Skip to content

Another Fine Mess: Trump, UkraineGate and the Specter of Impeachment

October 1, 2019

I’ve never sung the praises of Donald John Trump, surely the most ridiculous president in the history of the republic. Aside from his general oafishness and glaring deficits of character, his offenses of thought and deed would rival the charges leveled against King George III in the Declaration of Independence.

A latter-day Declaration might put it this way: He has sown discord among our citizens, lied blatantly on a daily basis, staffed his administration with swamp monsters intent on destroying their own departments, swelled the deficit by slashing taxes on the rich, threatened to cut benefits for the poor and elderly, fantasized endlessly about an impossible border wall, instigated a needless tariff war, coddled dictators and insulted allies, demonized immigrants both legal and illegal, rolled back federal consumer safeguards and environmental protections, trashed the accomplishments of his predecessor, declared journalists “the enemy of the people,” hurled half-demented tweets at second-tier celebrities, bullied his foes and alienated most of his associates. 

He sucks the oxygen out of our lives and exhausts us. He is, in short, a Major League piece of work. 

Is Trump crazy? That’s for the professionals to decide. But I’ve concluded that he’s the cause of craziness in others. We’ve seen how he whips his fan base into a collective frenzy by singling out the people they’re supposed to hate, much like some of the more unsavory twentieth century dictators. 

It’s also increasingly apparent that Trump has unleashed a kind of half-cracked bloodlust among his foes. Once-dependable CNN has gone off the rails with its rabid nonstop anti-Trumpery, moving leftward of progressive stalwart MSNBC in recent years. So, too, have legions of liberals who display “Hate Has No Home Here” signs on their front lawns; now they’ve morphed into a colossal lynch mob intent on destroying Trump, marginalizing old white men, punishing heretical thought crimes and, while they’re at it, promoting a fringe culture obsessed with “intersectionality.” 

In other words, Trump has helped turn us into a nation of certifiable, 24-carat, foaming-at-the-mouth loonies

But does Trump deserve to be impeached? That’s the billion-dollar question, and we’re about to get an answer. Ever since Trump snatched his unlikely victory from the jaws of Hillary Clinton in 2016, partisan Democrats have been conspiring to overthrow him – legally if possible, by stealth and innuendo if necessary. 

The infamous Steele Dossier, commissioned by the DNC to expose Trumpian mischief in Moscow, turned out to be baseless. The Mueller Report, for all its fastidious detective work, uncovered no conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to subvert the 2016 election. Trump remains perpetually suspect, but until now the opposition had uncovered no smoking gun.

Welcome to UkraineGate, a crisis precipitated by a nameless whistleblower who knew somebody who talked to somebody who insisted that Trump deliberately withheld aid to Ukraine until its newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, agreed to dig up dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. 

The younger Biden had secured a profitable position on the board of Ukraine’s largest gas company, Burisma, which was being investigated for corruption before the investigator was abruptly terminated at the instigation of the elder Biden. According to the accepted version of the story, prosecutor Viktor Shokin’s firing was unrelated to his investigation of Burisma – but that didn’t stop Trump from prying into the matter.

The transcript of the phone conversation released by the White House revealed a friendly, casual, no-pressure chat between Trump and President Zelensky. According to the transcript, there was no quid pro quo – no threat of denying aid until Zelensky complied with Trump’s request. The conversation could be summarized as “I’ve been very, very good to Ukraine.” “Yes, you have, Mr. President – you’re the greatest.” “Oh, by the way, could you do me a little favor if you get a chance?”

Was Trump abusing his Constitutional authority, committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” by conspiring with a foreign power to undermine the Democratic candidate most likely to challenge him in 2020? Digging up dirt on political rivals is a time-honored American tradition; the issue here is whether asking a foreign country to shovel that dirt oversteps the accepted boundaries of dirt-digging. 

Some of the lustier Democrats have been accusing Trump of treason, which is palpable nonsense. Ukraine is an ally, not an enemy power; Trump hasn’t endangered American security through his machinations. Of course, Trump has returned fire by wildly accusing both the whistleblower and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff of treason. Both sides are out for blood.

Treason is a capital offense. The mere fact that both Trump and his enemies are throwing the term around so recklessly is proof enough that we’ve crossed over into the Twilight Zone. 

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yielded to pressure and launched an impeachment inquiry, the first of several steps required to remove a sitting president. Where it will lead is anyone’s guess at this point; the Republican-controlled Senate is the final jury, but a handful of GOP defections could doom Trump before the 2020 election. 

Some Democrats are even taking aim at Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo, hoping for a clean sweep that would clear the way for Pelosi to assume the presidency until their party clinches the 2020 election. 

Would Joe Biden find himself tainted by a Congressional investigation of UkraineGate? In my darker moments, I suspect that eliminating Biden could be part of the Democrats’ game plan. The sharp leftward shift of the party is endangering relative moderates like Biden, just as the Republicans’ rightward shift during the Tea Party rebellion doomed their own centrists. 

Impeachment is a national ordeal, and we probably don’t need any more ordeals during this fractious time in our history. But the miasma of political hostility on both sides has grown so putrid that I’m starting to believe impeachment could cleanse the air. 

To use a cruder analogy, it’s as if we’ve overindulged in food and drink at a party, and our body tells us that this episode won’t end well. Rather than hold the noxious stuff in our system, it might make more sense to head for the bathroom and let our stomachs do the thinking for us. A few minutes of misery – followed by immeasurable relief!

Yes, Trump’s removal from office could precipitate a right-wing revolt – whatever that would look like. A California megachurch pastor, retweeted by Trump to the howls of outraged Democrats, warned that it could cause a “Civil War-like fracture” that would be irreparable. It’s a plausible scenario, and we don’t want to tempt fate by going there.

For me, the ideal solution would be to let the impeachment proceed, acquit Trump of “high crimes,” and allow him to stay in office but lose to a better (and preferably more moderate) person in 2020. Four years of Trumpian melodrama is more than enough for any functioning republic to endure; eight years could shatter us beyond repair. 

Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. His three darkly amusing essay collections are available in e-book form on Amazon for $2.99 each. (Just search under “Rick Bayan.”)

1,451 Comments leave one →
  1. October 1, 2019 12:09 pm

    Rick, again a good summary of the events unfolding.

    You stated at the end “For me, the ideal solution would be to let the impeachment proceed, acquit Trump of “high crimes,” and allow him to stay in office but lose to a better (and preferably more moderate) person in 2020. ”

    You leave out two points here. Letting the impeachment proceed —-at maximum effective speed.——- Do you believe that will happen? I suspect another Muller type investigation at a speed to make sure this is front and center for the election. Remember, the Senate began the Watergate investigation in the spring of 73. Nixon would have been impeached the fall of 75. So anyone that expects this to be completed well before November 2020 may be disappointed.

    “Preferably more moderate” person in 2020. We know that there is a 99.9% chance Trump will be the GOP candidate, so that moderate would be Sanders or Warren. Biden’s going down since he is trying to cover up something that may not need to be covered up. He has said he has never discussed business dealings with his son. Now this picture appears. Now we know there a many who believe everything what politicians say, even if they say February has 30 days, but many wil ask, “how do you play 4 hours and 18 holes of golf with your sons business partners without discussing business?” For me, that never happens.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7523253/Photo-reveals-Joe-Hunter-Biden-golfing-Ukraine-gas-company-executive-2014.html

    So can Warren defeat Trump, especially when the tech giants will never get behind her campaign due to her promise to break them up? And can Sanders defeat him with all the money he wants to spend?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 2:44 pm

      Biden is toast.

      Various groups are claiming that either democrats or republicans deliberately hung him out in this.

      Probably both are True.

      It is pretty clear from the Zelensky transcript that Biden was NOT Trump’s bullseye.

      Both the transcript, the whistleblower complaint and the responses by both parties make it clear that the investigation of the investigation is what the left wants to kill and republicans want to proceed.

      I do not think impeachment is going to proceed with speed.
      I do not think the full house is ever going to vote on any aspect of impeachment.
      I think that what we see at the moment is all you are going to get.
      Adam Schiff prancing arround claiming his is conducting an impeachment investigation.
      I think Schiff will move his hearings behind closed doors – because they have gone horribly when conducted publicly.
      I do not think that Pelosi is going to risk a house vote on anything.

      It is increasingly aparent that democrats do not have a candidate aside from Biden that:
      Appeals to moderates.
      Appeals to blue collar democrats.
      Appeals to the money men.

      One recent poll noted Warren’s support among dems has skyrocketed – but her overall support is weak.

      The 7 dwarves can not win an election, and Biden is mortally wounded.

      If Trump deliberately plotted this – which I doubt, it was a brilliant maneuver.

      • October 1, 2019 3:49 pm

        Good points, both of you. I’m still shaking my head over the dearth of moderate Democrats campaigning for the nomination. You’d think any sensible adult would be able to beat Trump, but aside from Biden, the front-runners are unabashed lefties who would never win the “flyover” states.

        Biden is actually an old-time liberal (although he’s moderate enough for me). I won’t dismiss him as “toast” just yet, but what looked like a sure path to the nomination is looking increasingly rocky. The Democrats have some decent candidates in Andrew Yang, Mayor Pete and Tulsi Gabbard, but these three still aren’t ready for prime time. (Maybe one of them will be a VP choice.)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 1, 2019 4:59 pm

        I do not think Biden is an “old school liberal”.
        He is(was) left of the country’s center – but not by much. He WAS a voice of blue collar democrats – and that was his huge threat to Trump.

        Even if he merely slightly eroded Trump with blue collar voters – He would likely win, because for Trump PA, OH, WI are must wins.

        Biden was not humphrey or monohan he might be slightly left of Bill Clinton.

        I am however deeply disturbed by the allegations regarding Biden.
        For nearly all of his career he had built a reputation as a clean politician.
        I do not recall that either he or his family went into the VP with significant wealth.

        There are 3 questions regarding the recent revalations:

        Did Joe/Hunter do anything actually wrong – i.e. did they actually sell influence.
        I doubt that, and even if true that is very hard to prove.
        But I have no doubt that Hunter Traded in a very big way on his relationship to the VP, and that Joe knew it, and that to atleast some extent he helped that.
        And that was NOT the blue collar Joe of most of his carreer.
        This is not the Biden whose son Beau served with distinction in the military and tragically died of cancer.

        The last issue is bidens role in the Ukraine – in sacking Shokin and in the corrupt investigation of Ukrainian corruption.

        That stinks to high heaven. 20 years ago Biden would have been smart enough to remove himself from the entire mess. His sons involvement meant he could not be involved PERIOD.

        Giving Biden the benefit of every possible doubt – this is still wrong.
        And honestly Biden caught doing what Trump is constantly accused of.

        I would further note that watching Biden in this camapign should be torture for any moderate.
        and should expose the massive problems that democrats face.
        Biden was being dragged far tot he left by the campaign.
        Most of us could choose to beleive that biden would govern closer to the center.
        But that required NOT beleiving what he said during the campaign.

        And that would be a major disadvantage against Trump.
        Trump goes into 2020 saying – Trust me, I do what I say I will.

        Moderate, left, right, you KNOW where Trump stands and you KNOW what he is going to do.
        No one has to hope that he keeps is promises or hope that he does not.
        You KNOW.

        There is not a single other candidate that is true of.

        I have met Warren – before she was in politics, She taught my wife in law school at UofP.
        While she was not “conservative” she was on the right side of the left at the time.
        It is possible – maybe probable that she will govern that way.

        I beleive Ben Shapiro had her as a law professor at Harvard and said much the same.
        She was often wrong – but well informed and would have shredded those on the left trying to sell the garbage she is selling now.

        So to elect warren – you have to bet that her entire political persona is a lie.

        Trump will obliterate her in a general election – and she likely has the BEST chance of the remaining democrats.

        I am constantly carping about democrats and the left – they are NOT the same thing.

        The GOP had a similar problem in the 80’s and 90’s with social conservatives controling the party. To win in the primaries – a republican HAD to Kowtow to the religious right.
        But to win in the general he had to somehow tack back.

        The releigious right in the GOP no longer has the power to demand obsequence.

        Much of the fighting in the GOP over the past 20 years has been the re-alignment caused by the weakening of social conservaitves.

        I keep constantly pointing out that generally this is a good thing for republicans and the nation – it is a shift towards the center.

        Trump could not have run as a republican prior to 2016. Social conservatives had way too much power.

        But he spotted his moment perfectly and aside from the nasty tweeting he actually ran a near perfect campaign – and he governs exactly as he ran.
        He is completely genuine.

        This is TNM – supposedly “the New Moderate” – as Republicans go Trump is quite Moderate.
        And he is honest about who he is and where he stands.

        Despite all the crook, crook, crook, liar, liar, liar nonsense. No one in the country should have much doubt how Trump will government post 2020. And those who voted for him in 2016 – got pretty much what they voted for.

        We have not seen that in a very very long time.

        Democrats meanwhile have problems much worse than republicans in the 80’s and 90’s.

        They can not win a national election without the left – which has shifted farther left than ever, and they can not win a national election if they elect candidates that the left will support.

        This is actually a direct consequence of the republic shift toward the center.
        That actually increased the power of the democratic far left.
        But it increasingly alienates the center.

        I am not honestly sure this is a fixable problem.

        Even all the never Trump neocons – probably are not voting for Warren or Sanders – even if they do not vote for Trump.
        And any effort by any democratic candidate to shift towards the center will either destroy them or destroy their support.

        Democrats needed to deal with this post 2016. They did not, and instead wasted the past 3 years blaming Russia for their loss. They are past out of time to fix their problem.

        I am not entirely sure that it is possible for them to do so.

        Lastly – should by some magic A warren or Sanders win, and should they govern half like the speak – that will strengthen the GOP across the country.

        Lets just assume a world in which some democrat wins, and almost nothing else changes – except growth returns to sub 2%.

        Democrats need Trump to have a recession before 2020, or to be re-elected and have one in his last 4 years – and the worse the better.

        We have an incredibly long economic record now.

        Reagan – strong economy – Bush weakened, Clinton strong economy, Bush weakened, Obama Weakened, Trump – better than the bushes and Obama.

        We have really really good clues what works and what does not.

        Every democratic candidate can promise whatever they want.
        But so long as it is beleived they will also be a return to the Obama economy – they are DOA.

        Democrats are doing absolutely nothing to position their party to credibly deliver a strong economy. They are not addressing the fact they have a credibility problem in that key area.

        And calling Trump “liar, liar, liar” is not getting them anywhere – not even with much of the media behind them.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 1, 2019 5:13 pm

        My daughter is chinese, my son korean – we are following Yang closely – and have donated substantially to his campaign.

        But he is not winning, and he is not moderate – though he is not a total wing nut.

        I do not know Gabbard well – but I am impressed by what I know.
        She should be a front runner – if democrats actually wanted to win.

        But she is not.

        I will also note that Democrats are in danger of losing many of they top ranked young moderate candidates – or other potential people like them.

        The distance between Connor Lamb or McCreary and the GOP is miniscule.

        Lots of people – both the moderate freshmen – and potential future top tier democrats are watching. If there is no future for moderate democrats – there will be no moderate democrats.

        All the bluedogs eventually lost to or became republicans.

        Democrats have spend the past two decades telling us that demographics is destiny.

        Yet that has not worked out for them.

        Trump is making inroads in minorities – small inroads, but very real and important ones.

        Republicans do not need to win the minority vote.
        All they need to do is reduce the democratic dominance of it – and democrats are in deep shit over the long term.

        Erosion of the jewish vote, the hispanic vote the black vote are very dangerous to democrats.

        The recent FL elections that went very well for republicans were decided by 300,000 single black female parents with kids in charter schools. Gillium made it clear he was shutting those down – so Santos won the vote of those black mothers.

        Minorities can loath republicans – they are not voting against the future of their children.
        And republicans are winning that argument.

        Cyber charters and charters are not perfect and they are not for everyone.

        But if you are a single female black with a young child that you want to have some hope of a better future than you have – cyber charters and charters are their best shot – at avoiding F’ing up their lives.

        No single black mother give a shit if their child can get free college – if by the time they are ready for college – they are in jail with two kids and no partner.

  2. Robert Perkin permalink
    October 1, 2019 12:18 pm

    Hi Rick–As with all of your postings, there is much truth imbedded in this one. I am disappointed with your conclusions. Trump is hardly an exemplary figure, but most of his policies have been solid. Absent a heavily biased media spin machine and opposition politicians eager to lie(knowing they won’t be held to account by that media), the policies have been well thought out. The real crime involving the phone call is that it was leaked. The call itself was innocuous, unless spun to suggest motives that were not expressed. A room full of lawyers dissecting your every word and attaching hidden meanings, innuendo, and claims of speaking in code could take your next innocent phone call to a relative, and make it “terrorism related”. Please take a step back and reconsider some of the content in this blog. I would hate to see my favorite blogger overcome by the weight of the constant negative drum beat from the press that is saturating our country with Trump hate.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 2:56 pm

      While I do not agree with some of Trump’s policies – your overall assessment is correct.

      Blot out tweets and all the public political warfare, and Trump is a ‘B-C’ president – who is following a pair of ‘C-D’ presidents and therefore looks good.

      I do NOT think our economy is booming. It has just come closer to normal.
      But not having seen that for decades, to many of us normal looks fantastic.

      Further even in the areas I disagree with Trump – the consequences of his actions have NOT been disasterous. I will be happy for protracted debate about trade. But Trump’s trade policies – no matter what my criticisms have not tanked the country. The damage is small,
      and there is no president ever I have agreed with 100%.

      Take away the public spittle contest and and Trump is a pretty middle of the road and bland president. He is not the antichrist.

      And in somethings he is pretty good.
      He appears to have chased Neo-cons out of the GOP – good riddance. It took him too long. Though from the campaign he has run as a non-interventionist, he kept trying to make this bromance with the generals and neocons like Boulton work, in the end his presidency has been the most non-interventionist thus far since Reagan. AMEN.
      Democrats promised to get us out of foreign entanglements – they not only failed – they plain flat out lied. There is zero evidence they ever took what they said seriously.

      Which is another BIG thing about Trump that might have a collosal long term impact.

      Trump has kept most of his campaign promises and striven valiently to keep the rest.

      That could have a huge impact on future politics.

      How would future elections go if we expected that politicians would not break their promises and that they actually meant what they promise ?

    • Rick Bayan permalink
      October 1, 2019 4:58 pm

      Robert: I’m not suggesting that Trump is impeachable based on that phone call with Zelensky. It struck me as innocuous, too. And unlike most folks who didn’t vote for him, I do give him credit when he does something right (just not in this piece).

      The main reason I’m OK with impeachment is that there seems to be no way to prevent it. The Democrats have been after Trump from the outset. They’re like feisty terriers who have locked their jaws on the mailman’s pants and won’t let go. So I say let them have their impeachment — a fair one — and live with the outcome. If Trump is cleared, then they have to back off. (Of course, I’m assuming they won’t hatch another plot against Trump.)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 1, 2019 8:49 pm

        Excellent response.

        I do not care if the process is “fair” – I would greatly prefer that it was open.

        As congress sits in judgement of Trump we sit in judgement of them.

        Impeachment has consequences for everyone involved.

        If Democrats succeed AND do not themselves face negative consequences,
        they will have defined the constraints of impeachment in the future
        if they make it easy and trivial – and the people allow that – then it will be employed with ease over trivial matters in the future.

        My greater concern is they make it harder.

        I think it is already too hard.
        The threat of impeachment should have been a check on some of Obama’s lawless conduct – but it was not.

        If as seems near certain this blows up in democrats faces – it will make constraining presidents HARDER in the future.

        We are long past the point of a good outcome.
        All results of this are in someway bad.

        My long term hope – and expectation is serious consequences for democrats at the ballot box. 2016 SHOULD have caused a reset. Hopefully 2020 will.

        I am not with Ron or Robby that this will continue forever,
        I expect that 2020 is going to be a rude awakening for someone.
        Though even there – should Warren or one of the other 7 dwarves manage to win.
        Even that is a bad result for democrats.

        Very little thought is given to how disasterous Obama’s election was for democrats.

        Something like 3800 seats across the country flipped from blue to red.
        I beleive about 2000 have since flipped back.
        But a democratic victory would likely result in even greater gains for the republicans.

        This does not get fixed until democrats deal with the outsized influence of their left flank.
        I do not see anything but massive losses driving that message home.

  3. October 1, 2019 12:46 pm

    Rick, at this point, I am of two minds regarding impeachment.

    If Trump had actually done anything remotely approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors,” I would agree impeachment was the appropriate resolution. And part of me thinks that getting this over with, might end the insanity.

    But we all know ~ regardless of whether or not we think that it was inappropriate for Trump to bring up Biden’s corruption in a phone call ~ that this impeachment is about the Democrats trying to satisfy their rabid base, made up of Trump haters who are irrational in their desire to see him dragged through a kangaroo trial, and not about any sort of crime or misdemeanor at all.

    And, since the so-called “whistleblower” had no first-hand basis for his complaint, other than his own hatred of Trump, it will now be possible to continue having “whistleblowers” who have heard “bad stuff” from “WH officials” continue to come out of the wordwork, protected by a law that was not meant to protect vengeful gossip-mongers, and accuse the President of all sorts of things. Not paying his taxes or being in debt to “Russian oligarchs” will doubtless pop up shortly. It is not likely to end quickly, or with a clean verdict.

    And what of the right of all citizens, presumably including the President, to be able to confront their accusers? By proceeding into impeachment without a formal vote, purely on the say so of the Speaker of the House, based on an anonymous accusation not backed up by the evidence, Trump is not even being afforded a modicum of due process.

    Is there a better recipe for destroying our Constitutional system of justice, and creating bitter anger and hatred on both sides? We’ve already had suppposedly serious Democrat presidential candidates declare that they will confiscate legal weapons from American citizens, create a health system under the control of the government, use taxpayer dollars to pay for healthcare and education for all illegal immigrants, decriminalize illegal border crossings, criminalize offensive speech, and so forth. All the better to wipe out constitutional protections, before we start dismantling the Constitution.

    Putin doesn’t hold a candle to these people…

    • October 1, 2019 12:53 pm

      “Putin doesn’t hold a candle to these people…”

      And, by that, I mean In undermining our electoral process and our Constitution.

    • Rick Bayan permalink
      October 2, 2019 1:48 am

      Priscilla, I was of two minds on impeachment, too. As much as I dislike Trump, I’ve come to resent the rabid leftist vigilante mob even more. Part of me would love to deny them the satisfaction of impeaching Trump, but I realize that they will never shut up until they’ve received satisfaction — almost in the archaic manner of a duel. At this point I just want them to shut up.

      I don’t really know the protocol for impeaching a president; I’d think that the process would give him the opportunity to confront his accusers and grill them, but that’s just a guess. He’d be given due process during the actual impeachment hearings, wouldn’t he?

      One major concern that I hadn’t thought about until now is that the impeachment would most likely drag on through 2020. What happens to a sitting president during campaign season if he’s undergoing impeachment? Could he still be the nominee? Both Nixon and Clinton were in their second terms when the prospect of impeachment arose. We’d have to go back to Andrew Johnson, who was impeached during a campaign year and didn’t run for a second term. I wonder if he was forced to sit on the sidelines during the campaign of 1868.

      D

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 2:55 am

        Rick;
        When I was raising my kids we tried to follow a serious of guides called “Love and Logic”.

        One of the premises was that – parents should not protect children from the natural consequences of their own actions – so long as the consequences are not permanent.

        That we learn from the bad results of our own mistakes.

        With respect to impeachment – I have no desire to interfere with democrats efforts to do something I beleive is self destructive.

        I do not beleive they will get very far – but I do not care all that much if they do.

        I am not even especially concerned about the highly unlikely possibility this makes it to and through the senate.

        If Trump is successfully impeached and removed republicans will be justified at impeaching at the drop of a hat. Future president will be substantially disempowered,

        That is not the way I would seek to reduce the power of the federal govenrment – but I am fine with it.

        With respect to protocols:

        First impeachment and trial and removal are independent processes.

        Impeachment is fundimentally similar to indictment. The house is the investigator and the prosecutor. There are not alot of rights for the accused in an investigation and impeachment.

        Impeachment is the exclusive domain of the house. But the constitution gives that power to the house as a whole – not the speaker of chairs of various committees.

        There have been many impeachment attempts in the past – 3 of presidents. Aside from a constitutional requirement that the act and power is one of the house as a whole – not the speaker of the house, the rest of the rules are “tradition” – the constitution allows each chamber to make its own rules. I am not sure how much leeway the courts will give the house, I strongly suspect that absent a formal vote of a majority of house members to proceed with an impeachment inquiry that the courts are not going to act as if there is an actual inquiry. That would restrict the house to oversight powers not impeachment powers.
        And there is a substantial difference.

        More importantly – the less the House sticks to prior rules and standards they less credibility they have, and the more partisan this looks.

        With two possible outcomes – first, the house gets bitch slapped by voters in 2020, or future impeachment over trivialities become commonplace.

        I have argued strongly in favor of gridlock before – House democrats are pushing for total gridlock in the future.

        I look at this as much like the recent battles over Senate Rules – the elimination of the Fillibuster etc. Both parties have threatened these for years – But democrats moved first, they gained a very shortlived advantage and have subequently been on the recieving end of the consequences for their own idiocy.

        Whatever happens with impeachment is much the same.

        I would further suggest that Democratic behavior is a very good predictor of future republican behavior. The recent conduct of house democrats – both in the minority and the majority has been brazenly obstructive. I would suggest that you should expect that not only are future republicans going to behave more like Adam Schiff – but that voters in very red districts are going to elect ever more aggressive and polarizing republicans.

        There is no precedent for most of your questions.

        But I would suggest that:

        If the house has not voted articles of impeachment, and the senate has not held a trial by the end of a session of congress, that the process dies or must be started over.

        That no part of the process – including Trumps removal by the senate – prohibits Trump from running in 2020, and becoming president should he win.

        Absent this proceeding extremely quickly – which is highly unlikely – Trump is almost certain to remain the Republican nominee in 2020.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 3:01 am

        Johnathan Turley has an interesting article on how a Senate Trial might proceed and why no one sane in Washington would want a Senate Trial on the grounds the House is trying to proceed on.

        Or expressed in a different way – in a senate trial Trump will have extremely broad latitude to defend himself. He could call Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden as witnesses.

        Frankly He could Call Sen. Menedez as well as pretty much every other Senator who has threatened a foreign power.

        https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/30/lord-of-war-a-senate-trial-could-be-exactly-what-trump-needs/

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 3:13 am

        When you push batshit crazy interpretattions of the law – you provoke others to either do the same or to make arguments that no one ever thought would have to be made.

        Guiliani is talking about filling civil rights and defamation lawsuits against members of congress. These would normally be extremely difficult to win – the standard for a public figure is actual malice. But then again, there are tweets from Maxine Waters as an example that are dreadfull- they are clearly defamatory, and pretty self evidently actual malice.

        Sekelow was arguing that Congress has a serious legal problem with their “grounds”.

        The US has treaties with foreign govenrments on law enforcement. These treaties are explicitly intended to foster cooperation in prosecuting crimes and in instituting investigations.

        Sekelow is arguing that it is not only a power of the president, but it is also a duty – in otherwords that Trump was obligated by Treaties with the Ukraine and Austrailia to ask for investigations – even of Biden.

        I think the duty claim is a reach. But then the entire democratic claim of misconduct is based on over broad interpretations of the law – and what is good for the goose so to speak.

        Regardless, I think that democrats do not grasp that far from undercutting Trump,
        they have energized his base.

        Democrats are taking pleasure in the fact that a much larger minority of people now support impeachment. but 47% of the country adamantly does not beleive impeachment is legitimate.

        Former Sen. Flakes claim that there are 35 Senate Republicans ready to vote for impeachment is nonsense. I think the real question is how many senate democrats are unwilling to vote for removal.

        But I highly doubt this will make it to the senate.

      • October 2, 2019 8:58 am

        Rick and Dave, very interesting comments. This whole episode is soooo reality-show! Trump has literally driven the Democrat Party insane, if they think that this is going to help them or the country.

        Although, I’m already getting Facebook and Twitter ads about impeaching Brett Kavanaugh, so I guess they think that this “impeachment gambit” is a winner for them.

        Rick, I have to take a moment to compliment you (I try not to do that too often, for fear of giving you a swelled head 😉 ). I know very, very few people who dislike Trump, yet fully understand how terrible this current political jihad against him is for the people of this country. Most of them have a visceral disdain for “the Orange Man” and want to see him, not to mention his wife and children, suffer terribly for the crime of defeating Hillary Clinton. If there were more like you, and less who think that being a flamboyant showman, who figured out how to get the GOP nomination and defeat the Democrat candidate, is a crime worrthy of impeachment ~ or in the case of many Democrats, a crime akin to treason, for which Trump should presumably be hanged in the public square (the better to warn all wealthy businessmen, and/or TV stars to stay out of D.C. if they value their life)!

        It’s a level of hate and insanity that I never thought I would see in modern America. Part of the problem, I think, is the current inability of the Democrat Party to win national elections. It can pull off the much ballyhooed “popular vote” victory, because it owns NYC and California (without the votes from just that specific city and state, there would have been no precious popular vote victory by Hillary), but it has gone too far left to appeal to voters outside of its base.

        You cannot win the presidency by saying that the other guy is a mean Tweeter ( I can’t believe I even typed that, lol!). You can’t win it by promising to allow millions of welfare-seeking immigrants into the country, or taxing the middle class to death as part of a Green New Deal, or destroying the private healthcare system and nationalizing doctors and hospitals. You can’t win it by telling white people that they are racist pigs who deserve to have their property taken away and redistributed to all of the minorities that they have supposedly discriminated against.

        So, although I am no longer a big fan of the GOP (contrary to Roby’s, who apparently thinks I’m a propagandist shill), it is currently the only realistic option for white working class voters, who have been left behind by the Party of Intersectionality. Frankly, polls show that many black voters are switching away to the GOP as well, as Democrat cities fall into extreme poverty, homelessness, and violence, while the Democrats spend their time harassing the president.

        So, impeachment is the hot new way to win the presidency. It probably won’t work, but it will go a long way to destroying the America that we have all grown up in . And, I guess, to the Left that’s good, since they believe that America is a racist hellhole, filled with privileged white men who vote for the wrong party….

        What happens to those reprobates like you, who have no affinity for Republicans, but are being left behind by Democrats?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 1:14 pm

        I know I sound like a broken record, but the FUNDIMENTAL issue is that you can not use force against others without justification – not even when you are in the majority.

        When you do – everytime you succeed you build opposition.

        I keep saying over and over Trump is a CONSEQUENCE of the past overreach of the left.

        Get rid of Trump, and you do NOTHING about the underlying factors that brought him into existance and into power.

        Republicans were near certain to win in 2020. While a president Cruz or Rubio might have been SLIGHTLY less contentious – it still would have been bitter and unpleasant.
        We would still have all this “hateful hating hater” nonsense.

        One of the places I part ways with George Will and many whom I respect but can not palette Trump is in the argument that if Trump were just a bit more subtle a bit less offense, a bit less of a bull in a china shop – everything would be OK.

        No it would not.

        We must get past this nonsense that there are different rules for right and left.
        It is HIGHLY damaging.

        There are lots of things Trump does I disagree with.
        They are no different from the things Obama or Bush or … did that I disagree with.

        I think that his actions in this Ukrainian mess are WRONG.
        But WRONG because we should stay the F out of the affairs of other countries.
        We have not followed that since Washington.
        And so long as we are following the law as it is – rather than as I want it to be.
        There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking a foreign power to enforce its own laws.
        There was no “quid pro quo” here – but even if there was – it would STILL BE LEGAL.

        There is only one thing that would make Trump’s request improper,
        and that is if he were asking the Ukraine to investigate something that was NOT a crime or that there was NOT sufficient basis to allege a crime.

        That would be what the Obama administration did.

        But back to my point, it is absolutely crystal clear to everyone who is driven by facts, not emotion, that democrats are imposing a standard of conduct on Trump they do not impose on their own.

        So long as that is the case – I am not interested in George Will or any other republicans disdain for Trump because he does not behave better than perfectly so as to not antagonize the left.

        The left is going to be angry NO MATTER WHAT.
        It is not possible for Trump or any other republican to do what they were elected to do without pissing off the entire left.

        I do not want to hear arguments that “While not ilegal Republican X could have done this differently and not caused a firestorm”

        That is exactly what the left wants. Handcuffing you so that you are impotent.
        or forcing all republicans to be left wing nuts.

        To the Robby’s and other “moderates” out there – Kaisich was not elected, and no one like him is going to be elected. They will not win the GOP nomination, and they would not win the general – and even if they did they would be slandered and maligned regardless.

      • October 2, 2019 1:43 pm

        Dave ” One of the places I part ways with George Will and many whom I respect but can not palette Trump is in the argument that if Trump were just a bit more subtle a bit less offense, a bit less of a bull in a china shop – everything would be OK. ”

        Dave, what you seem to be unable to understand is positions of people like me. Like you said, much of the hateful haters hate would still be present, just like it was with Obama.

        However, I dont know how many voters like me are voting in 2020. i would love to vote for Trump due to his policy positions. I find it extremely hard to vote for him due to his personal persona, actions and words. Maybe I am the only one that has that feelings about him. I dont know.

        But for me, if Trump would act like a leader instead of a N.Y.City mafia Don, I could find him an attractive candidate to vote for. Unless its Clinton, as rumored to be interested again, voting against the democrat does not outweigh Trumps personal actions.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:28 pm

        I have held trump to the same standards as Obama.

        The more I learn the more Naive I beleive I was about Obama.

        Regardless, the standard of conduct is the same for republicans as democrats PERIOD.

        If well behaved republicans would get us anywhere – Romney would be ending his 2nd term.

        This “if only republicans would not poke the beast, or do this stupid thing” is nonsense.
        It is also impossible. It is not possible to behave such that everyone will be happy.

        It is possible to hold everyone to the same standards.

        The worst outcome of this is to replace Trump with a democrat who with absolute certainty differs from Trump in policy – not conduct, and for everyone to turn a blind eye.

        That is the scenario that could result in thousands with AR-15’s storming the capital.

        The law is blind. Standards are the same regardless of party.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:34 pm

        Aparently Trump very nearly negotiated a very good deal with the Iranians – getting the to PERMANENTLY foreswear nuclear aspirations, AND Terrorism, in return for lifting sanctions.

        But Rouhani renigged AFTER agreeing,

        That sounds like a leader to me.

        The US embassy is in Jerusalem – sounds like leadership.

        We are out of Syria – leadership
        We have not gotten into any new wars – leadership
        Our growth has improved by 50% – leadership

        on and on.

        Trump has a long and growing list of accomplishments,

        And they have occured with little help from republicans and none from democrats and without violating the law or overstepping his constitutional authority.

        Is Trump perfect ? Not even close.

        Is he an improvement over Bush and Obama – absolutely.

        That is leadership.

      • Jay permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:48 pm

        “Aparently Trump very nearly negotiated a very good deal with the Iranians – ”

        Almost as good as the very nearly good deal he negotiated with his tariff ploys.
        How’s that worked out?

        He’s leading us all right, right into the toilet,

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 5:46 pm

        If 3% growth and a reduction in global wars in which we are involved is “the toilet”

        “Please sir can I have more”

      • October 2, 2019 12:53 pm

        Rick, another issue with the current process. This is an “impeachment inquiry”. It is not an “impeachment proceeding”. Queen Nancy has not ask the full house to vote on a formal impeachment proceeding. I heard this morning that this does not allow the house the same latitude in calling for testimony of individuals as would a formal process.

        My point. This is all a political ploy to satisfy the rabid anti-Trumpers without putting your full house on record for or against an impeachment like Gingrich did with Clinton and cost them congressional seats.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:21 pm

        Until the house actually votes for something, this is just politicians spouting off and trying to wrap what they are doing in a mantle of significance without taking the steps needed to make it actually significant.

  4. dhlii permalink
    October 1, 2019 2:19 pm

    While there are lots and lots of nits I could pick – the sins of George III were ACTS that limited individual liberty – not fractious tweets – regardless an excellent post.

    The qualifications to be president are in the constitution.
    Absent committing an actual “high crime or misdemeanor”, the choice of president is up to the voters.

    Where I would most diverge from your post is that the most fundimental issue is not the character of the president – or any of the rest of those we put into power – we are virtually guaranteed to put the wrong people into the house the senate and the presidency.
    What we should be paying most attention to is the power we give them.

    The problem with far too many – today particularly the left, is that they assume they will someone get the perfect leader (every time) and that they want to assure that when they do that leader will have sufficient power to make all their dreams come true – without having to go through the much more difficult process of persuading the people as a whole and justifying the use of power for whatever their dreamed end is.

    Our government was – mostly – well designed to be run by crooks. But we have continuously erroded the impediments to their ability to use power as a weapon.

    George Washington would be foaming and frothing about Trump’s phone call to Zelensky.
    That is pretty much exactly what washington thought our govenrment should NOT do.

    But Trump’s phone call is innocuous, because Washington aside, presidents have been doing exactly that for 200+ years.

    To those frothing and foaming about Trump – it is near certain that I will get 100% behind proposals to restore our federal government to the much more limited powers that our founders intended.

  5. dhlii permalink
    October 1, 2019 3:25 pm

    Apparently another reason that Pelosi is proceding with Faux rather than real impeachment is that in an actual impeachment inquiry the minority party has subpeona power.

    One of the bad consequences of the GOP loss of the house is that they have been unable to proceed with the investigations that were conducting.
    That ends the moment they vote for impeachment.

    Another item that leaked is that Pelosi apparently saw the whislteblower complaint before it was released – possibly before it was filed.

    And there are rumors that Schiff had some role in its creation.

  6. Roby permalink
    October 1, 2019 3:50 pm

    Rick, its a good piece. I agree with a lot of it. The part that loses me is the idea that it was just a nice little innocent conversation that trump had with Zelensky.

    OK, everyone here agrees that much of the left is foaming at the mouth crazy. But there are a long line of conservative figures who see this conversation in a dark light too, are they also crazy? George Will, Judge Napolitano, George Romney, Jonathan Turley for example wrote:

    “…If one agrees that the windfall contracts secured by Hunter Biden were obvious influence peddling, then Trump pushing for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right. Trump clearly tripped another wire for possible impeachment, immediately after the special counsel made his final report on prior controversies. Congress is justified in investigating, and the transcript is not the entirety of the evidence that might show the intent or act or corruption. All this is why House Democrats still need to find the quid.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/462969-trumps-ukraine-transcript-unwise-words-but-no-proof-of-a-crime

    This in Not an exoneration of trump and Turley’s piece had very clear words about the harmful nature of trump’s conduct, albeit the quid pro quo was implied and not explicit. Turley says its very appropriate for the democrats to dig deeper for explicit evidence. They are doing so.

    I can find words that are much more vivid from some honorable conservatives on the nature of trump’s conversation with Zelensky, but this quote will do.

    There is an argument that is above my pay grade about whether the conversation Zelensky is criminal, and the merits of impeachment are very debatable, with quite of few of both conservatives and democrats seeing a clear and dangerous abuse of power in trumps actions but doubting whether impeachment is worth it, I can mention David Brooks in this vein. I can also mention George Conway as evidence that it is not a sign of left wing insanity to hate the very idea of trump, who you described quite accurately in your piece, being president. All that aside, passing this conversation off as harmless is a perfect example of how we are now in moral free fall.

    Never has a POTUS in my lifetime faced such razor sharp criticism of a former nominee of his party, I mean George Romney. Forget the left wing insanity, explain that Rick. Much of the left is crazy; it does not mean that they do not have something to be upset about with trump.

    In my eyes trump was doing his own political business in that call to Zelensky, not the country’s business and he had very recently withheld American resources for the Ukrainian military and had not yet released them. Just a coincidence? Really? Give me a break. This to me, and yes I am not a purely objective soul on trump, is an ugly abuse of power and merits impeachment. I do not care about calculations about whether it hurts or benefits the democratic party. Someone has to attempt to keep some kind of standards in the age of trump, where there no longer seem to be any standards at all for some people.

    Finally Rick do you doubt that had Clinton become president the GOP would have impeached a second Clinton already? Their cries of “oh, the terrible harm in impeaching a president” are purest hypocrisy. We are supposed to be terrified that if trump is held accountable for abusing his office, again, then angry white men will lose all control with god knows how many casualties. That is obviously no basis for making decisions, no matter how many guns they have been stockpiling for just such an excuse to lose control. I am going to believe that our police and if necessary our military will contain such violent thugs and they and their cause will go down hard. I have the deepest and angriest contempt for this argument. Thugs will not frighten us out of this inquiry.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 5:45 pm

      The problem with “implied” anything – is that it requires mind reading.

      And humans suck at it.

      You are correct – it is in theory possible that trump was through a complex multifaceted web of almost subliminal messages communicating to Zelensky that if he did not find dirt on Biden there would be no military aid.

      What is possible is not fact it is conjecture.

      It is a fact that Biden blackmailed Ukraine into firing Shokin.
      It is fact that Shokin was investigating hunter.
      it is fact that Biden knew that.

      The jump from probable cause to proven corruption – is real – and it is small.

      With respect to Zelensky the far more credible “implied” threat/quid pro quo is – “work on the EU for more money before coming back to me. ”

      Even that is not clear.

      There is not even an indirect connection between the biden mention and the military aide.

      You have to do serious mind reading to get there.

      State departments – under both Obama and Trump have sought to limit aide to Ukraine.
      DOD under both has tried to limit aide.

      a bipartisan consensus in the house and senate has resulted in Ukraine getting aide that the executives of two administration do not wish to give.

      Yet, you jump to the immediate conclusion that Trump had unique – and unexpressed motives for withholding aide – though witholding aide is not ever mentioned in the transcripts.

