being able to see the world outside your own bubble.
Impeachment was a mistake. Aparently Pelosi is forwarding the articles this week, but it is obvious by her own efforts to shutdown democrats talking about them, that she really did not want to.
It is republicans not democrats who have been pushing impeachment into the public attention.
“As your co-minded Trump cultist dhlii is so fond of saying: if his administration doesn’t like the ‘consultation with congress’ law, they should vote to change it.”
The powers of the respective branches of government are defined by the constitution, not the law. To the extent any law infringes(or expands) on the powers of the executive, legislative or judicial branches it is unconstitutional.
If you want the president to do something beyond what is in the constitution you must amend the constitution.
During the obama administration we were told that the president had the authority to use drones to kill US citizens in the US – without consulting congress or the courts.
While we were told that was not likely to occur, that it was still legal and constitutional.
That seems to be far further from the constution and the law than killing Soliemani.
You keep slurring everyone who disagrees with you an pretending we are all Trump zombies.
Yet, a few years ago leading democrats were arguing all the same things you are claiming that so called Trump cultists are – and more.
Most of these issues have nothing to do with Trump.
I beleive that the presidents “war powers” should be constrained more than they are – whether Trump or Obama.
I would be happy to consider the changes to the constitution and law to do so.
But I do not think that even I would narrow the presidents powers sufficiently that Trump would not have been able to strike Soliemani.
Soliemani was a more legitimate target than Bin Laden. While BOTH were targets because of what they had done. Soliemani was more dangerous in the future (and the present).
3
Jay, that was just a series of cut-and-pastes.
It’s almost as if you can’t answer a straight question…
Jays posts are formulaic.
Someone says Trump has done or said something outrageous.
Anyone who does not think Trump is outrageous is an immoral trumpanzee.
There can never be actual discussion of whatever purportedly outrageous things was done.
We can not discuss any issue on its merits.
There is nothing but insult and slurr in his posts, and he does not bother to confine his insults and slurrs to Trump, but more than half the country.
I spent a lot of time ‘cutting and pasting’ information relevant to your question. I didn’t just wing it. You seem to have spent no time evaluating the examples.
If, for example, I had merely said “your Obama reference to ‘imminent’” action is irrelevant, without offering example, you likely would have responded with an ‘oh yeah’ prove it response.
I do not think anyone claimed you winged it – I have no idea if you “winged it” or how hard you worked. Frankly, I do not care. I like the real world reward results not effort.
But you cobbled together abunch of sources that interpret the actual law far beyond what the law itself or the constitution allow. And it is not as if this is a new or obscure area of law.
The limits of a presidents military powers has been the subject of debate since korea atleast.
Your overly broad interpretation is not only not the state of the law, but if it was every president since 1973 has violated it far more egregiously than Trump.
Do we have to keep playing these nonsensical “Trump is radically different” games ?
His policies are at odds with those of the left.
On the whole he MORE NARROWLY remains inside the law and constitution than any president since Wilson. Trump did not manuafacture DACA from thin air. act completely outside of the law that bears his own name to keep it afloat, Bomb the shit out of Libya and Syria without any new authority to do so. Kill US citizens in foreign countries.
Any interpretation of the law that makes Trump’s actions improper would actually make Obama a war criminal.
AGAIN – you want to change the law and the constitution – go ahead. i might even be with you. Thought I am not going to support any law or constitutional change that would require consulting congress to kill someone like Soliemani when both the oportunity presented itself, and he had fresh american blood on his hands.
And everyone I know supporting the two party system wonders why I have no trust in government.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/11/david-kris-fbi-fisa-carter-page-nunes/
Fox guarding the hen house.
Kris sounds to me like someone who should be OUT OF A JOB, not making recomendations as to how to fix a process he does not recognize is broken.
Kris is the epitomy of what I keep saying about integrity and trust.
If you are caught making false accusations of others. No one should trust you.
I do not care if you are republican or democrat.
I would further note this undermines the integrity of the judge who appointed him.
If the FISC can not do better than this – then it should not exist.
We have listened to 3 years of rants that anyone who thought there was something wrong with all of this was a conspiracy theorist, a tin foil hat nut job. We now hear the same nonsense from the same people of those of us asking that the mess in Ukraine should be investigated.