      We are all aware what you BELEIVE was occuring in that phone call – and it is atleast in theory possible, But it is mind reading – not fact, and the odds HEAVILY favor your being wrong.

      Regardless, one of your fundimental problems is that you ALWAYS beleive republicans – especially Trump are corrupt – even though the evidence is not there.
      and you ALWAYS beleive democrats are innocent – no matter how strong the evidence is.

      There is no clear proof Bill Clinton’s .5M speaking fee was some quid pro quo or influence peddling – though it stinks to heaven – much much worse than the Zelensky call and almost as bad as the Biden Blackmail.
      Everything that went on in the Clinton foundation – stinks. There is actual evidence of possible quid pro quo’s – but not absolute proof, there is a clear PATTERN of disturbing conduct and preferential behavior.

      Yet you want to tell me – Trump had a clear implied quid pro quo and Clinton was innocent ?

      So long as you can not see actual misconduct by democrats and always see misconduct by republicans – no matter how thin the evidence – you are not credible Robby.

      Finally – this all can be addressed regardless.

      Make laws – laws that apply equally to republicans and democrats – laws that we can expect republicans will enforce against their own AND democrats will enforce against theirs.

      We have three tiers to this.

      Where proven conduct meets the requirements of the law narrowly interpreted – there is a crime and it should be prosecuted.

      For the president and many other appointments, conduct that ins not provably criminal but is sufficiently offensive can result in impeachment.

      I would have impeached Obama for exceeding his legitimate constitutional authoruty.
      I would not have done so with malice, but to restore executive compliance with the limits of the constitution. Find conduct of trump’s that is outside his constitutional powers – and I will do the same to him.

      You and Pelosi can impeach Trump for whatever you want – with the understanding that the political reward of cost will be paid by you,

      At the far opposite extreme is voters – they have the final say about who they vote for.
      They are not required to justify their vote.
      They are free to decide whether they think Trump’s conduct is inappropriate or not.
      And they get to decide if democrats have overstepped or not.

      I have been completely consistent here from near the begining – impeach if you want.
      Go for it. I am not stopping you.

      I am not getting between you and your own self destruction.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 5:53 pm

      There are bazillions of arguments being made “out there”.

      I do not think anyone here is arguing “the terrible harm of impeaching a president”.

      Again “go for it”.

      But despite Pelosi’s claim – it is not happening – not because I oppose – I do not.
      But because Pelosi and democrats know this is a really really stupid and dangerous idea.

      I do not know where Pelosi will go from here. I do not think she has the votes to start impeachment – and even if she can get them – absent more than your “belief” – impeachment will fail – probably without getting out of the house.

      Regardless there is infinite difference between the actions of the house – and those of a special counsel. We have been playing games over SC type investigations for decades now.
      Nothing we have tried works well. The process becomes political and dangerous.

      SC’s are big game hunters – if they do not come back with BIG scalps they look bad.
      Put simply the incentives are wrong and that produces bad results.

      I am open to suggestions.

      The house is however politically answerable. they can investigate – and they will pay the consequences for failure. that should limit proceeding to compelling cases.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 5:55 pm

      I have no doubt that if Clinton had become president – republicans would have wanted to impeach her.

      Whether they tried would have been up to them, and it would have been up to us to judge their efforts at election.

      Short something more egregious than this – I doubt republicans would have moved to impeach. but that is speculation about a hypothetical.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 6:09 pm

      The argument that you are mischaracterizing is NOT “if I do the right thing, I will be punished by angry white men”.

      You are so wrapped in this religious belief in your own moral correctness that you are blinded to even the possibility that you might be doing the wrong thing and that rather than being martyred for doing the right thing you might be facing quite appropriate punishement for doing the wrong thing.

      I have no problem with your proceeding to impeach – BECAUSE the rewards or punishment for doing so will fall on you.

      If that result is punishment – it is not because you did the right thing no matter what,
      it is because in the judgment of the majority of americans you were WRONG.

      But expaning on the angry backlash argument.

      Already you are proceeding with impeachment – without following the rules.
      More of this ends justifies the means bullshit we have to deal with from the left all the time.

      FOLLOW THE RULES. If you do not – the consequences will be even worse.

      At the most extreme –
      “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ”

      If you can not follow the rules – there is no social contract. there is no legitimacy to government, we are lawless and violence is near certain the result.

      Will hundreds of Tea Partiers with AR-15’s descend on the house ? Probably not.
      That said – at some point when government does not follow the law – even that is JUSTIFIED.

      I am constantly asking you to justify your actions.

      One of the reasons is that it is LEGITIMATE to respond to the unjustified use of force with force.

      That is the extreme case and we are still likely far from that – but we are headed relentlessly in one direction regarding lawless conduct. We could get there.

      Further – I will be happy to join you in impeaching Trump for actually exceeding his constitutional authority – I have not seen that – have you ? Please be specific.

      But I can list a dozen instances in which Obama exceeded constitutional authority.

      Whatever the law is – it must be the same law – for Trump and Obama (and Clinton).

      • Roby permalink
        October 2, 2019 7:35 am

        ““whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ”

        If you can not follow the rules – there is no social contract. there is no legitimacy to government, we are lawless and violence is near certain the result.

        Will hundreds of Tea Partiers with AR-15’s descend on the house ? Probably not.
        That said – at some point when government does not follow the law – even that is JUSTIFIED. ”

        Congratulations, you have now entered Timothy McVeigh territory. Internet commentary is a swamp with its swamp creatures. See you later.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 12:43 pm

        The difference between McVeigh and Washington is justification

        Something you keep ducking everywhere.

        Government is only legitimate if its use of force is JUSTIFIED.

        The declaration of independence was the JUSTIFICATION for taking up arms against Britian.

        If you continue with lawless and unjustified acts – then YES, Armed militias descending on Congress are JUSTIFIED.

        We have a ways to go – but you are relentlessly headed in that direction.

        I have told you repeatedly – if you want to impeach – GO AHEAD, and face the consequences, If you beleive you are justified – they will be to your benefit.
        If large portions of the electorate DO NOT think you are justified – they consequences will be dire.

        Proceed with Impeachment – however you wish.

        Follow the Constitution and the past process – or act lawlessly,

        AGAIN – the consequences will be yours.

        Thousands of armed Citizens are NEVER going to descend on the capital,
        If you act within the law and with justification.

        You brought up Bill Clinton.

        There were atleast 5 actual fellonies that Clinton committed WHILE PRESIDENT.
        There is no debate over them. He lied under oath – MULTIPLE TIMES.
        He persuaded another to lie under oath. He asked them to destroy evidence.

        You have nothing regarding Trump that is a crime.

        You are proceding on the basis that he did something that offended you.
        The constitution allows impeachment for that.
        But it has never been done before.
        If you go forward – your actions will be judged by the people – all of them, not just left wing nuts. If you beleive that a simple majority – which you still do not have, is suffficient – go ahead. If you beleive that it is OK to discount the choices of almost half the country without providing a justification that they accept – go ahead.

        I am done trying to save you from yourself.

        I hope you get the country that you are asking for.
        It is unfortunate that the rest of us are going to have to suffer in it alone with you.
        And you are unlikely ever to grasp that You made this mess – not Republicans, not Trump.

        When you do not get your facts right, when your arguments are fallacies, when you seek your objective by slur and insult, when you make false moral claims of others.

        YOU bear the full responsibility for everything that follows – including violence should it come to that.

        BTW – I do not expect the violence to start with even the extreme right.
        It has already started on the left.

        There are no mobs of conservatives beating up speakers they do not like, or journalists they disagree with.

    • October 2, 2019 1:55 pm

      Roby: I’d guess that the more respectable Republicans (like Romney and George Will) are distancing themselves from Trump and his mob because — well, they’re respectable men and they deplore what’s happening to the GOP and the “clean” conservatism established by William F. Buckley and his peers over 60 years ago. Trump is driving that bus off the road, and of course, they’re right to deplore the driver.

      As for the infamous phone conversation, I’m not shocked that Trump would ask a head of state to dig up dirt on his opponent. If it’s acceptable to uncover dirt from a domestic source, why is it any different to use an allied foreign source who would be privy to possible chicanery committed by Americans his country? The quid pro quo (withholding aid until Zelensky complies with Trump’s request) hasn’t been established yet, although I don’t rule it out. If proven, that would tip the scale against Trump because it would be tantamount to blackmail.

      One question that didn’t occur to me until now: DID Zelensky finally supply information to Trump, and if so, was it damaging to Biden? It was already known that Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukrainian gas company, and that Joe Biden was instrumental in firing Shokin, the man who was prosecuting that company. From what I’ve read, Shokin had stopped his investigation before Hunter Biden came on board — so his firing might have been coincidental and unrelated to anything the younger Biden may or may not have done.

      I guess the bottom line is that I haven’t been whipped up into impeachment fever over Trump’s Ukraine call; it seems relatively innocuous compared with the corrupt lobbying deals that go on right under our noses in Congress. Now, if someone could uncover the root cause of Trump’s strange alliance with Putin, that would be another story.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:42 pm

        Rick;

        I have probably been with you on this most of my life.
        But no more.

        Romney was treated little better by the press and the left than Trump.
        Trying to not rock the boat gets you nothing.
        Worse it makes you impotent.

        Romney would have been a lousy president.

        I think he is a decent person. I think he is a respectable person.

        But decency and respect are a liability in the current political environment.

        The same people who were pissing over Grassley for the past several years – are fawning over him because he made a favorable comment on Whistleblowers.

        Grassley does not seem to get that the requirements of THE LAW for CREDIBILITY – which is legally the same as NO HEARSAY, are there for an important reason.

        When you allow whistleblower complaints like this – you destroy rather than build the process.

        This person is doing a disservice. He has politicicized and corrupted the process and that will have negative consequences for future whistleblowers.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:49 pm

        Zelensky did not provide information to Trump – Trump did not ask Zelensky for information – another error in the “spin”

        Trump asked Zelensky to look into a long list of potential corrupt activities – including Hunter Biden.

        It was a request, not a demand – even though the US Ukraine law enforcement treaty would have allowed Trump to DEMAND an investigation.

        The was not a quid pro quo – even though that is legal.

        Through most of the call Zelensky brought things up – like military aide and corruption and Trump responded.

        Trump did not initiate the discussion of military aid.
        He did not initiate the discussion of corruption.

        He could have done both legally – but he did not
        and yet we are all still here having a debate over a non-crime and a legitimate excercise of executive power.

        I think Guiliani is reaching by claiming democrats and even the whistleblower are engaged in obstruction of justice. But it is less of a reach than the ludicrous claims democrats and the media have bought regarding Trump.

        Regardless – one standard BOTH parties.

        If you can not do that – do not sell me “respactable”.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:56 pm

        There is absolutely no where in the phone call that Trump asked for dirt on anyone.

        He asked Zelensky to investigate a long list of criminally suspicious activities.

        The only political benefit Trump would have gotten from that – is if Zelensky actually found malfeasance.

        There is nowhere in the call that Trump claims anything beyond that a host of conduct from 2016 looks like corruption and ought to be investigated.

        There is no evidence that Trump would have gotten any political benefit – unless Zelensky found actual corruption.

        There is nowhere in the call that Trump even violated the presumption of innocence.

        It is trivial to find a remark by Pelosi or Schiff or Waters that is actually defamatory.
        My guess is some Trump tweets are actually defamatory too.
        But the phone call was not.

        Biden’s admitted threat regarding Shokin was corrupt, extrortion, a conflict, and defamatory.

        Not one of those is present in the Trump call.

        Trump is not a saint, but if you can not represent a short phone call accurately – then DON’T,
        We can all read it.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 5:43 pm

        Rick;

        With respect to Shokin and the Ukraine – someone is lying.

        Either John Solomon – a respected reporter, who has been following this story for years and has gathered hundreds of documents to support his assertions – from the Ukraine, from its courts, From the US State Department, from the FBI, From Burisma’s lawyers,
        As well as atleast half a dozen news stories over the past 4 years from NYT, WaPo and others are lying and have forged documents – something that is proveable.

        OR

        The entire media narative of the Biden story is FALSE.

        To address the points of disagreement.

        Burisma is mostly owned by a corrupt RUSSIAN Oligarch.
        Who was banned from Travel to the US because of CORRUPTION,
        until a few weeks after Hunter Biden took a seat on the Burisma board.

        There are numerous bits of evidence that Joe Biden Knew Hunter was on the board of Burisma and under investigation.

        All the claims that Shokin was corrupt – came from the US – after Biden joined the Burisma board.

        There is absolutely no evidence of corruption on the Part of Shokin.
        If he was corrupt – he was very bad at it – he did not spend copious amounts of money on wine, women and song, and he is not wealthy or even close to it.

        The investigation of Burisma AND Hunter was active at the time Shokin was fired – Hunter was scheduled to be questioned when Shokin was fired.

        Hunters lawyers called the new PG the same day Shokin was fired to schedule a meeting.
        They were able to get one a week later. Both the Lawyers and the new PG kept notes, Solomon has both and they agree – Biden’s lawyers appologized for Shokin’s firing and claimed to have no role in it.

        Burisma investigations continued through 2018.
        Lutensko settled one allegation for a steep fine in 2017 and the last one for an even steeper fine in 2018.

        Shokin has testified under oath that he was fired because Joe Biden demanded it, because he was investigating his Son.

        Maybe all of the above is “made up”, Maybe Solomon’s documents are all forgeries, Maybe the WaPo and NYT reporters who wrote stories in 2015, and 2017 are liars.

        But lots of this can be verified – if you want to go to the trouble to do so.

        In my view – the likelyhood that Solomon is lying is pretty much zero.
        It would be way too easy to catch him.

        If Solomon is correct – or even 50% correct – or even 10% correct, there is ample basis for Trump to ask the Ukraine to investigate.

        Though my guess is the Ukraine can’t. Because Ukraine has double jeophardy laws just like the US and the Burisma cases were settled and re-opening them would be double jeophardy.

        But any claim that Burisma or Biden was exonerated is garbage.

        I am personally very disturbed. I liked Joe Biden. I really thought he was an honest politician.

        I am trying to console myself with the view that Biden was a decent and honest man – until he found himself in bed with Obama and the Clinton’s and lost his son Beau tragically.

        Regardless, unless an awful lot of documents are false – Biden is dirty.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 12:01 am

        My daughter is chinese, my son korean – we are following Yang closely – and have donated substantially to his campaign.

        But he is not winning, and he is not moderate – though he is not a total wing nut.

        I do not know Gabbard well – but I am impressed by what I know.
        She should be a front runner – if democrats actually wanted to win.

        But she is not.

        I will also note that Democrats are in danger of losing many of they top ranked young moderate candidates – or other potential people like them.

        The distance between Connor Lamb or McCreary and the GOP is miniscule.

        Lots of people – both the moderate freshmen – and potential future top tier democrats are watching. If there is no future for moderate democrats – there will be no moderate democrats.

        All the bluedogs eventually lost to or became republicans.

        Democrats have spend the past two decades telling us that demographics is destiny.

        Yet that has not worked out for them.

        Trump is making inroads in minorities – small inroads, but very real and important ones.

        Republicans do not need to win the minority vote.
        All they need to do is reduce the democratic dominance of it – and democrats are in deep shit over the long term.

        Erosion of the jewish vote, the hispanic vote the black vote are very dangerous to democrats.

        The recent FL elections that went very well for republicans were decided by 300,000 single black female parents with kids in charter schools. Gillium made it clear he was shutting those down – so Santos won the vote of those black mothers.

        Minorities can loath republicans – they are not voting against the future of their children.
        And republicans are winning that argument.

        Cyber charters and charters are not perfect and they are not for everyone.

        But if you are a single female black with a young child that you want to have some hope of a better future than you have – cyber charters and charters are their best shot – at avoiding F’ing up their lives.

        No single black mother give a shit if their child can get free college – if by the time they are ready for college – they are in jail with two kids and no partner.

      • vermonta permalink
        October 3, 2019 9:41 am

        “If it’s acceptable to uncover dirt from a domestic source, why is it any different to use an allied foreign source who would be privy to possible chicanery committed by Americans his country?”

        The question boggles the mind Rick.

        The job of the POTUS is the work of the people, not collecting dirt, at home or abroad. He works for all Americans not himself. He has political staff and they are paid by his campaign, not Federal funds, for political activities. The job of the POTUS when dealing with foreign leaders is not to ask them the “favor” of using their country’s resources to search for dirt he can use on his American political opponents, no, that is not the legitimate function of the POTUS. When the country in question is receiving military aid from the US, which I presume has been appropriated by congress BTW, the timely and expected flow of that aid is not a lever that POTUS can use to lubricate the willingness of a foreign government to search for his political dirt. Dirt is called dirt because its dirty. The job of the POTUS is not to soil our relations with other nations with his personal political search for dirt.

        In this case, to make it worse, the Biden matter had been looked into long ago by Ukraine adn they found nothing. Thus requesting the “favor” of going back and looking again raises the question of whether they were under pressure to manufacture something to make the Godfather, er POTUS happy.

        Yes, if you are Ukraine you do want to make the US government happy, that is a given. Like if you were a composer and you had a wealthy patron and needed the money they provided to live then if the patron asked for a favor it would not be the same as a favor between two ordinary people with no such dependent relationship. The pressure is there built into the relationship.

        Collecting political dirt is not a favor in an any case, collecting someone else’s dirt is a nasty crappy job for the president of a country to be tasked with.

        trump put Zelensky between a rock and a hard place and it was in no way in the national interest.

        Imagine a world were this IS considered proper. G7 meetings would just be an international meeting of mafia dons shaking each other down.

        trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not draining the swamp, its expanding it overseas.

      • Jay permalink
        October 3, 2019 11:16 am

        Today:

        Asked if he had requested President Xi of China to investigate the Bidens Trump said, “I haven’t, but clearly it’s something we should start thinking about.”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 1:56 pm

        You do understand that undercuts the narrative that the Trump Zelenzky call was about Biden ?

        Trump, Guilliani, Barr, Durham have been seeking investigative assistance accross the globe – and Democrats are fuming.

        The UK, Italy, Austrailia, and The ukraine.

        Only one of these The Ukraine – has anything to do with Biden.
        Only the Ukraine has the most tangential connections to candidates in the 2020 election.

        It should be crystal clear What Guiliani, Trump, Barr, Durham are chasing – they are looking into the foundations of the investigation of Trump.

        Barr was in italy looking into Mifsud – he was interviewed by Italian police very early in this,
        There is a rumour that Mifsud is now cooperating with Barr.
        A proper investigation – unlike the Mueller investigation actually turns over all stones.

        Like does what Mifsud told the italian police comport with what he is now telling Barr

        Trump/Barr are after a wide variety of information regarding Adrew Downer and his involvement with Mifsud, Papadoulis, Fusion GPS, the State Department, five eyes,

        Again – all things that Mueller should have but did not do.

        Mueller went to an enormous amount of trouble to “break” anyone related to Trump – he presumed he knew the truth at the start and just needed to break peoples arms until they confessed. And he got nowhere.

        Barr and Durham – to the extent we are aware of what they are doing – are checking EVERYTHING. Was Mifsud a Russian Asset ? an FBI Asset ? Both ? What has he told other people – put simply What is the truth regarding Joseph Mifsud. Not what does NYT want to hear, not what does Trump want to hear, not what does adam schiff want to hear.

        I would note – though Trump has publicly accussed the Bidens of corruption – in the Zelensky call – he does not make an accusation. He merely states there is a basis to investigate.
        Which their is.

        Contra the nonsense that the media, the left, Schiff, and you are spreading – not only is there no quid pro quo – there is not even a request for dirt.
        There is a request for an investigation.
        An investigation only results in something useful for Trump – if something is found.
        If you allege that Zelensky is going to manufacture dirt that is not there – then you must similarly accept that nothing that has come from Ukraine – regarding Trump, Shokin, Manafort, …. is trustworthy – you can not claim that a country is so corrupt it will manufacture for one president – that did NOT threaten them dirt but not for another that did.

        I would further note that digging deep into Mifsud and Downer and ….
        Could well help Trump. But it could also hurt him.

        There is lots of evidence that Mifsud is likely a western asset.
        But there is also lots of connections to Russia.
        It is near certain that he atleast unofficially – like Halper works for some intelligence service – possibly several.

        The “investigation of the investigation” appears to be being done THOROUGHLY.
        That is important. If Durham concludes Mifsud is a western asset – we need to be able to beleive that. If he concludes he is a russian asset – we need to be able to beleive that too.

        We not only need to know what Mifsud is – but we need to know what the FBI could reasonably beleive he was at the time.

        Both the Comey and Mueller investigations did nothing to examine one entire facet of their investigation. They did not look into Mifsud or Downer, or ….
        That would make sense – if they already knew that Mifsud was a western asset.
        It makes no sense at all if he was a russian asset.

        Regaredless we need to know the truth, and we need to know what the FBI beleived was true. And we need to know what Mueller knew or beleived.

        And THAT is what this is all about. We do not know what the answers to that will be.
        But the fear of so many on the left in the media, in the intelligence community strongly suggests THEY think there are serious problems to be uncovered.

        So lets find the truth.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 11:58 am

        Robby;

        Facts matter – particularly when you are alleging criminal and moral misconduct.

        Read the Transcript – it is only 5 pages not much more than your post.

        Your alternate universe allegations are just not there.
        The Biden’s are mentioned in passing – one sentence in 5 pages, as part of a long list of items Trump asks to be looked into that you have not yet explained why are problematic.
        Yet Democrats have spent days trying to stop an investigation that has nothing to do with a “political rival”

        Law and Treaty – require the US to cooperate with Ukrianian law enforcement and visa versa.
        There are multiple ongoing investigations into the Obama administrations 2016 election interference – including many that involve items Trump mentioned. These investigations started BEFORE Barr took office.

        Foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the president. Law enforcement is a constitutional power of the president.

        To the extent Trump threatened Ukraine’s funding it was to leverage the Ukraine to get more from the EU. A theme of Trump’s since before the election – in fact a campaign promise.
        And absolutely the legitimate domain of the president.

        I drub Trump for the inarticulate way he sometimes speaks.

        This is just not one of those times.

        If you remove part of one sentence from the transcript – you have absolutely nothing.

        The entirety of the rest is quite well expressed – especially for Trump.

        That single phrase regarding the Biden’s – your hook for impeachment, is itself a perfectly legitimate request.

        And I am tired of saying that Republicans should not do their job or should micro-parse everything they say to avoid ever in any context – including a highly private conversation with a foreign leader say anything that might offend the chattering classes on the left.
        We do not have the converse standard.

        Biden made far more damning remarks PUBLICLY.
        Biden’s public remarks SHOULD have started an investigation YEARS AGO.
        They should have had DOJ/FBI investigating – but that was not going to happen – because DOJ/FBI were INVOLVED, they particiated in FRAMING Shokin. The Participated in whitewashing a corrupt Russian oligarch. The participated in protecting Hunter Biden from investigation.

        At the absolute bare minimum VP Biden as Vice President should not have come within 100 miles of anything involving a foreign criminal investigations of his son. Not even if the allegations were unfounded. If no one else investigated that – Congress should have.
        Now – years late, you have objections ? The Obama administration was investigating Trump on far more spurious grounds during the 2016 election cycle.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 12:04 pm

        Over and Over I have told you that whatever conduct that democrats and the left engage in will become normalized for all.

        I can easily argue using the law that Trump’s requests for investigations are all legitimate, and Obama’s were not.

        But there are no circumstances under which Obama’s investigation of Trump – or his use of foreign powers – specifically the Ukraine to investigate Trump are legitimate and Trump’s are not.

        You say Trump has political people to do political tasks – Guilliani is not a federal employee.
        The FBI and DOJ are. The misconduct in the Ukraine in 2014-2016 involved the VP, the DOJ, and the FBI – as well as others – both government and political, and went much beyond Biden’s son.

        You have a gigantic goose/gander pot/kettle problem.

        In this instance you even have several US Senators – Democrats demanding that Foreign powers refuse to cooperate with the DOJ and FBI – that they violate the law and treaties with the US.

        This is not going well for you.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 12:11 pm

        “Imagine a world”

        It is called the real world – we already live there. The entirety of international relations rests on threats and inducements. It ALWAYS has.

        Please read Biden’s blunt threat to the Ukraine.

        It is WRONG as a matter of policy – we should not be interfering in foreign governments in that way – but that is a policy difference, to my knowledge there is no law precluding Biden or the president from threatening foreign countries over PG’s.

        But it is criminally corrupt to make personal use of government power to protect your son from a criminal investigation.

        It is irrelevant whether you think the investigation was legitimate, it is irrelevant whether you think Shokin was corrupt. VP Biden can not be involved.

        But aparently only republicans are required to recuse themselves where they have conflicts.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 12:23 pm

        “trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not draining the swamp, its expanding it overseas.”

        You knew very little about this investigation – and nothing about the parts involving Biden until your whistleblower came forward with hearsay allegations.

        To the greatest extent possible all the investigations that you are seeking to stop were being conducted quietly – the way criminal investigations are supposed to.

        They were being done as criminal investigations – not quests for dirt.
        Unless the press decided to take interest in 2 year old stories of Biden’s corruption,
        this would only have been political dirt – if a criminal prosecution was justified.

        Investigating past crimes, and prosecuting those who are guilty IS

        Draining the swamp.

        You have ranted about the purported profiteering of Trump – though there is no evidence of that. Here you have clear evidence of the Biden’s engaging brazenly in the conduct you can not prove regarding Trump – and you are defending it.
        You do not want it investigated ?

        Is it acceptable to you that the relatives of politicians follow them arround and secure lucrative deals where their only qualifications are their relationship to a powerful politician ?

        Even if Hunter’s and Joe’s conduct is perfectly legal – which is far from established.
        It still stinks to high heaven – and yet you are appopletic that it has been brought to the surface. Worse you are bemoaning Trump taking an interest in something that is ALREADY PUBLIC.

        Joe Biden has been damaged (deservedly) by this because YOU brought it to everyone’s attention again.

        While these is a very narrow legal issue of whether it was appropriate for Trump to mention Biden in his call to Zelensky – and that is trivially resolved – it is.

        It was absolutely appropriate for Trump to make a huge public stink over Biden’s conduct – which he did not do until YOU made it an issue.

  7. Roby permalink
    October 1, 2019 4:23 pm

    “Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chamber’s most senior Republican and a long-time defender of whistleblowers, rebuked President Donald Trump on Tuesday when he said that the individual behind a complaint at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry “appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected.”…

    …Grassley, who chairs the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus and has worked extensively on whistleblower protection laws during his time in Congress, also pushed back on the notion that the complaint should be discarded because it consists of secondhand information.
    “When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones,” Grassley said. “It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.”
    The whistleblower drew from more than half a dozen officials, according to the declassified version of the complaint.”

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/grassley-whistleblower-statement/index.html

    The few republicans and conservatives with the guts to go against the circle the wagons routine have my most sincere respect.

    Fear of being primaried has got many Republican office holders who have any doubts silent.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 7:29 pm

      From everything I can check Grassley is wrong.

      I do not know about the Whistleblower protection act,

      But Grassley is wrong with respect to policy and logic.

      There is a reason the law only permitts the admission of hearsay under limited cicumstances – actually there are MANY reasons.

      Among them is that it is very easy using hearsay to game the system.

      Lets say I came forward and anonymously report to the police
      “I was told by sources I am not going to identify that Robby is a kiddie diddler”

      Should law enforcement investigate ?
      If you say yes – you have just made it possible for people to use the police to f’ with anyone they please, you have guaranteed endless investigations of everyone.

      It would be extrermely difficult to charge someone who made a false complaint based on hearsay – there is no proof they made anything up.
      It would be impossible to prosecute whoever might have told them “robby is a kiddie didler” – because they did not make a false report to law enforcement.

      Intelligent people do not take “hearsay” very seriously in ANY context – not in law enforcement, not in internal government matters, not inside of business.
      Hearsay goes by a completely different name – which should make it clearer – “Gossip”

      Hearsay is so useless and so damaging that it is condemned dozens of times in both the old and new testament.

      Even the media requires that sources have first hand knowledge of what they report.

      Regardless, the moral and legal requirement to report misconduct – is with those who have first hand knowledge of it.

      To the extent this whislblower has even the tiniest bit of legitimacy it is not to report what he heard someone else tell him that they heard (i.e. double hearsay).
      It is to report WHO has first hand knowledge.

      If the IG or DOJ are required to do ANYTHING with this – it is to find out the actual sources and find out what they have to say.
      And even that must be taken with large doses of skepticism – as they did not report it themselves – as they were obligated if there was something there.
      But they did leak information they were obligated not to,

      In this instance there are real people with real first hand knowledge.

      If there was truly something meaningful – it was their obligation to come forward.
      Instead of doing so – they essentially “leaked” – which is atleast a violation of the rules and their security clearances, and possibly a crime.

      I would further note that there are several other serious problems with this complaint.

      IG’s do not investigate crimes – Horowitz has refered the crimes he has encountered to DOJ.

      IG’s do not investigate outside their domain. This was filed with the IC IG – the whitehouse is not in his domain.

      IG’s do not investigate policy differences.

      There is nothing in this complain that makes it a legitimate complain for the IC IG.

      It was refered to DOJ – which from what I hear had something like 8 different offices each indepently looking at a number of aspects of the complaint to determine if there was an actual crime being alleged, Purportedly besides being aware of the Complaint Barr had no personal involvement. And 8 separate DOJ offices came to the conclusion there is no crime.
      I am not saying they investigated and found no evidence of a crime – they examined each of several different allegations to determine if any of them was an actual allegation of a crime which would require an investigation and they found there was no crime alleged.

      It is increasingly evident – this was a setup. We are not sure how far it goes – there are some sources claiming that Schiff and possibly even Pelosi participated in the creation of the complaint.

      • Roby permalink
        October 2, 2019 7:29 am

        “It is increasingly evident – this was a setup. We are not sure how far it goes – there are some sources claiming that Schiff and possibly even Pelosi participated in the creation of the complaint.”

        Ah, a nice fat conspiracy theory, and right on time.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 11:59 am

        I do not know what the truth is – neither do you.

        There is real world evidence – from their own public remarks that Pelosi and Schiff were aware of the complaint – possibly before the IC IG.

        The complaint openly admits to being the product of a “conspiracy” – i.e. information gleaned from multiple sources within government.

        Regardless, you have been selling this “russia trump” conspiracy theory for years.

        You have no credibility on conspiracies.

        You have made inumable false allegations – false claims of facts, and false moral claims.

        That comes with consequences – your credibility.

        Years ago who would beleive that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennen, Clapper, Yates, Powers, Rice, Ohr, were all CONSPIRING with Fusion GPS, Perkins Coi, Steele, and Clinton to spy on and investigate – not one, but all major republican rivals.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 7:47 pm

      This is not about “circling the wagons”.

      Reliance on hearsay (or worse double hearsay) is poisonous to any process anywhere.
      Even internal investigations inside of businesses are likely to have very little confidence in double hearsay.

      Any claim of any kind is far more credible from first hand sources.
      Any claim from second hand sources must be given less attention – or send hand stories become a means of destroying any institution.

      Can you find anywhere in the Horowitz report ? The Mueller Report ?
      Or any other substantive investigation where the investigative report contains hearsay ? or double hearsay ?

      It is barely possible to start an investigation based on hearsay – it barely meets reasonable suspicion. But it will not get you a warrant, it will not get you records, or subpeonas, it will not allow you to compel anyone’s cooperation at all.

      All of this is true – whether we are talking Trump – or Biden or ….

      To cite a different example – Tapper confronted Rep Jordan with a hearsay claim there was no there there – “others had looked at it and found it lacking”
      There are no identified others, and we do not know exactly what they said.
      Conversely Shikin has testified under oath that he was forced out of office because he was investigating Hunter Biden.

      Which is more credible – someone testifying under oath to things they observed directly ?
      Or unnamed third parties making vague assertions about other unnamed third parties ?

      Hearsay – and especially double hearsay should not be treated very seriously – anywhere and regardless of who it is about.

      We do not ignore it completely – but we give it very little weight, and absent confirmation from a first hand source – it dies.

      Finally, the entire whistleblower act is their to protect those with FIRST HAND knowledge of misconduct. It is not there to provide protection to those who spread rumours.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 7:59 pm

      To address the actual law – the Merit System Protection board adjudicates Whistleblower complaints. 97% of these are found against the whistleblower. Of those appealed 98% are lost on appeal.

      Grassley is actually upset about this and beleives that both the government and the courts are misunderstanding the whistleblower act.

      But it is actually the role of the courts to determine what a law says.

      So many whistleblower complaints are rejected – because the overwhelming majority of them are either political or efforts of employees who are in trouble otherwise to somehow protect themselves by filing a complaint.

      Grassley is likely correct in his claim that way too many whistle blower complaints are dissmissed. But he is not correct about the law or the process. And if he does not like it – he should change the law.

      Off all those complaints dissmissed – many had more merit as well as first hand knowledge than this one.

      And just to be clear – I am not specifically endorsing retaliation against this person.

      I am just asserting that his complaint does not meet the criteria to be treated as credible – or “serious and urgent”.

      The proper next step SHOULD have been to ask for his sources, and if he refused to provide them to dismiss the case.
      If he did provide sources – those sources are subject to discipline. There is limited distribution for communications with foreign leaders. In many instances those who receive them are given an oportunity to read them and then must return them.
      They are not free to share the content with anyone who is not also authorized to receive them – regardless of security clearance. If they have done so – at a minimum their security level should be reduced.
      Regardless – those people, had the obligation to step forward, if there was a problem, and were entitled to the protection of the law. Instead they violated the law.

      Not someone reporting double hearsay.

  8. Roby permalink
    October 1, 2019 4:26 pm

    If someone does not like cnn as a source, fine have this from FOX

    “Former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake made a bold claim on Thursday when he said “at least 35” GOP senators would privately vote for President Trump’s impeachment.

    Appearing at the 2019 Texas Tribune Festival, Flake, a frequent critic of the president, offered his own reaction and predicted that close to three dozen Republican senators would back impeachment.

    “I heard someone say if there were a private vote there would be 30 Republican votes. That’s not true,” Flake said on Slate’s “What Next” podcast. “There would be at least 35.””

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeff-flake-35-gop-senators-impeach-trump

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 8:02 pm

      If you beleive that – then proceed with impeachment.

      I dont. I do not even think Flake actually does.

      But you can test that claim by moving forward.

      Clinton actually lied under oath – twice and suborned perjury.
      and not one democratic senator voted to impeach.

      You can not even identify a crime that people will not laugh at here.

  9. Roby permalink
    October 1, 2019 4:39 pm

    I have no idea at all how any of this will come out, the impeachment, the Democratic party primaries, the election. There are a million paths it could take. Anyone who thinks they know the outcome of any of this could probably find a way to bet on it. It would not be me.

    Anybody who thinks trump could not get reelected because at present something like 35% say he deserves reelection and something over 50% say they will not vote for him, period, is fooling themselves. trump could get reelected. He could even win in a landslide (or lose in one).

    Anyone who thinks the impeachment inquiry is a totally futile dead duck is also fooling themselves. A lot can happen that we cannot predict today. Anyone who wants to mock the impeachment inquiry, you risk being very surprised and disappointed. The same goes for anyone who is certain it will convict trump or damage him even.

    Much drama lies ahead, unpredictable events will happen. Nothing is nearly so certain as some people seem to believe.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 8:13 pm

      One of us is completely misperceiving reality.

      Only time will tell which of us is right.

      But the past does give us some evidence about the future,
      and the past does not favor you.

      Do I think impeachment is dangerous and stupid ?
      Yes,
      I think that even if you succeed in removing Trump democrats seriously risk getting obliterated in Nov.

      I would also note that if D’s do not procede rapidly it could play out like this:

      Trump is impeached in late 2020 Pence serves as president for about 5 minutes and then Trump is re-elected.

      Do not presume that because Trump is impeached he is gone.

      I think that scenario is highly unlikely .

      Contra Former Sen. Flake – Democrats are not likely to vote to START impeachment.
      In the unlikely event they do, they will not vote out articles of impeachment,
      in the unlikier event they do, they are not going to get the approximately 20 republicans they need. I do not even think they can get all democratic senators.

      This is a bad idea.
      The consequences if it succeeds – not merely for democrats but for all future presidents is disasterous.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 8:16 pm

      You are right – nothing is certain.
      Trump could be caught in the oval with a 15yr old tomorow.

      But what is LIKELY is this is already dead.
      Democrats are NOT going to make all house democrats vote,
      and they are not going to give Rep. Collins subpeona power.

      That is my read of the crystal ball.

      This was a last ditch effort – a hail mary to thwart the investigation of the investigation, and it has failed.

      You see republicans playing defense – I see an awful lot on offense and very comfortable with their positions.

  10. Jay permalink
    October 1, 2019 5:32 pm

    From the Whistleblower’s Complaint:

    “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.”

    So: he was a direct witness to some of the events. And so stated on the form amended to the complaint.

    And as to Biden’s popularity poll numbers, according to this they haven’t suffered much since the recent GOP anti-Biden smear campaign:

    “The latest polling from Politico/Morning Consult of the Democratic primary shows former vice president Joe Biden with a double-digit lead over Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, with 32 percent to her 21 percent. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders comes in third place just behind Warren with 19 percent. The results are similar to those the same survey found last week, when Biden had a twelve-point advantage over Warren.l

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-ahead-in-national-polls-but-warren-leads-among-college-students/

    • October 1, 2019 9:41 pm

      I think that Biden has been slipping in the polls for a few weeks…I think that the rollout of the whistleblower story may have, at least temporaritly, helped him with Democrats, who don’t care about his kid making millions, as long as he can beat Trump. But the more evidence that comes out, showing that Joe was well aware that his son was cashing in big-time on the family name, the more people are going to doubt that he can .

      Plus, I would guess that if Biden starts to look too dirty, Obama will disavow him, not wanting to be connected with Ukrainian corruption.

      • October 1, 2019 9:44 pm

        (Hopefully, that last comment made some sense. Re-reading it, it confused me!)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 12:04 am

        Nothing I have read anywhere is saying Biden has benefited from this in any way.

        His numbers are tanking, his donors are fleeing.

        Outside of Jay I have not read anyone who thinks this has been a good week for Biden, and not many who think he will survive.

        I have however seen speculation that democrats are looking to drive him out of the race.

        But mostly the major media outlets – often the very ones who wrote the stories that prove that their current spin is just spin – they are still supporting him.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 1, 2019 11:30 pm

      “So: he was a direct witness to some of the events. And so stated on the form amended to the complaint.”

      If there is something from the amended complaint that actually asserts that – please provided it. But your remarks do not.

      In fact they make the problem clear.

      In your own telling the WB says that he found the accounts of others credible and supported by news reporting.

      Put simply he is providing something that reads like the opinion of a Judge, not the testimony of a witness.

      We are not the judges of our own allegations

      Nor is our own judgement of our allegations evidence of any kind much less direct evidence.

  11. dhlii permalink
    October 2, 2019 3:23 am

    More information has come out regarding the “hearsay” issue:

    First the form has not been changed – it still requires you to check whether your knowledge is first hand or not.

    What has changes in the IC IG’s interpretation of the whistleblower law.

    The past interpretation of the law – required first hand knowledge.
    All the documentation regarding complaints says they will not be accepted if they are not first hand.

    The Current IC IG claims that requirement is not in the law.
    That is a very shaky claim.
    The prohibition against hearsay is part of general civil and criminal law.
    This is another of this idiotic instances of trying to construct a legal interpretation that is so unusual that it takes a while to grasp how deeply flawed it its.
    The prohibition against hearsay is not just a procedural rule of courts – it is NOT part of any statutory law, but it is also immutable. I do not think there are any procedings in which hearsay is admissible (outside narrow exceptions that this complaint does not meet).

    Hearsay is also a legal standard of credibility – and the law requires the claim to be credible,
    Should this question ever hit the courts – it is highly unlikely they are ever rule that hearsay is credible.

    • October 2, 2019 9:36 am

      As far as I can tell, this entire farce is a set-up by Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare group, who have circumvented White House and State Department lawyers, specifically to recruit anti-Trump civil servants and Intelligence community saboteurs, who are trying to bring down a President whom they hate.

      This is not a true whistleblower situation, it is the Lawfare Group using the Whistleblower statute for purposes that it was never meant for (ungrammatical, I know).

      Confronting your accuser means knowing who your accuser ~ or in this case, accuserS ~ are, and the sneaky Dems are trying to turn this into a Star Chamber Inquiry, in which Trump has no idea who is accusers are or what they are saying, but he must answer to them, and subvert the privilege of the Chief Executive to the demands of a petty California congressman, who thinks he’s a giant-slayer.

      • Jay permalink
        October 2, 2019 9:59 am

        “As far as I can tell, this entire farce is a set-up by Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare group”

        HA HA HA ha ha ha 🤣😂😅

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:18 pm

        I do not care it the whistleblower had help constructing his complaint.

        The complaint never should have been taken seriously. It is by law not credible.

        Those referenced – either by name or anonymously in the complaint with first hand knowledge had to come forward. They did not.
        It is their credibility that matters – we went through a version of this nonsense with Steele.

        DOJ/FBI represented the Steele Dossier as credible to the FISA court – despite the fact that it was double and tripple hearsay – because purportedly Steele was credible
        But that is not the standard of the law. Hearsay is not adminissible – the credibility of the person spreading it changes nothing.

        Evidence comes from first hand accounts, and it is the credibility of those people – the direct observers that matters.

        It is not the help the Whistleblower had that matters
        it is the lack of anything of substance
        no first hand accounts,
        no actual crime.
        Nothing inside the scope of the IC IG.

        Only policy differences.

      • October 2, 2019 4:26 pm

        So, here ya go, Jay… looks like it was Schiff and Pelosi who orchestrated the set up, not Wittes. 😇

      • October 2, 2019 10:02 am

        And, speaking of California Congressmen (in this case Congresswoman)

        “I’m calling on the GOP to stop Trump’s filthy talk of whistleblowers being spies & using mob language implying they should be killed. Impeachment is not good enough for Trump. He needs to be imprisoned & placed in solitary confinement. But for now, impeachment is the imperative.” ~MAXINE WATERS

        Up until now, Mad Maxine has been considered a lunatic joke foisted on the American people, with her loud, hoarse “IMPEACH 45!!!!” calls, which we have heard for nearly 3 years, or the entirety of the Trump presidency.

        She’s not a joke. She’s a dangerous Marxist.

      • October 2, 2019 10:15 am

        “HA HA HA ha ha ha 🤣😂😅”

        Wait and see, Jay. If you’re right, and this is all on the level, I’ll admit that I was wrong.

        “(Pompeo) says there has been no official notice of a deposition and the department has not been given enough time to prepare the officials — some of whom have sought personal attorneys, he says, while others need more time to do so. Even after they do so, the officials and their attorneys need to meet State Department lawyers because the department has “legitimate interests in safeguarding potentially privileged and classified information,” according to Pompeo.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pompeo-accuses-house-democrats-of-trying-to-intimidate-bully-state-dept-officials/ar-AAI7oBJ

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 1:29 pm

        I do not know that Wittes is the “outside group” or even if there is one.

        It is self evident from the complaint that there is an “inside group” to this.

        There is also growing evidence that Pelosi and Schiff were involved before the complaint was filed.

        Bits of this are starting to look like the Kavnaugh mess.

        But in the end there are two Key things here.

        There is no fundimental discrepancy in the actual ACTS between the transcript and the complaint.

        And NEITHER alleges an actual crime – which would be a DOJ responsibility, nor anything that is not a crime but inside the domain of the IC IG.

        In fact the allegation is a difference in policy. That is all.

        And a 2nd hand one at that.
        It should have been dismissed.

        The IC IG published a paper explaining why they acted as they did – and their explanation is self contradictory.

        They claim the prohibition against hearsay is not in the Whistleblower law.
        I beleive that is correct – it is in the foundations of our entire legal system.

        Hearsay – with few exceptions is LEGALLY not credible – PERIOD, and the law does require CREDIBLE allegations. In a law that is a term of art and it does not mean does this allegation sound credible as judged by my guts. It is is this allegation credible by the legal standards that we use to find credibility.

        Before a jury is given a case to deliberate a judge will give the jury a long list of legal criteria for weighing the credibility of evidence – but Hearsay is so heavily barred – that the jury does not even get to hear Hearsay. They do not get the chance to decide if it is credible or not.

        Because by definition hearsay is not legally credible.

        This is the mess we make with all this left nonsense of interpretting the law based on the way my guts twitch today.

        NO! The law is required to be as clear as possible, and it is interpretted NARROWLY to avoid as much as possible having to refer to your gut.

        When we do not like the law as it is – we change it.

        If the left does not like that hearsay is inadmissible EVER – change the law.

        What you – nor the IG get to do is pretend that the legal standards of credibility do not exist and that credible is just his personal gut reaction.

        That is lawlessness and leads to the hell we have now.

        Instead of this dying as it should early – we are going to have a holy war over it.
        We are going to pretend that the law is whatever we wish it to be at the moment and that if we can proceed lawlessly without creating too much ire – that we are free to have our one of moment.

  12. dhlii permalink
    October 2, 2019 3:24 am

    Someone posted that Trump had threatened the whistleblower with harm.

    I can not find any such report.

    What has come out is that the press falsely reported that he had asked for and been given government protection. that is just fake news – neither occured.

  13. Roby permalink
    October 2, 2019 7:27 am

    Where are the moderates Rick asks? The GOP targets them, impeaches them, investigates them to death, and now it seems that trump wanted the Ukrainian government to help him in the “destroy the moderate” game. Hillary was a moderate, the trump GOP held their “throw her in jail” themed convention. They target the moderate democrats for “the treatment” and then in horror they say that the dem party turned left. This may come back to bite them hard.

    For at least 6 months now trump has been losing by 5, 7 sometimes 10 points to Bernie Sanders in head to head polls. Does this mean that Sanders would win? No, that is way premature. But people know who Bernie Sanders is by now, where he stands, what he believes, When they choose him (and Warren and Biden and sometimes every single potential democrat) over trump, even if it is way early, that is carrying a real message. trump is consistently losing in a head to head to a guy who recently said that billionaires should not exist. Anyone who thinks this has no meaning whatsoever is fooling themself. The meaning is that the nature of the trump’s administration is toxic and by far not just to far lefties.

    I was of course stunned when I woke up on Nov 9 and found trump president. Its not out of the question that on Nov 9 2020 we will wake up and find Sanders or Warren somehow elected and for much the same reason that got trump in, the amazing badness of their opponent. The trump GOP will have only itself to blame.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 2, 2019 11:51 am

      “The GOP targets them, impeaches them, investigates them to death”

      This sounds an awful lot like democrats to me.

      I know you are having a great deal of trouble grasping this, but on issue after Issue, Trump is well aligned with the majority of the country.

      “and now it seems that trump wanted the Ukrainian government to help him in the “destroy the moderate” game. ”

      So we are playing the Adam Schiff game and putting words into other peoples mouths as well as thoughts in their heads ?

      The Obama administration had the Ukrainians investigate Manafort – while a campaign was going on. I can explain how that was different from this – such that Trump’s actions are justified and Obama’s are not – using FACTs and THE LAW.

      How about you ? Can you explain how Obama’s political manipulation of foreign powers was legal ?

      “Hillary was a moderate,”
      Hillary was a crook.

      “the trump GOP held their “throw her in jail” themed convention. ”
      Had the Obama DOJ done its job none of this would have been an issue.

      “They target the moderate democrats for “the treatment” and then in horror they say that the dem party turned left. This may come back to bite them hard.”

      Democrats had no help from Republicans turning left.

      Absolutely this is going to bite hard.

      There is no outcome that does not “bite the left hard” in the long run.

      “For at least 6 months now trump has been losing by 5, 7 sometimes 10 points to Bernie Sanders in head to head polls.”

      Trump was losing to Clinton by more less than a month before election day.

      “I was of course stunned when I woke up on Nov 9 and found trump president.”

      Did you ever bother to ask yourself Why ? What you might have done wrong ?

      Even if Trump had NOT won, the mere fact that 65M people voted for him – after you spent a year calling him a racist, mysoginyst homophobe, and hateful, hating hater and after you called all his supporters equally vile things should have caused you to think

      Either the people of this country are more vile than they were 100 years ago when over 1000 blacks were being lynched a year – or something is very very wrong with YOUR world view.

      I would suggest that you might want to consider the later.

      Any black person killed by a police officer is a bad thing. But the odds of a black man being shot by a police officer are about the same as being stuck by lightning.
      About the same odds being killed by a mass shooter.

      On issue after issue – your so called “moderate democrats” – are acutally pretty EXTREME.
      We do not have to talk about Warren and Sanders to get nonsense.

      Under Obama you created a bitter conflict in the country to force disruptive changes in healthcare on the entire country.
      There has been no net benefit to that. You still remain PROUD of PPACA – you will tell me it is “moderate” – it has cost us slightly under $2T/decade – and not a single consequential healthcare statistical trend has been altered one iota.

      And then you make nonsensical claims like “millions will die” if we just get rid of a failed experiment on the entire country and put $2T back in our pockets.

      We spent a decade listening to garbage from you and your ilk – that 2% was the new norm, that is the best the economy can do.
      Look arround – That was a LIE.

      I do not think Trump is espeically good with respect to the economy. But he is doing 50% better than what you said was the best that could be done.

      ALL OF US are worse off because YOU limited improvement in our standard of living.

      And you want to tell me that outside the left fringe democrats are “moderate” ?

      YOU went along with all the garbage that stiffled the economy.
      YOU and lots of people who claim to be “moderate” democrats.

      And honestly – I do not want your “moderate”.
      If we are going to screw the country – let Bernie or Warren do it – Fast.
      Lets get it over with quickly – let them do the stupid things they are selling and when they fail we can clear that nonsense out of our system – atleast for a while.
      The poison of supposed “moderate” democrats is less toxic. But we get a new dose every day. It is like PPACA – it does not kill us, nor fail so badly that the impetus to get rid of it is compelling, but it slowly poisons us leaving us a little worse off than we were.

      Republicans made a big deal of the cost of Robert Mueller’s witch hunt.

      PPACA costs us 50 times what the entire Mueller fiasco costs EVERY DAY.

      “Its not out of the question that on Nov 9 2020 we will wake up and find Sanders or Warren somehow elected and for much the same reason that got trump in, the amazing badness of their opponent. ”

      I doubt that. But if it happens – so be it.
      That is a self punishing act.
      If Voters elect Warren or Sanders and if either actually tries to do what they are selling.
      The carnage they create will ensure we do not make that mistake a 2nd time.

      Though I do not think that will happen – because I do not think either – but particularly Warren will govern anywhere near how she talks.

      But that should give you pause.

      You keep telling me how evil Trump is

      Sekelow’s argument that Trump was obligated to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden is a reach.
      however both the constitution, and US treaties on law enforcement ALLOW him to do so.
      And OBLIGATED the Ukraine to investigate.

      One of the other more outlandish claims that Guiliani has recently made is that this entire mess – including the Whislteblower complaint is “obstruction of justice”.
      Guiliani was threatening to privately sue house democrats – as well as the senators who wrote to the Ukraine threatening to withdrawl aide if they cooperated with the DOJ investigations into 2016.

      I do not think there is a valid private cause of action for obstruction of justice.
      But we have listened to ludicrously overbroad claims of obstruction from YOU for years.
      Maybe you should be “hoist by your own petard” so to speak ?

      Is it acceptable for US Senators to threaten a foreign country with loss of aide if they cooperate with a US criminal investigation ?

  14. Roby permalink
    October 2, 2019 8:25 am

    Many people are thinking of Nov 8 2020 as some sort of finish line after which one side can enjoy a devastating victory and then begin to reorder the country to its liking. Nov 9 2020 will simply be the beginning of a new phase of our time of troubles and whoever is elected will face a very hostile situation and huge problems. The 20s are going to be dismal. The challenges the country faces are huge, internationally and nationally, and we are only becoming more dysfunctional in our efforts to make the system work. Gone are the days of the leadership of the greatest generation, politically we are now a jerry springer country of fighting freaks and weirdos, conspiracy theorists are having a field day. The movie Idiocracy did not come close to the darkness of our reality.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 2, 2019 12:55 pm

      Things will continue to be “dismal” so long as the left is prepared to use force to get its way.

      So long as the left and people like you do not grasp that – it is not sufficient to have a majority – by whatever measure you think is appropriate today.
      That to use force against others – whether you have the support of some majority or not, you MUST justify that use of force. And that is not easy.

      You do not grasp that when you use force aka government against the will of others – even a majority, you anger them. Some more than others.
      That is a part of why the use of force must be justified.

      You can not do whatever you wish – even when you are the majority, or when you have temporarily managed to get power.

  15. Jay permalink
    October 2, 2019 4:12 pm

    This is YOUR PRESIDENT…. on Twitter….

    “The Do Nothing Democrats should be focused on building up our Country, not wasting everyone’s time and energy on BULLSHIT, which is what they have been doing ever since I got overwhelmingly elected in 2016, 223-306. Get a better candidate this time, you’ll need it!”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 2, 2019 5:44 pm

      “This is YOUR PRESIDENT…. on Twitter…”

      Yeah!!!!

      Is there something in there that is wrong ?

      • Jay permalink
        October 2, 2019 5:52 pm

        Very presidential language.

        And of course BULLSHIT to state he was “overwhelmingly elected.”

        But you’ve made your bed, and you can suffer the consequences of laying in it henceforth.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 2, 2019 7:27 pm

        Not presidential at all, Didn’t say it was.

        I would prefer a president whose public speaking was more muted.
        I would also prefer one that did not saddle us with a $2T healthcare plan fiasco.

        You can’t always get what you want – but it you try sometimes, you get what you need.

        Trump is not what I want – but he is what we need.

        306:232 sounds overwhelming to me.
        and it was very close to 316:222

        Yes, we can all lie in our respective beds.

        I have not made any false accusations against others.
        That is probably the minimum standard for a moral person.
        I am comfortable in my bed.

        If you are – something is wrong with you.

    • October 3, 2019 2:22 pm

      The thing is, Jay, civility and decorum in the kind of communications we hear from all of our elected public servants ( and do you think there are any members of Congress that think of themselves as “public servants,” or do they think of themselves as Masters of the Universe?) has been in freefall for many years.

      In the 90’s we got to talk about our President getting blow jobs in the Oval Office. That was nice, Then the President himself told us that he “did not have sex” with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office, a statement that he had to admit was untrue ~ of course, depending on what we defined as “sex.” So, so presidential.

      Then, in the 2000’s we found out that our President was a Chimp and a Nazi. That he was illegitimate and a war criminal. And, in true presidential fashion, Bush 43 never fought back, remained dignified until the end, when his approval ratings were in the low 30’s or below.

      After 2008, we discovered that, if we criticized Barack Obama for anything, it was because we were racists, and he was perfect. He said and did many “unpresidential” things, but we had to be “shhhh, very, very quiet” about pointing them out. Because he and Old Joe were “scandal free,” or so they told us.

      Trump plays by the rules that the Democrats and the media believe that only THEY can play by. There is no to be no tooting his own horn, no pointing out that the media are dishonest, and certainly no joking about distinguished and upstanding congressmen like Adam Schiff. No, no, no ~ none of that. (By the way, did Schiff ever tell us about that proof he had about Trump being a Russian stooge? Or was that just one of his “parodies?”) After all, Trump is a Republican, and needs to shut the hell up, like Bush 43. Or like Romney, who never uttered a peep when Harry Reid stood in the Senate and lied that Romney had not paid his taxes. Trump should be like them, and remain mute and dignified. You know, real presidential-like, while his political enemies destroy him.

      Except that he won’t. Very unpresidential, If I do say so.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 4:03 pm

        Bush is exactly what Democrats want in a republican – a punching bag.

        I keep saying over and over Trump is the CONSEQUENCE of the behavior of the left and the media – not the cause.

        If you want civility – and yes I would greatly prefer civility – then behave civilly yourself.
        Not just public servants.

        When your idea of argument – whether you are Trump, Schiff or Jay is 4yr old insults, no one is going to give a shit when you complain about the lack of civility of others.

        Trump sprays talk of Treason like water. He is not close to alone, nor the originator of it.
        We see perfectly right now why our founders defined Treason in the constitution.

        We are faux proceeding on impeaching trump for the heinous act of “being president”.

        To those of you on the left – if you are not demanding Joe Biden’s head for overtly threatening Ukraine – you have no credibility claiming Trump’s call is even troubling.

        The call is cordial, and non threatening. Zelensky raises nearly ever topic.
        You can agree with Trump’s remarks or not, but there is no crime or abuse of power.

        While there is no threat or quid pro quo here, it would not matter if there was.

        Ultimately the relationship between countries is about FORCE.
        International law did not exist for most of human existance and compliance with it is entirely voluntary. We get what we want from other countries by threats and promises.
        Outside the few countries that very closely share our values that is the only power we have.

        Threats and promises – that is it. There is not a single conversation between any two world leaders that does not rest on threats and promises.

        If you got all the transcripts of all the calls of all presidents – this is the norm.

        Just look at the public speaches of Heads of states.

        Look at the fuming contest between Trump and Kim Un

        Trump threatens China all the time – even the Obama administration did so.

        Obama threatened Russian and Syrian and then backed down.

        There is almost always a clear quid pro quo in all communications between foreign leaders

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 4:33 pm

        Absolutely Trump’s request for Ukraininan investigations has a “political” component.

        Discrediting the 2016 Witch Hunt – expecially with moderates will substantially improve his election prosepects.

        Doing his job well will substantially improve his election prospects – EVERYTHING the president does has benefits or harms to the country and benefits or harms to himself politically.

        There is nothing that any president can say or do that is not going to have a political impact.

        There is nothing any politician can say or do that does nto have a political impact.

        Any arguments that Trumps converstation with Zelensky is election interferance is ALSO an argument that every word from Pelosi’s and Schiff’s mouth is “election interferance”.

        What distinguishes between acts that troubling or even criminal and those that are not – is not the political benefit. It is whether there is a legitimate foundation.

        I have argued over and over regarding the Trump Russia investigation – there is not now, and never was “probable cause” – the standard required for a Warrant – like a FISA warrant.
        Nor “reasonable suspicion” the standard required to start an investigation using only non-intrusive technigues.

        The Biden Ukraine request – not merely meets the standard of probable cause, but there is a relevant non-criminal basis. Biden absolutely positively should have recused himself from all things involving the Ukrainian justice system the moment he suspected his son was being investigated, And should have created a wall between his sons efforts and his own the moment he knew his son was doing business in these countries.

        At the barest minimum – they should not have traveled together.

        Biden says he never talked with his son about business – that is both implausible, and as Hunter says they did – one of them is lying. Regardless, once his son started doing business in the countries Biden was visiting they needed a wall between them on those issues.

        That might not be a criminal requirement – but it is an ethical requirement.

        We heard from IG Horowitz on The Clinton email investigation – he found no crimes, but he found extensive misconduct.

        It should be self evident to everyone that Biden engaged in misconduct – even if not proveable criminal conduct. And he did so as a respresentative of the people.

        We hear for the anti-trumpers – constantly – that Trumps bad conduct is a basis for all kinds of things – investigation, impeachment, …..

        Well the exact same thing is true of Biden.

        There is just not a rule that only republicans can be investigated.

        The line regarding investigations that have a political components can only fall one of three places:

        They are always barred – which is a bad idea and would make the Trump Russia investigation a crime and impeachable offense no matter what.

        They are never barred – also a bad idea, but then the impeachment effort against Trump is obstruction of justice.

        They are allowed ONLY when there is a proper evidentiary foundation – reasonable suspicion to start an investigation and probable cause to take active measures – warrants, subpeona’s spying.

        It is completely irrelevant whether foreign powers are involved. Otherwise – again – the trump Russia investigation would be inherently illegitimate.

  16. Jay permalink
    October 2, 2019 5:46 pm

    Trump did nothing wrong..
    From the Transcript:

    “The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

    He wanted them to find a missing server, one supposed to contain Hillary’s missing emails.
    And he wanted that now for what reason? To continue to attack a Democratic rival (who could still be a rival in 2020).

    (Soon after)

    “The President: …The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

    A + B = Impeachment.

    He’s OPENLY attempting to get a foreign leader to help undermine his main opponent in the upcoming election, to benefit himself: ILLEGAL!

    Under federal law, campaigns are barred from accepting or soliciting a “thing of value” from foreign nationals or governments in connection with an election.

    Trump: Despicable.

    He’s turned the Presidency into a vulgar WWW Wrestling event: insults, curses, and threats now the standard level of discourse. Did you hear his internationally televised insults about Biden and his son today?

  17. dhlii permalink
    October 2, 2019 6:24 pm

    Adam Schiff filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Nunes in 2017 because Nunes had direct communications with someone in the executive branch providing evidence of the corrupt conduct of the Obama administration.

    It is now reported by NYT that was involved in the creation of the “whistleblower account”.

    Aparently the conduct Schiff thinks is unethical is only unethical if someone else does it.

    Pompeo just clarified the States position on Schiff’s subpeona’s of State department officials.

    According to Pompeo, State staff were contacted directly by Schiff, told not to report the contact to the state department, told they would not have lawyers from the state department and that they were in personal jeophardy.

    This is all wrong. The house is required to go through offices of each cabinet department to schedule testimony – this is not new. It is a process that is probably 100 years old.

    The house has oversite of the executive – it is not an inquisition.
    Schiff does not get to decide for the executive branch where information is restricted on a national security bases, or executive priviledge or any of a number of other basis.
    While the executive does nto get carte blanche – there there is disagreement – we have a judicary for the purpose of settling disputes between the executive and congress.
    Pompeo said that State will cooperate with Schiff – on requests made in the proper manner.
    But it will not allow Schiff to terrorize employees.

  18. dhlii permalink
    October 2, 2019 6:37 pm

    Sanders has been hospitalized for a heart blockage and canceled campaign events until further notice.

    Even if this is just a blipp it is likely to push sanders voters to Warren.

    Warren is having a charmed month and is likely to emerge quickly as the solid front runner.

  19. dhlii permalink
    October 2, 2019 6:49 pm

    Aparently there are rumours that Horrowitz is going to find that all 4 Cater Page FISA warrants were improvidently granted.

    If that is true – and it should be, that cuts the legs out from under the entire Trump Russia nonsense.

    If the warrants were improper – the investigation was.
    If the warrants were acheived by misrepresentation – those who swore they were correct should be charged.

    The ACLU and Bennan Center have attacked FISA Warrants for years – not right wing loons or Trump defenders.
    Cato and liibertarians have been attacking them from Day one.
    Even the Republican Congressmen who wrote the legislation creating these warrants beleives he made a mistake.

    The article goes on to cite numerous instances were mundane crimes having nothing to do with National Security were prosecuted using FISA warrants.

    There have also been lots of stories of shadow links between intelligence agencies and law enforcement Where information gleaned through methods that can not constitutionally be used against americans found its way to law enforced who was then advised to concoct a pretext for an investigation or search so as not to expose the involvement of intelligence.

    These are the people that the left has traditionally hated – one area that I share values with the left. Yet the Left has allowed Trump to turn its values on their head.

    The Anit-War left is now owned by Neo-Cons – because Trump is a non-interventionist.

    The evil Surveailance state is now good – because today they are targetting Trump.

    Faux Whistleblowers that nearly everyone here on the left would be condemning are celebrated – because they are going after Trump

    The left has no values or principles.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/02/what_is_the_fisa_spy_court_and_why_are_people_bashing_it_120449.html

  20. Jay permalink
    October 2, 2019 9:44 pm

    This is but one of dozens of observation we’ve seen from people who have known Trump in the past. Can you Trump apologists point to many from his past who praise him?your children and grandchildren will disparage your memory, as did the children and grandchildren of German American who continued to praise Hitler in the 1930s.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 3, 2019 12:33 am

      Yes, anything you do not want to hear is a “crazy conspiracy theory”.

      The FACTS are – you failed in this Russia Trump nonsense.

      Maybe it is just a rumor – we will know soon, but proportedly Horowitz is reporting that not one of the FISA Warrants was proper.

      That is what Trump and all us “crazy conspiracy theorists have been saying for years.
      The law requires probable cause for a warrant.
      It requires credible sources – and hearsay is not credible – that is the LAW.
      Not the Whistleblower Law – just “the Law’ – anywhere in any law that credibility is required, hearsay is not allowed – not in FISA warrant applications, not in Whistleblower complaints, not in murder trials. not in wrongful death lawsuits. It is “the law”
      The prohibition against hearsay is over 500 years old.

      So we have 4 FISA warrants that a whole host of the top law enforcement people in the US swore were credible – that were entirely based on hearsay from a person the FBI knew had an axe to grind, who was paid for by the oposition political campaign.

      And you are lecturing the rest of us about political corruption or abiding by the law or conspiracy theories ?

      And lets just dismiss any accusations against Biden – because the mounting pile of evidence that everything that Biden and the media have said about Biden’s extortion of the Ukraine is falling apart by the day. Joe and Hunter can not even get their stories straight.

      The bare minimum – that nearly everyone accepts as fact – Hunter Biden had a job he was not qualified for in anyway except his ties to his father, for a Ukrainian company owned by a Russian so corrupt the US would not let him into the country – Joe Biden knew he had this job, Joe Biden was personally involved in the US side of investigations into corruption in the Ukraine – which more and more look like US efforts to FOSTER corruption in the Ukraine.

      The left keeps claiming over and over that no Burisma corruption was found.
      False – but SO WHAT ?

      Burisima was STILL owned by a RUSSIAN with a long and deep reputation for Corruption.

      If you were VP Biden and you knew that – and Biden most certainly should have known that,
      Wouldn’t you be telling your son – Run as far from Burisima as you can get ?

      Why is the Left trying to paint Burisma is somehow white as snow ?

      Here you are ranting about Trump/Russia Trump/Russia and VP Biden is protecting a Russian Oligarch that until AFTER Hunter went to work for him, was considered so corrupt by the US Government that he was not allowed into our country.

      If Trump winked at this guy – you would have impeached him twice over by now.
      Yet Biden is practically in bed with him.
      He son starts work for Burisma and nearly immediately – the RUSSIAN Oligarch is allowed to Travel to the US.

      The Ukraine investigates his company – and VP Biden demands the Prosecutor is fired.

      And after the investigation dies – because of course – the according the the US government incredibly corrupt Russain oligarch – is suddenly not corrupt anymore – after he hires Bidens son.

      No Burisma never recevied a clean bill of health – and infact they settled two large cases for very hefty fines. But lets say they had received a Clean bill of health.

      The story that you, the left, the media and the Biden’s are selling would still make ZERO sense.

      The US government during the Obama administration – just got it entirely wrong about this RUSSIAN Oligarch for years, and to make up for it we had to fire the prosecutor investigating him, and then protect him for several more years.

      That is the story you want people to beleive ?

      And you think other people are selling deranged conspiracy theories ?

      The case against Biden is Damning,. It is not “air-tight” – it is not proven beyond absolutely any possible doubt. It is entirely possible that the corrupt russian oligarch was just misjudged and not really corrupt. It is possible that Shokin really is a crook – even though to this day no one can find any of the trappings that usually come with corruption – I guess he was just bad at it. It is possible that all the documents Solomon and others have come up with – are forgeries. It is possible that the NYT reporter is wrong and he never asked for a comment from VP Biden on the story he was about to run. It is possible that Hunter is wrong and that even though VP Biden was in golf quartets with an all Burisma Team including his son that he had no knowledge of his sons involvement in Burisima
      And I can go on and on. But the probability that ALL of the above is true is pretty much zero.

      And if ANY of the above is true – Trump has the reasonable suspicion required to ask the Ukraine to investigate – which is the END of your entire farcical nonsense about the Zelensky call.

      It there is an absolute bar against investigating political candidates – the entire Trump Russia fiasco was a crime –
      But if it is legitimate to investigate ANYONE when there is reasonable suspicion – Trump’s call is legitimate and the FISA warrant is not.

      Further Trump asked Zelensky to look into something credible – there is admisable evidence – including Biden’s statement and lots of documents – many sworn testimony.

      While nothing provided the the FISA court meets the legal defintion of “credible” – and there is actually such a thing – and Grassley should know better and the IC IG should be fired if he does not. That is a LEGAL FUNDIMENTAL for his job.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 3, 2019 12:47 am

      “Can you Trump apologists point to many from his past who praise him?your children and grandchildren will disparage your memory, as did the children and grandchildren of German American who continued to praise Hitler in the 1930s.”

      Absolutely lets taken anyone who praised Hitler or Mousolini or Fascism and throw them into the dustbin of history and discredit their children and grandchildren for generations.

      “Mussolini isadmirable, and I am deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.”
      FDR

      From a New Deal National Recovery Administration (NRA) publications
      “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

      “Hitler had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”
      From John F Kennedy’s diary written AFTER the war.

      Need I go on ?

      Jay – it is the information age, the era of google. Every stupid thing that anyone of consequence has ever done or said is there for all to find.

      The above is just a short list.

      There is an incredibly long list of leftists, democrats even civil rights and womens rights advocates fawning over fascists through the 30’s

      No doubt you can find a few republicans too.

      But if you want to condemn Trump because of the Nazi daliances of his father – you are going to have to condemn half of the leading lights of the left too.

      You argument is fallacious garbage – it is OBVIOUS why.

      That you never get it when you jump head first into a pile of excrement is surprising and disturbing.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 3, 2019 4:32 am

      Jay your base claim has a serious problem – If Trump had the long term history suggested – he would have failed at every single thing he has done in life.

      The world is not a perfect meritocracy – but people rarely succeed once, or for long by luck or without skill.

      The house thought it was getting a bombshell today – instead The state department IG provided alot of dirt on Biden.

      The left and the press keep pretending there is nothing there regarding Biden – who is now only +1.7 over Warren national.

      The Bidens are actually entitled to the legal presumption of innocence – but they are not entitled to a presumption of abject stupidity.

      And yes, Trump has to learn not to take stupid questions from the press.
      But you are blind if you do not see desparation in the eyes of the press and the democrats.

      There is some fear among some republicans that Horowitz will pull his punches on the Trump/Russia investigation. Maybe – but there is no possibility he is kinder than he was regarding the Clinton email investigation. I think he pulled his punches there – and that was still damning. Further he has already recomended prosecution of Comey that is a very bad sign. Rumour has it that he will find the FISA warants granted as a result of fraud.

      Following Horowitz is the work of Durham and Hunter.

      And it is highly unlikely that the Biden story does not just get worse.
      Though frankly – the Shokin testimony is really really damning.
      But I guess you beleive that anyone who does not say what you want – is lying under oath.

      BTW though several polls Have Trump down significantly – the Hill and Rassmussen have him almost completely recovered.

      Regardless democrats do not have very long to come up with actual substance or they are toast.

      The whitehouse is ignoring demands for records – the state department is requiring the House to actually play by the rules.

      Schiff’s involvement in this gets earlier and earlier.

      Trump is likely to force the house to resolve their demands in the courts – that is going to take a long time, and without actually voting to start an impeachment inquiry – it is going to be hard to get the courts to take the house seriously.

      Do you have a clue how angry voters – even democratic voters – even far left democratic voters are going to be when this goes down in flames ?

  21. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:03 am

  22. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:05 am

  23. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:14 am

    A prominent libertarian ran an impeachment poll on Twitter.
    Only 16% of those under 39 supported impeachment.
    It was even worse over 39.

    Of those who supported impeachment – most thought there was nothing wrong with the phone call. The largest group supporting impeachment wanted to do so over Yemen.

  24. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:19 am

  25. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:26 am

  26. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:43 am

    Some election satire

  27. Jay permalink
    October 3, 2019 11:21 am

    More Of The Same Today:

    President Trump, on the South Lawn, says Ukraine “should investigate the Bidens.” “I would say President Zelenskiy, if it was me, I would recommend they start an investigation into the Bidens.”

    • Jay permalink
      October 3, 2019 11:24 am

      Quid Pro Quo Time Line:

      “Trump at 10:37:24 a.m., talking about trade negotiations: “I have a lot of options on China, but if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.”

      Trump at 10:37:54 a.m., asked about Ukraine probe: “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens.”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 3, 2019 2:05 pm

        You have the oddest definition of quid pro quo.

        This is what an actual quid pro quo looks like.

        By your standards – Trump can not threaten China about anything, because YOU might deem it has something to do with the Biden’s.

        Prior to the press bringing it up – Trump has not talked to China about Biden.

        The reason for the mention of Biden with the Ukraine – is that there is probable cause of a crime.

        While I beleive there is a basis for Trump to “press china” to investigate Biden, I would note that Trump did NOT press Ukraine to investigate Biden.

        Trump CLEARLY “PRESSED” Ukraine to seek more aide from the EU.
        Just incase you are confused about what “pressuring a leader” actually looks like.

        Though again you could just listen to Biden openly blackmailing a foreign leader.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 3, 2019 1:57 pm

      If it was me – I would be investigating the Bidens.

      BTW – though it is a small part of a larger investigation – the Biden’s are already being investigated by the DOJ.

  28. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 2:14 pm

    “I’m going to tell you a secret,” Putin said, leaning forward.

    “Yes, we will definitely intervene, don’t tell anybody” he continued to an applauding crowd.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/putin-mocks-nbc-reporter-well-definitely-interfere-2020-just-dont-tell-anybody

  29. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 2:18 pm

    I have repeatedly said here that I favor ACTUAL open borders – but that you can not have open borders and a welfare state.

    Sweden is proving that.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/swedes-are-fleeing

  30. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:35 pm

    DOD today confirmed that:

    They have ALWAYS been actively pressing the Ukraine to address corruption – in their case within the Ukraine defense industry. That is standard when dealing with an ally with internal corruption issues.

    Throughout the Trump presidency they have been Pressing Ukraine and ALL US allies to do more for themselves or to get more assistance regionally. That is official US Policy and has been for some time.

    That the DOD scheduled the Aide to Ukraine for delivery by the end of the fiscal years and that almost all of it was transfered by the end of the fiscal year, with a small amount a few days after.

    Essentially that all the assorted claims about holds and delays and what not – had no effect on DOD delivery of aide.

    The Press Secretary did not say this – but holds and delays are not at all unusual.

    He confirmed that Sec Def was NOT on the Ukraine call and to his knowledge no one else in DOD was.

    And that he is not aware of any unusual handling of Ukraine or Ukraine aid within DOD.

    He was unwilling to comment on the specifics until congress was notified, but the aide provided was for offensive weapons – which the Obama administration refused to provide Ukraine.

    So you all are beating up Trump for providing to Ukraine aide that Obama refused to – over Congresses insistance.

  31. dhlii permalink
    October 3, 2019 5:38 pm

    If Trump’s exchange with Zelensky is impeachable, then why given the letter below haven’t Durbin Leahy and Menendez been indicted ?

    Using the same standard demcrats wish to use – why isn’t this an effort to interfere in the 2020 election ?

    https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Prosecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investigation.pdf

    To be clear – I have no problem with this letter. I have no problem with Trump’s remarks to Zelensky.

    I am not a hypocrit.

    Anyone who can justify this letter while seeing to impeach Trump is clearly a hypocrit.

  32. October 3, 2019 6:59 pm

    Anyone have my same questions about this impeachment “INQUIRY” and the reporting from congress and media coverage depending on ojtcome.

    I think we all know what the reports from congress will be and the media coverage if they find something. And more power to them if they do.

    But if there is nothing there, do we end up with third page, section B, 1 column article about not finding anything like we did with the Bengahzi investigation? I saw little, heard little, read little on that. Not even sure what they thought they would find and what they did find.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 12:00 am

      This is not an inquiry – it is a faux inquiry.

      Pelosi does not wish to risk forcing freshmen democrats in swing districts to vote.
      They might not vote as she wants, and if they do, they might not come back in 2020.

      But absent a vote where the majority of the house authorizes an impeachment inquiry – the house does not have the power to conduct an impeachment inquiry – and it is likely that the courts will act accordingly.

      While this limits what the house can subpeona, it also limits the powers of republicans – who would also be able to subpeona evidence, and it limits their obligation to conform to due process requirements.

      Expect lots of hissy fits over subpeona’s

      Or actually don’t.

      It is likely that if Trump forces the house to court to enforce their subpeona’s that sufficient time will pass for this to die.

  33. Jay permalink
    October 3, 2019 7:59 pm

    American President’s of good character don’t do shit like this:

    NYT: “WASHINGTON — Two of President Trump’s top envoys to Ukraine drafted a statement for the country’s new president in August that would have committed Ukraine to pursuing investigations sought by Mr. Trump into his political rivals, three people briefed on the effort said.

    The drafting of the statement marks new evidence of how Mr. Trump’s fixation with Ukraine began driving senior diplomats to bend American foreign policy to the president’s political agenda in the weeks after the July 25 call between the two leaders.

    The statement was drafted by Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt D. Volker, then the State Department’s envoy to Ukraine, according to the three people who have been briefed on it.”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 12:07 am

      While you have details of the story wrong.

      You are wrong in your conclusions regardless.

      People of good character do investigate the misdeeds of others.

      You seem unable to grasp that investigating the misconduct of the Obama Administration, and DOJ/FBI (or even Clinton) in the 2016 election is NOT election interference
      It is law enforcement.

      Or are you arguing that the entire Comey Mueller investigation of Trump was a politically motivated hatchet job with the intention of influence the outcome of past or future elections.

      Regardless, there are numerous active investigations of the Comey/Mueller investigation, as well as of misconduct involving the obama administration and the Ukraine (and other countries) in the 2016 election.

      Are you honestly trying to say that is illegitimate – that you are free to investigate baseless accusations against Trump, but not credible ones against others ?

  34. Jay permalink
    October 3, 2019 8:07 pm

    “In a *Fox News* column, Judge Andrew Napolitano says Trump has committed impeachable offenses and that his rhetoric of violence is “palpably dangerous.” “

    And those who continue to support him are dangerously addled and should be restrained in straight jackets in mental institutions.

    • October 3, 2019 8:49 pm

      So Jay what is YOUR thoughts on how this is going to end up?

      Impeachment soon
      Or a political party ploy like the GOP Bengahzi investigation that resulted in nothing hut smelly air?

      • Jay permalink
        October 3, 2019 9:26 pm

        Impeachment. But Republican (who will burn in Hell) don’t vote for removal.

        Trump is re-elected. He declares himself President in perpetuity. Republicans say that’s Constitutional. Pricilla & Dave rationalize assent. You scratch your head and say you’re not sure if this is good or bad for America. But as long as a Dem wasn’t elected, you’ll make no judgement.

        I’ll be dead (I’m not living in another Trump governance.) My ghost will torment you, Ron, for your whishy-washy proclivities. History will place bouquets on my final resting place. Graffiti will mark the graves and memories of Trump Synchophants.

      • October 3, 2019 10:14 pm

        Jay , “My ghost will torment you, Ron, for your whishy-washy proclivities.”

        Sorry Jay that I ask you for a coherent response.

        Small minds result in insults instead of logical arguements! You can add this one to your many directed at me as well as Dave and Priscilla.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 1:15 am

        Ron,

        I have to apologize to you for my response to Jay on this post.

        I took Jay seriously.

        Until the ghost nonsense I could not tell the difference between his normal bat shit and what I sure hope was humor or sarcasm.

      • October 4, 2019 11:32 am

        Dave, I’m lost, but with Word Press and the unmanageable number of comments, that is easy.

        I was responding to Jay and his remark about me. If you thought i was responding to you sorry.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 1:43 pm

        You did nothing.

        I responded to a Jay post that I am hoping was sarcasm as if it was serious,
        and in doing so wasted your time.

        It is very difficult to identify sarcasm on the internet.
        It is especially difficult with Jay where so much of what he posts is outrageous slurs.

      • October 4, 2019 11:35 am

        …Dave, I’m lost, but with Word Press and the unmanageable number of comments, that is easy.

        I was responding to Jay and his remark about me. If you thought i was responding to you sorry.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 1:10 am

        And you accuse others of lunatic conspiracy theories ?

        The only way you can even come up with this nonsense is to completely not understand – nearly all republicans, nearly all conservatives, nearly all libertarians.

        There is no president in perpetuity in the constitution,

        The constitution HAS ALWAYS required a presidential election every 4 years.
        Since passing the 22nd amendment presidents have been limited to 2 terms.

        If I do not like that – I can amend the constitution.

        But neither I nor nearly all the republicans, conservatives, or libertarians would “interpret” the constitution different from what it says.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 12:25 am

        Ron,

        Benghazi was not a “political ploy”.

        The mess that occured in Benghazi needed to be investigated.
        It took 4 investigations to get to the truth because there was so much lying.

        If A US consulate is overrun by Terrorists and a US ambassador is murdered by Terrorists,
        I expect a THOROUGH congressional investigation – regardless of what part is in power.
        If the Sec. State, and several other ranking executive officers repeatedly lie to the public about that even – expect an investigation.

      • October 4, 2019 12:45 am

        OK, so lets go through a few questions.
        1. Who is in prison today due to this attack or lies to congress?
        2. who went to prison and is out of jail for the same reasons?
        3. Who was fined for lying to congress?
        4. who went on trial?
        5. Who was charged?
        6. Who lost their job?
        7. After months of investigation and probably millions in cost, just what benefit did this investigation generate other than killing a few trees with all the paper used in the report(s)?

        If nothing happened with 1-6, then 7 was based more on a political hatchet job and nothing else.

      • October 4, 2019 8:29 am

        Wait, Jay, are you saying that you’ll kill yourself if Trump is re-elected?

        Sheesh, not to much of a drama queen, are you?

        The scenario that you describe: Trump is reelected, and (out of the blue?) declares himself a dictator, is bizarre, not because that isn’t possible, but because the only Marxist behavior among elected government officials is coming from the Democrat side: phony, trumped up accusations and charges, attempts to force the executive branch to submit itself to a Star Chamber inquiry, dictated by Eva Peron ~ oops, I mean Nancy Pelosi ~ with no rights or due process allowed to the minority party or to the President, no transparency provided to the public, and no rules or constitutional order governing the kangaroo court that they want to set up.

        In case you aren’t familiar with the term, a kangaroo court is one that :

        “ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate authority which intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations.”

        The swamp is fighting for power, that’s what you’re seeing, Jay. Or, at least it would be what you would see, if you weren’t blinded by hate.

        By the way, the Dems apparently have an IRS “whistleblower” teed up against Mike Pence, along with Trump. And who would be president if they succeeded in removing both? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/irs-whistleblower-trump-pence-tax-audit-interference.html

        Queen Nancy, of course.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 12:17 am

      First, your credibility sucks – so I can not trust what you say that others have said.

      Regardless, Napalitano has already made serious legal errors on this issue.

      The house can “legally” impeach for spitting into the wind.
      High Crimes and misdemeanors only constitutes a meaningful limit IF
      It is defined AND there is a mechanism for enforcing it as a limit.

      Neither are true.

      It is a huge mistake for the house to impeach without a compelling issue.

      You can pretend to beleive this is compelling – lets say it is. Then Republicans should have impeached Biden in 2016. And will be free to impeach the next Democratic president for similar.

      I have noted REPEATEDLY here that ALL GOVERNMENT IS FORCE.

      Whether it is Trump asking, or Zelensky asking, or even a couple of senators asking,
      Whatever they ask for compliance with a resisting party is accomplished ONLY through force or threat of force.

      There was no implied quid pro quo in the Transcript.

      But all the claims of democrats that Zelensky might have felt threatened – though he denies that, are still true.

      Every request from a foreign power has an implied threat to use force.