And now the FISC has appointed one of those Slurring those of us who proved right to correct its problems.
There needs to be a thorough house cleaning.
I beleive the FISC is subject to the Supreme Court.
So much for Roberts nonsense that there was no such thing as obama judges.
This is not explicable, not only is kris an abominable choice – but anyone that thinks he is a credible choice has questionable intelligence and integrity.
Kris looks like a good choice.
He has a good eye for fools and scoundrels like Nunes.
Plus, he’s one of the foremost authorities on illegal wiretapping law.
And in the past was willing to criticize legal overstepping of warrantless domestic wiretapping by the Bush administration.
And in the next wave of evaluations of the Page role in subverting American interests for Russian payola, Kris will again be applauded for his stances.
Trump is a scoundrel. You two are relying on Trump-Twitter huff based on a Fox news interview with Nunes, And follow up reporting by right-wing news.
Kris is a poor choice specifically because his attacks on Nunes – and yours have proven to be slanderous and false.
Horowitz confirmed every single point of the Nunes memo and refuted every single differently point of the Schiff memo.
Kris FALSELY slandered Nunes – as have you.
Your continued insults targeting someone who was right when you were wrong and who you continue to falsely malign proves your own lack of shame and lack of morality.
Kris is OBVIOUSLY not one of the foremost authorities – because he was OBVIOUSLY WRONG on the most significant wiretapping and warrant issue of the past 50 years.
You do not get to make a mistake that large and maintain integrity, much less credibility.
That is like saying we should heed Eichman is an expert on Jews.
Makes perfect sense you’d align yourself with another Republican Trump flunky like Nunes, birdbrains of a feather…
Nunes is a laughing stock joke. ‘Nunes Cow’ is a well known meme for his befuddled sue-crazy brain. Over the last the California Republican U.S. Rep, who once co-sponsored the “Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act” has sued:
¤ A stone fruit farmer in Dinuba, and two other people, for conspiring to damage his 2018 reelection by asking that Nunes not be allowed to call himself a “farmer” on the ballot.
¤ The research firm Fusion GPS and a Democratic group called Campaign for Accountability for attempting to interfere with his “investigation” (quote marks are mine) into ties between President Trump and Russia when he was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
¤ Twitter and a couple of parody accounts, including @DevinCow, who has called Nunes “a treasonous cowpoke.” He is asking for $250 million to assuage his hurt feelings.
¤ McClatchy, parent company of Nunes’ hometown paper, the Fresno Bee, for writing that he had a financial interest in a winery sued by an employee who was asked to work on a charity cruise where men behaved very, very badly.
¤ And, most recently, Esquire magazine and the journalist Ryan Lizza, who Nunes claims have defamed him to the tune of $75 million in writing about the Nunes family dairy farm, which is not in California, but in Iowa, a fact Lizza alleged Nunes has sought to downplay. Lizza also wrote about how undocumented workers form the backbone of the Iowa dairy farm industry, and how the industry would collapse without them.”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-20/abcarian-sunday-column”
Nunes hasn’t held a town hall meeting for constituents in years. He’d rather sue his constituents than talk to them face to face.
Facts, logic, reason.
Not emotions and people.
I am not “aligned” with anyone.
I am interested in the truth.
Those who have proven truthful and accurate have more of my trust than those who do not.
I know little to nothing of Nunes, Kris, Schiff – even Trump as persons.
But I do know that on the most significant instance of government misconduct in 40 years, Nunes was correct and Schiff was not. Given that they both saw the same information, and that the information was unequivocal, that makes Schiff more than merely wrong, it makes him a liar and untrustworthy.
Schiff and Nunes both had mostly the same information that the IG had almost a year earlier – and can be judged by the IG report.
I do not know what information that Kris had, but at the very least he had the same information as ordinary people.
Kris – like you, like the left, like hordes of democrats, has failed at critical thinking.
It was pretty trivial to grasp that the entire Trump/Russia lunacy was improbable to the point of absurdity from the start.
Those – like you (and Kris) who bought it fail at critical thinking – at being able to make rational judgments based on the evidence and rational understanding of probability.
Worse – You and Kris has not merely been wrong regarding the facts, But you have wrongly accused others.