      It does not matter what is being asked for.

      When a police officer knocks on your door, no matter how polite they are or how little they might want – there is a threat of the use of force.

      Because government is FORCE.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 12:21 am

      Insulting everyone who disagrees with you is a sure fire method to lose any chance to reach them.

      When you insult people – they do not listen to your arguments.
      You have lost any oportunity to persuade them.

      BTW while Rassmussed has Trump back down to 47% – a loss of one,
      He is still 4pts above Obama at this time in his presidency.

  35. Jay permalink
    October 3, 2019 9:11 pm

    So, do I have this right? Trump lovers Dhlii & Pricilla are ok if dem candidates proselytize foreign governments for more dirt on trump.

    If Biden promises Russia no interference duringhis first year in office for Trump’s Pee Pee tapes, you’re ok with that. Right?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 1:04 am

      No you do not have what I have said correct. Do not misrepresent what I have said.

      What you have written resembles but it is not the same as what I have said.
      Do not try to put your spin into my mouth.

      Further – as I have also said repeatedly – there is a gulf between what is illegal, and what is immoral, unethical or improper.

      You keep talking about “dirt”.

      My remarks have all been about criminal investigations where there is reasonable suspicion of a crime.

      Anyone within government at any level that attempts to use the criminal investigative power of the US absent reasonable suspicion of a crime – is themselves criminally abusing power.

      Whether that is the lowliest police office or the president of the united states.

      As to your example – I have no idea what it even means.
      Nor is it comparable.
      In your example:
      Biden is not president.
      He is not asking for a criminal investigation,
      And he is not promising anything he has the power to deliver.
      As best as I can tell with respect to your framing – Biden’s actions would in my view be immoral but not illegal, not investigate, and not impeachable.

      No one has argued that Trump as a public servant is not bound to a higher standard.

      If Biden were to do what you say – Today, that would not be a crime.
      BTW that is pretty much what HRC did and I have repeatedly said it was repugnant but not illegal.

      Is there an army looking to prosecute HRC for paying for the Steele Dossier ?
      There is no crime there.

      But the absence of a crime – does not require me to vote for Trump, Biden, or Clinton.

      What is not illegal – can not be investigated or prosecuted – and a public servant asking for (or initiating) an investigation where there is not reasonable suspicion of a crime is committing a crime.
      But I can vote against it.

      So the questions are:

      Are you weilding the power of govenrment in your request ?
      If not – there is no crime.
      Given that you ARE weilding the power of government, is the action you are taking within the legitimate powers of government ?
      If not – it is a crime.
      Is there a personal benefit to you
      If not it is not a crime.
      If so – the act you are about to take may be legal – but you may not personally legally take it.

      Biden’s threat to Ukraine was a legitimate action of a public servant, but NOT a legitimate act for VP Joe Biden.

      BTW it is near certain we are going to be looking at the democratic version of the same Act that Trump has done shortly.

      One of the areas Trump asked the Ukraine to look at was the the US involvement in the Ukrainian investigation of Manafort.

      We already know that DNC members were involved in fascilitating investigations and leaks of Manafort materials.

      That is dirty but NOT illegal – though it would be a crime for law enforcement to investigate where there was not reasonable suspicion.

      But there is reasonable suspicion that public servants were involved in soliciting a ukrainian investigation into Manafort. Absent reasonable suspicion that manafort committed a crime – doing so was itself a crime.
      Further – that standard is unaltered by politics.

      Asking for an investigation where there is no reasonable suspicion is a crime – even if there is no politics involved.

      If so

  36. Jay permalink
    October 3, 2019 9:29 pm

    dhlii- just a thought.

    You give new meaning to the term ‘artificial intelligence.’

    Hope you appreciate the observation…

  37. Jay permalink
    October 3, 2019 9:32 pm

    Truer Words Not Spoken!

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 1:12 am

      You correctly berated Trump for bandying about accusations of Treason.
      Now you are celebrating Rubin’s abuse of Traitor ?

  38. dhlii permalink
    October 4, 2019 2:26 am

    I keep hearing Democrats saying that the allegations regarding Biden are “conspiracy theories” that have been “debunked”

    Debunk means – to expose to ridicule.

    What it DOES NOT mean is to investigate or disprove.

    To the extent an investigation has been done – it is NOT by the “debunkers”.

    Apartently statements under oath by the actual participants in events are bunk,
    but the narrative of Biden and democrats – that is fact ?

    It is interesting that NYT News clipings are facts – until they do not say what you want them too.

    Volker testified to the house behind closed doors.

    Democrats trumpeted claims that Volker had strenghtened their investigation – as best I can tell because there are tweets by state department employees engaged in speculation – that must be truth, because the speculation is what democrats want to beleive.

    Do we really need more Strzok like tweets ?

    We have gone from Hearsay as evidence – to mind reading as evidence.

    Republicans at the same hearing called for the quick release of the transcript as the means of ending this.

    Meanwhile the Whitehouse has sent notice to Pelosi that absent a vote in the house authorizing an impeachment inquiry they are ignoring any requests as without proper authority.

    And Adam Schiff and Pelosi have both been exposed by NYT as having lied about the whistleblower complaint. They were aware of it – and involved in its crafting prior to its submission.

    Nunes pointed out that Schiff’s involvment was not improper – but lying about it and hiding his involvement was, and it further undermines the complaint.

  39. October 4, 2019 2:11 pm

    Ah, this adds some context to the whole Ukraine story:

    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s son, Paul Pelosi Jr.,visited Ukraine in 2017 to meet with government officials in connection to a business initiative. Now, unearthed records reveal that Paul Pelosi Jr. was an executive of a gas industry company that did business in Ukraine – and his mother Nancy Pelosi was featured in one of the company’s promotional videos.”
    https://nationalfile.com/breaking-nancy-pelosis-son-was-exec-at-gas-company-that-did-business-in-ukraine/

    From the same article:

    “Paul Pelosi Jr. co-founded the company Natural Blue Resources, which the SEC charged with securities fraud in 2014.”

    Biden’s son, Pelosi’s son….those Democrats really shook down Ukraine to enrich their own, huh? No wonder they don’t want any investigations….

    • dhlii permalink
      October 4, 2019 2:42 pm

      This is a major area where Trump has an incredible advantage over the entire rest of politics.

      Jay and others here have continually argued that Trump is using his office to enrich himself and his family.

      But they face several problems – the Trump family was incredibly wealthy before taking office.
      They are doing nothing differently today. And Trump has lost 1.5B as president.

      They are all sufficiently wealthy that all the assorted petty allegations are obvious nonsense.

      Why would any of the trumps involve themselves and anything so mundane as a 50K/month directorship – it is just not on their radar.

      But pretty much ALL of washington operates this way.

      They may be absolutely nothing illegal about anything Hunter Biden did – or Pelosi.

      But despite frothing at the mouth – The Trump’s have not done anything like this – ever.
      They got their wealth by making things.

      It is near certain that somewhere along the way they too had to offer swamp creatures like the bidens and pelosi’s “tokens of appreciation” – that may or may not have been legal.,

      But it is ALWAYS those selling power that have betrayed the public trust, that have committed the most heinous crime. Not those renting it.

      Trump does need to gain control of his temper.

      Nearly always the person who comes off the angriest loses. Regardless of whether their anger is justified or not.

      And that is the real risk to Trump in this mess – that the incredible pressure the left and the media have put him under will result in his making a very poor choice.

      It is not “fair” – but he only gets one serious mistake,

      He has done lots and lots of things that – are acceptable conduct in a self righteously angry innocent person. but that same conduct will damn him, if he crosses sufficiently into a grey area that he loses the popular presumption of innocence.

      That is what happened to Nixon when the tape asking other to solicit money to buy the silence of the watergate burglars surface.

      The tide can swing very very very fast.

      At the same time, all Trump has to do to prevail is not make such a mistake. Not crack under pressure.

      He survived the incredible pressure of Mueller.
      He has already survived the worst of this “faux impeachment”.

      The left should ponder

      “Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger”

      If they fail at this – Trump will come up not weakened but stronger. And they will come out weaker.

      Everyone should admit this conflict between the left and Trump has become highly polarized and the stakes keep getting ratcheted up.

      The left has lost every had those far. Trump is a far better poker player than they are.

      But gamblers everywhere know that everything can flip on a single hand.

      And the left’s efforts to “get Trump” have ensnared the entire country in the potential consequences of this ever higher stakes poker game.

      I think we have long past the point where the left can win.
      they have damaged themselves beyond repair in the eyes of the majority of people.

      And they are so deep in a bubble they do not grasp that.

    • Jay permalink
      October 4, 2019 3:22 pm

      I’m shocked to hear that!
      I say SHOCKED!

      Oh, by the way,

      Since Trump’s inauguration, the Trump Organization, controlled by his family members has done business with more than 30 countries, and accordingly, as they have stated, to generate billion$ in revenue.

      Plus this: “Forbes reported that Eric and Don Jr. have sold more than $100 million of the family’s real estate since the January 2017 inauguration — including a $3.2 million deal in the Dominican Republic last year that is “the clearest violation of their father’s pledge to do no new foreign deals while in office.” Foreign money has also poured into the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House, which the president’s most recent financial disclosure indicated made him $41 million last year alone.”

      In addition there’s a $1.7 billion Trump Organization project in Indonesia that received a $500 billion infusion from a state-owned Chinese construction company. And let’s not forget Ivanka Trump, still working in the White House, continues to do business in China; and her hubby ‘White House official’ Jared Kushner, received a massive cash infusion from Qatar.

      Aren’t you a wee bit hypocritical not to mention those glaring Presidential sponsored nepotism’s as well? If I was Trump I could label you a SHITHEAD for that behavior; but at this point I’m restrained to do more than point out your sham outrage.. 👎👎👎

      • October 4, 2019 3:30 pm

        Hahaha. A little testy there, aren’t you, Jay?

      • Jay permalink
        October 4, 2019 3:58 pm

        Ho Ho Ho – you deftly avoided responding to any of my charges.
        Keep ducking, Duckie.
        Close your ears/eyes to this as well:

        “WASHINGTON (AP) — Top U.S. diplomats encouraged Ukraine’s newly elected president to conduct an investigation linked to Joe Biden’s family in return for a high-profile visit with President Donald Trump. It soon escalated into what one diplomat feared was a “crazy” swap that risked vital U.S. military aid.

        That’s according to a cache of text messages released late Thursday by House investigators following a 10-hour interview with one of the diplomats, Kurt Volker , who stepped down as special envoy to Ukraine amid the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

        The pages lay out the raw contours of a potential quid-pro-quo exchange — Trump gets his political investigation of a top Democratic rival in return for granting a favor to Ukraine.”

        PS: it worked: Trump got the Ukraine Govt to reopen the case today:

        https://apnews.com/457daad4e64241889e84206a81697246

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 1:48 am

        Republicans have called for the release of ALL the texts – as well as Volker’s testimony.

        They claim that Both the text’s and Volker’s testimony completely end this nonsense.

        You do not know the truth – and neither do I – because we do not have all the evidence.

        I do know that Schiff and Swalwell have made myriads of claims in the past that proved false.
        Thus far I am heard pressed to think of times that Jordan or Meadows or Nunes have not ultimately been proven correct in their characterization of closed door testimony.

        As I keep telling you over and over – but you do not get – when you lie – particularly when you make false accusations, your credibility is shot.

        Are you atleast prepared to join in asking that all the texts and testimony are released ?

        I have only seen a few of these texts – but those I have seen tell me what specific diplomats think – or what they think Trump wants.
        I have not seen any texts thus far that say what Trump TOLD them.

        I am not much interested in the guesses of various diplomats as to what Trump thinks.

        One of the other things that has been revealed recently by these texts and other records,

        The Ukrainians we completely unaware that aide was being delayed.

        It is really hard to blackmail someone with something they do not even know about.

        Another thing that was revealed by the Texts – is that Trump was providing Ukraine with the military aide that they wanted – actual weapons that the Obama administration had refused to provide.

        You can argue whether that was good policy or bad.

        But you can not argue that Trump was kowtowing to Russia, or weakening Ukraine, or blackmailing Ukraine by giving them MORE of what they actually want.

        Regardless, you are pretending that policy discussions and policy disputes between diplomats are themsselves represenative of the actual policy of the president.

        When one of these guys say Trump told them to do X – that is evidence regarding Trump.
        When they tell you what they THINK Trump thinks – that is not evidence.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 1:54 am

        Sounds like Ukraine is doing their job.

        BTW the case against Joe Biden is a US case. Biden acted using the power and authority of the US government. The Ukraine can look into Biden’s son, But not Biden himself. He would have diplomatic immunity and further It is not blackmailing Ukraine that is the crime – though it is bad policy. It is using US power to benefit his son. That is not a Ukraine case.

        Hunter was barely mentioned int he transcript.

        Trump is more interested in the evidence of US government officials colluding with the Ukrainian government and the DNC to interfere in US elections.
        He is not mostly looking for Ukraine to prosecute anything.
        He is looking for evidence so that Barr can prosecute.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 1:56 am

        “The pages lay out the raw contours of a potential quid-pro-quo exchange ”

        No they do not. They pretty much put to rest any quid pro quo claim.
        The Ukrainians did not know there was any unsual delay in the aide (because there wasn’t – it was all provided on schedule).

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 11:37 pm

        And yet, Trump’s net worth – according to Forbes has declined by 1.5B.

        Revenue is not profits – no matter how large it is.

        Is any of those countries – a country that Trump was not doing business with before that Trump’s foreign policy directly impacts, that Trump has threatened ?

        There is nothing that has changed about the Way Trump and his family have done business – except that DJT is NOT involved in the business.

        Trump’s family are not following Trump arround the globe picking up jobs that they have no qualifications for as leavings from Trump.

        You can argue that nepotism got them their PRIVATE oportunity.
        Regardless, they have delivered on the advantages they have been given.

        If you do not understand the massive difference between Biden Pelosi and the myriads of politicians families whose sole qualification for the benefits they get is the Publlic Trust given their parents.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 11:42 pm

        So Trump is currying favor with the Chinese by engaging in a trade war with them ?

        Can you explain to be exactly how that works ?

        Generally the people you are F’ing over politically do not loan you money – unless you are so good an investment that being at war with you does not change their investment choices.

        Separately – though what you report Might be true – it is not so often – why should I beleive you ?

        You expect us to beleive that Trump is getting loans (that must be paid back) from Chinese state owned companies – without the evidence to support that.

        Yet you refuse to believe that Biden has NOT been exhonerated – again without any actual evidence that occured.

        What reporters SAY is not news or facts. What actual facts they provide is.

        But you do not know what hearsay is or why it is not credible.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 4, 2019 11:51 pm

        Jay,

        I am REALLY libertarian.

        I do not care if parents heavily favor their children. So long as they do so with what is THEIRS.

        If you do not understand that if your wishes for your children trump your steward ship of public resources – do not become a public servant.

        There is no requirement that you do so.

        Absolutely Trump’s success – as well as that of his family rests on foundations they received from their parents.

        It is unlikely Donald would have succeeded as greately as he has – without the leg up given him by his father. Nor would Trump Jr be running a multi-billion collar company but for his father.

        But no one else was harmed by the advantages the Trump’s have gotten.
        There is no job Trump got that someone else had the right to.
        And reqardless of the leg up they received – once in the saddle, their success has been their own.

        There is infinite difference between going into the family business of private real-estate – where you must ultimately succeed on your own.
        And getting a free ride to the top – where you do not have to deliver anything – except your parents good will, and where that good will is the property of the public.

    • October 4, 2019 4:12 pm

      Priscilla, Jay called me wishy washy or something(?) in a previous message because I cant get my anus constricted like he does when something is reported about Trump. It all goes back to trust. Those that trust government ( people in control of others lives) believe those individuals do everything by the book and follow the laws previous government passed. People who have no trust in government expect those controlling others lives to take advantage of their positions and use their power to enrich their own lives or the lives of their familiy.

      So yes, I am wishy washy about Trump, the same as I am about the Bidens and now the Pelosi’s as you shared. I expect this to happen. If Trump makes money selling property, renting rooms, if the Bidens and Pelosi’s made money from deals in Ukraine, big deal. Its happened all our history and it will continue into the future.

      What I can get my knickers in a wad over is the drug industry, the protection they buy when giving millions to candidates they know will protect patent laws that result in obnoxious costs that many can not afford. Just today I read an article where Aimmune has petitioned the FDA to declare peanut powder they created by grinding up peanuts as a drug. This would then be patented as a treatment for kids where they recieve minute amounts of this dust, it causes an immunological reaction where kids with peanut allergies could be exposed to a couple peanuts and not have a reaction. The cost $4,200 per year. Get rid of patents and this becomes a drug no more expensive than aspirin. But paid off politicians will never change this law. Even Warren and Sanders dont say much about patented drug laws.

      And I would also appreciate Jay just coming out and call Dave, you and I “deplorable” and stop with all the other insulting names, because that is what he thinks we are. I think all three of us would like some other conservatine/Libertarian leaning GOP in the whitehouse, but gecause we cant get bat shit crazy about removing Trump, we are Deplorable!

      • Jay permalink
        October 4, 2019 6:11 pm

        Dave & Pricilla are DEPLORABLES (a contaminated by Trump designation).
        You’re just partially discombobulated in that respect.
        On most other topics we are generally on the same frequency of disparagement for the yahoos on the Left and the yo-yos on the Right.

        Trump is a CANCER.
        He needs to be excised from government.
        Biden’s the best choice for extirpating the cancerous blot.
        My advice for Biden to assure a surgical Trump removal is to promise he’ll only be a one term President. That would be sufficient time to air the STINK out of the White House, and hopefully return Dems & Gops to normal IDIOCY.

        BIDEN FOR ONE
        TRUMP FOR NONE

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:04 am

        I beleive it is “$1.5B for Biden”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:06 am

        Your post is a long list of insults.
        Pretty much guaranteeing that you will never get the respect of the swelling numbers of people you insult.

        If you want to persuade people who do not already agree with you – insulting them seems like a bad strategy.

        Facts, Logic Reason sounds better.

      • Jay permalink
        October 4, 2019 6:34 pm

        From Volker’s prepared statement:

        “In addition, I have known former Vice President Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.”

        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-volkers-full-prepared-testimony-on-trump-ukraine-controversy

      • October 4, 2019 8:18 pm

        OK, Volker. (?) You seem to think we would know.
        Why respond to me about this. I have only said Biden and Pelosi used influence to get their kids into positions where they could be in Ukraine. its called cronyism. Same as Trump staying out of the service due to (??) born spurs.And I believe all politicians are crooks. They would not be in D.C. if they were not.

        And men of integrity dont plagiarize others works and claim them as their own works.
        1987: During the 1988 Presidential election, the then-presidential candidate was accused of mimicking a speech that British Labour Party Neil Kinnock delivered just four months prior.
        This was not a young man making a mistake. This was during his first attempt for president.

        But Biden is toast. Sanders was my odds on to get nomination. Not now with heart condition. Warren is now the nominee unless she does something stupid.IMO

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:41 am

        Warren is the nominee unless she openly does something criminal.

        She does stupid things all the time.

        BTW one of the things that has been reported – is Warren’s support among democrats – swings widely depending on the latest news.

        But Warren support outside the democratic party is stable and very small.

        That is one of many reasons Trump likely wants her to be the democratic candidate.

        She will be the easiest for him to beat.

        Wall Street hates her – even wall street democrats hate her.
        A Wall Street Clinton money man has been quoted as saying if Warren is the democratic nominee, his money is either sidelined or going to Trump

      • October 5, 2019 11:45 am

        I am not usually into “conspiracy theories”, but I began thinking about this one a few days ago. And Sanders medical issues kind of helps out.

        I believe Trump is the master manipulator. I believe that nothing will come from this “inquiry”. Especially since Schiff has been caught in a blue faced lie that he never had previous contact with the leaker before it was released. ( WAPO Pinochios) And I believe Trump wants to eliminate Biden before he gets started.

        How best than to plant a report that you know the rabbit opposition will jump all over that you know will lead no where, but will implicate Biden and let that do your work for you. And in addition, it just stirs your base even more to make sure they vote. Might turn off a few voters like me, but with Warren the nominee, those not voting for her far outweigh voters like me that Trump might lose.

        Yes, i’m nuts. But in this days and age you have to be partially crazy to stay mentally capable of functioning. And just think how wonderful a movie this would make!

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 3:50 pm

        Trump is absolutely a master manipulator.
        So long as his manipulations are to accomplish his campaign promises – that is a good thing not a bad one.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 4:01 pm

        Credibility and integrity matter.

        There is nothing illegal about what Schiff did.
        There is nothing wrong with assisting a Whistleblower.

        In this instance on this subject it appears to be partisan and political – just as some parts of Trump’s comments to Zelensky appear partisan and political.

        But Just like Schiff – Trump’s actions – though partisan and political are also legitimate.

        We can judge the partisan and political – in the next election.

        Lying about the WB complaint comes at the expense of Schiff’s integrity and credibility.

        One of the things that does not seem to get through to Robby or Jay or so many on the left is that credibility and integrity have NOTHING to do with what side of an issue you are on.

        They have to do with whether you are truthful, keep your promises and do not make false allegations against others.

        Trump has been constantly accused of lying about all kinds of things.
        Nearly all those allegations either devolve to assertions that a difference on policy is a lie, or of facts that Trump has ultimately been more accurate about than his detractors.

        Conversely Schiff has failed repeatedly to deliver on his promises, and is once again caught in a lie, and he had no need to lie.

        That is especially bad.

        We would all like to see less partisanship.
        But partisanship is NOT inherently evil.
        What is wrong with Schiff is not that he is partisan – it is that he is a liar.

        We all know that he hates Trump. And he is allowed to. But he is lying about it, and it is crazy lying. Trump is accused of that all the time.
        But Trump/Russia did prove to be a witch hunt.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 4:16 pm

        “yes, I am nuts”.

        When many of the claims of people like Alex Jones prove to be true – your not nuts.

        What is REALLY REALLY disturbing at the moment – is that it is highly probable that a very large percentage of the “conspiracy theories” are going to prove true.

        There was nothing wrong with what Schiff did – but he lied about it, and it was partisan, and he tried to do if in secret and hide it. And he was exposed.

        When you expose a few REAL CONSPIRACIES – that make all the ones that have not yet been proven more credible.

        Apparently we now have several memo’s confirming the allegation that Rosenstein offered to wear a wire on the newly elected president – and the memo’s read as if that was serious.

        That sure as hell looks like a “conspiracy”, like a “soft coup” attempt.

        When the #2 person at DOJ is holding meetings discussing spying on the president – they damn well better have a really good basis to begin with, AND prove their case in the end.
        Because what they are doing is a real life CONSPIRACY, and conspiring against a sitting president requires not merely evidence – but to actually be right in the end.

        Regardless, lets dispense with the notion that there was/is a conspiracy against Trump.

        That has been established – beyond any doubt.
        We do not know how orgainzed that conspiracy is, nor how far it extends. but its existance is proven.

        What we do not know is whether that conspiracy had a legitimate foundation and whether its conduct was legal and proper. And in this instance the burden of proof is actually on the conspirators. When you try to take down legitimate authority – you MUST be absolutely correct.

        Our founders knew that when they signed the declaration of independence they were committing Treason against England. The purpose of the declaration was to legally justify that Treason. This is also part of why they defined Treason in the constitution.

        Every one of our founders was a “traitor” – they betrayed their country and its leader and took up arms against it. That is only permissible when there is extremely strong justification.

        Trump/Russia fizzeled – the coup failed.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:47 am

        There is a difference between conduct that is illegal and conduct that is immoral.
        There are also things that are highly plausible, but unlikely to ever be proven.

        It is extremely unlikely that any investigation will ever find evidence that Pelosi, Biden, ….. used their influence in a clearly criminal way to benefit their families.

        That does not mean that did not occur or that it is not a crime, only that it is incredibly hard to prove. Burisima is not likely to EVER say – we gave Hunter Biden a “no show” job, to Get Joe Biden’s favor.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:12 am

        Volker’s remarks are irrelevant.

        Where there is a personal conflict – You May not excerise government power.

        There is no exception for people who you have known for years and have never seen do anything bad.

        Biden’s problems are with the FACTS.

        It does not matter whether Hunter got his job through Biden’s influence.

        There is a very disturbing pattern, but that is not the main thrust.

        Biden’s problem was that he was leading US policy regarding Ukrainian corruption and a time when he son was being investigated by Ukraine for corruption – and VP Biden knew it.

        Those are the only facts that matter.

        Though it is really disturbing that immediately after Hunter was made a director of Burisima the Russian Oligarch that owned most of it, went from PNG in the US to near immediately able to get a VISA/

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:02 am

        When Jay spews insults – he undermines himself and he drives people away from his position.

        I would prefer that we actually address real arguments – facts, logic reason.

        But if Jay wants to spray insults all the time – fine with me.

        Sometimes he is even creative and that is interesting.

        I am not “getting my panties in a bunch” because Jay wants to ruin his own credibility and integrity.

        But I am going to point it out.

      • October 5, 2019 8:53 am

        Volker was very diplomatic in his testimony, which is fitting for a diplomat.

        It is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by partisanship and TDS, that Biden is corrupt, and that his crackhead son is a very, very troubled man, who, all of his life, has used his father’s high position in government to enrich himself. Painfully obvious. I don’t think that Joe Biden is a very smart man, and I’m sure that he was trying to do right by his kid, but, if I robbed a bank, and gave the money to my children to give them a better life, that would not make it right, or legal.

        Biden is not going to be president. Neither is Sanders. I’m still betting on Hillary and/or Bloomberg getting into the race, because Warren will not be a strong candidate, and the Dems know it.

        This whole impeachment thing is nothing more than another sham. Without a floor vote, there is no impeachment inquiry.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 11:59 am

        Is there a public Transcript of Volker’s testimoney ?

        All I have is what talking heads have said he said.

        Based on that:

        He seriously undercut several legs of this impeachment nonsense.
        He demonstrated that Diplomats speculate among themselves.

        Speculation is not evidence or anything.

        I keep trying to get through that your (or anyone else’s) guesses as to what someone else’s thoughts are ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

        They are worse than “hearsay” – they are “guessthink”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 12:20 pm

        I am disturbed about the building revelations regarding Biden.

        His reputation is coming apart.

        But with respect to Trump the only one thing that matters is his public remarks on the Ukraine.

        ALONE they are PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime was committed – and therefore more than sufficient to ask for an investigation.

        And with that – this impeachment nonsense should end.

        If you are on the right you can be gleeful that Trump is going after his enemies.
        If you are on the left you can scowl that somehow that is not proper.

        But ultimately the impediment to asking for an investigation is NOT your political benefit,
        it is whether reasonable suspicion is present.

        To be clear the standard for ASKING for an investigation is lower.
        The standard for conducting it is higher.

        Trump can not personally direct an investigation into a political rival.
        But he can ask that one take place.

        We would not let the current District Attorney investigate his opponent in a campaign.

        But we also would not decide that because the DA can not investigate the opponent, that misconduct by the opponent can not be investigated.

        The premise that the left is using on this impeachment nonsense, is that “because Trump” nothing potentially involving or embarrasing a democrat can be investigated.

        That is just nonsense.

        Take note of the fact that those carrying pitchforks are after Barr and Durham too.

        Jay and Robby might want to consider that this might not be as much about “getting Trump” as a desparate effort to stop the entire Trump Russia house of card from turning arround and biting Democrats on the ass.

        There are actually LOTS of things that need to be investigated.

        The unmasking is a really really big deal.

        Giving private contractors access to the NSA surveilance information – and the abuses that resulted – is a big deal.

        There are claims I have heard to once would have been just “conspiracy theories” that increasingly need investigated.

        There is a claim that one of the private contractors engaged in improper NSA records searches was affiliated with the DNC, and that the hack of the DNC had nothing to do with the election but was an effort to access the NSA information.
        This would explain why the server is being kept from the FBI.

        While the VIPS analysis of the “hacked” DNC emails is pretty damning,
        Even more troubling is VIPS;s observationt that:

        If the DNC was hacked from Russia(or anywhere outside the US) – the NSA has absolute proof of that. that NSA has been tracking everything transatlantic for many decades.

        There would have been no problem for either Comey or Mueller to get a FISA warrant to search the EXISTING NSA Data for the actual proof of the hacking.

        That was not done. The only reason not to ask, is because you already know the answer.

        And to be clear the claim regarding the NSA’s monitoring of everything Transatlantic is not “speculation”. Bill Binney is part of VIPS and a signator on the VIPS report and he was one of the key people developing the software and hardware than enabled NSA to do that monitoring.

      • Jay permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:21 pm

        “I am disturbed about the building revelations regarding Biden.”

        What ‘revelations’ are you waxing idiotic about? Did you see something in tea leaves at another right-wing conspiracy-fantasy website?

        You really are a pompous ass!
        Ah, shucks- you caught me plagiarizing Trump today:

        “Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He is a pompous “ass” who has been fighting me from the beginning”

        Your President, in all his glory!

        And I love your faulty logic on this assessment you made about the Trump-Ukraine scandal:

        “But with respect to Trump the only one thing that matters is his public remarks on the Ukraine.

        ALONE they are PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime was committed – and therefore more than sufficient to ask for an investigation.

        And with that – this impeachment nonsense should end.”

        What? If they are sufficient to initiate an IMPEACHMENT investigation, why should the impeachment investigation end? DUH!

        And this is even a DUMBER observation:

        “Trump can not personally direct an investigation into a political rival.
        But he can ask that one take place.”

        He can not ask a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to do that, you idiot. That’s a prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 4:28 pm

        Is Politico a right wing conspiracy web site ?
        Washington Post ?
        Huffington Post ?
        New York Times ?

        Absolutely you can BOLSTER the allegations made by NYT – with evidence from that conspiracy site “the Hill”, but the initial allegations were not made by “alex jones”,

        I had forgotten the allegations of plagerism, that Priscilla just brought up.

        Regardless, whether it is plagerism, sexual harrassment, or corruption, there is more than enough to ruin Biden’s blue collar good ole boy honest joe reputation.
        And without that he is toast.

        “Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He is a pompous “ass” who has been fighting me from the beginning”

        What part of that is not true ?
        Mostly I think Romey is a decent person. But he would have been a poor president.
        Further even the decent person argument has limits.
        He would not have kept his campaign promises as Trump has.
        Keeping them would have required conflict, and Romney is adverse to conflict.
        That is OK, but then do not make promises that you are not going to keep, and you know it.

        Trump is quite often not a “nice” person – like Romney is.
        But he keeps his promises – even if that requires conflict.
        That is actual integrity.

        Who has integrity – the nice guy who will not keep his promises ? Or the not so nice guy who does ?

        I do not hate Romney. I would rather have dinner with him that Trump.

        But if both promised to keep my kids safe – the one I would trust to do so is Trump.
        Romney would not be willing to hurt anyone’s feelings to keep his promises.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 4:39 pm

        Reading is not your forte.

        Biden’s public remarks are probable cause for an investigation.

        Therefore Trump was justified in asking, even pressing, even extorting Ukraine to get one.

        Constitutionally there is no mechanism to enforce any meaning to “high crimes and misdemeanors” beyond that of voters in the next election.

        Therefore congress CAN do as it pleases.

        But they do not have a legitimate basis for doing so and SHOULD stop, before they harm themselves and the country further.

        That is not a demand – if Democrats wish to self destruct – go for it.

        Do not confuse my lack of opposition to impeachment for support.

        Why I am saying that – I do not know. You constantly conflate arguments that Trump’s actions are legitimate or permissible for support.

        You can not seem to grasp that there is a huge gulf between – there is no legitimate basis to haul Trump off in chains and rabid Trump supporter.

        There are likely millions of people in this country who would be a better president.
        But not one of those is running with either the democratic or republican parties.

        “”He can not ask a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to do that, you idiot. ”
        Bzzt, wrong – according to the constitution, by law, and by treaty he absolutely positively can.

        “That’s a prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense.”

        Absent an enforcement mechanism for “high crimes and misdemeanors”
        They are whatever congress decides, therefore ANYTHING is a “prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense”

        The final word on that goes to the voters.

        Regardless, no matter how this turns out – you are stuck with the results.

        If as you say “asking a foriegn government to do that” – is impeachable.
        Then Obama and Biden should have been impeached – because they “did that”.

      • Jay permalink
        October 5, 2019 8:08 pm

        “Reading is not your forte“

        Thinking obviously is not yours.

        What Biden remarks are you referring to, dumb dumb?
        Those from YEARS ago, before Shit Head was elected?

        That you don’t ADMIT what Trump has done/is doing — is a wrongful open attempt to manipulate foreign entities to undermine his political rival, and that you don’t agree that is WRONG, that you in fact defend it — is the final straw:

        “Máio Oi éxi theoí tis orgís
        Na karfósete ti glóssa sas!”

        (May The Six Gods Of Wrath
        Nail Down Your Tongue!)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 12:01 am

        “What Biden remarks are you referring to, dumb dumb?
        Those from YEARS ago, before Shit Head was elected?”

        The world did not start in november of 2016.

        Is there something I do not know about Biden – has he been “saved” ?
        “Washed in the blood of the lamb” ?

        “That you don’t ADMIT what Trump has done/is doing — is a wrongful open attempt to manipulate foreign entities to undermine his political rival, and that you don’t agree that is WRONG, that you in fact defend it — is the final straw:”

        By my definition of “wrong” every president since Washington has engaged in improper manipulation of foreign entities.

        If you have read either the whistleblower complaint or the transcript then you know that in Both – Biden is a tangent, not the focus. Trump was far more concerned with exposing the misconduct and interfereance of the Obama administration in the 2016 election.

        The damage done to Biden was actually done by the Whistleblower – and you.
        Biden was a minor point on a long list Trump wanted Ukraine to look into.
        If they did everything Trump asked – Biden would be a foot note.
        But you and democrats have drawn attention to Biden – and it is destroying him.

        I found the Volker testimony – though we only have his prepared statement, interesting.
        I do not find Volker expecially credible – according to him, Trump is wonderful, but mysterious “others” keep feeding him a “dark narative”, Biden is a saint, as is Guiliani, Biden never came up, he was not concerned about the hold on aide – that is normal, and the Ukraines never knew anyway. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries arround – they definitely screwed with the 2016 election, and Burisma is very corrupt – but it is best that we put that in a box and stay far away from it, Zelenskyy is a saint who will clean up the Ukraine.
        The former ambassador could do no wrong. US Policy to Ukraine under Trump is perfect.

        Put simply while he did trump no harm, and in alot of ways helped him – he is a diplomat and he is not credible – because he will not say anything bad about anyone.

        Well he was not all that nice to Lutesenko – who according to him threatened to re-open the Burisma investigation, to curry favor with Trump in the hope that Trump would leverage Zelenskyy into keeping him as PG.

        Need I remind you that Lutensenko is the guy who the media is relying on for the claims that Biden was exonerated – also false.

        Regardless, you are making a mountain out of something like 8 ambiguous words in a 5 page document, Trump did not even say that Biden did anything wrong – only that it appeared there was something that should be looked at.

        Which if you ever were capable of being honest with yourself is absolutely True.

        If Indonesia was investigating Donald Trump Jr. for corruption and Trump told the indonesians he was cutting off aide if they did not fire the prosecutor – Trump would have been impeached and removed – with the vote of every republican in congress.

        Yet you do not think that Biden’s conduct warrant’s investigating ?

        The closest thing I have to a nit to pick about Trump’s remarks about Biden are that Joe Biden’s misconduct would be a US Crime, and should be investigated by DOJ, Ukraine has no jurisdiction over the actions of former VP Biden, and the truth about Hunter Biden – whatever it might be, has no bearing on the misconduct of VP Biden.

        Regardless – but for democrats – most of this would have been handled quietly.

        I have no doubt that Trump would have crowed it to the heavens had any of the investigations produced fruit. But if as you claim there was nothing there – then we would have heard nothing.

        And if you wish to claim that we can not trust the Ukrainians because of Trump’s “threats” – then you have a bigger problem – Biden ACTUALLY Threatened them, by your logic that means all that “it was investigated and nothing was found” – out the window – because the Ukrainians were threatened by the VP of the United states – and who Claimed Obama backed him up 100%.

        No matter what you are trapped. There is absolutely no possible standard of conduct that makes Trump’s actions improper – that does not make those of Obama and Biden and probably every past president worse.

        Anyway – if you wish to impeach Trump for this – go ahead.
        As the hysteria fades I do not think you are even close to a majority in the house, and I think almost half of Senate democrats will vote in favor of Trump.

        But I do not think you will ever see a vote – Pelosi is unlikely to bring this to the floor of the house, and almost every senator regardless of party does not want this in the Senate.

        In an actual impeachment inquiry in the house – the house republicans get subpeona power.

        In a trial in the senate – Trump has broad rights to defend himself – Durbin, Menedez, The Bidens would have to testify, they are not letting that happen, and the only way to do that is to keep it from ever reaching the Senate.

        There was talk that McConnell would just not proceed to trial, if the house impeached.
        The press pushed him into asserting that was not true.

        But I have no doubt that an army of democrats will be publicly defaming him for not doing so while privately begging him not to do so.

      • October 5, 2019 5:06 pm

        “He can not ask a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT to do that, you idiot. That’s a prima-facie Constitutionally IMPEACHABLE offense.”

        Jay, you are wrong.

        The President can “ask” any country to look into corruption involving US citizens. In fact we have a specfic agreement with Ukraine, which allows both sides to ask for cooperation (sort of like an extradition treaty, if you know what they are).

        Also, the UN has a Convention, to which we are signed on, that says :
        ” countries that have ratified the Convention – are expected to cooperate in criminal matters and consider assisting each other in investigations of and proceedings in civil and administrative matters relating to corruption. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Corruption

        I know that you get most of your info from Twitter, but it’s not a reliable source…

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 7:30 pm

        One of the massive problems democrats have with this entire fiasco – is that every claim they make not only runs affoul of the law, and logic, but also of their own actions and arguments.

        I would really prefer that the US stayed the F out of the affairs of foreign countries – our track record absolutely sucks.

        But that is NOT the state of things.

        Biden threatened to withold $1B in aide if the Ukraine did not fire the PG.
        By Jays argument that is far more offensive than anything Trump has ever done.

        I think there are myriads of reasons Biden was incorrect in doing that.
        It increasingly appears that Shokin was NOT corrupt and that the US had him removed because he was interfering with our ability to corrupt the Ukraine in our own way.
        That is an opinion – though evidence is building to support it.
        The Hunter Biden issue is mostly a tangent.

        But it is a tangent with some significance.
        Whether the US actions in Ukraine were legitimate or not,
        Hunter Biden’s father could not demand the Prosecutor he knew was investigating his son’s firing.
        That is incorrect, immoral, and almost certainly illegal.

        Conversely the FACT that what Trump asked Zelensky has political benefits is a very good reason we should look very carefully at it.
        But if otherwise justified – the fact of political benefit or motive is irrelevant.
        Nor can Trump remedy the problem by having someone else make the request – while Biden could.

        The argument Jay makes precludes prosecuting a crime when it is committed by a political opponent (or more accurately, because Jay has no problem investigating and Prosecuting Trump – it protects democrats from investigation),

        That is insane.
        The constitution does nto even make the innocent immune from prosecution.
        It just guarantees them due process, including the requirement that any investigation requires reasonable suspicion to start.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 7:31 pm

        Twitter is heaven for those who think snarky insults are arguments.

      • October 5, 2019 8:41 pm

        Twitter is the home for small minds where retweets and insults are used to support ones position instead of facts and information that takes more than 140 characters. INCLUDING OUR PRESIDENT..

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 12:04 am

        I beleive it is 280 characters now.

        Regardless, I agree – including the Trump reference.

        I do not get on Twitter much anymore.

        But I do follow Trump – as well as alot of prominent people on the left.

        Trump’s tweets are unpleasant. But many many many people who I used to respect, have tweeted repulsive things.

        Twitter is where you go is you want to proverbially hear the Pope tweet scatological insults.

      • October 6, 2019 11:57 am

        The most intelligent occurrences on twitter are the spaces between the words. All the rest is moronic baffle gab.

      • Jay permalink
        October 5, 2019 9:05 pm

        So, you’re suggesting any President can do that with any citizen running for office at his/her discretion?

        That means Obama could have asked foreign governments to investigate Trump and any of the other Republican candidates as soon as they announced they were running, correct?

        There were more than enough multiple charges floating around about Trump’s dealings with shady Russians to allow Obama by your criteria to use the POWER of his office to have numerous foreign allies dig up additional dirt on Trump (or the others), RIGHT!! And by your criteria if Obama had commissioned the Steele Dossier and released it during the campaign you would have been OK with that. RIGHT!!!

        If as you idiotically suggest Trump has the right to do that with Biden why did so many government members monitoring the conversation and the assembled transcript of it come to the conclusion it was UNCONSCIONABLE!

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 1:06 am

        “So, you’re suggesting any President can do that with any citizen running for office at his/her discretion?”

        Can I buy a noun ?

        Regardless – again – problems with reading comprehension ?

        Any president can threaten foreign countries in order to implement their policies.
        To be clear – that does not make any policy of any president legitimate, or moral,
        but it does make it constitutional.

        But this impeachment is not about polices – even though nearly all of the whistleblower complaint is.

        The impeachment is over whether any president can ask a foreign govenrment to conduct and investigation.

        The answer AGAIN is yes – by the constitutional powers of the president, by treaty, and aparently by UN convention – yes,
        That is inside of the powers of the president.

        One step further can the president ask for an investigation of a US citizen ?

        Again the answer is YES, that is within the powers of the president.

        You are engaged in a binary fallacy – and it is depriving you of the ability to think.

        If investigations of opposing political figures are absolutely barred – then by YOUR logic there is no question at all that Obama’s investigation of Trump was a heinous crime.

        There ARE however limits to these powers. The president can not violate the constitutional rights of any american – whether they are an opposing politician or not.

        Put differently – the president can not call ANY investigation – where there is not “reasonable suspicion” necescary to justify an investigation.

        BTW that limit is not a limit on the president. It is a limit on the entire government – federal state, local. No police officer, no DA, no US attorney, no president can open an investigation where reasonable suspicion does not exist.

        Next – “reasonable suspicion” is a legal term of art. While it does mean approximatly what most of us think it means, It does NOT mean what any one of us chooses to think it means.
        Put differently – it has a meaning defined by law, and that meaning trumps your personal idea of what it means. It is actually very important that it BOTH means what most of us think it means, AND means something legally precise – broad public acceptance and narrow precise meaning are BOTH requirements for legitimate law.
        And before you decide to fight about that – those are requirements because the alternative is anarchy and chaos. The requirements of the law for legitimate govenrment – are much like those of the laws of physics. You must get them right – or things just do not work.
        I know many of you eschew philosophy, but an awful lot of it is not esoteric platitudes. It is about constructing foundations for society that will actually work. Law is the same but narrower.

        The fight over the legitimacy of the Trump/Russia investigation – whether Comey’s investigation or Mueller’s were a “witch hunt” or legitimate, is simply “did reasonable suspicion exist” – and to be clear, that is both a requirement to start AND a requirement to sustain. If you have reasonable suspicion and you lose it – your done. You can not even put effort into trying to get it back – its not there – your done. Law enforcement without reasonable suspicion is by definition abuse of power.

        Further Reasonable suspicion is the standard to have an investigation.
        To conduct a search or seizure – warrants or subpeona’s – and spying BTW is by law a search, you must meet a higher standard – probable cause.

        Those are the standards, They are not about foreign powers. They are not about whether you are an opposing political candidate. They do not create any get out of jail free conditions and they do not allow the president or anyone else to violate the rights of citizens.

        Applying these to Trump and Obama

        To ask ANYONE to investigate a private US citizen – Trump must have reasonable suspicion.
        To ask ANYONE to Criminally investigate a US Citizen – even a government employee,
        Trump must have reasonable suspicion.
        To ask for an investigate of the conduct of Government – either that of the US or a foreign govenrment – nothing is required.

        With respect to most of trump’s requests of Zelensky – those were into the conduct of the US government, or the Ukrainian government, and there is no restriction on Trump’s power to ask for an investigation – Zelenskyy as a foriegn president is not obligated to honor Trump’s request and is obligated to constrain what he does to Ukrainian law, but Trump is not constrained by Ukrainian law – whatever that may be, and can be as forceful as he wishes.

        With specific respect to the Biden’s – to ask for a CRIMINAL investigation of either Biden, anywhere on the planet – reasonable suspicion must exist. That standard is trivially met By Joe Biden. It is a close call whether it is met regarding Hunter Biden.
        Regardless, the only aspect that politics plays in this is that where Trump(or Obama) has a political motive – i’s should be dotted and t’s should be crossed and we should be really really sure. BTW – that is NOT restricted to political motives. Any motive that potentially clouds ones judgement demands decisions to be scrutinized.

        With respect to the legitimacy of VP Biden’s actions in Ukraine – political and many other motives require scrutiny. Real personal interest – is an absolute bar. But it is not a bar to the action, it is a bar to the person doing it. Trump can not interfere with an investigation of himself or his family. Nor can he ask others to do so, But Trump being precluded by personal interest does not preclude others with the power to do so from doing so – it all the other criteria for them to do so are met.
        Personal interest is a MORAL impediment, and an ethical impediment.
        SOMETIMES it is also a legal impediment.
        I am not sure that Biden violated the law interfering with Ukraine.
        I am sure he acted unethically, and I am sure there is reasonable suspicion to investigate.

        With respect to the Trump/Russia investigation:
        There was never probable cause – so there are a very large number of investigative activities that were clearly abuse of power.
        Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard. I do not think it ever existed, I am certain that even if it ever did, it was lost long before the investigation got very far.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 1:16 am

        Jay,
        not a single person “monitoring” the conversation has raised an eyebrow that we know of.

        Only the whistleblower – who did not listen to the conversation has asserted otherwise.
        Further for the most part even his hearsay claim is about Policy – not Biden.

        You continue to ignore the fact that Biden is not a significant part of the transcript or the WB complaint.

        Your claim that someone who heard the conversation thought it was unconscienable is Tripple ? Hearsay. The WB did not say that, nor does he say that others said that.

        Further while is SORT OF said what others said, he has not identified the others.
        If “others” who talked to the WB exist – we do not know that. Nor do we know what they told him.

        Everyone who is “raising eyebrows” – are people who read the transcript or the WB complaint, and they are all apply legal standards that do not exist.

        Further, Both I and 8 different panels in the DOJ have examined the WB complaint and found that it does not actually allege misconduct.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 1:25 am

        An allegation alone is NOT the same are “reasonable suspicion”

        Biden is not being investigated on an allegation of abuse of power.
        He is being investigated on the basis of what is very nearly a confession to abuse of power as well as real evidence – he was aware Hunter was being investiated at the time hem made his threat.

        There is absolutely zero question that Biden’s conduct was immoral and unethical, there is no question he was not legally allowed to threaten the Ukraine.
        But all immoral conduct is not a crime. Even all violations of the law are not crimes.

        Regardless, reasonable suspicion exists.

        With respect to Trump/Russia – maybe at one point reasonable suspicion existed.
        I think it is pretty clear it died when FBI was unable to verify any evidence of misconduct in the Steele Dossier.
        But the fundimental problem for Obama and Comey and …. is that probable cause NEVER existed – and you need that to conduct any search or seizure – and warrants are a search, and spying is a search. And the constitution still requires SWORN evidence of probable cause for those.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 1:38 am

        “if Obama had commissioned the Steele Dossier and released it during the campaign you would have been OK with that. RIGHT!!!”

        First, I am completely OK with Clinton commissioning the Steele Dossier.
        While there are moral and ethical questions Clinton was a private citizen and to my knowledge did not break any laws – like stealing, or breaking and entering or kidnapping or extorting to concoct the Steele Dossier.

        The problems with the Steele Dossier occur as it enter government.
        Again – the FBI etc were permitted to accept it as a collection of allegations.
        MAYBE it even constitutes reasonable suspicion, but it absent verification it does not constitute probable cause. Further like the WB Steele is NOT a direct witness to anything.
        The FBI represented the Steele Dossier to the FISA court was credible – because they claimed Steele was credible. We can debate that – but the fundimental problem is that it is not Steele’s credibility that is the basis of a warrant, it is the credibility of his sources.

        That is a well established point of law. When an officer swears out a warrant, the evidence must be first hand – either the observations of the officer, or the observations of a direct witnesses that the officer can confirm are credible. No one in the FBI had the ability to say anything about the credibility of Steele’s sources. In most instances even Steele’s sources were not first hand

        Anyway, your GIGANTIC problem with Trump/Russia is that TO THIS DAY probable cause does not exist. That means all warrants, all subpeona’s all seaches all spying are an abuse of power.

        And this would all be true – whether Trump was a political candidate or not.

        Politics is the impure motive – that is a moral and ethical problem, not a legal one.
        We can debate Trump’s or Obama’s motives. But that is not where the legal problem is.

        The legal problem for much of the Trump/Russia investigation is the absence of probable cause – that is why the fixation on the FISA warrant. If the FISA warrant was legitimate – the entire rest of the investigation likely was. If it was not – the entire rest of the investigation was a crime.

      • October 6, 2019 9:09 am

        “If as you idiotically suggest Trump has the right to do that with Biden why did so many government members monitoring the conversation and the assembled transcript of it come to the conclusion it was UNCONSCIONABLE!”

        Is “UNCONSCIONABLE!” your new favorite word, Jay?

        1) The only person saying that there were “many government members” screaming “UNCONSCIONABLE!” is the phony “whitleblower.” And, of course, Adam “Shifty” Schiff.

        2) You see the world through a Trump derangement lens, so it’s apparent that your determination of what is “UNCONSCIONABLE!” is based on whether or not Trump did or said it. If he did, it’s UNCONSCIONABLE! If a Democrat, like Adam Schiff or Hillary Clinton said it’s perfectly appropriate, even if it’s a flat-out lie.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 5:47 pm

        As more and more information comes out – what is evident is that there is alot of opposiition to Trump within the administration – and they are actively engaged in interfering with Trump.

        You could call that oposition “partisan” – as most are democrats.
        But mostly it is not red/blue.
        Mostly it is about policy

        Red or Blue the prefered policies of government agencies are always the ones that give them the most power.

        Inside CIA, NSA, DNI, DOD there MIGHT be wide disagreement over who our mortal enemy is – China or Russia or …
        But there is always a MORTAL enemy that we MUST thwart at absolutely everything.

        The Text’s Volker provided, as well as some of the WB com are quite clearly policy differences – they are often framed as “important, serious, a crisis”
        But all that means is the person disagreeing is sure that if their advice is not followed the world will go to hell.

        There is also alot of mind reading and misrepresentations in the texts.

        I have tried to be clear with Jay and others on this.

        Trump was pretty clear about his broad foreign policy objectives when he ran for president.

        To a great extent – those are the same objectives candidate Obama ran on.
        Get us out of conflicts that are not clearly in our interests.

        Both Bush and Obama FAILED at that. They were drug into conflicts.
        They were elected with the intention of doing one thing – and over time the were nudged into the prefered policies of the establishment – the CIA, NSA, DNA, DOD, State, …

        The permanent government coopted them.
        Whatever their promises – they did what the permanent government wanted – with small personal flexibility at the edges.

        Even Trump was somewhat cowed early on – he listened to “the generals” for a while.

        He tried Boulton – he wanted a forceful advocate – and Boulton is that.
        But Boulton is still at heart a really strong NeoCon and Trump is not and did not run as one.

        If you read the nonsense that is being used to impeach Trump – the vast majority of this is claims that we are weakening Ukraine.

        That may or may not be true – but so what if it is ?

        We do get to choose our allies and the strength of our support.

        If you do not like Trump’s foreign policy – elect someone else.

        If you are in CIA, NSA, State, … and do not like trump’s foreign policy – SUCK IT UP or QUIT,
        But you may not secretly undermine it.

        And even if you are right and he is wrong – something we will likely never know,
        He was elected and his policies are what we voted on – not yours.

  40. Jay permalink
    October 4, 2019 3:44 pm

    Biden 2020

    • dhlii permalink
      October 5, 2019 1:35 am

      Biden is desparate.

      Has Trump turned his back on Hong Kong ?

      He tweeted that protestors in the US were carrying the American flag – while those int he US were burning it or kneeling during the national anthem.

      He repeatedly warned Xi of consequences should he resort to force.

      Trump has cast the light on China and its bad behavior like no other president in decades

      What more is it you expect Trump should do – invade ?

      I am not being facetious. Honestly – what more is it that you think should be done ?

      All of us would like an idea that will bring freedom to Hong Kong.

      I have zero doubt that if you have an idea that will work – Trump would impliment it.

      I think there are very few people in this country that do not want to do something for protestors in Hong Kong – including Trump.

      If there really is something consequential that Trump can do – short of going to actual war with China – I will support it and I will join you in arguing that Trump should do it.

      Atleast on this issue – the left is not offering some stupid magical feel good measure – like gun control, that will accomplish nothing.

      So take a look at Hong Kong and make note of something really important.

      There is nothing government – including ours can do about ANYTHING that is not FORCE.

      IF you wish to do something in Hong Kong – ultimately that means using force.

      And much of the time – force makes things worse not better.

      • Jay permalink
        October 5, 2019 2:38 pm

        “Biden is desparate“

        Another faux-unsubstantiated assertion.

        Let’s see proof of that desperation. Quotes from Breitbart? Limbaugh?

        If you took your head out of your self-aggrandizing ass and bothered to read MSM sources you’d know he’s accused of the opposite: being too cool and unconcerned and unbothered by Trump’s accusations.

        But if you want to see obvious desperation, it’s right there in front of you…

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 4:51 pm

        “Biden is desparate“

        “Another faux-unsubstantiated assertion.”

        You have a point – that is a judgement of the state of his campaign or his mental state, and I can not directly know that.

        So more accurately:

        Biden is losing donors, and his polls are declining.

        In my oppinion that suggests he is desperate,
        His actions to me seem like someone desparate.

        “Let’s see proof of that desperation. Quotes from Breitbart? Limbaugh?”
        Have I ever offered a Breitbart or Limbaugh quote ?
        I suspect if you go back far enough you can probably find one link to Breitbart.
        Maybe more when Andrew Brietbart ran it

        I think there was a debate years ago here about Limbaugh – I might have quoted him then.

        But I have not read anything from Limbaugh in years.
        And very rearely from Brietbart.

        Regardless, last I checked
        Politico,
        Wapo
        and NYT ARE MSM.

        Further – over the past year their credibility has been near Alex Jones levels.

        He is so cool an unbothered that he is ranting about it on Twitter nearly as frequently as Trump.

        Is he also cool and unbothered as his lead and donors evaporate ?
        As the only strategic advantage he had over Trump vaporizes ?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 5, 2019 4:59 pm

        The argument that Trump is desparate would be much more credible – if the constant attacks on him were successful,

        I will agree that briefly he seemed to lose his cool. Though it is hard to tell, because calm cool and collected for Trump is not particularly calm cool or collected. But it is successful,

        Rasmussen had Trump up to 48% on Friday.
        And please can we skip the “Argh! Rassmussen!” nonsense. Regardless of absolute numbers – the trends in all the polls ultimately is the same. Rassmussen is the only daily poll left. Soon enough we will have trends from the others.
        It is likely the all say the same thing – 7-10pt very short term hit. 3pt short term hit, and in a month – nothing.

  41. Jay permalink
    October 4, 2019 8:12 pm

    Trump openly asked China to investigate Biden
    They didn’t want anything to do with it.

    Keep defending this TRUMP IMPEACHABLE BULLSHIT, Trumpanzees…

    “Washington(CNN) When President Donald Trump suggested — without prompting — that China should investigate Joe Biden and his son, he thrust another political grudge into what was already the world’s most complicated and consequential relationship.

    The move startled Chinese officials, who say they have little interest in becoming embroiled in a US political controversy. And it amounted to the latest extraordinary effort by Trump to openly request political assistance from foreign governments.”

    Political assistance from foreign governments.
    That’s an explicit reason the founders included Impeachment in the Constitution.

    Did they include a clause to indict Congressional enablers of that interference?
    Can US citizens complicit in that interfearence be prosecuted?
    No?
    Too bad.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 5, 2019 2:14 am

      Yup, openly.

      Got it.

      Asked a foreign country to comply with Treaties it has with the US.

      Are you know going to claim that the China Trade war is really Trump trying to extort China into investigating Biden ?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 5, 2019 2:35 am

      The founders had extensive discussions about the purpose of impeachment – this was not amoung the reasons that the put it in the constitution.

      Next – I will do a bit of my own mind reading here – since I can;t seem to get you to stop pretending to know what others think. I guess I can join you.

      I doubt Trump expected China to do anything.

      I am surprised the chinese did not respond by anouncing they had already investigated Biden and found nothing wrong.

      China is desparately trying to outlast Trump, and there is already evidence they are trying to “interfere” in the 2020 election to get rid of Trump.

      Trump was not talking to China. He was talking to americans.

      He was using your and the presses proclivity to froth and report anything he says – cast into the most negative light to PUBLICLY say ONCE AGAIN – Biden is corrupt.

      You and others who are already voting against Trump hear – election interferance.

      Trump’s base hears “draining the swamp”.

      I few people in middle who were not paying attention hear – “Biden is corrupt.”

      You should watch some of Scott Adam’s video’s on Trump.
      Adam’s is a lefty, but he thinks Trump might be one of the most effective modern messengers.

      Trump has very successfully managed to use a hostile press and left to send HIS message.

      Look at yourself – you are constantly repeating whatever Trump tweet you think is offensive.

      But when you make it more offensive than it is – you harm yourself and you help spread Trump’s message.

  42. dhlii permalink
    October 5, 2019 3:00 am

    Why does Trump keep fixating on CrowdStrike and the DNC server ?

    https://spectator.org/crowdstrike-and-the-impeachment-frenzy/

    The author of the article OVERSTATES VIPS’s confidence in its own findings.

    VIPS does not beleive there analysis is wrong. Unlike Crowdstrike they are aware that today in computer forensics – everything is probabilities and it is possible to manipulate the data to point you in any direction.

    Only Crowdstrike beleives the impossible – that it can reach conclusions that are better than 50:50 regarding the responsibility for a hack.

  43. dhlii permalink
    October 5, 2019 7:45 pm

    Some polls are now placing Andrew Yang in 4th place in the democratic primary.

    Though there are many differences, I would offer there is one absolutely critical similarity between Yang and Trump.

    Yang is an outsider. He is not a career politician.

    I like Yang, and I have contributed to his campaign.
    Though I hope he never becomes president – or more precisely than his key policies are never implemented.

    I could actually get behind his UBI – but only as a revenue neutral replacement for the entire rest of the social safety net – and that is not how he has structured it.

    In any other form it is net negative and increases the disincentive to be productive.

    Regardless, Yang is not an avowed socialist, a faux indian, or a corrupt life long politician.

    He is not the right person to be president of the united states.
    But he is an improvement over most anything else that democrats have on the dias.

    Another candidate I like is Tulsi Gabard. She is constantly saying sane things that the rest of democrats keep rejecting. In many ways she is relatively liberal. But as she has said she went to war for this country to protect liberty not to take it away.

    She is a strong advocate of free speach, and of proceding with caution on impeachment.

    I think she has absolutely zero chance of anything in 2020.
    but I do not think she is running for 2020.
    I think she is positioning herself to be john the bapitist when the democratic party implodes after Trump is re-elected. To be the voice of reason leading democrats out of the wilderness.
    Atleast I hope so.

    I beleive I am at odds with Both Gabbard and Yang on many policy issues.
    But unlike the vast majority of the democratic party they are not “bat shit crazy”

    • October 5, 2019 8:47 pm

      Michael Bennett is also more sane in his proposals as well as John Delaney. Delaney said in one of the debates Medicare For All could jot pass dud to cost and Sanders and Warren just riidiculed him for “cant” not being a word they would accept.

      • October 5, 2019 9:50 pm

        I agree that those 4 (Gabbard, Yang, Bennet, and Delaney) are the sanest. It’s a pretty low bar, though.

        I would pick Delaney as the best of that bunch. None of them have any chance, although I think that Gabbard and Yang will be good future candidates.

      • October 5, 2019 11:53 pm

        Priscilla, I agree that Gabbard will be good for future elections given three criteria are met.
        1. The current far left loses to Trump and the Democrats return to the center left, much like when Bill Clinton was in office.
        2. She has a desire to continue in the mental jungle
        3. The people of HI remain in their current political spectrum and continue choosing her to represent them..
        Before I could consider voting for her in the future, I would need to see someone who could work with congress like Bill Clinton did. But given her constant changes on positions, she may move to far left and stay there, even though her roots are much more conservative.

        Interesting article well before she declared.
        https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-who-you-think-she-is.html

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 12:17 am

        Are Bennet and Delany still in the race ?

        Regardless – absolutely there are alot of sane democrats in the world.
        Few of them have been elected to positions higher than dog catcher. and even those who have stand a snowballs chance of being heard.

        There is alot wrong with Yang. But he is not completely bonkers, and he is a complete outsider.

        I do not know if I could vote for Gabbard – possibly.
        With republicans in control of one chamber of Congress she probably would be a good president. She is actually stronger that Trump about getting us out of being the worlds policemen.

        What I am less sure of is whether she has the strength of personality to push through her promises. Even Trump – who is probably the most cocksure person ever elected president, and the most committed to keeping his promises, has still spent almost 3 years dancing arround with Neo-cons.

        What is increasingly evident is that he should have cleaned house – at NSA, CIA, DNI, DOD, State NSC on election. Everyone in foreign policy, Everyone in the state department, Every one in intelligence has been actively thwarting the policies that got Trump elected an that voters endorsed.

        One of the more interesting things from Volkers testimony was that Volker and pretty much everyone between Trump and the Ukraine were actively substituting their own foreign policy for Trump’s – and they thought nothing was wrong with that. Volker’s was not significantly different from Trump’s – BUT IT WAS DIFFERENT, and Volker was NOT doing what Trump asked or what voters voted for, but what he thought was best.

        If you want the final say on US foreign policy – get elected president.
        Otherwise, you are an advisor, the final decisions are not yours.

      • October 6, 2019 12:09 pm

        Dave, Trump, nor anyone else can “clean house” and drain the swamp. The swamp is owned and run by career civil service employees. They could care less what an agencies director that is there for less than a few years say. They will do what they want regardless. Just look at the horrendous VA health system for proof. Firing people is impossible.

        As for all the spook agencies, if the career employees dont support you, you are dust. I think years from now news will leak to show just how involved they have been in trying to remove Trump from power. They are the “deep government” that has always run things and Trump is not in their group. If one does not believe that, one only needs to read about J Edgar Hoover and the control of government he had for years.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 5:53 pm

        Alot of what you say is correct – but there are things that can be done.

        During the “shutdown” most of those still working were the political appointments, and they had no problems getting things done without the rest.
        In fact they found it EASIER.

        Trump is actively working to move agencies out of DC.
        That is very difficult and will not be completed in one term.

        But it will make a huge difference.

        Tillerson in particular – but many other Trump appointies are cutting staff.

        Tillerson was workign to reduce the state department by 35% – mostly through attrition.

        Trump is doing the same with the NSC – which BTW is also part of what is going on with whistleblowers.

        Congress has been threatening to make the NSC chair a position that requires senate confirmation – because the NSC has gotten so large.

        Trump is slashing it and sending people back to the agencies they came from.

        The WB was one of those and probably upset about getting pushed out of the white house.

      • October 6, 2019 8:33 pm

        yep! Reference my JFK killed by spook agency due to his changes to intelligence agencies.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 11:36 pm

        When even Schumer is saying that the intellegence services are out of control – it is time to do something.

        Truman founded the CIA, and eventually decided that was a mistake.

        I do not know if we need NSA or CIA or … at all.

        I do know that we do not need the massive bureacracy we have.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 12:22 am

        Sorry, the point of my comment was – I do not think Gabbard or Yang would have the strength of character to stand up and demand that the policies they were elected on be implimented faced with the quiet opposition of the IC and State.

        I think that HRC could get her way – but for one thing. I do not think HRC gives a damn what the policy of the US is, only whether she looks good, has power to fork her enemies, and profits from it.

        I do not think HRC has any underlying principle except what is good for HRC.
        But I have zero doubt that you get in her way and she will frack you over.

    • October 6, 2019 8:39 am

      “I think that HRC could get her way – but for one thing. I do not think HRC gives a damn what the policy of the US is, only whether she looks good, has power to fork her enemies, and profits from it.”

      As my grandfather used to say, “Truer words were never spoken” (or, as in this case, typed.)

      The Clintons degraded this country’s moral grounding in a way that it may never recover. In the case of Bill, his ability to charm his way out of a jam, and his willingness to negotiate with his political enemies, allowed him to be a successful president, despite his immoral/ amoral behavior.

      Hillary couldn’t charm her way out of a paper bag, and her transparent willingness to destroy anyone and anything that gets in her way is genuinely frightening.

      The idea that anyone would think that she hates Donald Trump for any reason other than the fact that he defeated her in an election is ridiculous. She had no problem with Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, or Ed Buck, as long as their cash was flowing in to her campaign account.

      • October 6, 2019 12:24 pm

        Priscilla , “his willingness to negotiate with his political enemies, allowed him to be a successful president, despite his immoral/ amoral behavior.”

        Please be careful with comments like this. One thing I have a complete disrespect for are the christian conservatives that praise Trump as our saviour, the best president ever, etc, etc and then turn around and attack Clinton for his personal behaviours when I make comments on how I rate Clinton up there with Reagan in “best president” list.

        Clinton did nothing different than Trump when it came to women.

      • October 6, 2019 12:59 pm

        I thought Clinton was a decent President, Ron, and I voted for him twice. I was also opposed to his impeachment. But his personal behavior in office was as bad or worse than Trump. To my knowledge, Trump has not been sexually involved with any interns, or any other women besides his wife. Many considered Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky an abuse of power, and a national security risk. I did not, but I did consider him ( and still do) an dishonorable man, and I have a problem with people who call out the immorality of Republicans, but are fine with the exact same or worse behavior by Democrats.

      • Jay permalink
        October 6, 2019 2:59 pm

        I criticized Clinton too, and called for him to resign for that creepy act. Like you I didn’t believe a blow job from a willing blow-ee deserved impeachment.

        But claiming Clinton’s behavior was as bad or worse than Trump’s because Trump hasn’t been accused of similar sexual behavior in the White House is nonsensical false equivalence.

        During the Lewinsky episode Clinton just turned 50, was still horney and able to get ‘Wee Willie’ erect. trump was 70 years, 220 days old at his inauguration. At his present age it would require massive doses of Viagra and pneumatic assistance and a harem full of undulating Stormy Daniels to get a ‘rise’ from him now.

      • October 6, 2019 5:05 pm

        I was jot addressing Trump at 70 for his sexual behavior. I was addressing actions much earlier. And it does not take massive doses of Viagra. One pill works most times for those over 50-70+.

      • Jay permalink
        October 6, 2019 6:43 pm

        That was in response to Priscilla, not you Ron.

        But if your ‘pill’ Info is from first hand knowledge, glad to hear it’s working for you…
        Just don’t take any willing women on a White House tour…

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 12:31 am

        All of the accusations of sexual harrassment regarding Trump occured more than a decade before he ran for president.

        The allegations regarding Clinton continue to this day – as do the allegations regarding Biden.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 12:03 am

        Clinton was not impeached over blow jobs.

        He was impeached for multiple counts of perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction by abetting the destruction of evidence.

        While there were other articles – those were the critical crimes.
        And those were beyond any doubt.

        No one has come close to that regarding anything involving Trump.

        If you have a substantial body of people saying “What is it you are impeaching over” ?
        Your in trouble.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 12:14 am

        There is no equivalence between Trump and Clinton – they are not ever similar.

        With Clinton there are multiple real Crimes, Clinton in arguably committed them.

        With Trump – you are busy trying to make things up.

        You spent the past 2 years telling us that It was OK for Comey, McCabe, etc to investigate Trump. In the end – there was nothing to investigate, in the middle there was nothing to investigate, in the begining there was nothing to investigate.

        If you wish to pretend that motives matter – there is zero doubt that those going after Trump did so for political reasons – even the current whistleblowers are going after Trump for political reasons – maybe not red/blue reasons, but still political ones.

        If your guesses as to Trump’s motives are meaningful – if motives as you claim make something a crime – why aren’t a very long list of Obama administration people in jail ?

        If politics matter – how was Mueller legitimate ? How is the entire Mueller investigation different from What you claim Trump did with Zelensky ?

        Almost Mueller’s entire team was not merely partisan – but Clinton affiliated,

        If their actions were legitimate why weren’t Trump’s ?

        Just of be clear – I am arguing your transparent hypocracy.

        There are reasons Trump’s actions are legitimate, while much if not all the Trump russia mess was not.

        But the important point is that politics is a basis for scrutiny, it is not an absolute bar that prohibits action. Not be Obama, Biden, Comey, Mueller, … or Trump.

        What matters is not the existance of a political motive, but the existance of a legitimate basis to investigate. Trump has that clearly, whether you like it or not.
        All the Trump investigators have not had that and therefore were abuse of power.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 12:21 am

        Jeff Golblum(62), Mick Jagger(73), Ronnie Wood(68), Billy Joel(66). George Lucas(69), Steve Martin(67), Robert DeNiro(68). Rod Stewat(66)

        List of famous celebrities and their ages at the birth of their most recent child.
        Presumably they were having Sex.

        Tony Randall had his last child at 78.

      • October 6, 2019 5:01 pm

        Priscilla, each of us needs to believe what we think is true. I think the following is true.
        https://hollywoodlife.com/2016/10/12/donald-trump-grabbed-cassandra-searles-ass-claims-miss-washington/

        The difference is each of these women resisted unwanted contact and Trump persisted. And I object to using “intern” as a cover for Clinton doing anything that was worse than Trump. M.L. was 22 years old. She was not a college “intern” working while attending school. she was not some immature school girl being taken advantage of. A 22year old woman does not put a mans penis in their mouth involuntarily without being beat up and threatened with more physical harm. She did this voluntarily, the same as a prostitute and did it voluntarily. There is no comparison to what she did compared to women who objected to Trumps advances.

        But this is the same argument I get into when Trump defenders debate with me how bad Clinton was. If one supports the person, then one defends that person. I think both Clinton and Trump are morally corrupt individuals. I would not allow either one in my house and sure as hell would not have let my daughters anywhere close to them when they were younger. Butas president go, both had policies I supported, Clinton more than Trump.

      • October 6, 2019 5:30 pm

        No, I get what you’re saying Ron. My personal belief is that there are many, many Immoral, dishonest politicians in Washington ~ both parties. The Republicans play the “I am so religious” game and the Democrats play ” I am so decent and caring” game…but a lot of them are disgusting horndogs who lie to their families as well as their constituents, or greedy influence peddlers, out to make as much money as they can, and don’t give a rat’s ass about the people that elected them.

        So, I judge by behavior and actions in office. Voting patterns, increases in net wealth (Bernie Sanders is a great example…a socialist who condemns rich people, but who has somehow become rich himself, while servinig in public office. I judge that more harshly than I judge either Trump’s or Clinton’s sexual behavior.

        Yet, still, no matter how old, an intern who is sexually used by the President of the US is a victim in my mind. And if rude tweets are unpresidential, sex acts performed in the Oval Office by girls not much older than one’s daughter, would certainly qualify.

        That said, we all get to make our own judgements, and that is a point that is often lost in these days of Trump Derangement. I get to vote for Trump, even if I think that he has done things that I consider immoral. You get to not vote for him. We both get to change our minds, if we choose. And Jay gets to call people insulting names, because he thinks everyone should think just like him.

        Ironically, I had an anti-Trump friend call me the other day, and tell me that, if the Democrats keep wasting time trying to impeach Trump and threatening to pass leftist policies, she’s going to secretly vote for Trump and not tell anyone.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 12:29 am

        I think most of these stories are likely true. I did not vote for Trump because of this.

        I would note that Pat has claimed that behavior should be acceptable – normal, and lots of people agree.

        Regardless, it is not rape, and not sexual assault.

        It is bad behavior.
        BTW Trump did NOT persist. There are many allegations that Trump initiated sexual contact – like ass grabbing, without permission. There are no credible complaints that he did not take no for an answer. That is not True of Clinton.

        As best as I can tell the ew factor regarding Lewinsky is high, the fact that she was an intern is a problem ever though things were consensual.

        But the act was consensual. The problem is NOT the act, it is lying under oath in a sexual harrasment trial – an then later to a grand jury, and then getting Lewinsky to Lie and destroy evidence.

        You do not have anything even close to that with Trump

      • October 7, 2019 11:27 am

        Dave, “As best as I can tell the ew factor regarding Lewinsky is high, the fact that she was an intern is a problem ever though things were consensual.”

        I find this whole “intern” crap unacceptable.

        If the reports had been a 22 year old woman was discovered to have had sexual relations with President Clinton in the oval office, the response would have been completely different. But because there was a title “intern” in her position she held at the White House, its all statutory rape for many and Clinton was the scourge of the earth.

        That was not a freshman or soph college student working as a “summer intern”. This was a woman looking to get into a job in Washington D.C. and the way you do that is through an intern program.

        I can’t buy the “poor little immature taken advantage of little girl” crap that everyone throws around and how bad “big bad Bill” was taking advantage of this woman. She knew full well what she was doing and probably had performed this act on other men for quite a few years during her college career.

        But this still goes back to my original comment. Those that use Christianity as their “guiding light” and crucify Clinton for his acts and turn around and place Trump on a pedestal are nothing but hypocrites.

        And there are multiple younger women who have claimed Trump grabbed their crotches and rears and he made that comment on the tape before the election. When you say it yourself, that seems to offer proof that it most likely happened. I think one could be asked in a court room if they said that or not and would have to answer unless they invoked the 5th.

        For me , don’t try to defend Trumps actions concerning women and turn around and criticize Clinton, that is all I was trying to say when I made my original comment yesterday.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 10:05 pm

        I am not going to debate you on Clinton or Lewensky.

        Our differences are small.

        What matters at the moment is that nothing Trump has done comes close to what Clinton was impeached for, or even what he did but was not impeached for.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 11:45 pm

        There is not a credible allegation against Trump – beyond being a twitter monster, that is not less consequential than every other president in my lifetime.

        He may verbally attack people he deems a threat, but there is no indication he does anything more.

        Even the credible allegations of sexual misconduct against him are more than he is a cad, the worst allegations against Trump interms of sexual misconduct are less offensive than the best regarding Clinton.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 11:59 pm

        Clinton lied under oath – twice, suborned perjury – successfully, and obstructed justice by seeking the destruction of evidence.

        I would have voted to remove him, I still would. But I also think that would have been the wrong outcome.

        Mostly I think that SCOTUS never should have allowed the Jones lawsuit to proceed while he was president. I was not comfortable with that at the time, and I am less so now.

        Though there are differences – Trump has not actually done anything illegal, while at the same time the allegations against him ARE really about conduct as president – rather than private misconduct while president.

        There are also many things that are the same. This is highly political. The stakes are enormous and both sides are playing chicken.

        I would further suggest something to Jay and those “out to get Trump”.

        You have put the screws to him for 3 years – I know what that is like. Even good people crack and do stupid things. That is one of the reasons we REQUIRE the actions of government to be justified – why we REQUIRE reasonable suspicion to start and investigation and probable cause to conduct any form of search.

        Because if you put enough pressure on more innocent people they will eventually make a mistake.

        If that is how this ends – that will be very bad for us. If Trump actually breaks the law – he is gone. But that is NOT a good outcome. It is actually a very bad outcome to allow any group – republicans or democrats to decide they do not like someone and then put the screws to them until they make a mistake sufficient to get rid of them.

        Whatever happens here – like Johnson, Nixon and Clinton – will set the stage for the future.

        If democrats want to go forward with this – on the current facts – go ahead.
        But do it right – VOTE. Put your names to this.

        If you want to take out a sitting president (or anyone) have the courage of your convictions. Do not do so from the shadows.

        I think Schiff is repugnant – but atleast he has the courage to stand behind this nonsense.
        Though I would be slightly more impressed if his district was competitive.

        Regardless take ownership of this – and understand, whatever you do – that will become the new norm.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 6, 2019 11:40 pm

        Clinton was a good president – he was better than either Bush or Obama,

        He did well domestically on many levels,
        He sucked at foreign policy.

        Further he was not Reagan.

        I rank Carter better than Clinton.

        Both of the Bushes were decent people.
        They were not good presidents.

        I do not yet know if Obama was just a silkier version of LBJ or Nixon.
        He had the most corrupt government in my entire life – and given that Nixon had actual burglars that is pretty bad.

  44. dhlii permalink
    October 5, 2019 8:03 pm

    Someone was complaining about Trump’s lack of support for Hong Kong.

    Apple is giving protestors “the shiv”.

    google – despite it s suprisingly intimate relations with China is not.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2019/10/04/apple-pulls-crowd-sourced-app-used-by-hong-kong-protesters/

  45. dhlii permalink
    October 6, 2019 3:07 am

    This is almost certainly a right wing setup – or a very very very deranged leftist.
    But it is still absolutely wonderful.

  46. October 6, 2019 10:39 pm

    Well, of course, as a Moderate I believe we should eat only SOME of the babies, not ALL of the babies. Eating all of the babies would be extreme!

  47. Jay permalink
    October 6, 2019 11:55 pm

    I’m SHOCKED 😱- DOUBLE SHOCKED!!

    AP: “BREAKING: As President Trump urged Ukraine’s leaders to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, associates of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani were looking to profit from the country’s state-run natural gas company, AP sources say”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 7, 2019 3:16 am

      Everyone is looking to profit from the Ukraine.
      Why does that surprise you – Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, Romney ALL have sons on the boards of Ukrainian gas companies.

      I am surprised you are not arguing Trump is upset because all the good corruption deals went to his enemies.

      I would not mind an actual source for your AP story – so much of what is printed in the media proves false a few days later.

      • Jay permalink
        October 7, 2019 5:03 pm

        Do any of Trump”s political enemies have Hotels in Turkey?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 6:53 am

        Again – try reading “the Ugly American” – written in the 50’s BEFORE Vietnam,
        It is so prescient that you would think it was written AFTER vietnam.

        Except that while it is about the US in south-east asia – it could be about the US in the mideast, or most anywhere.

        The story put simply is that where private americans go – where are people, and businesses go our positive impact is phenomenal, and we are viewed with respect by the people of those nations.

        Where our diplomats go, where our government aide goes, where our military goes, we have a negative impact and are viewed with derision.

        US Foreign policy is better served by Trump Towers and Marriotts, than our DOD and State Department.

        If Trump’s political enemies wish to build towers in Ankara – more power to them.

  48. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 12:04 am

    NBC: “BREAKING: In an extraordinary Sunday night statement, the White House announces that the US “will no longer be in the immediate area” of Northern Syria, allow Turkey to launch an invasion in the region and give Turkey responsibility for captured ISIS fighters in the area.”

    Humm.
    How many Kurds will be dead by the end of this month?

    • October 7, 2019 12:27 am

      Jay, we are not mind readers?
      You state “How many Kurds will be dead by the end of this month?”

      Do you think we have any idea how many?
      Do you want some other answer?
      lets us know what your really asking and maybe we can respond.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 3:18 am

        The answer is 3.141592664 kurds killed next month.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 7, 2019 12:49 am

      Below is a book review of Samantha Powers book “The education of an Idealist”.

      I know it is from NRO and you will never bother to read the review – which is excellent.

      Both the book and the Reveiw address your point – though I am not sure either have answers – beyond that in terms of using US policiy to prevent slaughter and Genocide – Obama was an abject failure – despite the fact that was precisely why Powers was in the administration.

      The reviewer is hard on Powers and Obama – not because there is an easy answer – no one seems to have pretty much ever figured out how to preclude slaughter and genocide through foreign policy. The Track record of the US and other countries is horrible.

      There was a credible argument for Obama’s use of US force in Libya to prevent Ghadafi from engaging in slaughter. but the consequences was an ongoing civil war that is inarguably more bloody.

      We do not have answers to this.

      The intercept posted a story that Trump should not be impeached for this whislteblower nonsense, but for turning a blind eye to the genocide in Yemen.

      The problem is that history teaches us that nothing works.

      I am watching Ken Burns Vietnam. While Ho Chi Minh was in paris trying to negotiate with the French, and trying to assure everyone that they should NOT get hung up on “communist” because the Viet Minh were primarily nationalist, they wanted self determiniation for their country and an end to colonialism. Back in Vietnam one of his cohorts executed hundreds of people in north vietnam he did not consider sufficiently ferverent communists.

      That action probably ended the last shot at a peaceful resolution of Vietnam – which was possible in the 50’s immediately after Dien Ben Phu.

      The vietnamese in the south lost any interest in reconcilliation, they legitimately feared that in any government controlled by the Viet Minh – they were dead.
      The west was fixated on the domino theory and halting communism and that purge re-enforced the view that the Viet Minh were ardent communists.

      And after the fall of South Vietnam – the viet minh not only murder lots of south vietnamese, they also exterminated the Viet Kong – essentially a rival political faction.

      Vietnam was not as bad as cambodia – but it was BAD.

      We do not know how to stop this kind of nonsense.

      If we did – I would support doing something, but past history says whatever we do results in disaster.

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/book-review-the-education-of-an-idealist-samantha-power/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5d998ac0165af6000152eb41&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    • dhlii permalink
      October 7, 2019 12:54 am

      Ultimately the Kurds and the Turks are going to need to work things out between themselves.

      I could be wrong, but I do not think that Turkey is likely to do any more than they already do regarding the kurds.

      There is an enormous army of well armed well trained Kurds in Iraq, that would likely intervene if Turkey started genocide in Turkey or nearby.

      But you are correct – no matter what people will die.
      And they will die if we stay – though maybe more slowly.
      But our staying does not solve any problems.

      Our leaving does.

      I would further note that the Syria was not specifically part of the WB complaint – the policy discussion we are having absolutely was.

      The core of the WB complaint is that Trump is not sufficiently committed to foreign military entanglements.

    • October 7, 2019 9:17 am

      You don’t want the President to “ask” Ukraine to assist in investigating pay to play corruption at the highest levels of US government.

      But you do want him to “order” American soldiers to fight against a NATO ally in Northern Syria?

      • October 7, 2019 9:26 am

        “In the announcement President Trump has made it clear that any action by Turkey into Syria is unilateral; there will be no assistance by the U.S. on any aspect; including if Turkey is counter-attacked by Russia/Syria or organized Kurdish forces.

        Essentially, Trump is leaving Erdogan naked to a myriad of his enemies if Erdogan does cross the border. The U.S. part of the NATO shield is removed. The Europeans will likely not evoke the NATO defense treaty without the U.S. Heck, the EU is essentially spineless without the power of the U.S. military.

        President Trump is calling out the duplicity of the entire situation by calling all of their bluffs. President Trump is calling-out: NATO, weak EU ‘allies’ and Turkey.”
        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/07/president-trump-announces-turkish-unilateral-invasion-of-northern-syria/#more-173018

      • Jay permalink
        October 7, 2019 9:40 am

        I’ll let a woman with brains put it in context for you, Priscilla (though your Trump-Worship Toe Kissing Inclination will certainly negate understanding).

        Nikki Haley: “We must always have the backs of our allies, if we expect them to have our back. The Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria. Leaving them to die is a big mistake. #TurkeyIsNotOurFriend”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 9:52 pm

        Bush fracked the Kurds, Clinton forked the Kurds, Bush forked the Kurds, Obama fracked the Kurds.