Error regarding facts demonstrates poor judgement
False accusations are immoral.
You make alot of claims regarding Nunes.
What ALL OF US know for a fact is that Nunes has been absolutely accurate regarding Trump/Russia collusion as well as misconduct within DOJ/FBI.
Conversely YOU, Kris, and Schiff and many others have been universally wrong about all of these.
Further Nunes has not uimpugned anyone else’s character and proven wrong..
You, Kris, and Schiff and money others have done so repeatedly.
Further here at TNM you pretty much daily post misrepresentations, half truths and lies.
It is increasingly just a waste of time to both to check any of them out.
So why I am to beleive that any of this rot you are spewing about Nunes is any different from the rot you spew everyday ?
Why should I beleive any of this is different from the tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense you spew all the time ?
Alex Jones is more credible than you are.
And just to be clear – no one took your credibility from you – you did that to yourself.
As has Kris, as has Schiff. As have inumerable other people who on a daily basis you offer as somehow credible.
Joe MacCarthy had the sense to slink off drunk and disappear after he revealed himself as slime who made constant false accusations of others.
Please Jay – explain to me why anyone should ever trust you about anything ?
Even today – you can not let go. Elsewhere you are posting nonsense that somehow the future will reveal you were right and Carter Page is a Russian Spy.
Mueller is wrong about this. Horowitz is wrong about this. The lawyer at the FBI who altered CIA emails he is not a criminal lying to the courts, in Jay world he is a hero, whose fraud and lies are not really fraud or lies – because sometime in the future magic will happen and up will be down and left will be right and true will be false.
You actually want to defend Fusion GPS ?
Nunes sued Fusion GPS for trying to interfere with his investigation of Fusion GPS.
As to the House investigation into Trump/Russia collusion. The Nunes memo tracks Mueller and the IG report point by point. The Schiff memo is wrong in every point where it disagrees.
Nunes was right – you can put “investigation” in quotes all you want.
I am more likely to beleive those who have a past track record for accuracy – that would be Nunes.
That would NOT be Kris, or you or Schiff.
If you want credibility in the future – all you have to do is not be wrong all the time.
If you want any chance of regaining your integrity – do not make false accusations.
Especially do not continue to defend those who have proven to be liars and slurr those who have been lied about.
If it makes you happy, you can slurr Nunes or anyone else from now to the end of your life.
But if you give a damn about the truth, your own credibility or integrity,
then you might want to be much more sure before you slurr others that you are right.
Dave, you keep providing lists after list of questionalble government and secret agency activities like Fusion GPS, but what ever has happened with those issues.
Its all smoke and mirrors, nothing has taken place to find anyone responsible and bring them to trial, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt something nefarious took place, etc, etc.
Its just like Sheryl Atkinsson’s FBI spying case, it just drags on and on, nothing come to conclusion and its will be talked about for years to come.
Its time to move on, These issues are old news, they are worn out news, they offer nothing to the argument because no one can prove or disprove what took place. You say one thing, Jay says another, you return the comment, he comes up with another.
You and Jay are going nowhere, will get nowhere and will end up arguing these same issues 5 years from now because there was either nothing there, and if there was, there was nothing illegal. In either case, there is nothing to discuss.
I beleive I have been consistent for years on this.
Whether it is Hillary, HFA, Perkins Coi, Fushion GPS, or Steele, their actions might be of dubious morality – as some of Trumps are, but they are private acts and are not crimes.
I am not sure that I would consider the Trump campaign actually colluding with Russia an action that SHOULD be a crime, had it actually occured.
That does not mean that private actions such as these are not excellent reasons to vote against people.
The PROBLEM is where these things intersect government. An assortment of Clinton affiliated operatives, including Fusion GPS worked hard to get the State department and FBI and DOJ to take interest in their total garbage OPO research – BTW it is now coming out that another lawyer with a personal axe to grind was heavily involved in foisting similar garbage on mueller regarding Manafort. Retreads of claims that he had FAILED repeatedly with in NY courts with ….. Judge Kimba wood, who granted Manafort summary Judgement on the same claims that Mueller eventually successfully prosecuted.
In otherwords a different Clinton appointed Federal Judge heard everything Mueller tried to sell to the DC courts and rejected it as garbage without bringing it to a trial.