        If the kurds think we have their backs they are complete idiots – and I highly doubt they do think we have their backs.

        Regardless, Trump did exactly what he needed – he told Turkey – you take on the Kurds – you are on your own. This is not a not matter and you will not get help.

        You seem to think the Kurds are impotent,

        What most everyone fears is that the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey will decide they do not want to be part of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey and that they will form their own nation.

        They have the wealth and resources to do so.

        Probably the only thing the Kurds need from us is to stay out of their way.

        I am not worried about the Kurds.

        And I am actually tired of this argument – the the Kurds fought ISIS – it was because it was in THEIR interests. The turks and iraqi’s also fought ISIS – because it was in THEIR interests.

        Our “allies” do not do as we ask – because we said “pretty please.” They do so because it is in their interests.

        I am not worried about the kurds, and to the extent we own them that would be because we have actually betrayed them in the past.

        It is way past time to get out of the mideast.

        If Halley thinks we should stay – with respect – I disagree.
        We have tried that – it ends badly.

        I linked to an NRO books review of Samantha Powers book “the education of an idealist”.

        We (and myriads of other nations) have tried the approach Halley is advocating.
        We know the end of that story – and it is bad.

        When you have an answer that demonstrably works – call me.

        In the meantime I am not interested in shedding the blood of my children OR having my children shed the blood of someone else’s children, because … “feelings”.

        Come up with an answer. Not an idea that you think is an answer that history tells us has never actually worked.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 10:25 am

        Amen

  49. dhlii permalink
    October 7, 2019 1:37 am

    Biden’s son
    Pelosi’s son
    Romney’s son
    Kerry’s son

    All are on the board of directors for energy companies doing business in Ukraine…

  50. dhlii permalink
    October 7, 2019 1:47 am

    You can find myriads of places where the media, Comey, Mueller, …. have all asserted that Mifsud was a Russian spy.

    Maybe that is true. BUT if it is, he seriously penetrated the intelligence aparatus of the entire west. You would think there would be firings and house cleanings at MI5 MI6, CIA, FBI, …

  51. dhlii permalink
    October 7, 2019 3:04 am

    Andrew McCarthy – excellent as usual

    I 100% agree.

    One area that he notes that I had not thought of is that foreign policy is not merely constitutionally delegated to the president – it is done so in a fashion that provides congress with very little oversite. Treaties must be approved by the Senate and war must be authorized by congress – beyond that the foreign policy of the united states is the exclusive domain of the president. That is very important reguarding Congressional inquiry.
    Beyond normal assertions of executive privilidge there is a constitutional priviledge of essentially – “none of your business”

    If congress is unprepared to do this properly – the courts are highly unlikely to provide any support and this just becomes a partisan spitball contest.

    If Congress follows the rules they are faced with a long slog uphill against stiff headwinds.
    It is probable the courts will ultimately back some of there requests, but congress is going to lose – alot, and there is little chance they can get far before the election.

    If Pelosi does not procede – this is a significant political disaster for democrats.
    A failure to procede will be viewed by voters as democrats trying to push another partisan witchhunt.
    If Pelosi fails to get sufficient votes – the outcome is the same or worse.
    If Democrats proceed but fail to make a much better case than they have thus far before the election – this will be viewed as a partisan witchhunt.

    I keep reminding everyone that false allegations have consequences.
    It is likely that if we all did not have trump investigation weariness syndrome, if we did not see this as just another cry of wolf, that this would be taken more seriously by the public.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/

    • October 7, 2019 9:10 am

      What has effectively happened is that the House has abdicated most of it’s constitutional duties, and has devoted itself, almost exclusively, to destroying this presidency, along with destroying the separation of powers. The House of Representatives has been solely focused on phony impeachment, and Nancy Pelosi has started acting as a usurper of executive authority.

      I know that, for now, most of this is “play-acting” and the President is apparently calling her bluff by saying that the Executive Branch will comply with an inquiry only when it is authorized by a majority vote in the House, but, if the press and the public accept the play-acting, it will become real. And many Democrats are so thrilled and giddy about this, that they are cheering tyrannical behavior by the Speaker of the House.

      And the “moderates,” the ones who got elected by claiming that they would work with the President to get things done? Oh, those “moderates” are prett quiet, aren’t they?

      Think about it…an anonymous spy from the CIA is accusing the President of high crimes, and we are being told that he must remain anonymous and protected. Even after we know that his accusations were false, and that he colluded with congressional Democrats before filing his complaint.

      Worse, Democrats are attempting to deny the President even the basic due process rights that we would afford to a burgler, a rapist, or even a mass murderer.

      How is this illegal and malevolent attempt to overthrow a president, not the biggest scandal in American history? ( If a tree falls in the forest….)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 10:11 am

        The McCarthy article was interesting.

        McCarthy outlined elsewhere the case for impeaching Pres. Obama.
        Obama significantly exceeded both the consitutional and traditional powers of the president.

        McCarthy’s argument for impeaching Obama was based on that and other similar conduct.
        McCarthy ultimately concluded that Obama should not be impeached.

        Regardless, McCarthy noted that impeachment is ultimately a POLITICAL process.
        While it is supposed to be difficult and require broad public support – high crimes and misdemeanors is both nebulous and has no enforcement mechanism so it means whatever the house says it means.

        I do not agree with the assertions that Trump did something improper here.

        I am not even sure he danced close to the edge.

        But the house is free to disagree – but not without super majoritarian public support.

        One of the problems we have today – and even Romney is buying into it, is that the the tactics we have devolved to for persuasion are illegitimate, fallacious and immoral.

        Whether it is CNN or Jay, or Robby, there is no effort to make a valid argument for anything.

        One, and sometimes both sides of the debate are insults, slurs, attempts at shaming, faux moralizing, and often lying and misrepresentation.

        Whether you agree with me that this is primarily the approach of the left, it should not be difficult to understand this approach leads to conflict, chaos and anarchy.

        And more and more – that is what we have.

        The house can impeach and the senate remove Trump.

        But it is important that the make their case to do so.

        Not by slurring everyone who does not share their views.

        Whatever conduct they feel is worthy of impeaching – they must both persuade most of the rest of us, but also understand that that standard becomes the new norm.

        I have defined when I beleive the president (or anyone else in law enforcement) can investigate another.
        I would note that ANYONE can ASK for an investigation of anyone else for any reason.

        There should be no question that we are free to ask for whatever we want.

        It is the power to compel that must be constrained.

        I think it is arguable that when the president asks for something there is some element of compulsion. But there is still a difference between asking for an investigation and starting one.

        That difference is why all of Clinton’s conduct regarding the efforts to get Trump investigated are not crimes and almost no one is talking about going after Clinton.

        She had the right to ask DOJ to investigate Trump for “peanut butter”

        The responsibility for an investigation rests with those who have the power to order, direct, conduct an investigation.

        That is my “opinion” it is also centuries of law, and it is piss poorly enforced.
        We NEVER hold those who illegitimately investigate others responsible.

        But I would be happy to do so in the future.

        The Barr Durham Hunter investigations are hopefully leading to that end.
        Unfortunately I do not have much confidence they will result in anything that will modify long term conduct.

        The impeachment effort potentially could change further standards.

        Everyone frothing about impeachment should remove Trump from the equation and consider the future.

        Is asking for someone else to be investigated wrong ?
        Always ?
        Sometimes ?

        When ?

        Only if you are president ?
        Only if there is some threat behind the request ?
        Only if you have some kind of axe to grind regarding that person ?
        Must the axe be personal ? Political ?

        As best as I can tell the “standard” that is being pushed here is:

        The president may not ask for an investigation of a political opponent – under any circumstances.

        Lets assume that is going to be the standard.

        Does that mean No One can ask for the same investigation ?

        Is Trump barred, but not Pompeo or Barr or Guliani ?

        Or is the entire executive constrained ?

        Does evidence of misconduct matter ? Or is the prohibition absolute ?

        No administration can investigate anyone for anything so long as their is some political gain from their doing so ?

        I hope it should be self evident that an absolute prohibition is unworkable.

        If there is no absolute prohibition – such as “thou shalt not murder” then what are the constraints – when is it legitimate to ask and when isn’t it ?

        if you do not know the answer to that – you may not proceed.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 10:24 am

        Anyone who think that the WB will get to remain anonymous is nuts.

        The WB law protects the WB from retaliation. Anonymity is one method used to do so.

        There is no anonymity in legal proceedings. If Dems proceed with impeachment – it is not going to be behind closed doors. It is not going to be a star chamber process.

        The constitutions requirement for confronting ones accuser must be met.

        This is also part of why Grassley is LEGALLY wrong about the WB law.

        The protections it affords a complaintant REQUIRE that the complaint be credible – the meaning of credible is NOT at the whim of each IG – it MUST be a LEGAL STANDARD.

        Otherwise complaints become political weapons.

        There is a bit of a row over the concept of “lawfare” – which is essentially what we are dealing with – the use of the legal system to accomplish political goals.

        There is nothing wrong with that – and we should expect that will occur – constantly – and it should. but it is the responsibility of the institutions themselves to assure that whatever the political motive, that there is merrit to the claims.

        To re-iterate – because it is important in the context of this impeachment mess.

        The Existance of a political motive for an action DOES NOT make the action wrong.

        No act is right or wrong because there exists a motive that is bad – or that some say is bad.

        An act is right or wrong – based on the act itself.

        Whether it is CREW or JW – outside groups that use the law as a weapon to accomplish their political goals are NOT evil or illegitimate because they have political goals.

        Their actions might be evil, but not solely because they are politically motivated.

        It is not wrong for democrats and the WB to try to use the WB process to accomplish a political goal.

        It is however wrong for the institution to allow itself to be use where there is no LEGAL merit.
        Hence the requirement for a credible complaint.

        Responsibility rests with those who have power or who exercise force.
        Not with those who ASK for something we do not like.

  52. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 9:59 am

    Remember when Lying Lump Of Crap promised to release his taxes?
    The courts are helping him remember:

    NYT: “A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, a ruling that allowed the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns…

    In a 75-page ruling, Judge Marrero called the president’s argument “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Presidents, their families and businesses are not above the law, the judge wrote.”

  53. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 11:15 am

    Lindsey Graham to Fox & Friends: Trump’s decision to abandon the Kurds “impulsive.”

    “I hope I’m making myself clear how shortsighted & irresponsible this decision is in my view,” he says. “This to me is just unnerving to its core.”

    Humm, Lindsay – did you FINALLY make the assessment on Trump’s decision making priorities?

    President Me-Me thinking: “Do I go for keeping America Ideals, Reputation, Interests foremost? Or Protecting Income Flow from Trump Towers Istanbul?”

    • October 7, 2019 5:33 pm

      Jay had a response typed out and could never get this damn system to post it. So here is the readers digest version.
      We dont agree.
      Not a Trump thing.
      We need to stay out of the worlds problems.
      Let the middle east solve their own problems
      43 screwed up the middle east by removing Hussein already, dont need more doing it.
      If there need to be intervention, then use the United nations.
      One American life is not worth 1000 middle eastern lives!!!!

    • dhlii permalink
      October 7, 2019 9:57 pm

      Lindsey Graham is one of the few remaining Republican Neo-Con’s and probably the only one that mostly defends Trump.

      Not even slightly interested in the foreign policy views of a neo-con.

      Why are you ?

      Trump is actually doing what Obama, and Bush promised, Getting us out of stupid foreign conflicts.

      BTW that significantly increases our national security.

      Our involvment in the mideast wears down our military – reducing readiness, and committs resources to spit ball contests so that if we need them they are not available to us.

      The US ability to project military force anywhere in the world is diminished by every long term committment we engage in. Soldiers ships and planes can not be two places at once.

      Every committment reduces our options in the even of the unforseen.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 7, 2019 10:02 pm

      Read Washington’s (or Eisenhower’s) farewell for america’s foreign policy ideals.
      Trump is one of the closest US presidents to following those.

      It is those that have committed us to myraids of foreign interventions that have ruined out reputation.

      How well did Iraq work out ? Libya ? Syria ? Even Afghanistan ?

      Trump is cleaning up messes – most of which we never should have involved ourselves in.

      Read the Power’s book review – or Read “the ugly american” – NOTHING has changed in 70 years – well except Trump is NOT following the same fracked foreign policy that gave us Vietnam,

  54. October 7, 2019 12:49 pm

    This situation is, to a large extent, the result of the refusal of the House to work with Trump on anything, foreign or domestic.

    The Kurds (who are not a monolithic group, and not all of them are our friends) have been our allies in Syria, and the Turks are our NATO allies. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t, and Nancy and her gang couldn’t care less. They will not be agreeable to any military action, nor will they support a negotiation with a NATO ally, who is obviously taking advantage of Trump’s political woes. Trump cannot create a situation in which the Kurds would be able to operate without Turkey in their way, nor should he be the one to do so.

    In the absence of a Congress that will support any military force, why should Trump put our troops at risk of death and dismemberment, or himself holding the bag on our involvement in Syria, when it was Obama who got us involved in the first place? He would be walking into the same trap as Johnson, Nixon and Ford did in South VietNam.

    Who knows…Trump may have made a different decision, if he were not under constant political assault from his own government. That’s not to say that his decision is the right one, but he is the Commander in Chief, and the buck stops with him.

    • Jay permalink
      October 7, 2019 4:52 pm

      You really are a Trump floozie.
      Even Mike Huckabee gets it:

      “I generally support @POTUS on foreign policy & don’t want our troops fighting other nations’ wars, but a HUGE mistake to abandon Kurds. They’ve never asked us to do THEIR fighting-just give them tools to defend themselves. They have been faithful allies. We CANNOT abandon them.”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 7, 2019 10:20 pm

        For almost my entire life the left and most democrats have told me that Republicans are warm mongers always getting us into foreign messes.

        Bush won on a promise of the foreign policy Trump is delivering.
        Obama won on a promise of the foreign policy Trump is delivering.
        Bother reneged on that promise. Trump has not.

        I have told you I am with the left on many things – though not always their means.

        I am quite happy we are winding down our mideast commitments – and hope we can wind them down farther and faster.

        Once upon a time democrats beleived the same thing.

      • October 7, 2019 11:25 pm

        That was before Trump believed as they did. They then had to become Republicans when it came to war.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 8:18 am

        If we were able to blot out the constant political conflict, and focus on accomplishments.

        Trump is a better president than the Bush’s and Obama.

        He is much better on foreign policy that Clinton, Better on regulation, and taxes, but not quite as good on the economy – and that is in 3 years.

        If Jay and Robby would quit ranting constantly about those things that Trump is actually right about, we could have serious discussions about what he is wrong about.

        And I would point out AGAIN – that as we debate withdrawling From Syria – do not ignore the fact that as Jay aptly points out – 2/3 of the GOVERNMENT is opposed to pretty much everything that he does – things that 2/3 of the PEOPLE have wanted from Bush & Obama.

        And these are the whistleblowers, and leakers, and sabateurs.
        These are the people that democrats are crawling into bed with.

        It is a very odd world. We spent decades being told that the entire military industrial intelligence complex was conservative and the evil doers that owned republicans.

        And here we have the only president in my lifetime to actually go toe to toe with them and get the american people what they want – and the LEFT is crawling into bed with them to defend them ?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 8:19 am

        Is there anyone here who remembers the “church commission” ?

        Why do you trust these people ?

      • October 8, 2019 11:52 am

        Dave you asked me “Why do you trust these people ?”

        Did you REALLY ask me that or did this comment get linked to me by mistake, because I TRUST NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT in an administrative or political position!!!!!!!!!!!

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 3:53 pm

        I would not mind answers from anyone.
        I know that you do not trust government, or CIA, ….

        Mostly I want to know what Jay and Robby do

        But the question was rhetorical – in the sense that I do not expect an answer.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 10:05 am

        My positions on issues are not driven by whatever person or party is in control.

        That is what I respect about Glenn Greenwald – even though I often disagree.

        There are plenty of republicans whose positions vary based on whoever holds power within the GOP, but the entire left has no foundational values on anything – not politicians, not the media, not ordinary democrats,

    • October 7, 2019 5:38 pm

      Priscilla, dont debate an issue with Jay from a Trump/anti Trump perspective. Debate the issue from should we or not.

      Is it in our best interests to get involved around the world as the worlds police man, knowing hundreds, if not more Americans will eventually die?

      I say no!1. We lost enough in Viet Nam m Iraq and Afghanistan already. Let the Germans, English, French and Middle Eastern countries lose some lives protecting hot spots. Its time they stop being cowards and step up!

      • October 7, 2019 6:59 pm

        Good advice, of course, Ron.

        Here’s the thing ~ as I’ve said many times before, I am recently conservative, and the tipping point for me was 9/11.

        So, my introduction to conservativism was, at least partially, through the neo-con arguments that got us into Iraq. I genuinely supported first the war in Afghanistan, and then the invasion of Iraq, believing that Saddam was planning to attack us or our allies with WMD.

        It’s only been since the Obama administration’s overthrow of Ghadaffy ~ an unauthorized war conceived of and proudly advocated by Hillary Clinton~ which completed the destabilization of the region that had been started by our overthrow of Saddam, that I started to see that the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower had warned us about, was a real danger.

        So, I probably did come at the subject from too Trumpy a perspective, because I’m still a little neo-con-ish. I worry that Trump has been pushed into this decision, although I’m pretty sure that he’s been considering this for a very long time, and it probably has a great deal to do with his firing (or the resignation of) John Bolton.

        What really pisses me off about the people who think we should stay in Syria is that none of those folks ever call out NATO for allowing Turkey to stay in the alliance, despite the fact that everyone knows that Erdogan is an Islamist thug. We’ve been hamstrung by NATO for decades, and now the same people who have failed to force the Europeans to pull their weight, while we have seen American kids return home in body bags, or damaged, both physically and mentally, beyond repair, are whining that the Kurds are our “real” allies? It’s not our fight, and we should not have troops fighting. We’ve already provided the Kurds with millions, if not billions, in arms and supplies.

        So, I’m in agreement with you on this, Trump or no Trump.

      • October 7, 2019 8:26 pm

        Priscilla, I understand. But since I was in the Nam era and saw the millions that supported that war and supported Johnson sending men to die in a useless war from the beginning, I have had little faith in any information coming out of D.C. Not until those that questioned government decision did the tide turn, but way to late for the 60,000+ killed, 150,000 wounded and over 1,600 MIA. I was not a supporter of 41’s Iraq war, but came to accept that due to the coalition he put together and the fact he stopped at the Kuwaiti border. Then 43 decided to “finish daddy’s war” and invade Iraq, using very questionable information to support his actions. But that ended up destabilizing the whole middle east resulting in ISIS, the unstable Iraq today and Syria. The issue with the kurds can also be traced to the downfall of Iraq. I supported special forces looking for OBL, but not the mess we have in Afghanistan. More lies were fed the American public so they would buy the cool-aide 43 was selling. We supported the taliban against Russia and helped create them. And 15 of the 19 9-11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, none from Afghanistan

        I would support technical and tactical assistance behind the lines in any war, but unless there is clear and unquestionable information that not sending troops to fight will result in enemy
        troops coming to American, then any war we send troops to fight should have the front line fighters from the country under attack.

        But again, this is my more Libertarian/Conservative policy beliefs. I too was a democrat, but liars cured me early. Had I been of voting age in the 60’s, i would have voted for JFK and Johnson. I voted the first time just before entering the Navy for RFK. While in the Navy I began questioning authority and that included Johnsons Viet Nam B.S.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 8:06 am

        We are all fighting over the withdrawl from Syria right now.

        But it would be wise to understand – this is not disconnected from the whistleblower and faux impeachment.

        There is an army within govenrment – DOD, NSA, DNI, State, CIA, that opposes Trump’s foreign policy. Just as it has opposed every single president that has sought to scale back our foreign adventures.

        These people – not just the CIA – have a many decades long track record of unmitigated disaster.

        I would have absolutely ZERO problem closing the intelligence apparatus of the US.
        While we are not safe from all kinds of threats – They do not make us any safer.
        In fact they likely make us less safe.

        I think our military is absolutely incredible.
        And I would slash the military in half – and they would STILL be by far the most powerful military in the world.

        I would slash the state department. Do you honestly think the world would go completely to hell if the US did not feel compelled to be in the middle of every single negotiation in the world throwing our weigh arround ?

        The problems of the world are not solved because the US – half the world away from pretty much all the worlds problems throws out weight arround in them.

        I keep harping on “the ugly american” – the message is that what the US does best for the world is serve as an example. We are an example of the benefits of peace, of freedom of getting along.

        The left rants at us about assorted victim classes.
        Everywhere in the world where the left has had power has resulted in strife and bloodshed and conflict. Whatever the US record with respect to disfavored groups – it is BETTER than anywhere else in the world.

        The very people trying to convert the US into europe do not seem to understand that Europe is pretty fracked up and is struggling to figure out how to become the US.

        Regardless the best thing we can do for the world is serve as an example.

        And that is what “American Exceptionalism” means.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 7:38 am

        Priscilla

        We all have a story that explains how we arrived where we are.

        We have held positions in the past that we do not today.

        We are supposed to learn from both history generally, and especially the history we experience personally.

        Ron is chiding us not to make this about Trump.

        How is it about Trump ?

        The only people here whose positions on anything are Trump driven are Jay and Robby – whatever Trump advocates for – they are absolutely certain is not merely wrong, but evil.

        It is stupid and tiring.

        I would be happy for a real national debate on trade policy
        I would like to have a real national debate on immigration.
        I would like to have a real national debate on regulation, on global warming, on forign policy on military intervention.

        I am trying to have that debate – you are trying, Ron is trying.

        Robby and Jay – and much of the country just want to rant about Trump.

        I do not much like Trump, and I did not vote for him.
        But I am not going to abandon the positions that I have spent a lifetime learning, because Trump shares many of them, and is actually acting on them.

        Further, I did not vote for Obama, but the day after the election, I prayed that he would be successfull. I still argued against him when I thought he was wrong. When he got his way against my wished – I hoped I was wrong and what he did would work.
        I did not agree with him, but I did not actually hope he failed.

        I do not make decisions – particularly decisions about government aka force based on emotion. I do not require my emotions and my cognition to be synced.

        I am capable of hoping that Bush succeeded in Iraq, while grasping that as not likely, I am capable of hoping that Obama would succeed – even while opposing every policy and knowing they would fail.

        From election day I hoped that Trump would succeed, and for once in several areas I was able to expect that he would succeed – and he has.

      • October 8, 2019 11:43 am

        Dave, I am not chiding anyone about supporting Trump or not. For some reason you have a complete mental block on what I comment, where others do not. Priscilla understood completely where I was coming from.

        But to clarify for you, there are those that would defend Trump even if he were found to be the reincarnation of James Hoffa. There are those that would oppose Trump even if he were found to be the the combination of all the best attributes of JFK, Carter and RR without any of their negatives. Then the is a group that will question Trump for policy decisions just.like they would Clinton, 43 or Obama. Priscilla and I are in that third group. You most likely are, but comment just on defending Trump, so it is not hard understanding why some put you in the first group. Jay is in the second.

        My point.When Jay uses few facts other than others negative Trump tweets, one can not debate that comment. He is only telling us that he agrees with X’s comment about Trump. So I just told Priscilla it was a lost cause trying to debate or discuss anti-Trump comments. I was not chiding anyone.

        Just like he posted Lindsay Grahams comment about Syria, he made no comment why he also defended leaving troops there. I pressed the issue and asked if he wanted his kids there. As of this response, he has not responded.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 3:51 pm

        Ron,

        I think I have a pretty good understanding of your comments.

        But every word in a reply to a comment of yours is not intended as a rebutal to your comments.

        Often I respond – yes, but this is more important to me,
        or yes, and this is also important.

        Accusations to the contrary – neither you nor Priscilla not I are trump sycophants.

        Trump is better than the last two presidents is NOT a ringing endorsement.
        Even Trump is better than the last 4 – though not yet establishes – sill lives lots of room for disagreement and improvement.

        Equally important is that half of those HERE will not permit rational discussion.

        If you do not accept “Trump is evil, everything he does is wrong” then you are evil and the debate is over.

        It is not possible to have a discussion of what our immigration should be like, or what our trade policies should be like or what our foreign policy should be like.

        I posted a Tulsi Gabbard interview – the first of which is pretty much in sync with Trump.
        Except that Gabbard would not impose government ecconomic sanctions – and I am closer to Her on that than Trump.

        Yet here we are – Jay has finally gotten an issue that many republicans and all neocons are in sync with and god forbid anyone should discuss the merits of the issue. We must jump immediately to Trump is evil, and if you do not repeat that chant instantly – you too are evil.

        There are not alot of politicians of either party that support Trump getting us out of mid-eastern entanglements. But there are alot of voters who do.
        I do not know if that is a majority, but whatever the scale, it is not a stupid position to be rejected off hand.

        Frankly Both Bush and Obama ran their first campaigns on more isolationist positions than Trump. Obama was going to close down Gitmo, get us out of Iraq, and get us out of Afghanistan in 90 days.

        I doubt Trump would have gone into Syria at all – but for the fact that Obama left him stuck with a mess in Syria. Trump would have been happy to let Assad and Russia fight ISIS and Iran. AND SO WOULD I, and an awful lot of others.

        I am completely with Gabbard – our soldiers are not cannon fodder.
        When we ask them to risk their lives for our country, we damn well better have good reason.

        And helping the Syrian Kurds is NOT a good enough reason.
        They fought ISIS – because that is in their interests.
        If we were not there beside them, the difference is they would be dead.
        They still would have fought ISIS.

        Turkey is a NATO member – and we owe them by Treaty support in their defense.
        They are not being attacked, they are preparing to attack.
        Using weapons we supplied.

        The Kurds are likely to strike a deal with someone else – Russia or Assad.

        I am OK with that.
        Frankly I am OK with Syrian Kurds, Iraqi, Kurds, Iranian Kurds and turkish Kurds all forming their own Kurdish state.
        We should stay out of this

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 7:20 am

        “Don’t debate from a Trumpian perspective”.

        That is not what is happening.

        When arguments get divorced from the facts, when slur and insult become a substitute for argument. When the fixation is on people and feelings and not facts,

        Then those using that approach paint everything is about good and evil – rather than true and false, and about bad people vs. good people rather than bad ideas vs. good ones.

        I defend trump alot – BECAUSE HE IS RIGHT, not because I like him, not because I voted for him.

        I have argued the mostly SAME POSITIONS for decades.

        While some of my views have shifted slowly over time – as we ALL have hopefully learned something from history, I have never been a neo-con. I beleived Bush when he said he would end the “nation building” – and he lied. I did not beleive Obama when he said he would get us out of the mideast – and he too lied. I did not beleive Trump when he said he would get us out either – and he lied too. But Trump’s lies on foriegn policy have been white lies, while Bush and Obama told whoppers.

        Further I beleive – despite his huge ego and his bragging that he “knows more than the generals” Trump has made the mistake of giving those in the swamp the opportunity to fix their own messes and prove him wrong. He spent two MORE years giving the powers that be the chance to fix afghaistan – they FAILED.

        I do not think Trump is listening much to CIA, NSA, DOD, State anymore.

        And I think that is a VERY GOOD THING. These people have been fracking up for decades.
        Long before Trump. My problem with much of what Trump is doing is – “Why not sooner ?”

        That is not a “pro Trump” position. It has been my view for decades.

        To the extent I have changed at all – I belived Nixon’s claim that he could bring about “peace with honor” in the 70’s. Today I know better.

        When we must use our military – send them in, do the job – WIN, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!

        Leave the mess to the people who live their.

        As Douglas MacArthur said “there is no substitute for victory”

        Do not use our children as cannon fodder. If the issue is not important enough to win – to kill the opposition brutally and quickly – then do not send soldiers.
        Having accomplished our military goals GET OUT.

        Our military is a powerful threat – when the rest of the world sees how easily they can obliterate any opposing force.
        That threat is substantially diminished when we hang arround and get sucked into an occupation of attrition which we will ALWAYS lose.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 7, 2019 10:08 pm

      Priscilla – I do not think your assertion is correct (that democrats are stopping support of the kurds)

      But if that is the case – that is something I can stand behind democrats over.

      While it is not the only issue in deciding who is president, and I am not a pacifist,
      I am most definitely strongly non-interventionist.

      Lets get the Fork out of the mideast and the messes of other nations.

      • October 8, 2019 9:25 am

        I’m not sure when I asserted that, but I could well have been unclear. Here are the points I have tried to make:

        Kurdistan, which doesn’t technically exist as a nation-state, is not a US ally.

        Turkey (which does exist) is part of NATO, to which the US is bound by treaty.

        Just last year, Democrats were apoplectic that Trump was undermining NATO.

        Now, they want us to fight against a NATO ally.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 10:22 am

        I am not disagreeing with you.

        I am focused on three different points:

        One no form of intervention that we have ever engaged in has not resulted in disaster.

        If Jay is able to assure me – as a matter of FACT using logic and reason, that whatever he thinks should be done will:
        Not result in US deaths, nor extended US presence,
        not just delay the inevitable.
        have a better outcome than whatever Trump is doing

        I will be happy to consider it.
        But I am not slightly interested in appeals to emotions.

        Assure does NOT mean delude or convince me of good intentions.
        It means PROVE.

        I keep trotting out the powers book and the NRO review and “The Ugly america” and past history, and I am sure I can find much much more, Because the story is always the same.

        Our actions accomplish nothing.

        Next, We have no interest here.

        The entire point of Power’s book – though she can not bring herself to that conclusion as it rejects her lifes work is that the humanitarian use of power always backfires.

        We have not national interest in this. And any humanitarian use of force eitehr delays the inevitable or switches who massacres who.

        Finally,

        We have no allies here. NATO is a mutual defense agreement. There is no committment to support any NATO country in aggression.

        And the Kurds are a group we shared a common interest with – we BOTH sought to defeat ISIS.

        Nor can I sort out this mess.
        I do not trust our CIA, NSA, State, nor the Kurds nor the Turks.

        The avowed goal of the Kurds is to carve out a country from parts of Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

        Whether that is a good idea or not – it is NOT our fight.

        The expressed goal of the Turks is to create a safe zone for Syrian refugees that is NOT inside Turkey.

        The Syrians are actively seeking to Welcome the Kurds back into the Syrian government,

        I have no idea who the “good guys” and who the “bad guys” are – and likely there is no such thing, just competing interests.

        It is NOT our job to sort that out.

  55. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 4:31 pm

    When you elect a Faux Reality TV personality President:

    Trump in December 2015, on dealing with Turkey:

    “I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul…Two towers, instead of one. Not the usual one, it’s two. And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well.”

    • October 7, 2019 5:42 pm

      Jay you got any kids your willing to send over there to die? If not shut the fuck up because its not your fight! Your TDS has stepped over the line when you are willing to send OTHER PARENTS KIDS to die in a worthless country!!!

      I am not. Let the rest of the free countries shed some blood for awhile!!!!!

      • Jay permalink
        October 7, 2019 7:20 pm

        My my my… look at the growing list of Americans from left, right, and center who don’t agree with you, INCLUDING soldiers stationed there past and present.

        And it was a small number of American troops, serving as a trip-wire to prevent the Turks from slaughtering the Kurdish forces there, LONG STANDING AMERICAN ALLIES, who the Turks consider terrorists.

        Get off your high horse. You’re sounding simple-minded.

      • October 7, 2019 7:52 pm

        Just answer my question.u

        Would you?

      • Jay permalink
        October 8, 2019 11:54 am

        If I had an adult child in the military he or she would have made an adult decision to enlist, fully understanding that included a commitment to put their life in jeopardy if ordered to do so. And no matter where they were stationed, no matter how dangerous the location, i’d worry for their safety and hope for the best.

        That’s how I’d feel about a child who became a cop, in a big city high crime area. Or a firefighter sent to combat devastating blazes. I don’t decide to send them there. The situation determines assignment. And the situation regarding the Kurds required a guarantee from Turkey not to exterminate them – before pulling out the last of our forces stationed there.

        Of course if I had a child working in the current president’s security detail, I’d beseech them to resign immediately, and upon the official resign date offer the dipshit a parting ‘full moon’ salute.

        Trump is a cancer on the presidency.
        Impeachment radiation required ASAP.

      • October 8, 2019 12:18 pm

        OK Jay, ver “political baffle gab” answer. Guess I did not specify ” want” clear enough.

        So let me put it this way.
        You have a kid graduating from H.S.
        They have a scholarship to Stanford or UCLA.
        They come to you and say I am thinking about joining the Army and volunteering for infrantry so I can go to the middle east?
        What do you do?

        Short of locking mine up in a mental institute, I would use every means in my book to show them the errors in that judgement using the same facts and positions I have used here.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 4:01 pm

        No one asked what your adult child would decide.

        The question is are you prepared to sacrifice your hypothetical adult children – or the real adult children of others for Syrian Kurds ?

        Frankly, I do not care what you decide regarding your own,

        You do not understand that what you are doing DAMN WELL better be justified if you are going to sacrifice the lives of other peoples children,.

        So explain to me – why this is worth OUR blood and treasure ?

        Contra claims by you and others – the Kurds are NOT our allies.
        They are the enemies of our enemies.

        Also how is it you think that protecting the Kurds from the Turks using our soldiers as human sheilds is ok, but threatening the Turks with economic ruination if they kill kurds is unacceptable ?

        There are no “good guys” in this., there are just lots of players – so less bad than others.

        We owe the Turks a defense – if they are attacked without provocation.
        That is all we owe anyone.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 4:08 pm

        I doubt Trump did this to avoid impeachment – but it makes impeachment less likely.

        While it has riled some republicans – they were never voting for impeachment.

        But for those both left and right on the fence – this action is consistent with weaker support for Ukraine. Trump has argued that all the games with aide were entirely about reducing the US involvement in foriegn conflicts – just as he is doing right now in Syria.
        You can disagree with what he has done, but it is harder now to say – that what he did in Ukraine is different than what he is doing in Syria.

        In both cases he is weakening support for a faux ally.

        We do not – or atleast should not be promising foreign countries – rain or shine – we are there for you. Not the Kurds, not the Ukrainians.

        We are there – when it is in our best interests.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 4:18 pm

        The police and firemen know what they are doing their jobs for.
        They are not there to advance US policy.
        They are there to save lives.
        If they do not like what they are being asked – they can quit.

        Our soldiers must go – whether they want too or not.
        Our responsibility it to make sure when we order them to risk their lives,
        we know what we are doing, and that it is for the benefit of americans.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 4:20 pm

        Secret service agents get to resign too – if they do not like the job.
        Soldiers don’t.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 7:46 am

        The only one selling anything simple minded is you,

        Trump is doing what the american people want. What every president since Bush has promised.

        What Trump is NOT doing is continuing the policies that pretty much everyone has agreed have FAILED for 2 decades.

        To the extent I disagree with Trump – it is that he gave the military almost 3 years to make the same failed crap work.

        I do not expect the results of what Trump is doing to be good.

        But the results of continuing were not good either.

        None of this is simple – there is no magic wand to make everything perfect.

        I do not honestly beleive this will result in the slaughter of the Kurds by the Turks – the Kurds are a military force to be recognized, and Kurds make up about 1/3 of turkey.

        I do expect Turkey to behave badly, but not so badly as to start a civil war or an open war with the Kurds.

        But I could be wrong.

        Regardless, our interests are not at stake and our efforts to use our military as a humanitarian force have failed Miserably.

        Did you not learn anything from Somalia ? Or Libya ? Or ….

        I am not the one with the simplistic idea that the US can police the world.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 7:51 am

        Lets Clear something else up.

        The Kurds are NOT our allies.

        The Ukrainians are NOT our allies.

        These are NOT countries our peoples that “have our back”

        They are countries and peoples that on SOME things our interests and their are aligned.

        The Kurds have helped us help themselves, as have the Ukrainians.

        The Enemy of our Enemy might be useful, but they are NOT our friends.

        I have no problem with working with these countries and peoples – but we do not OWE them anything, and I do not expect them to “have our back”

      • October 7, 2019 9:00 pm

        Sheesh, Jay. Do you not know that Turkey is in NATO?

        And would you send a child of yours to be a “tripwire” for the Turks? Sounds so innocent ~ ‘oh, we’re just a “tripwire” to keep this vicious, tyrannical ally of ours from slaughtering an ethnic minority that wants its independence.”

        No of course you wouldn’t. Better for someone else’s kid to be a sacrificial “tripwire.”

      • Jay permalink
        October 8, 2019 11:10 am

        Sheesh Pricilla, I do know Turkey is a NATO member.

        How do you like your loverboy President threatening to obliterate the economy of another NATO nation?

        Turkey obviously didn’t appreciate it. They pretty much told Trump to go to hell on that assertion.

        “Turkey will not bow to threats over its Syria plans, the Turkish vice president said Tuesday…
        In Ankara, Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay said Turkey was intent on combating Syrian Kurdish fighters across its border in Syria and on creating a zone that would allow Turkey to resettle Syrian refugees there.”

        https://www.timesofisrael.com/turkey-says-wont-bow-to-trump-threats-over-syria-plans-army-ready-for-assault/

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 12:13 pm

        “Sheesh Pricilla, I do know Turkey is a NATO member.

        How do you like your loverboy President threatening to obliterate the economy of another NATO nation?”

        If Briton Nukes Scotland – is the US obligated to support it ?

        “NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.”

        “Turkey obviously didn’t appreciate it. They pretty much told Trump to go to hell on that assertion.”

        So ?

        You want Trump to threaten the crap out of Xi over Hong Kong and to pussy foot arround Turkey while committing US troops to defend the Kurds from the Turks.

        So it is apparently OK in your world to thwart the Turks with guns – but not with economic sanctions ?

        Lets make this simple – using US Soldiers are a tripwire vs. using economic sanctions is a difference in TACTICS, not strategy.

        I strongly suspect both american and turkish soldiers would prefer if any conflict was fought with economic sanctions rather than bullets.

        To be clear – I oppose GOVERNMENT economic sanctions – against China, against Turkey, against Iran. That does not mean I oppose private parties from choosing not to do business with Turkey or China or Iraq – though given the NBA kowtowing to Xi they seem to be impotent.

        Regardless if you do not wish to buy products from china or Chic-a-filet – don’t.

        But If I have to live with imperfection – with a world in which none of our elected leaders are going to behave properly – I would prefer economic sanctions to bullets.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 12:17 pm

        It is not our job to settle this.

        Still I would ask – the Turks want these syrian refugees out of Turkey.

        So let them leave. Why does Turkey need to create a refugee zone inside Syria on land currently controlled by Syrian Kurds ?

      • October 8, 2019 7:23 pm

        So, Jay, I will try and type slowly, so that you can understand.

        The Turks are part of NATO.

        Now NATO has designated the PKK, Kurdish Communists, as a terrorist organization. Not all Kurds, mind you. The Turks pretty much believe that the only good Kurd is a dead Kurd, and they will use any provocation as an excuse to retaliate against any bunch of Kurds, even the Syrian ones, whom we have been arming, with military weapons, that can be used against Turkey.

        So let’s say that a few of our American soldiers, who you seem to think are useful “tripwires,” should get killed in a battle between Turkey and the Kurds.

        What does the US do? Leave Syria only then, carrying the dead bodies of our kids, without any retaliation? Do we destroy the NATO alliance, because we were dumb enough to put our troops in harm’s way, when the rest of our NATO allies would not do so? Do we attack the Kurds, based on Turkey’s word?

        We have been in Syria to destroy the ISIS Caliphate. It is totally destroyed. If it reconstitutes, we can go back and destroy it again.

        Is it your position that we should stay there to be referees between Turkey and the Kurds? Even if that might create a scenario that would get us drawn into a deeper conflict? Or destroy NATO?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 1:24 am

        Excellent analysis.

        I had not considered the fact that even standing between the Turks and Kurds poses a problem, Turkey is an ally. What democrats are asking for is to risk pushing another nato member into committing an act of war against the US.

        That would End NATO pretty fast.

        We are obligated to defend Turkey against an attack – say by the Kurds.
        Being between the Kurds and the Turks is not even close to your typical “tripwire”.

        It is a dangerous predicament that could destroy NATO is anything went wrong.

      • Jay permalink
        October 9, 2019 10:21 am

        You get dumber and dumber as the days go bye.

        A high majority of NATO members would be happy to see Turkey out of NATO. Like Greece for instance. And haven’t you noticed Turkey’s cozying up to Russia (huge weapons purchase) and Iran (economically helping Iran avoid sanctions). Can you point out another NATO country member who is purchasing a Russian Air Defense System?

        Erdoğan’s chronic anti-Western ideological attitudes have encouraged him to exercise dictatorial powers over Turkey’s elections – and behave like the asshole he is (very Trumpian) – his authoritarian rule has turned Turkey into an UNRELIABLE ally … this according to our own military leaders who have been criticizing him publicly and privately.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 3:17 pm

        You continually make my point.

        Bottom line is that you just do not like Trump’s foreign policy.

        OK – lots of others do.

        I would be supporting Obama or Clinton if they were doing this.
        Frankly I am closer to Gabbard on this and would not even have government economic sanctions.

        Regardless – we are debating what SHOULD be our foreign policy – Not Trump.

        Or that is what we would be doing – but for your “Argh! Trump” nonsense.

        Are you capable of a rational discussion of the actual issues here – or are you just going to knee jerk respond “Argh!Trump” ?

        Absolutely you can find myriads of Neo-cons most of whom are republicans who will disagree.

        So rather than rant and engage in frothing twitter battles,

        what is the chance of having a rational discussion ?

        I would further note that the legitimacy of any specific approach is ultimately a matter of PHILOSOPHY.

        You can pretend that some “oppinion” comes from nowhere and that all oppinions are equal, but that is not true.

        If you beleive that the US should have a major leadership role in the world, that will produce one outcome.

        If you beleive in global international coopoeration and multilateralism – that will lead to an outcome.

        If you beleive in the Washingtonian non-interventionism – that will lead to a different outcome.

        And each of these approaches come with costs. Both in blood and treasure.

        Regardless there are many possible answers.
        And the merits of each specific answer depend on your own principles and values.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 3:39 pm

        Is Trump a loud mouthed blowhard – possibly Like Erodigan ? Yes,

        Is he an authoritarian who grabs for power and fails to abide by the rules, the constitution and corrupts elections ? Absolutely not – that inarguably would be the left today.

        Trump presides over a much more powerful executive than our founders imagined.
        But a LESS powerful one than Obama did.
        Both Trump and Obama were highly uncooperative with congress.

        Obama lost more SCOTUS decisions 9:0 than all other US presidents combined.
        He inarguably excercised executive power well beyond what the law, the constitution or congress allowed.

        Trump conversely has lost very few decisions with SCOTUS, has had several go 9:0 in his favor that the left was sure they would win and when he rarely loses the decisions are close.
        Innarguably Trump is operating closer to acceptable norms of the USE or ABUSE of presidential power.

        In this lastest spat that has you frothing – the faux impeachment, we niw have innumerable examples of prior presidents, presidential candidates, and political leaders seeking actual assistance in upcoming elections, as well as “dirt” on opponents.

        It Trump had ACTUALLY done what has been alleged – it would be well within the norms of presidential political conduct over the past 60 years. But he did not.

        What he ACTUALLY did was sought cooperation in existing investigations into the political witchhunt that the Left mounted for the past 3 years.

        Regardless, todate the ACTUAL election interferance is all by the left.

        As should be increasingly evident by the foaming and frothing, and the WB complaint,
        Despite using Biden as a “hook” the real objective of the left is to thwart the investigation into THEIR efforts at election rigging.

        We are going to figure out who Mifsud really works for – and if as seems highly likely that is western intelligence – there is going to be HELL TO PAY.

        We are hopefully going to figure out what actually happened with the DNC email server.
        It should be clear at this point that this claim that “russia did it” – rests on a SINGLE foundation – the Crowdstrike report, and that foundation – though unquestioned by the left is very flimsy. What the FBI, DOJ, CIA has told us is irrelevant – because we KNOW that the only source of knowledge they have is the crowdstrike report.
        We Know that CrowdStrike has been wrong about claims implicating Russia before, and that Only Crowdstrike beleives they are able to identified origins.
        And we know that Crowdstrike is politically tied to the DNC and to Fusion GPS and to the Ukriane, and to corrupt oligarchs.
        Put simply there are lost of reasons to be distrustful of Crowdstrike.

        It is probable we will not ever know what really happened – but if it is actually possible to determine who hacked the DNC emails – and if it turns out not to be the Russians, and it there is evidence that the DNC etc knew that, then the left and the US IC is going to have lots of egg on its face.

        You make a big deal of this “WhistleBlower” complaint – so do I. But we see entirely different things.

        You see a last possible hope that maybe just maybe you have a hook to “get Trump”

        I see massive obstruction of US foreign policy by the very people who are supposed to be implimenting it, I see clear and proveable cooperation between the “deep state” and both obstruction of justice and obstruction of US foreign policy.

        I see a left that is increasingly desparate.
        I see a left that is playing high stakes poker against Trump with a losing hand and is obviously bluffing big time.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 3:50 pm

        Jay,

        What does “anti-western” mean to you ?

        To me “western ideology” is in arguably the rise of free will and individual liberty as the cornerstone of philosophy and government.

        If you are going to tell me that Erodigan is pushing an anti-western ideology – what is it that YOU think is “western ideology” ?

        I think this is incredibly important.

        One of the reasons that it is important is that the goal of the modern political left IS the destruction of that western ideology rooted in individual liberty and free will.

        The conflicts over censorship – speech as violence, the scale of government, majority rule. supermajoritarian minority protections, Political correctness, cancel culture, wokeness, and on and on are all efforts to destroy “western ideology”

        History is the story fo the rise and demise of various ideologies.
        That path is evolutionary not random.

        We can celebrate the philosophy of China, or india or greece or Rome – as stepping stones to “western philopsphy” – that confirms western philosphy as the current pinacle.

        It is also possible even likely that western thought is a way point to a further desitination.

        “The arc of history bends towards justice”.

        But we still need to consider where we are going – all paths are not good. All change is not good.

        The left today does NOT offer anything of consequence to replace or advance western ideology. The objective of the left is NOT evolutionary improvement, but the destruction and denigration of western thought.

      • October 9, 2019 1:04 pm

        Well, Jay, if such a ” high majority of NATO members” would be happy to see Turkey out of NATO, why the hell don’t they do something like, I don’t know, something like VOTE TURKEY OUT OF NATO?

        We’re supposed to go to war with a NATO ally, in order to get them out of the friggin’ alliance?!? And over the Kurds, who have been fighting Turkey for well over 100 years, and will continue for another hundred, unless Turkey is able to do to them what they did to the Armenians!

        Why is this OUR fight? Because of Trump? Actually it was Obama who got us into Syria, without asking for war powers authorization (which he would not have gotten) and now Trump is trying to get us out.

        Look, I feel for the Kurds, but I do not want to sacrifice American blood in a conflict that has ZERO to do with us.

        Not to mention that, even if we had never been in Syria, the Kurds would have fought ISIS, because ISIS was doing the them what they do to everyone…that is chopping off their heads.

        So, if that reasoning makes me dumber than you, well, I’d rather not see the world your way. Endless wars are not my thing.

  56. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 4:37 pm

    this is the idiot ‘people’ still defend on this site:

    Trump tweeting a few minutes ago:

    “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). …

  57. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 4:49 pm

    Trump Anticipated:

  58. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 4:56 pm

    Fox News: “Pentagon ‘completely blindsided’ by White House order to pull U.S. forces back from northern Syria green-lighting Turkish invasion: U.S. officials”

    These are the kinds of mistakes a Impulsive Fool President makes.
    What kind of fools defend him? Mirror mirror on the wall…

    • dhlii permalink
      October 8, 2019 6:48 am

      Calling something a mistake does not make it one.

      Absolutely Trump is paying less and less attention to the advice of DOD, State, CIA, NSA, …

      He is doing what overwhelming majorities of the american people have wanted for decades.
      He is doing what voters have voted for, for decades.

      As you keep ranting that “bad things might happen” – of course they will.
      Bad things will happen no matter what. Likely different bad things.

      Again I would suggest you read the NRO review of Susan Power’s book.

      I have not read her book – but I strongly suspect you could just read her book,
      Or “the ugly america”, or remember vietnam.

      Our military is very good at defeating enemies.
      And there ends our abilities with respect to things outside our country.
      Most everything else we do – we are bad at and it works badly.

      Probably because the various peoples of the world are ultimately responsible for themselves.

      We can not make the Iranian’s or Turks, or Kurds, or …. into “good people”,
      We can not give them good government.

      Power’s “big idea” what moved her from academia to the obama administration was her ideas on the use of power as the means to thwart genocide. Her ideas on the use of power to advance human rights rather than national interests.

      The story of her book “the education of an idealist” – one the review suggests that even she did not quite get, is that does not work. Our efforts to thwart Ghadafi murdering all his enemies, resulted in chaos, anarchy, civil war, and an assortment of factions murdering all their enemies.

      Unless your idea of us foreign power is to occupy half the world and sacrifice our children to keep a lid on open violence in the rest of the world – we do not have any approach that works.

      It does not matter whether you are of the Samantha Powers type, or a Dick Cheney Neo-con.
      The US needs to get past the idea that we are the policemen of the world.

      Our use of military force outside of our own direct defense needs to be severely limited.
      We need to use force ONLY to advance american interests, and we need to define those interests NARROWLY. When we do use force – we need to do so with complete commitment, rapidly accomplish the military goals and GET OUT.

      The harsh reality is nothing else works well.

      We were fully justified in imposing Regime change in Afghanistan after the Taliban participated in an act of war against the US and provided protection to its perpetrators,

      The war in afghanistan was over in 29 days. The badly done mopping up that could have but failed to destroy the taliban took maybe another 90 days.

      Everything we have done in afghanistan since has been a failure.

      When we leave – and it does not matter whether that is in a year or a decade – the Taliban is near certain to take over – much as before.

      The lesson of Afghanistan – rather then being “mess with the US and you are dead”, will be
      “if you wait long enough we will go away.”

      With respect to the mess in Syria, and turkey and the kurds.

      Those peoples need to resolve their conflicts on their own.

      And that is not going to happen with the US playing favorites.

      It is possible that they might use force against each other to resolve their differences.

      Unless we plan on being the global police force – that is going to happen somewhere in the world no matter what.

      One of the messages that Trump is sending to the world – to those in the mideast, to the EU, to Ukraine, is that the US is NOT the global police force.

      That is a message that Bush II, and Obama campaigned on.

      Trump is actually doing it.

      Ultimately some of us are hypocrits.

      I did not want Trump as president. But I did STRONGLY want the foreign policy he promised – just as I hoped that Bush would get us out of “nation building” and that Obama would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

      If you want me to condemn Trump – Our presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere is STILL too large.

      Sell the Saudi’s or Kurds, or Ukrianian’s weapons if you must. But get our soldiers out of places and conflicts that are not ours.

      You talk about these countries as our “allies”.

      Do these people share our values ?

      When you say they were “there when we needed them” – doesn’t that mean they were fighting THEIR enemies alongside us ?

      The Kurds, the Turks, …. are NOT our Allies. These are not the countries that share our values and will have our backs. They are peoples acting in their own perceived self interest.

  59. Jay permalink
    October 7, 2019 5:08 pm

    BTW- When will Trump release those taxes?
    The 4-year October 4th anniversary has passed when he promised to do so…

    Guess he was just joking….

    • dhlii permalink
      October 8, 2019 7:00 am

      You seem to think this is some sore spot, or that you are scoring points.

      I do not care about ANY politicians taxes.

      In fact – and long before Trump, I have OBSERVED that assorted public disclosure laws have driven good people out of politics.

      Local government and school boards used to be chock full of local business leaders often engaging in public service towards the end of their carreers,

      These were people with a record of success who had actual managed entities on the scale of local govenrment. They did so fiscally responsibly.

      Today our local governments are chock full of professional politicians. Whose idea of managing government is doling out favors to connected contributors or to voting groups.

      I do not want Trump’s or anyone’s tax return.

      I want more people who know what the hell they are doing and less professional politicians.
      And that is not going to happen if you demand people share their private information to be public servants.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 8, 2019 9:47 am

      2nd circuit just stayed – within hours the NY decision that you fixated on.

      • Jay permalink
        October 8, 2019 6:09 pm

        Fixated?

        Thou dost bullshit faster then the 2nd Circuit ordered ‘a temporary administrative stay pending EXPEDITED review by a court panel.’

        That’s a good sign the order will quickly be appealed to SCOTUS, so we can find out if the justices will place President Prickhead above the law or within its jurisdiction.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 11:13 pm

        No Jay – not a good sign. Stays are not automatic, they are not a right, and they do not typically occur that fast.

        Generally to get a stay the court has to beleive there is a reasonable probability the party applying for the stay will prevail AND that there will be significant damange if the stay is not granted.

        As to “expedited” of course – most anything of this type associated with the president is going to be expedited.

        Will this get to scotus fast ? Who knows.

        The review panel could reverse and remand. That would likely shut the whole thing down.
        This case is slightly different from the CA case – which was a slam dunk – CA can not add requirements to the constitution.
        The issues are more complex, but one of the core issues is going to be whether the court beleives this is a pretext.

        And guess what Jay – EVERYONE knows its a pretext,
        Everytime you salivate over the prospect of getting at Trump’s tax returns – you prove it is a pretext. Politics is not a justification for bending the law.

        One of the clear indicators this is a pretext – is that a mechanism already exists for the prosecutor to get anyone’s tax return – but it must go before the IRS and be approved by the Treasury Secretary.

        The most likely outcome of this is for the courts to determine that if the prosecutor wants a Tax Return, he can not side step the legal protections already in place for tax returns by subpeonaing the accountant.

        But like everything Trump – you are looking for short cuts.

        Just follow the law. If you can not get what you want – live with it, or change the law.

      • October 8, 2019 7:14 pm

        Dave, maybe your wife can answer this given her position.

        The Manhattan D.A. wants Trump tax returns to see if anything illegal occurred with hush money such as claiming that as a business expense. Other than that the hush money has been hushed over for months and nothing found.

        So my question. Can the Manhattan D.A. look for evidence of any illegal tax evasion or fraud, or are they limited in scope in the investigation for just evidence to illegal acts as it pertains to hush money and coverup of illegal acts associated with hush money?

        Do they also have unlimited powers like Mueller to investigate anything they so desire?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 11:28 pm

        This is outside of my wife’s realm.

        It is possible there is existing case law on this.

        There are alot of issues.

        At the top of the list is that Law Enforcement anywhere in the country can request a Tax Return from the IRS. There is ancient federal law on this.
        But the IRS does not give up tax returns easily and law enforcement must beet actual 4th amendment probabile cause – not what passes for the 4th amendement in other matters.

        From what I can tell of the facts – based on the DA’s claim – not court SHOULD have issued a warrant. Probable cause is not “I hope there is a crime here”.

        BUT the one thing the DA has going for him – which I alluded to, is that the 4th amendment has been very near completely obliterated – both the right and the left participated in that.

        If we were not dealing with a tax return, and the IRS and an existing law specificying a mechanism for getting it, and an accounting firm being subpeona’d The court would have said yes to the warrant/subpeona, As an example – though it should not be, this would be enough to get Trump’s bank records (or anyone else’s) and but for the law when the IRS was created regarding the privacy of tax returns it would be as easy for a DA to get a tax return as a bank record.

        The other issue is whether this is a pretext. Normally courts fall all over themselves to not beleive that a request from law enforcement is a pretext, But sometimes that is very hard to hide – and this stinks like a pretext. If the courts decide this is a pretext the DA’s request is dead.

        My guess is that either the 2nd cir. court of appeals or SCOTUS will punt and say – the DA must follow the law and go through the IRS.

        I would further note that even if the manhattan DA gets Trump’s tax return – it still not going public. And if it leaks under the circumstances, people are likely to get disbarred.

        Because this is really rally high profile, nobody will get a free “oops”.

        The Manhattan DA is overreaching. DA’s are used to getting whatever they want even from the courts. And the courts suck at protecting the civil rights of normal people.

        But given ancient federal law, and a highly pretextual smell, and an allegation that is really just a presumption that a crime occured and a super high profile defendant.

        My guess is the DA loses.

        Like I said, either 2 ct app kicks it back and says “go through the IRS” or SCOTUS does.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 12:12 am

        Sorry, I answered a question that you did not ask – though it is related.

        First, Again DA’s typically get whatever they want,

        If the DA says I am searching for X, and they find Y – without having to go far out of their way, they will be allowed to prosecute Y.
        So long as the search for X is reasonable AND it is reasonable to find Y while searching for X.

        As an example if the DA gets a search warrant to search a property for a stolen Bull Dozer, and they find a baggie of heroin in a lock box in the office – the heroin is not getting into evidence. It is not reasonable to search for a bulldozer in a lock box AND if there was a weapon in the lock box – if the box was locked it is not a threat to the police.

        As a general rule the police are permitted to search most anything that could reasonably present a danger to them no matter what else they are searching for.

        So they can look for guns in unlocked drawers – if they have a valid search warant for something else – even if that something else could not be found in drawers.

        So if the DA actually manages to get Trump’s tax return, he can probably use anything he finds.

        All of this begs a completely different question.

        Tax Returns are NOT especially useful at finding evidence of a crime.

        It is highly unlikely that it will be possible to tell from Trump’s tax return ANYTHING about the hush money.

        Tax returns do not contain checks or bank records. Which it is very likely the Manhattan DA could get – whether they should be able to or not.

        This bolsters the claim this is a pretext.

        The DA is demanding the wrong documents to prove the allegation he is making.

        Again in a normal case – that would get glossed over. But this is incredibly high profile and the lawyers are likely really good.

        Mueller did not have unlimited investigative powers – despite the fact that is how he proceded.

        We are again dealing with – what is the actual law and constitution, and what is the standards today after 250 years of shredding the constitution.

        I would further note that “what can be investigated” – is the core question to Trump/Russia, Comey, Mueller, AND now Biden Russia.

        There is no differences in the constitutional investigative limits of a cop on the beat, a DA, the FBI director, SC Mueller, or the president.

        The standard is reasonable suspicion. That is the bar to starting an investigation.

        There is clearly reasonable suspicion regarding Biden, and that is why the entire WB nonsense should die. With Reasonable Suspicion – it does nto matter if Trump’s action was politically motivated, or if there was a quid pro quo (so long as it was not personal – like a private bribe).

        I do not beleive the Trump/Russia investigation ever met the reasonable suspicion bar.

        I am not sure if this hush money allegation of the DA does. – probably it does Reasonable suspicion is a low bar.

        But Reasonable suspicion only gets you an investigation.
        It DOES NOT get you a search, a warrant, a subpeona, a spy,

        Even if this hush money claim reaches reasonable suspicion – it does not reach probable cause.

        The same is true of the Trump/Russia investigation – no matter who was doing it

        This is why the huge fight over the FISA warrant. If the FISA warrant should not have been granted Then Halper and Turk are a clear abuse of power, and every subpoena and warrant that Mueller issued is invalid.

        And that loops back to the WB.

        The FBI swore that a known informant(steele) who past experience lead them beleive was reliable, provided them information about possible crimes.

        That is approximately what FBI told the FISA court.

        That is NOT sufficient – even with the destruction we have done to the 4th amendment to get a warrant.

        For a warrant the information from an informant MUST be “credible” and credible used in a legal context – as in case law about warrants or in the whistleblower statute as very specific meaning. Credible requires first hand knowledge. Neither Steele not the whistleblower had first hand knowledge – that is only the first part of the test for credibilty but fail that and you are done. Steele – by virtue of the FBI’s long term relationship with him MIGHT be credible – if he observed the tings in the steele dossier first hand, but he did not, nor did the people who provided him with the information in the Steele Dossier, nor in most instanced did their source. Whisper down the lane is not credible – even if the person at the tail end is an otherwise reliable person; Further in this specific instance Steele himself was not credible – because he had an axe to grind and because he was paid by the Clinton campaign.

        Next all of this matters – far beyond Trump.

        We have whittled away at the standards such that we are very near having a police state where anyone can be investigated anytime for anything.

        The requirement that the source of information for a warrant (or a whistleblower complaint) must be credible – is one of very few areas we have NOTwhittled away.
        And it is highly unlikely the courts will.
        If you accept hearsay as credible, you have a police state.

        And that is the HUGE question of this whole mess – Trump/Russia the Whistleblower, ….

        What is the bar to law enforcement investigating anyone for anything.

        The least rights you allow the person in the world you despise the most. That is the most rights any of us can be certain to have.

      • October 9, 2019 12:13 pm

        So in shortening your message. If the DA is allowed to continue this investigation, we are in for another 2 year ‘Mueller investigation’ unless Warren defeats him in Nov 2020.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 4:52 pm

        whether the DA is after Trump or some random person

        The must have “reasonable suspicion” to investigate, and “probable cause” to conduct a search – warrants of subpeona’s.

        So long as they are held to that – investigate away.

        There Might be reasonable suspicion regarding the Stormy Daniels payments.
        There is not probable cause.

  60. October 7, 2019 5:27 pm

    This is only a test. I am having problems posting comments to this. Trying different ways to see if I can get it to work.

  61. October 8, 2019 9:28 am

    “If you want to stop Donald Trump from making unilateral decisions regarding war and peace, then stop letting all presidents make unilateral decisions about war and peace. It’s really quite simple. Trump can abruptly pull back U.S. troops from northern Syria because Congress, having abdicated its foreign policy responsibilities long ago, has no leverage to stop him.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/hey-congress-take-back-your-war-powers-or-shut-up-about-syria/

  62. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 9:43 am

  63. October 8, 2019 10:42 am

    Jay, to address your issue concerning Trump and inaction in Hong Cong, read this.
    https://www.journalnow.com/z-no-digital/nba-s-handling-of-daryl-morey-china-maelstrom-shows-that/article_fd71c189-c02b-5760-adbc-fcba38171b93.html

    When you have backlash like this just in sports, what impact do you think it would have if the administrations position became public?

    Universities in this country have millions invested in Chinese studies, students and corporate interests. Why have you not heard just one University Chancellor comment supporting Hong Cong, when they would be one of the first to speak up if a policeman shoots a black man without knowing the facts of the shooting.

    Where is Hollywood? Why are they so quite? Might it be the billions they make from films in China?

    So, does Trump come out in public, make a big deal about Hong Cong and have China break off all trade talks, ban more imports from America, stop buying American debt and strategically sell off large blocks of equities in retaliation, or does he ( finally) keep his fingers still and keep anything he is doing with China within his small group of trusted advisers?

    I have no idea, but given the blow back financially to this country if he speaks up publically, I suspect there is a good possibility that things are happening behind the scenes. Is that right? No. Money has too much control, but that is the way it goes. Support Hong Cong and risk a possible 25%-50% decline in the stock market or work behind the scenes. Does grandma want to lose 50% of her retirement income sources?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 8, 2019 11:00 am

      I am not particularly concerned about “backlash from China”.

      Xi MIGHT have the means to target the NBA,
      With respect to the US – he has likely already used all the arrows in his quill that do not harm China more than the US.

      I have repeatedly talked about the “dollars” side of trade, and we keep ignoring it.

      If China refuses to use the green slips of paper it gets from the US, how does that harm us ?

      If the US sends China green slips of paper for goods, and china sits on the green slips of paper – how are we harmed ?

      If China invests them in the US we are not harmed,
      If China trades them for goods from India or Europe – we are not harmed and ultimately those green slips of paper get invested in the US regardless.

      Maybe Xi can cause temporary disruption and chaos in the US – at the cost of doing the same in China.

    • Jay permalink
      October 8, 2019 3:57 pm

      “Where is Hollywood? Why are they so quite? Might it be the billions they make from films in China?”

      I agree with you.
      So does South Park:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/08/south-park-creators-blast-china-nba-over-censorship/

      • October 8, 2019 5:05 pm

        😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂!
        Dang you had to stretch that one.
        Jeez, guess I need to be specific.
        Hollywood as in Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Clooney, Speilberg etc.

  64. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 11:10 am

  65. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 12:28 pm

    • Jay permalink
      October 8, 2019 3:46 pm

      Good for George.
      Good for Ellen.

      (Trumpanzees don’t like either one of them)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 8, 2019 4:55 pm

        Having never met a “trumpanzee” I have no idea what they like.

        I like Ellen, I like George.
        but I disagree with both on alot.

        I do not like Trump
        But I agree with him on some things.

        And that is precisely what ellen is talking about that you missed completely.

  66. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 1:21 pm

  67. Jay permalink
    October 8, 2019 3:51 pm

    Trumplestilsken claims there was noting wrong with his Ukraine call, it was all above criticism. So why did he do this?

    “WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump intensified his fight with Congress Tuesday over the Democrats’ impeachment investigation, as the administration blocked a U.S. diplomat from testifying behind closed doors about the president’s dealings with Ukraine. House committee chairmen said they would subpoena the envoy to force him to appear.“

    #DumpSchlumpTrump!

  68. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 4:34 pm

  69. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 4:51 pm

    September Border Crossing numbers are in – and they are down 100K from the peak in May.

  70. dhlii permalink
    October 8, 2019 4:52 pm

  71. dhlii permalink
    October 9, 2019 12:27 am

    Well the WhistleBlower is tanking.

    We do not know what “a professional relationship with a 2020 democratic candidate” is
    But it is bad no matter what, and if that 2020 democrat had any involvement with the WB complaint – then the WB is essentially alleging that the misconduct Trump MIGHT be engaged in was the same as what the WB was ADMITTEDLY engaging in.

    We do not know which 2020 candidate, and what the tie was and whether they communicated.

    But lets say the WB came to Biden and said Trump is talking about you to Zelensky, and Biden said file a complaint against Trump.

    You have almost exactly what you are accusing Trump of EXCEPT that Trump has the legitimate authority to ask for an investigation and has an actual probable cause basis.

    Biden and the WB have hearsay of a non-crime.
    Regardless, they are attempting to use the IG to interfere in an election.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

    • Jay permalink
      October 9, 2019 5:24 pm

      It doesn’t matter if the whistleblower was having an extra marital affair with one of the Dems or belongs to a HateTrump fund raising org: everything he stated to have happened in the report has proved correct; even DumbellDonnie admits to its accuracy. The ONLY dispute is whether the poisonous intent of interjecting Biden into the conversation is an impeachable offense.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 6:45 pm

        You have a surprising amount correct – except that you have a time travel problem.

        We do use things – like Strzoks highly partisan texts to assess credibility – when we have to assess the choices people make,
        AND when we do not have other information to evaluate credibility.

        I am addressing the Hearsay credibility issues – because it permeates everything – the Steele Dossier, RosenStein, McCabe, Trump, …

        You do not understand that you and the media and the left have spent several years screaming – Liar, Liar, Liar!!!! – and that has definitely effected peoples views.
        But no matter you often you follow Goebels and repeat a big lie, that is unsustainable.
        Once the truth comes out – your credibility is shot.

        That is where we are now.

        You continue to shout Trump is a liar.
        We have certainly heard that from you from the left from the media ad nauseum.

        And yet over time on issue after issue – the FACTS have ultimately supported Trump, or at the very least resolved more in favor of Trump’s turthfulness than his detractors.

        Trump’s credibility has risen slowly – and will continue to.
        While yours and the left and the media has declined and will continue to.

        And this is why the perception of desparation at the moment directs more towards, You, the left, and the media than Trump.

        ALL of us understand that Trump is actively obstructing House democrats.
        There is no disagreement on that.

        The questions are:

        Is he doing so legitimately ?

        Is he doing so to hide something ?

        Or is he doing so to make life difficult for people who have been illegitimately been obstructive for 3 years ?

        Increasingly people are leaning towards the later.

        As Gowdy said recently – Schiff did not need to lie about the WB.
        But he did. Nor is it the first time.

        You have spent 3 years trying to catch Trump in a consequential lie.

        You tell me over an over that the evidence that Trump lies when he breaths is overwhelming.
        Yet you can not cite any consequential lies.

        And to be clear – I am not talking about differences of oppinion, or situations where the facts are not yet known fully and you beleive Trump is wrong.

        I am talking about instance where Trump said X – and he knew at the time X was not true.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 6:59 pm

        The most fundimental problem with the WB complaint is that it DOES NOT make an actual claim.
        Even if we skip the issue of credibility, Even if we skip the issue that the WH is not in the domain of the IC IG.

        Biden is an after thought in both the transcript and the WB complaint.

        You wish to fixate on Trump’s intent regarding Biden – the WB can not know Trump’s intent – even if he had first hand knowledge he can not, but he doesn’t. And the WB has almost nothing about Biden in the complaint.

        The whole Democrat Biden argument is a huge loser.

        It was not consequential in the WB complaint,
        It was not in the Transcript,
        It is not in the Texts,

        Until this hit Adam Schiff is was an after thought for everyone.

        Further, Trump and the media have at various times asked for further inquiry into Biden.
        You are trying to argue that somehow Tweeting that Biden is a crook as president is less significant than Telling the Ukrianian president that something looks fishy and asking him to look into it.

        Your argument is that Trump saying this particular thing at this particular moment is impeachable, you are saying that Trump paraphrasing an NYT news story to a foreign leader is impeachable.

        Ultimately your argument becomes that the president is constitutionally barred from defending himself.

        That he must allow the left, and the press and democrats to lie about him without responding.

        That is not a wining argument.

        Back the WB complaint – it is not about Biden, it is fundimentally rooted in a disagreement over US foreign policy.

        The core of the complaint is that Trump is making us Less safe in Ukraine.
        Whether True or false – that is not a valid WB complaint.

        The house is actually free to investigate that to their hearts content.

        But painting foriegn policy differences – where the president is near omnipotent as impeachable is even stupider than the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

  72. dhlii permalink
    October 9, 2019 1:01 am

    So we have Bill Clinton as president asking Tony Blair as Prime Minister for political assistance in his 1996 election.

    Then in 2004 we have John Kerry – who is currently ranting about Trump, openly braging about asking for assistance from several foreign leaders to defeat Bush.

    In 2012 we have Obama offering to trade away Missle Defense if Putin will back off until the election is over.

    Apparently they have managed to tie the current Whistleblower to Hillary Clinton – as well as some 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 1:10 am

      Sorry Clinton did this in 2000 to Aide Gore.
      He did so in writing in a letter to Blair.
      and the letter explicitly asked the favor in order to aide Gore in the election.

  73. dhlii permalink
    October 9, 2019 1:18 am

    More news today. Mueller testified to congress that Trump was NOT interviewing him for the FBI director at the time he met with Trump.

    Apparently there is copious whitehouse evidence to the contrary.
    Trump’s meeting was specifically about appointing Mueller as FBI Director.

    But it gets worse. Rosenstein had more than a week earlier written Mueller and was seeking to discuss appointing him as special counsel. Mueller was not only aware he was being considered as special counsel – prior to meeting Trump – something only he and Rosenstein new, but he then met with Rosenstein immediately after the meeting with trump on the same day.

    One of the reasons Mueller was asked if he was being considered for the FBI director is because it would make him a fact witness and it would be a conflict of interest.

    But Mueller has multiple conflicts of interest. As he new he was been considered for Special Counsel he could not interview with Trump for FBI Director – not even if he did not intend to take the FBI director position. There are myriads of ethical problems with that.
    It is also possible that he did not disclose to Rosenstein he was interviewing with Trump for FBI director.

    Apparently Mueller is a target of the Durham investigation which is now rumored to have greatly expanded its scope well into 2017 – which means into Mueller

  74. October 9, 2019 10:49 am

    For the year(s) that Warren has been running for President, she has been using a story about being fired from a teaching job. She has stated ” when I began to show, the principle did what principles do, he fired me”. She uses this story during equality comments.

    Well Pocahontas just stated in a UC Berkeley a different story. She stated she “worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer, I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ’emergency certificate,’ I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’”

    So to a few that actually follow policy, it will be one liar against another with socialist policies against capitalist policies.

    • Jay permalink
      October 9, 2019 11:34 am

      Byron York.
      Ha ha ha ha.

      The 1st Whistleblower’s assertions were CONFIRMED TO BE CREDIBLE. But we shouldn’t accept his conclusion because he’s a TRUMP APPOINTEE! Right?

      “In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part, “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”

      • October 9, 2019 12:23 pm

        ???????????????????????
        My Brain can not take this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Jay said is response to my Warren comment about getting fired for being pregnant
        “Byron York.
        Ha ha ha ha.
        The 1st Whistleblower’s assertions were CONFIRMED TO BE CREDIBLE. But we shouldn’t accept his conclusion because he’s a TRUMP APPOINTEE! Right?”

        OK Did Byron York get Elizabeth Warren pregnant and a whistle-blower released that information to the principle. But now we cant accept that info because the whistle-blower was a trump appointee to the school board where Warren was employed?

        Help me, I am going nuts with all the Trump hatred! Is nothing sacred,. Trump now getting blamed for Warrens pregnancy problems?

        (All in jest guys, just having some fun)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 4:57 pm

        No!!!!!!!
        Get it right.

        Schiff got Warren pregnant, and the whistleblower “heard it through the grape vine” that Trump thought the kid was his, and Threatened to withold Burisma payments to Hunter Biden .

      • October 9, 2019 6:24 pm

        👍👍👍👍

      • Jay permalink
        October 9, 2019 5:17 pm

        That wasn’t a response to your Warren comments, Ron…
        It was meant for dhiii as the topic should have made plain

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 6:32 pm

        It does not matter who you were responding to.

        You did not make a credible argument.

        You know – one supported by actual known facts, rather than hopes wished, feelings and hearsay.

        Something is not credible – either a WB complaint, or your argument.
        Because person X says it is credible – even if that person is an IG.

        It is credible because it meets the standards required for credibility.
        Facts, logic reason.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 4:31 pm

        No Jay, the WB’s complaint is not credible as a matter of law.

        There is an actual legal standard. The IG went our of his way to bend that standard and failed.

        This is not a subjective question. Grassley is wrong – as a matter of law, The IG is wrong as a matter of law.

        Credibilty in the context of law and government has a narrow and defined meaning.
        And it is nto the same as “beleivable” – specifically because that is a SUBJECTIVE standard.

        You say the WB was “determined” to be credible – that is an illogical statement – if credibility is subjective it can NEVER be determined.

        There are substantial and growing issues of bias on the part of the WB.

        We have again a mess like the steele Dossier were claims were brought forth by people with clear political motivations.

        But the FUNDIMENTAL problem is NOT the political bias – though clearly present.
        It is the lack of LEGAL credibility.

        Both the WB complaint and the Steele Dossier are Hearsay – and mostly double or tripple hearsay.

        They are just not legally credible.

        This is particularly important given the indicia of political bias AND the fact that the fundimental allegations are about POLICY not waste, fraud or misconduct.

        It is not waste, fraud or misconduct to work to impliment policies that you do not like.

        Further we have had this “other information” nonsense from 2015.

        We have been promised “other information” regarding Trump/Russia, regarding the FISA Warrant and now the Steele Dossier.

        The ICIG testified publicly before congress. He presented no “other information”

        Quite simply – YOU, The LEFT, Schiff, Democrats ARE NOT CREDIBLE not legally, not subjectively.

        Trey Gowdy laid into Schiff over his role in this.

        He said Congressmen routinuely provide assistance to whistleblowers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Schiff providing this WB assistance.

        What is wrong is that he hid that, and he lied about it.
        Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

        Schiff has lied mutliple times.

        Further by lying Schiff has made himself into a fact witness.
        It is no longer ethical for him to preside over anything involving the whistle blower complaint.

        If you want the rest of us to “trust you”, to “trust government” because “other information” makes a claim credible – then you have to have a long track record of being trustworthy.

        You don’t – The left has been lying about pretty much everything from the start.

        “Trust us” does not fly – not with Schiff, not with house democrats, not with the Intelligence community.

        To the small extent you were ever entitled to trust – you have lost it.

        So if you wish me to buy the WB complaint – make your case within the 4 corners of the complaint. Not please to “Trust us”

    • Jay permalink
      October 9, 2019 11:42 am

      Ron – you seem to be suffering from Senior Comparison Dementia.

      I’m definitely not a Warren fan; she’s ugly & annoying & generally full of crap.

      But to compare her few pissant lies with Trump’s never ending Mt Everest of LIES is silly..

      • October 9, 2019 12:37 pm

        Jay, I will not vote for either one. How many times must I say that!. I support Trumps policies, but I can not accept the man in that office. Warren seems to be a much better person, albeit one like Biden, that makes up stories , but her policies are bad. Only if we have a Democrat arm of congress will she not be a problem.

        but go back to my comments about christian conservatives falling all over themselves for Trump, but one that did much the same in Clinton, they wanted him removed from office and would have been all over the internet demanding his removal like you are about Trump. The same goes for one liar about another liar. And like my mother said, if you lie about this, what else are you lieing about? Just apply the same standards to one as are applied to others.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 4:43 pm

        “Trump’s never ending Mt Everest of LIES ”

        So what are those ?

        Look, I have no doubt you can come up with throw away lines like “and mexico will pay for it”
        Though there is an actual argument that is true.

        But Trump has made inumerable campaign promisses, he has either kept them, or is in the process of trying to keep them.

        Absolutely the process has been slower and more difficult than he promissed.

        But most of us do not call that a “lie”.

        Trump has done nothing that matches “Benghazi was a spontaneous protest to an internet video” or “If you like your doctor” or any of myriads of others.

        He has not promised us more than circumstantial evidence of Trump/Russia collusion and failed to deliver,

        He has attacked Comey and Strzok and Mueller, and his band of angry democrats, and Schiff and …

        And ultimately most or all of his attacks have proven true.

        He has claimed he was spied on – and we know that is MULTIPLY true.

        I would bet if we check all the purported Trump lies the WaPo fact checker has identified – TODAY most of Trump’s lies would be presciently true.

        So what is this mountain of lies ?

        Trump is a loud mouth, a bragart, and he exagerates.
        These are not appealing traits.

        But I can think of nothing of the consequence of the numerous “big lies” I can cite from lots of powerful democrats – and some republicans.

        At this point Trump is more credible than Mueller – who lied under oath to congress.

        I am not looking to prosecute Mueller – his testimony is compelling evidence it is past time he should have retired.

        But it is inarguable that Mueller lied to congress under oath, and Mueller is supposed to be the gold standard. Yet, if we compare Mueller with Trump – and focus on what matters, Trump is the one who is LEGALLY (and otherwise ) Credible.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 4:14 pm

      Warren has a serious credibility problem regarding her statements about her own past.

      That said – though she is spinning this particular story in a way that suggests something that is not true.

      From what I have learned and remember of the time it is fundimentally correct.

      I do not think that anyone fired her. Or asked her to quit.

      But the near absolute norm was that teachers who become pregnant stopped teaching after about 5months of pregnancy and returned when they were no longer pregnant and their children did not need them at home.

      Warren is trying to spin this into an unsually situtation where she was personally discriminated against.

      But what she is railing against is the unspoken norms 50 years ago that ARE NO LONGER norms.

      Essentially she is refuting her own base argument.
      She is proving that we were institutionally mysoginsyt 50 years ago and are not now.
      And therefore we do not need the laws and government she wishes to impose.

      There is big hype at the moment because SCOTUS is about to consider whether the CRA should be extended to cover anything beyond genetic race and biological sex.

      With the left frothing that SCOTUS could restrict the CRA to race and biological sex.

      This is unlikely to happen – but SCOTUS should declare he CRA unconstitutional.
      As well as any laws against private discrimination.

      We do not need these laws, They did NOT improve anything – the societal changes that have occured have done so independent of those laws.

      Declaring the portions of the CRA that apply privately unconstitutional would NOT bring back Jim Crow – that is idiotic – Jim Crow was laws to FORCE private discrimination when it did not occur naturally.

      Regardless, the specific cases before the court actually make clear the problem with the CRA and that it is not necescary.

      TODAY there is surprisingly little discrimination against people because they are gay or Trans or whatever.

      Yes, there is some – and there will always be some.

      But TODAY groups that at this moment have no legal protection against private discrimination are subject to private discrimination very rarely.

      In the Trans case specifically – the defendant has argued – this is not about the Plantif being Trans. It is about the fact that the Plantiff was the public face of the funeral home, and that while the plantif can change who he is as he wishes, he can not take personal changes in his life and force the business that he is part of to accomodate those.

      If the plantif was the spokes person for the beef marketing board, and one day walked in and said – I am going to become vocally and publicly vegan, you can expect they will lose their job.

      Regardless, my POINT is that SCOTUS is debating a very unusual situtation with a miniscule minority that is self evidently NOT subject to broad discrimination. and being asked to make broad policy changes.

      At the very least we should grasp that if we are fighting about whether a funeral director can without notice start showing up at work as a woman when they were hired as a man, and keep their job, then we are will past whether pregnant teachers can keep their jobs.
      AND that government and law has had very little to do with the change.

      • October 9, 2019 6:07 pm

        I deeply believe that most all laws that contain the verbage “sex” needs to be revised to contain “male, female or transgender”, much like many laws have been revised to contain “sexual orientation” when gay and lesbian issues became prominent.

        In addition, I also believe sporting event need to be expanded to include male, female and transgender. Female sports are going to be severely impacted with the number of individuals with male chromosomes now showing up for girls sporting events. You can take drugs to enlarge your boobs, but little can be done to reduce male muscle mass and size to that of an average female athlete.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 7:07 pm

        I strongly beleive that we should get rid of absolutely every law regarding discrimination by anyone other than government.

        To the extent such discrimination exists, it is not institutional, and not a proper subject for law.
        These laws violate our right to free association.

        That does not mean I beleive we should discriminate against people because they are women or gay or …
        Most (but not all the time) we should not.

        But government is not there to compel every form of moral conduct.
        Government’s role is limited. and private bigotry is not the legitimate domain of government.

        Further we should never make laws we can not enforce. All that is required to illegally discriminate is to do so quietly.

        I want bigots to tell me why they are acting badly, so I can boycott them

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 7:15 pm

        According to Gallup Surveys over many years.

        Less than 0.5 percent of us are transgendered.
        Even psychologists think that 75% of gender disphoria is just a symptom of other psychological problems.

        About 3.8% of us are gay.

        I am not interested in special legal protections for people with moles.

        While I beleive we should get rid of all our laws regarding Private discrimination – we do not need them. We probably never needed them.
        Regardless we should not expand laws that were a mistake to begin with.

        How assorted private groups deal with Transgener is their own business.

        Govenrment should not get into whether a MTF Trans person should be able to play on a womens basketball team or get a bikini wax from a business that only serves women.

  75. Jay permalink
    October 9, 2019 11:52 am

    Trump is unfit to be president.
    Those who ignore that and defend him are unfit of civility.

    “Kurdish SDF spokesperson: “Turkish warplanes have started to carry out airstrikes on civilian areas. There is a huge panic among people of the region.”

    “US Sen. Graham: “Pray for our Kurdish allies who have been shamelessly abandoned by the Trump admin. This move ensures the reemergence of ISIS … I urge President Trump to change course while there is still time by going back to the safe zone concept that was working.”

    Too late. If this is confirmed will president crap-for-brain keep his word, and destroy Turkey’s economy?