Regardless, it is not the private actors that are the problem. It is the actions of government.
Law enforcement should look at claims of serious misconduct, such as some of the allegations in the Steele Dossier. But as with every single other allegation it should weigh in the source of the information, and the goal should be to uncover the truth, not manufacture crimes to investigate.
Aside from things such as the probability that Simpson lied under oath to congress – which apparently we prosecute against Stone and Cohen but ignore in myriads of other cases.
One of the problems we have today – and I do not have the answer, is that if you make an allegation that has political elements and that allegation is going to be prosecuted by DC prosecutors, courts, and juries – the outcome is predetermined by the politics, not the law or the facts. Comey was correct that Hillary Clinton could not possibly be successfully prosecuted for violating the espionage act in DC. But Roger Stone was successfully prosecuted and convicted for crimes that Mueller said did not happen.
And as noted above Mueller successfully prosecuted Manafort on evidence that had already been examined in a civil context by a democratic NY Federal judge and found was not sufficient to get into the court room – the same evidence.
Novel theories of law, that make no sense are bought by DC prosecutors, judges and juries – when the targets are republicans. But clear violations of narrowly interpreted law can not be prosecuted if the perpitrator is a democrat.
In the Manafort Case Tony Podesta was essentially Manafort’s “partner in crime”. Yet, no charges were ever filed. Because Podesta did not make the mistake of becoming Trump’s campaign manager.
Ron, there is zero doubt that something “nefarious” took place – way beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether anyone will be prosecuted is the only open question. Lots of people have been fired.
Almost the entire upper tier of the FBI and some parts of the DOJ have been cleared.
And Jay likes to forget – but Horowitz made Several criminal referals – including prosecuting James Comey for lying. Thus far Barr chose not to take up the Comey prosecution – it appeared too political, like the entire XFG and Mueller investigation and all the prosecutions were not “political”.
Atkinson has refiled. Aparently an FBI agent has come forward and provided her some of the information that the FBI refused to provide and prior judges refused to order.
We will see. Sometimes these things take a long time.
Atkinson was spied on without a warrant by the government, she has actually proven that.
The government actually admitted it. But because she has hithertoo been unable to establish which specific agents spied on her, and the government has refused to provide the information she was unable to get anywhere.
Do not confuse being able to prove WHAT took place with WHO did it.
In many instances we know exactly WHAT took place. We do not know Who.
Horowitz’s report repeatedly notes exactly that.
Of course Jay and I are going nowhere.
Jay has no interest in facts of any kind.
He is actually now arguing that in some magical future Carter Page will turn out to the a russian spy.
Anything is possible. But I dare Jay to bet his IRA on that. I will be happy to bet mine against it.
Nor am i happy about raining moral fire and brimstone down on Jay.
I do not relish impugning other peoples character in the way that he does.
But I am intent on making an object lesson.
When you make false accusations of others there is a high price to pay.
And you pay it with your integrity and your credibility at the very least.
I doubt you need to here it over and over. And I am sorry if it is polluting the space here.
But we have listened to years of Jay and Several others claiming the moral high ground.
Yet facts have proven them wrong.
Many who have made such false accusations have had the decency to stop repeating them.
Jay has not.
Jay is probably not the most left wing poster here. He is probably not the most inaccurate poster here.
but he has made false moral accusations and having been exposed – refuses to stop.
It would be nice – though I do not expect those who were proven wrong to apologize – humans are really poor at apologizing. But most of us, even if we can not apologize do not double down on the false accusations.
The Nunes family dairy farm has been in California for decades, generations. Since before the great depression.
The Nunes family STILL owns it – it is in Tulare CA TODAY,.
I beleive in 2009 family members bought another 1800 acre Dairy Farm in Iowa.
“In the next wave” ????
Really ?
This does not get better.
You have had your shot – Comey and his sychophants dug until the passed things off to Mueller who expended millions to find the holy grail that tied Page to Russia.
It is more likely that you will be struck by lightning twice, than something will be dug up to implicate Page.
But the odds of more being dug up to exculpate him is HIGH.
You are way on the wrong side of the odds – but keep betting on impossible odds.
There are a long list of scoundrels. Kris is not at the top of that list, but he is on it.
yesterday I went to see Just Mercy – about Brian Stevens (whom my wife and I have met) and the Equal Justice Institute – who we support.
The focus of the movie is on one (of many) of Steven’s cases, of an obviously innocent black man sentenced to death in Alabama.
Page is fortunate in that he did not face death – though I am sure you would exceute him for treason that he never committed.
Regardless, the story about the total reluctance of law enforcement, the prosecutors, courts, and many many people to accept an obvious truth is exactly the same as the whole Trump russia nonsense.
It is irrelevant why the power of government is marshalled against someone who they KNOW is innocent. It is wrong – whether the motives are racism, or political, or personal, or completely unknown.
What is it that you hope to find in the future regarding Page ? That he was a “tripple agent” ?
It is beyond dispute at this point that he worked FOR atleast two government agencies – the FBI and likely the CIA. That he contributed to exposing and jailing atleast one actual russian spy, and that he had been doing this for almost 10 years when James Comey essentially ended his usefulness to the US government. Pretty much the same thing that was done to Valeria Plame.
Do you honestly expect that someone who helped spy on the Russians and catch Russian spies multiple times, An anapolis graduate, decided to change sides for the hell of it ?
And you want us to beleive that Mueller anally probed him, and found nothing. But there is still something to find ?
Jay – You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
After all this, after the hell you and yours have put him through, after Mueller and Horowitz have proven everything you have claimed to be a flaming pile of “schiff”
You still can not let go.
“ The Nunes family dairy farm has been in California for decades, generations. Since before the great depression.
The Nunes family STILL owns it – it is in Tulare CA TODAY,.”
WRONG;
“So here’s the secret: The Nunes family dairy of political lore—the one where his brother and parents work—isn’t in California. It’s in Iowa. Devin; his brother, Anthony III; and his parents, Anthony Jr. and Toni Dian, sold their California farmland in 2006. Anthony Jr. and Toni Dian, who has also been the treasurer of every one of Devin’s campaigns since 2001, used their cash from the sale to buy a dairy eighteen hundred miles away in Sibley, a small town in northwest Iowa where they—as well as Anthony III, Devin’s only sibling, and his wife, Lori—have lived since 2007.”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/
An uncle of Nunes still owns a farm in California; if he has another who owns a brothel does that make Devin a whore-master?
So you shout that I am wrong and then produce information to prove I am right.
The Iowa farm was bought in Approx, 2009. Nunes was first elected to the house in 2003.
He first ran for congress in 1998. Devin Nunes BTW does not own it. Just as he does not own his uncles farm.
Nunes was active in Tulare county Politics for about a decade before that – specifically in the area of agriculture.
He still lives in Tulare, he owns part of two wineries there, and he has family with a dairy farm in Tulare.
Only in Jay world, can you torture the truth and pretend it is a lie.
I personally do not care about Nunes, and Dairy farms – but you clearly do.
You can read Nune’s bio on Wikipedia, or on his personal web page, there was also a very large article about Nunes in the Atlantic maybe 8 years ago that went into great detail of his history.
There is nothing in his personal bio, wikipedia, or the Atlantic semi-biography that is in disagreement with the facts.
The move of the family to Iowa and the reasons for it were discussed in the atlantic article – long before this nonsense you are selling.
Nunes – Trump’s most important defender in Congress – used the Intelligence Committee to spin an unfounded theory that Obama tapped wires in Trump Tower — he’s never apologized for that wacky assertion.
Nunes was foremost accusing Hillary then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation of conspiring with Russia, of giving the Russians a stake in U.S. uranium in return for foundation donations.That was proven false, yet Nunes never apologized for pushing those charges over and over.
On Fox, Nunes said the whistleblower complaint was a Russian hoax, and that Biden’s presidential campaign was over, his poll numbers were dropping to zero. Subsequent events proved Trump tried to extort Ukraine for negative info on Biden; Biden still leads Trump by double digits in the polls; but Nunes hasn’t apologized for lying about the whistleblower or his incompetent Biden forecast.
Nunes was complicit with trying to smear Hillary With the Benghazi hoax; he never said he was sorry for pushing an obvious faux charge. He wheedled classified information he wasn’t supposed to have about Hillary’s emails (the GOP was in majority), made snide referrals to them on Fox, and never retracted the insinuations.
There’s more, but I’ve wasted enough time on the weaseling Cow-Litigator.
Were back to you lobbing your own version of unsourced garbage.
Somewhere 3 revisions behind whatever you are spouting might be something that has absolutely no resemblance to what you are now saying that was true.
It remains to be seen whether there was a wiretap on Trump – though depending on your defintion of wiretap, that is already proven true – the FISA authorization to spy on Page, allowed for tapping of anything within two hops of Page, The entire Trump campaign was within two hops of page.
Almost no one litterally “taps” wires today. Are you claiming that the FISA court did not authorize electronic surveailance of Page or that the two hop rule does not exist ?
As to whether Obama authorized anything – that remains to be seen. Howoritz’s report covers the activities from the formal start of XFH – July 31, 2016 through to March 2017.
We know that Stephan Halper and others were active prior to that. We do not know exactly when they started. We have texts and emails from Page and Strzok that strongly suggest that the FBI started investigating in later 2015, and that Obama was personally involved.
We do not know that for certain, but it has not been well investigated yet.
This is the Nunes quote that is usually used by wingnuts to claim the nonsense you are claiming,
“President Obama wouldn’t physically go over and wiretap Trump Tower. So now you have to decide, as I mentioned to [the press] last week, are you going to take the tweets literally? And if you are then clearly the president was wrong. But if you’re not going to take the tweets literally and there is a concern that the president has about other people, other surveillance activities looking at him and his associates — either appropriately or inappropriately — we want to find that out.”
Nothing regarding the Clinton Foundation or U1 was “proven false”
Comey blocked the FBI from investigating CF.
This is likely what you are basing the nonsense about Nunes and U1 on.
“The House intelligence and oversight committees have launched an investigation into why the FBI did not inform Congress of its concerns over a Russian bid to control a Canadian mining firm with holdings in the US.”
Is there a reason that Nunes should NOT want to know why the FBI was not informing Congress about its concerns ?
In fact Contra your claims we KNOW that the Obama administration lied to congress and side tracked an investigation into Russian Corruption that touched on U1.
Specifically to protect the U1 Deal,
And we have discussed that here LONG AGO.
Nunes did NOT say that the whistleblower Complaint was a Russian Hoax.
He said that it had all the hallmarks of “the Russia Hoax” – ie. The nonsense about Trump Russia collusion.
He was CLEARLY not saying the Russians were involved.
You can listen to the actual clip at the link below.
Regardless, what you wrote and what Nunes said mean radically different things.
Once again you are LYING.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/22/nunes_whistleblower_complaint_looks_like_russia_hoax_ukraine_scandal_likely_end_of_bidens_campaign.html#!
“Nunes was complicit with trying to smear Hillary With the Benghazi hoax”
I do not even have a clue what this means.
The only Benghazi “hoax” was the effort by the Obama administration to blame an obscure california film almost no one had seen and claim that Benghazi was a “spontaneous protest”.
Bnghazi was a planned organized terrorist attack by Ansar al-Sharia an Al Qeda affiliate in Libya on the aniversay of 9/11. And Clinton KNEW that while it was going on. Yet it was not until Clinton’s bathroom email server was exposed almost 4 years later that the truth actually came to light.
Clinton specifically and personally targetted Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of this inconsequential film and promised some of the Benghazi victims to punish him – and she absolutely persecuted her scape goat.
Who is it who owes who an apology ?
I have serious problems with people in government who use their power to scapegoat small people for their own errors and then drop the full force of government on them to hide their personal culpability.
This single event alone is enough that there is no possibility that I would ever vote for Clinton.
Her abuse of Nakoula is almost as bad as the FBI’s abuse of Carter Page.
And you think someone owes her an appology ?
BTW Clinton’s emails have been being made public at a rate of nearly 1000 a month since Judicial Watch first uncovered the bathroom mail server and sued for the emails.
Aside from the classified ones which as also slowly being made public.
I am not personally happy with some of Nune’s litigation – which seems more like SLAPP suits to me. But so far your attacks have backfired – but what are we to expect from someone still pushing the Carter Page is a russian spy nonsense.
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Go join Joe MacCarthy where you and everyone else who makes false accusations belong.
??