    • October 9, 2019 12:51 pm

      Jay, I want to thank you for sharing all the information you have that Senator Graham has put out concerning the Kurds. At one time, until just the last couple days, I was a huge supporter of Graham. I found his positions of compromise and working with the opposition, while fighting the leadership of his own party refreshing. But the information you have shared with us has completely changed my perspective of this man. Should he run for higher office in the future, he will not receive my support. He is a war monger and needs to be removed from office by the South Carolina voters. If he finds it so damn important to defend the Kurds, he need to return to active duty in the Air national Guard, volunteer for service in the middle east, and fly fighter planes over the Kurdish area so he is the one in danger and not some young man who asked, “what the hell are we doing here?”

      It is very easy for idiots to support a war when they can do it from a couch or a desk. It is also very easy when they never had to fight. Lindsay Graham served as a frackin lawyer and the closest he got to a fight was probably in a bar in Germany.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 5:05 pm

        These people are HUMANS, They are not perfect.

        Graham is a neocon. I do not share his position on US involvement in the messes of other countries. But he is right about some other things.

        There are issues I share common ground with Leahy, and probably Durbin, and Schumer and god forbid even Schiff.

        And there are issues I vigorously disagree.

        I like Grassely ALOT – but he is completely wrong on the law about a law that HE WROTE.
        Credibility is an explicit requirement of the law – it would be required implicitly and constitutionally regardless. And hearsay is not legally credible.

        None of these people are perfect.

        We pretty much all agree Trump is far from perfect.

        We still must work out what we are going to do, and must consider what is right and legitimate.

        Graham is possibly the biggest hawk in the senate.
        I do not give much weight to his views on Syria.

        At the same time his tirade during the Kavanaugh hearings was absolutely earned by Democrats.
        And time has proven that the Kavanaugh hearings were even more of a manufactured circus than we knew at the time.

    • October 9, 2019 2:52 pm

      So, how long do you say we stay in Syria, Jay?

      Seriously, how long would you leave American troops (you know, the men and women who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve American freedom and liberty) over there in the desert?

      Long enough to get a bunch of them killed? And, will Americans be safer after that? ( I’m not even sure that the Kurds would be safer after that….)

      By the way, I read that there are about 50-100 special ops American soldiers in northeast Syria, helping the Kurds guard captured ISIS jihadis, who came from places like France and Germany. Do you think that the French or the Germans could take over for a while?

      Haha, only kidding. The French and the Germans would never do that.

      • Jay permalink
        October 9, 2019 5:09 pm

        Special Ops? Trump just said there are no American forces remaining in that arena in northeast Syria. Is he lying?

        The US WASN’T deep IN Syria. We were a border buffer. We had a moral obligation to keep that small border force in place to protect those we PROMISED to protect for as long as it takes to PROTECT them. The only people who don’t agree with that are TRUMPANZEES.

        Dumbo Donald also just said he wasn’t worried about the Isis prisoners escaping in mass now that the Kurds have stopped watching them because they’ll just return to Europe, where of course they’ll have reformed from jihadist terrorism and will live exemplary lives.

        And this just in

        AP (Beirut):
        “The European’s Union foreign policy chief is calling on Turkey to cease its military action in northeast Syria.

        Federica Mogherini said in a written statement Wednesday that “renewed armed hostilities in the north-east will further undermine the stability of the whole region, exacerbate civilian suffering and provoke further displacements.”

        The EU says Turkey’s “unilateral action” threatens the progress of the U.S.-led coalition to defeat the Islamic State extremist group.”

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 6:25 pm

        Yes, absolutely – an error on a couple of dozen troops in Syria is the equivalent to
        Benghazi was a spontaneous protest.

        Damn that Trump is just a huge liar – and Obama and Clinton were so Truthful!!!!

        Impeach!! Impeach!!! Impeach!!!.

        And isn’t is Treason to miscount the number of remaining Troops in Syria ?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 6:28 pm

        I beleive Trump has ordered the withdrawl of US troops, he has NOT micromanaged the process, the numbers or the timings.

        I do not beleive all troops are out. I do not beleive he has said all troops are out.

        He has been removing troops for some time.

        All that has changed is that he has committed to complete withdrawl.

        I am pretty sure Graham has begged him to DELAY,
        Which presumably means some troops remain.
        Graham did NOT ask Trump to send troops back.

      • October 9, 2019 5:48 pm

        ” Trump just said there are no American forces remaining in that arena in northeast Syria. Is he lying?”

        No, Jay (typing slowly here…) I meant that was how many he moved out of the area.

      • October 9, 2019 6:00 pm

        So, I see I did use the present tense, which was confusing. My bad.

        Please provide a link for your assertion that we have PROMISED to stay there and protect the Kurds “for as long as it takes.”

        That would be a crazy promise, given the fact that it could take forever, or until Congress passed a declaration of unending war, whichever came first (I’m betting on forever)

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 4:50 pm

      I am having a great deal of trouble understanding your argument.

      According to you – we are obligated to militarily thwart Turkey – but not economically ?

      That is like saying we can nuke them, but not shoot them with squirt guns

  76. October 9, 2019 3:42 pm

    jay, based on your previous anti-Trump Syria statements, anyone that supports his positions has to be a Trumpansee. Look how many deplorables exist.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/us_military/most_agree_with_trump_s_withdrawal_from_endless_wars?fbclid=IwAR1pxLarfGnkQLnQtAcxkE4IuVtDD6WrPHmjdO00osJnOgdXnr2paIVPnCE

  77. Jay permalink
    October 9, 2019 5:35 pm

    MORE BOZO BULLSHIT

    “Asked about the Kurds, President Trump said that the Kurds did not help the US during WWII or in the Normandy invasion/ D-Day”

    Will someone remind the idiot that the Kurds didn’t have a nation then.

    • October 9, 2019 6:03 pm

      They still don’t, Jay.

      • Jay permalink
        October 9, 2019 7:04 pm

        The point is how did the moron come up with that irrelevant statement.

        Oh, I forgot. He’s a babbling nincompoop. But you cherish him just the same way you would a Encephalitic Idiot with love and hugs.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 9, 2019 7:18 pm

        The statement is true.

        You think it is irrelevant. Everyone does not agree.

        There is a legitimate question as to whether the syrian kurds are an ally of just a group we have helped to acheive a shared goal.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 7:01 pm

      “The kurds” do not have a nation today.

  78. Jay permalink
    October 9, 2019 6:57 pm

    Another Article Of Impeachment Revealed:

    “President Donald Trump pressed then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to help persuade the Justice Department to drop a criminal case against an Iranian-Turkish gold trader who was a client of Rudy Giuliani, according to three people familiar with the 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.

    Tillerson refused, arguing it would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation of the trader, Reza Zarrab, according to the people. They said other participants in the Oval Office were shocked by the request.

    Tillerson immediately repeated his objections to then-Chief of Staff John Kelly in a hallway conversation just outside the Oval Office, emphasizing that the request would be illegal. Neither episode has been previously reported, and all of the people spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the conversations.“

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/trump-urged-top-aide-to-help-giuliani-client-facing-doj-charges

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 7:30 pm

      I will agree with you that this is impeachable – anything is impeachable.

      But it is fully withing the powers of the president or any prosecutor.

      AS I have noted before the problem with Biden demanding that Ukraine drop an investigation is that VP Biden can not ask to drop an investigation that targets his son.
      Pres. Obama could have.

      Biden had a personal conflict.

      Trump did not.

      You do realize you are STILL coming up with examples that beg the question
      Why wasn’t Biden and Obama impeached ?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 1:24 am

      And we have another story today of VP Biden forcing Ukraine to halt a DIFFERENT investigation and claiming to have traced funds from the person being investigated through a shell corporation to VP Biden.

      Maybe this is not true – but there was a basis for investigation at the outset, and the basis just keeps building.

      • Jay permalink
        October 10, 2019 9:57 am

        Your continued defense of Trump in an obvious ploy to have his main presidential rival discredited speaks volumes of your own diminished capacity to judge objectively.

        Put this in your malfunctioning mind so I can see what monster of self deception you come up with.

        “Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign-Finance Charges. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday.”

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 6:25 pm

        Two ukrainians are arrested for running a SCAM – one that had nothing to do with Gulliani.

        One that involved the GOP – only in that the used the name of a GOP PAC in their scam.

        There is nothing I read that actually involved Guliani, Trump or the GOP.

        But if it turns out otherwise – then arrest whoever is actually implicated.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 6:33 pm

        And these guys were investigated by the DOJ before being arrested.

        If the rules are as you say they are – their purported connection to politics would make them immune from investigation.

        Regardless, I expect – DOJ, FBI, even the Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption.

        I expect them to investigate when the allegations are against Biden.
        When they are against a GOP PAC,
        When they are against purported associates of Gulliani.

        There are GROWING numbers of credible allegations against Biden.
        The latest alleges Biden interfered with a Ukrainian prosecution that did NOT involve his son, and the money ended in in JOE not Hunter Biden’s pockets.

        That is just an allegation at the moment – though purportedly the money has been traced from an oligarch under investigation to Biden.

        Biden is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

        He is not entitle to immunity from investigation.

        I do expect that any investigation of Biden rests of CREDIBLE allegations.
        I understand there is a documented money trail.

        Just as I expect any investigation of Trump/Russia would have been based on CREDIBLE allegations – which it was not.

  79. Jay permalink
    October 9, 2019 7:09 pm

    So dhlii – what were those poll numbers on Impeachment you recently quoted stating American in large numbers were against it?

    Fox News:

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 7:26 pm

      So after a week of pounding your fist on the table screaming impeach! impeach! impeach!
      you have gotten only a 9% bump

      In another week you will have lost most of it.

      During the same period Biden has lost something like 17 pts. national.

      BTW the news has noted that Ukriane re-opened the Burisima probe.

      There was an implication that was the result of Trump’s call to Zelensky,

      BUT

      “The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” he claimed. “This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky,” he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine’s president at that time.”

      So at the time Trump asked Zelensky to investigate, the US govenrment was aware that Ukraine was ALREADY investigating and had started to 6 months earlier.

      Definitely impeachable.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 13, 2019 1:59 pm

      Oops.

      Aparently the methodolgy of the polls was corrupted.

      “A poll weighted for party affiliation would have concluded that 44.9% favored impeachment and 44.4% opposed it, a Post analysis has concluded.”

      This is according to Gallup.

  80. dhlii permalink
    October 9, 2019 7:36 pm

    From the intercept – not a “right wing” rag.
    https://theintercept.com/2019/10/09/joe-hunter-biden-family-money/

  81. Jay permalink
    October 9, 2019 8:13 pm

    Marco Rubio:

    “At request of this administration the Kurds served as the primary ground fighters against ISIS in Syria so U.S. troops wouldn’t have to.

    Then cut deal with Erdogan allowing him to wipe them out.

    Damage to our reputation & national interest will be extraordinary & long lasting.”

    He couldn’t bring himself to mention Trump by name…

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 8:47 pm

      You, Rubio etc. continue to try to spin this as but for the US the syrian kurds would not have fought ISIS.

      So why not correct this:

      The US intervened in a multiparty conflict and provided the Syrian Kurds – the least evil of all the groups fighting ISIS, with military aide in Their fight against ISIS – a goal that we shared with them.

      I wish the Kurds well. They are well armed, they have a well earned reputation as excellent fighters. If the Turks wish open conflict with them – they take a huge risk.
      Syrian Kurds share common interests with those in Turkey, Iran and Iraq,
      And the Turks could face significant western economic and political retaliation.

      Further the Turks are “invading” Syria – a foreign country.

      While they are not doing so for teritorical gain – they claim to be seeking to create a safe haven for the massive numbers of syrian refugees that are in Turkey.

      Absolutely the Turks have a right now that the conflict is winding down to return Syrian refugees that the have generously – AND at our request allowed refuge in their country.

      But there are ways to accomplish that, that do not include military force.

      I could be wrong, but I am not aware of the kurds barring the return to Syria of Refugees.

      • Jay permalink
        October 10, 2019 9:45 am

        Bottom line you don’t give a shit about those Kurds we promised to protect.
        You’re proved yourself to be an outstanding American once again.

        Reminder: GFY

      • October 10, 2019 11:39 am

        Jay, why should any of us consider or respond to any more of your comments when they are based on two things.
        1. Your blind hatred for everything Trump.
        2. Your tunnel vision in only wanting to denigrate anything Dave comments.

        I have made multiple comments comparing this involvement with Viet Nam and the lies used to get us into that one. I made comments about the lie 43 used to get us into Iraq 2 .

        Why no response to those comments? Might it be you cant use Trump to impeach those positions?

        So how about this one. Turkeys president just threatened European countries that if they say anything about occupying Syria, he would send 3.3M Syrian refugees to Europe. So why wouldn’t the Europeans, right there close to the Kurds, step up and replace Americans in Northern Syria if this is so dire. Can’t they take a few more into their countries??

      • Jay permalink
        October 10, 2019 1:58 pm

        I don’t have blind hatred for trump, Ron.

        I have clear-eyed contempt and loathing for him as president, as does millions of other Americans who view his divisive, dishonest, dubious, disgusting behavior with far more venom than I express here.

        And I don’t denigrate everything thing Dave posts; I only read about one in five of them & respond to but a few of those – generally to the most egregiously dumb Trump-related crap he regurgitates.

        As to whether or not any of you (Dave, Priscilla, you) respond to me or not: as I’m only spending time trying to balance the UNBALANCED scale of anti-left posts here, on what no longer is a moderate site, the less response the better, as I don’t have to waste additional time responding to the responses. Like this one.

      • October 10, 2019 2:37 pm

        Jay maybe if you stated your position on a subject that is in the news such as Turkey/ Kurds, then state why you support or not with x, Y, Z maybe there could.be some ” moderate conversation”. One can jot discuss issues when only copying third party comments, calling Trump names and anyone that supports a position without attacking the person.

        That is why I left and retried, without success, the Moderate Voice. I could not state a position without someone commenting about how stupid or how unacceptable my position was without making comments as to why.

        Dave comments and gives WAY TOO MUCH support, to the point i only read 3-4 paragraphs and move on. Priscilla and I try to support comments.

        If you just want to “hit and run”, then I will ignore your comments.

      • Jay permalink
        October 10, 2019 4:50 pm

        I stated my position on the Kurds/Turkey many times in those exchanges.
        Maybe if you read what I write more closely, you’d know that.
        To repeat: You don’t abandon allies to be killed you promised to protect.

        And why haven’t you spoken out about Trump’s puerile defense for abandoning them – that the Kurds didn’t help us in WWII? An ABSURD response that’s receiving world-wide condemnation in England, France, Germany, Australia, Israel for its stupidness. More recently Trump didn’t help the US in Viet Nam. Shouldn’t the US Military and the Secret Service therefore abandon him, promptly!

        Trump’s cowardly perfidious acquiescence to Turkey’s gangster leader allowed this to happen: if he left those 200 US troops in place there was little worry about their safety; now, however over a 1,000 Remaining US troops who were assisting Kurds guarding ISIS prisoners are in jeopardy – or do you think those Kurds will risk their lives now to protect them ?

        https://apnews.com/8500277b239b4acab805e5e2bdb43938

      • October 10, 2019 9:58 pm

        O.K. Jay I understand your point. Since we sent troops to Syria to eradicate ISIS, and the Kurds were fighting ISIS in the same area, you now believe we owe it to them to stay and protect them.

        One question I have. Were we fighting for the Kurds in Northern Syria to protect the Kurds, or was our effort to eliminate ISIS an operation the provided the Kurds with protections they would not have if Trump had not committed troops to an UNCONSTITUTIONAL war?

        Article 1, section 8 specifically states congress has the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

        Article 2, section 2 grants the president the powers of commander in chief. This was done for basically three reasons. 1. To have a civilian superior to the mi!itary to avoid a coup by the military. 2. to insure the civilian presidentt was of equal status to those in congress and 3. the military fulfills to will of congress through the directions of the commander in chief.

        My point. The president should NEVER send troops into war without a declaration by congress. The military should not be in Syria AT ALL. There is no declaration!

        I find the oath the everyone takes, ” to defend the constitution” is of little use since it has been trampled.on by everyone taking it and then not following the articles as written

        So if congress wanted Americans fighting the Turks protecting the Kurds, then let them declare war on Turkey..There are very few times the Americans should be fighting in a foreign country, let alone for ethnic groups without a country. Chasing OBL with special forces is one.This has nothing to do with Trump. I said the same with decision 43 made as well as others.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 10:46 pm

        “You don’t abandon allies to be killed you promised to protect.”

        Is that your actual argument ? The whole thing ?

        The Kurds are not an ally, they are a group that had one shared interest with the US and that we provided aide to acheive that interest.

        Who promised to protect them ?
        I am not aware of any such promise.

        Is there some written agreement, treaty, even a public policy statement by the president ?
        Any president ?

        We have however abandoned actual allies that we promised to protect – have you heard of the bay of pigs ? Or the Montagnard ?

        Nor is that even close to the only example.

        BTW I have zero problem trashing the reputation of the US govenrment – it deserves to be trashed.

        I do not want other peoples and governments to beleive that the US acts in anything but its own interest – and it should not.
        Just as the syrian kurds have acted in their own interests.

        I want the foreign policy of George Washington – which did not involve any of your promises and trust. We acted in our own interests, friendly to all but allied with none.

        Finally – beyond all of the above – you are defending an approach that DOES NOT WORK.

        The argument you are making got us into vietnam, Eisenhower should have left,
        Kennedy should have left ….

        Reagan learned that leaving small numbers of US troops was dangerous and stupid – and he LEFT lebanon. The Great US Cold Warrier left Beruit after 300 americans were killed in a terrorist attack.

        Trump is leaving after a victory – BEFORE things turn to shit.

        And make no mistake – things WILL turn to shit. They always do.
        But atleast we will be gone.

        One of the reasons we should not have “allies” – particularly with these people and coutries, is that AT BEST, those we “ally” with will be the least bad in a litany of evil

        Trump has doing a pretty good job of supporting Syrian Kurds fight against ISIS,
        While NOT becoming their “ally”

        I do not know much about the Kurds.
        But I do know that we do not want to be wed to them,

        You spent months berating Trump over the Saudi murder of a saudi journalist in Turkey,

        The Saudi’s ARE our Ally. They are the LEAST BAD, but pretending they are good guys is stupid.

        When the kurds do something stupid – and they will, The US is not tarred by association with them

        I do not want the US to have any allies – especially in the mideast.

        I do not want us defending the bad deeds of the least bad groups in the region.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 10:50 pm

        “if he left those 200 US troops in place there was little worry about their safety”

        False.

        There are 3.6m syrian refugees in Turkey – and something is going to happen to them.
        The Turks do not want them.

        The took them in because of OUR PROMISES, that they would not be stuck with them.
        Returning them to Syria was ALWAYS supposed to happen.

        If US Troops had stayed we would just as likely be obligted to drive the Kyrds from land that they currntly control to proved a haven for the refugees.

        There is not some easy way out of this.

        You seem to think there was a stable static status quo.
        There was not.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 6:47 pm

        What you do is not “denegrate” my posts.

        You destroy your own credibility and integrity.

        That is the price of making false moral assertions – whether of me, or Trump or anyone.

        You claim Trump is contemptable, that you loath him, you project that onto millions, you assert he is divisive, dishonest, dubious, disgusting.

        But you have never made an actual argument that any of those things are true.

        99% of your posts are

        “Someone says Trump is evil”

        That is a hearsay insult.

        You have TOUCHED on something substantive with this Turkey/Kurd thing.

        But beyond unsupported assertions that leaving Syria is evil and will result in the slaughter or Kurds, you have no made an argument.

        The actual situation is complex. Had the US stayed – it is likely WE would have had to remove the kurds for the territory the Turks were about to use for Syrian refugees.

        Even if not that – there was no chance the status quo was being preserved.

        Turkey was not going to indefinitely take care of 3.6M refugees.

        Which they did based on promises from the rest of the world.

        So if you wish to assert something here is proof that Trump is evil.

        You have to have a good solution that will work
        as well as proof that what you claim will happen when we leave will actually happen.
        i.e Genocide – not merely some skirmishes between Turks and YPG

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 10:23 pm

        Truth is not “balanced” it just is.

        I you think someone is wrong – make the argument.

        If you are trying to “balance” – something that is correct – then you are lying.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 10:27 pm

        If there actually was a “balance” issue – numerous sources have found the news is 95% anti-trump.

        That would be fine – if the news was accurate.

        They aren’t and you aren’t

        So you fail the truth test, and you fail your own balance test.
        Public expression is tilted in your favor 20:1.

        And yet somehow the polls are almost “balanced”.

        That alone should give you pause.

        Any argument that requires a 20:1 advantage in reputation to maintain parity
        is highly suspect.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 6:21 pm

        Can you find where the President of the United states formally promised to protect these Kurds ?

        I doubt you can. Regardless, as I have said before your crediblity is shot.
        I am done beleiving something is true because you say it or it is reported in the media.

        I have no doubt that someone somewhere at sometime made some promises to the YPG.

        The US soliders or unofficial representatves also made promises to Ho Chi Minh and myriads of others

        The “deal ” with the YPG is that we would arm them to fight ISIS.

        They were already fighting ISIS anyway, and they were the least problematic group fighting ISIS.

        They are now well armed. Should the Turks decide to get into a fight with them – they will be taking on a tiger. They will also be provoking retaliation for other kurdish groups in the region. And there is a very large kurdish region in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
        A serious military conflict would likely bring those groups together – which Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria do not want

        I expect some minor conflict between the YPG and the Turks.
        Primarily because the YPG does not want Turkish forces entering Syria.

        I do not expect full scale war.
        The turks want to move 3.6M syrian refugees back to Syria.

        That is the big goal.

        They do not want war with the YPG
        They do not want to occupy any part of Syria long term – and they would have serious opposition if they did.

        The most likely outcome of this is YPG will realign with Assad or Iran or Russia.

        So What ?

        I am not prepared to risk american lives for YOUR idiotic concept of american presitge.

        Particularly as if President Obama was doing this – you would be cheering.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 9, 2019 8:53 pm

      The reputation of the US government in foreign affairs has ALWAYS sucked

      During WWII the US promised a vietnamese nationalist Nguyễn Sinh Cung elections and a democratic vietnamese government if his forces would aide the US against the japanese and the Vichy French colonial government.

      After the war the US renegged and turned over control to Chinese nationalists and the British.

      Today we know Cung as “Ho Chi Minh”

      We can go all over the world and find much the same story.

      No one – not the american people, not foreign people should trust the promises of our government (or for that matter any other)

      American exceptionalism has not got a damn thing to do with the US government.

    • October 9, 2019 10:06 pm

      Jay this is the same damn crap that went on for over 6+ years at the end of the 60’s. People sitting on their fat asses behind their mahogany desk spewing propaganda about how the Vietnamese were our allies, how they needed to our protection and sending a few troops over there would solve the problem. After 50,000 dead and 150,000 wounded, we finally stopped believing the propaganda and Americans ran for their lives, those remaining.

      You can buy that Syrian/Kurds political bull shit all you want. I doubt you would even care if HRC or Sanders made that same decision. Since it is Trump, i suspect you would support sending troops even if the risk analysis said 10,000 Americans will die and there is only a 50% chance of success. But when its only young people with little experience in any other field to offer America, seems like their lives dont mean much to those supporting intervention. Much like the 60’s.

      The oath that each.individual takes when entering the service is as follows:

      “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

      When this was written, it was clear the orders that personnel would receive would address enemies, foriegn and domestic that was trying to overthrow our government. Even Johnson fed us cool-aide that we would find communist on our borders. What or who is going to threaten our constitution in Northern Syria?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 12:47 am

        Jay takes the opposite position of Trump on everything.

        If Trump wanted to stay and defend the Kurds, is there any doubt Jay would be telling us why that is a stupid idea.

        Atleast Rubio and Graham actually beleive what they are saying.

        All Jay cares about is that they disagree with Trump.

  82. October 9, 2019 11:28 pm

    Jay, you have commented many times about Trumps tariffs and its economic imppact.
    You have commented many times about Trump being quite about Hong Cong.
    Please read:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nba-china-crisis-nba-ties-with-china-worth-billions-now-under-strain/

    Now if one executives tweet about Hong Cong support can lead to this backlash, what backlash do you think would happen if Trump went public with whatever his pro Hong Cong position might be.

    For instance, if he were to come out publically, might the Chinese decide to block exports of electronis like I phones. Maybe silence is golden under these conditions.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 1:15 am

      Ron,

      I am going to disagree here.

      china has leverage with many private businesses.

      They do not with Trump.
      There is some talk and some small possibility of a “mini-deal” with china right now to stabailize the markets. China has purportedly agreed to substantial increases in US agriculture purchases in return for holding off new tarriffs.
      Thus far Trump has stood behind – no deal unless there is a resolution of ALL points.

      And there are several points that are not getting much attention – China relinquishing state control of many businesses, China decreasing its human rights violations – including the Uigurs and in Hong Kong.

      I do not know what will happen, but from everything I am reading – Trump has substantially more leverage than Xi does.

      The US economy is stronger. Nearly every hypothetical where China tries to leverage its debt purchases or anything like that has minimal and even sometimes positive impact.

      If China sold all its US debt tomorow – the price of that debt would drop – that would be good for the US

      If China refused to buy US debt, the price of our debt might go up – a little, but even though I wish we would stop borrowing US debt is a fantastic investment relative to other nations in the world right now.

      We have a relatively strong economy at a time in which the economy of Europe and China are weakening.

      It is probable that this “Trade War” has hurt americans – but not nearly as much as the stronger economy has helped.

      I may not support Trump’s tarriffs and his muscular trade policies, but I am not blind to the fact that he has a much better hand than Xi right now.

      I would also suggest that everyone – the press, the left, the democrats, Jay, and you look at the Trump presidency thus far.

      Trump has been pummeled from day one.
      He had the FBI secretly investigating him – and then spent 2 years dealing with a witchhunt that tossed landmines in his way.
      He has had ferocious opposition – sometimes from Republicans, sometimes democrats, from the press, from foreign powers, from “the deep state” sometimes from his own appointments.
      He has had substantial turnover.

      And through this all the economy grows – unemployment continues to drop into territoy we have never been in before. He manages deals accross the world, the Wall is being built, he has substantially reshaped the judiciary, He is slowly attriting the swamp.

      And on and on.

      We all spend our time fixated on whatever is in the news at the moment – and Trump obliges by ranting and raving about whatever reporters want to rant and rave about.

      And still he continues. He did not allow Mueller or the press or the republicans or the democrats or the generals to stop him.

      I do not know all of what we are likely to see in the next year – many many things are possible. Some of those will happen. Probably not all.
      Most of what is possible is favorable to Trump.

      If there is a deal – which China, with North Korea, With Iran – that is a big win for Trump.
      Horowitz is about to come out. The only question there is how big will the Trump win be.

      Biden has effectively been knocked out – as noted the Ukrainians have been investigating Biden since BEFORE Zelenskyy was elected.
      Apparently todays news from Ukraine is the store of how Joe Biden profited from the Ukraine.
      And there is a claim that the Burisma investigation is NOT the only investigation he interfered with, and that others have ties to Joe Biden rather than Hunter.
      True ? Who knows we will see. There are purportedly other former USSR countries with stories in the process of emerging.
      I beleive a letter from someone in the DNC was just made public asking the Ukraines for assistance in the 2016 election.

      The Durham investigation has expanded to include the genesis of the Mueller investigation.
      We now have Mueller lying under oath.

      And we have almost no clue what is going on in the Hunter investigation.

      Today it is revealed that James Comey had a highly placed spy in Lorretta Lynch’s office.
      There is just no way in the world that story ends well. It really does not matter which one gets burned.

      Warren is ahead of Biden nationally now. But Warren’s credibility is weakening.

      Absolutley there are polls that support impeachment – there is even a major poll that has a plurality for impeaching Trump AND a clear majority for re-electing him.
      I can not make sense out of that.

      • October 10, 2019 9:38 am

        Dave, I don’t think that all Americans understand what impeachment is, or why any president should be impeached. They are either truly ignorant, or willfully ignorant of, not only the seriousness of impeachment, but the separation of powers.

        So, we currently have those who would support impeaching Trump if he ate his dinner with the wrong fork, and those who realize that impeachment was put into the Constitution to allow Congress to remove a president who had committed treason, bribery or other high crimes.

        Thank goodness Trump is fighting the secret Star Chamber proceedings that the Democrats have set up. If any president can be impeached by anonymous accusations that are in direct conflict with the established facts, and refuse to afford the President and his party due process rights, then we will have lost our constitutional republic and seen it replaced by Soviet-style, one party rule.

        Anyone who thinks that, if the Democrats were ever to succeed in removing a president based on secret proceedings, they would then return to constitutional order is dreaming.

        I don’t think it will happen, but I no longer have full confidence that it won’t.

        And if it does, I do believe that we will finally face a true Constitutional crisis.

        A real one, not the talking point, fake constitutional crises that the Democrats have been whining about since November 2016.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 3:54 pm

        I beleive the constitution and law support the arguments I have made.
        That certainly was the view in the past.

        But even if I am wrong – democrats should be careful what they do.

        We have had myriads of changes to how congress works over the past decade.

        In the end each was instigated by democrats, but most effectively used by republicans.

        There is a long list of presidents and politicians – including Clinton asking foreign leaders for favors to benefit them in an election.
        There is a long list of senators, congressmen, and presidents who have asked foreign leaders to investigate members of the opposing political party.
        There is a long list of …. who have threatened foreign leaders for political gain.

        A president doing their job – is using the power of government for political benefit.

        There are two possible outcomes of this.

        This becomes the new norm,
        Voter backlash devastates the democratic party in November.

        Actually there are alot more possible outcomes.

        One major problem democrats have is “the declaration of independence”

        “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ”

        The more arbitrary and caprecious the left becomes, the more force to bring down government is justified.

        No matter what the outcome – this will harm the left.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 10, 2019 4:00 pm

        The most fundimental issue is precluding an over broad fishing expedition.

        One thing that should be obvious from this faux claim regarding Ukraine – is that ANYTHING will be used by democrats as a justification to impeach.

        Regardless there is a huge game of chicken going on – and I am not so sure the objective is impeachment.

        ALL of this – including the house subpeona’s is targeted at discrediting the investigation of the investigation.

        If Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate 2016 is an impeachable offense.
        Then why wasn’t the entire Trump/Russia mess ?

        My perception – which could be wrong is that Trump and his people are confident
        and democrats are panicked

  83. dhlii permalink
    October 10, 2019 12:45 am

    So keep it up Jay. Apparently until the Democrats started faux impeachment, the GOP was having difficulty getting house candidates to challenge incumbents even in winnable races.
    Now they are flocking in, and so is money, and enthusiasm is rising.

    So lets hurry up – and have the house vote on impeachment – lets get all those Democrats in red districts to vote.

    Or not. You can have them just sit on the sidelines sheltered by cha

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/09/republicans-house-impeachment-campaigns-041729

  84. dhlii permalink
    October 10, 2019 1:26 am

    And more on the whistleblower complaint.

    The information that Biden was being investigated by the Ukraine starting in Feb 2019 was KNOWN within the US Intelligence community and State department.

    If the whistleblower is as highly placed as is claimed – then he knew that and omitted it from his complaint.

    Whether you like it or not the Whistleblower is coming apart slowly.

  85. dhlii permalink
    October 10, 2019 1:57 am

    So how and why did we get in bed with YPG in the first place ?

    Oops !

    https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/how-obamas-team-set-up-trumps-syrian-dilemma/

  86. dhlii permalink
    October 10, 2019 2:05 am

    For those who think Trump just gave Erodegan a gift.

    This article seems to say – Erodegan should not look a gift horse in the mouth.

    Trump appears to have handed Erodegan a hand grenade with the pin removed.

    https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/10/turkey-syria-united-states-tough-task-despite-green-light.html

  87. October 10, 2019 9:45 am

    Angela Merkel’s immigration policy weaponized by the EU’s NATO “ally” Erdogan:

    “We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way,” Erdogan said in speech to lawmakers from his AK Party.”

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-europe/turkeys-erdogan-threatens-to-send-syrian-refugees-to-europe-idUSKBN1WP1ED

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 6:10 pm

      The threat to Merkel addresses another issue.

      As is typical of knee jerk Argh! Trump responses.

      There are many more factors besides the Kurds.
      While these is reason to beleive the Kurds and turks would be hostile to each other.

      There are kurds – even ones the turks do not like in turkey and they are not MOSTLY at war or engaged in genocide.

      The Kurds are NOT Turkey’s or Trump’s priority.

      The 3.6M syrian refugees in Turkey are.

      Much is made of the Kurds help fighting ISIS, Well the Turks took in 3.6M refugees.

      They did not have to.
      And now that ISIS is “defeated” they would like to send them home.

      But if the anti-trumpsters want to play games – Turkey can just send them on their way to Europe.

      Put simply there is not some trivial situation here where the only issue is turkey killing the YPG.

      Nor is there some static arrangement that will be stable for years – if our troops stick arround.

      There are 3.6 Refugees Turkey is going to remove from Turkey.

      The least damaging solution is to return them to Syria.

      And that means to areas currently controlled by YPG

  88. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 10:02 am

    WSJ Addendum:
    “Since late 2018, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas have introduced Mr. Giuliani to several current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors to discuss the Biden case.”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 6:36 pm

      So what is it that you think the story is here ?

      If these people – who may themselves be corrupt, interoduced Gulliani to other people to get evidence about Biden – who may be corrupt, what is it that you think the problem is ?

      I do not care if Al Capone provides Guiliani with introductions.

  89. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 4:55 pm

    George Will, a respected Conservative commentator, has this to say today:

    “.@GeorgeWill: “If Trump gets away with his blanket noncompliance, the Constitution’s impeachment provision, as it concerns presidents, will be effectively repealed, and future presidential corruption will be largely immunized against punishment.”

    “In 13 months, all congressional Republicans who have not defended Congress by exercising “the constitutional rights of the place” should be defeated.”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:00 pm

      Have you read the WH letter ?

      Trump has refused to cooperate with a process that does not conform to the constitution.

      You are Will are in this instance BOTH on the wrong side of the constitution.

      The letter, and Trump’s statement today both say the same thing.

      The WH will cooperate with AN ACTUAL congressional impeachment inquiry constitutionally run.

      Step one VOTE to authorize an inquiry.

      If you can not do that – GO AWAY and quit talking about “faux impeachment”.

      Would it have been OK with you if Speaker Ryan and IC chair Nunes announced they were conducting an impeachment of Obama – with no House vote ?

      Will it be OK with you if the next republican speaker of the house announces impeacement of the next democratic president on day one without any vote ?

      The power to conduct an impeachment inquiry belongs to the house – not the speaker.

      Impeachment is a political process.
      It is not intended to be risk free. It is supposed to be rare – because congressmen are supposed to have to stick their neck out to do it.

      If this Faux impeachment proceeds – it will become the norm.

      If you beleive Trump should be impeached – DO IT RIGHT.

  90. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 5:05 pm

    Another hypocrite politician whose word isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s smeared on:

    Rand Paul in 2015: We should promise the Kurds their own country if they “fight like hell” against ISIS.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/rand-paul-on-the-kurds-then-and-now/

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:05 pm

      You keep talking about a promise – as if one has actually been made.

      President Rand Paul DID NOT make a promise tot he Kurds.

      He was not elected, and we did not follow his proposal.

      You can not hold him to ONE detail of a commitment that was proposed rather than enacted.

      And you can not hold Trump to what Paul suggested.

      Finally – lets say that promise was made – what has that got to do with the US withdrawling.

      I share Pauls beleif that the Kurdish regions in several countries should be combined into a single kurdish country.

      But it will still be the job of the Kurds to defend and run that country – not the US.

  91. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 5:27 pm

    Well Priscilla, are you going to insist Trump keep his word and destroy Turkey’s economy?

    “ISTANBUL/ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey pounded Kurdish militia in northeast Syria for a second day on Thursday, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee and killing dozens, in a cross-border assault on U.S. allies that has turned the Washington establishment against President Donald Trump.”

    (BBC) – “Tens of thousands of people have fled their homes in northern Syria, as Turkish forces step up their cross-border offensive on Kurdish-held areas.
    Turkish troops have encircled the border towns of Ras al-Ain and Tal Abyad and aid agencies fear the exodus could reach hundreds of thousands.
    International clamour has increased for Turkey to halt the attack.”

    ‘International clamour’ stifled by Russia and the U.S. at the U.N. today as they both helped close down a vote calling for a cease fire.

    Keep up the shameful silence, good Trump supporters acquiesce to their leader’s wishes.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:07 pm

      Lets see what actually happens.

      The Turks are seeking to move 3.6M syrian refugees into a 300 sq mile region in Syria.

      THAT is the area that they are trying to drive kurdish forces out of.

      Arguably – more arguably than your defend the kurds claim, we agreed to that.

  92. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 7:26 pm

    Right, dhlii , the whistleblower’s account is unraveling…

    Washington Post:
    “ At least four national security officials were so alarmed by the Trump administration’s attempts to pressure Ukraine for political purposes that they raised concerns with a White House lawyer both before and immediately after President Trump’s July 25 call with that country’s president, according to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the matter.
    The nature and timing of the previously undisclosed discussions with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg indicate that officials were delivering warnings through official White House channels earlier than previously understood — including before the call that precipitated a whistleblower complaint and the impeachment inquiry of the president.
    At the time, the officials were unnerved by the removal in May of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; subsequent efforts by Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to promote Ukraine-related conspiracies; as well as signals in meetings at the White House that Trump wanted the new government in Kiev to deliver material that might be politically damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:18 pm

      You have a WaPo story with unnamed sources.

      How many times have these stories proved false in the past 2 years.

      You still do not seem to grasp that when you lie repeatedly, people quit beleiving you.

      So who are these officials and what exactly were their concerns ?

      We have the WB complaint – it is nearly all policy differences.

      Is the same thing True of these 4 unnamed sources ?

      Why do I care if hypothetical unnamed sources disagree over policy ?

      Finally because you are sure to go there.

      There is no way of knowing what “political purposes” means.

      We have the transcript. Are you saying it is false ?
      Then lets directly confront that.

      If not – are you saying that something occured BESIDES the call ?

      We now know the Ukrainians opened an investigation in early 2019.
      That is before Zelenskyy was elected.

      We also know the US intelligence KNEW THAT.

      So why are we to beleive that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to do something that they were already doing ?

      You say your sources are highly placed ? Then they already knew they Ukrains were investigating.

      In the end I do not beleive this is even about policy differences.

      I beleive that this is just a deliberate false narrative.
      Take facts and try to change the time line to make them fit into a different political story.

      This is little different than the Steele Dossier nonsense.

      And it will ultimately die the same way.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:24 pm

      If I repeat often enough
      “Jay froths and foams about Trump every day, I think he might assassinate Trump”

      Does that make it into a fact ?

      If the facts alleged in your WaPo story were true – they are still not evidence of anything.

      Anonymous purportedly highly placed sources “concerned” about non specific “political” matters and “warning” about them. Does not constitute evidence of anything (except possibly a conspiracy).

      To get anywhere you have to have:

      Evidence of an actual crime
      And you are not even close to that.

      Evidence of an impeachable offense.
      While that can be “anything” – to survive public scrutiny, it must be something the public buys.

      There have been numerous examples of ACTUAL quid pro quo threats and actual political favors by several prior presidents and senators, and …..

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:27 pm

      Just to be clear your wapo article is completely consistent with:

      Numerous highly placed members of the intelligence community were terrified by the fact that Durham, Trump, Barr, and Gulliani were moving rapidly to expose the criminal corruption of Biden as US VP and to expose the criminal interferance in the 2016 election by the Obama administration in which much of the us intelligence community was complicit.

      Or more simply you are saying that it is a crime to investigate a crime purpatrated by democrats.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:37 pm

      Please read the transcript – and the WB complaint.

      There is no mention of delivering political dirt to Trump.

      What is discussed CONSTANTLY is investigating alleged Crimes.
      Trump makes it clear he does not know what actually occured – these are allegations to be investigated. He does not dictate outcomes – he askes Ukraine to enforce its own laws.

      This is in contrast to Biden who said “Fire the prosecutor”.

      He did not say investigate, and the effect of his demand was to thwart an investigation.

      Trump did not say – announce publicly you are investigating.
      He did not say – make up dirt,
      He did not say – anything except – find the truth if possible.

      Are you saying that is impeachable ?

      BTW there is a reason that Trump and republicans want all this conducted PUBLICLY and a reason Democrats do not.

      The reason is obvious – Nadler’s public hearings have been a disaster for democrats.

      I doubt Trump would have any problems with PUBLIC hearings on this.

      The Volker hearing was not public. Volker’s public statement helped Trump.

      Democrats selective leaks purportedly damage Trump.
      But republicans are demanding the full transcripts be made public.
      Claiming that Volker’s testimony should have ended this entire inquiry.

      We do not know who is telling the truth.
      But we can know it the transcripts are made public.

      Hold these hearings in Public.

      very very little of this is classified – most of that can be waived.

      But you can not hold a fishing expedition in public,
      and you can not hide what actually occurred in a hearing if you much do it in public,

      Lets end the star chamber nonsense now.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:39 pm

      Jay, I know you are having trouble with this.

      But there is substantial documentary evidence supporting Guliani’s “conspiracy theories”
      Start with the 500 document dump from John Solomon that is available to anyone on line.

      You can call any allegation a “conspiracy theory”

      How about if we actually seek the truth ?

  93. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 9:53 pm

    The reason Despicable Donald capitulated to Turkey demand to remove the US buffer force at the border:

    “@realDonaldTrump admitted in 2015 that when it came to #Turkey, ‘I have a little conflict of interest ‘cause I have a major, major building in #Istanbul. … It’s called #Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one.'”

    #TraitorTrump

  94. Jay permalink
    October 10, 2019 11:09 pm

    More trump bullshit destroying AMERICA’S reputation. Many of our allies are openly disappointed.

    “The US just joined Russia to veto a UN Security Council resolution sponsored by our European allies — France, Germany, Belgium, the UK and Poland — condemning Turkey’s
    invasion of Syria.”

    Israel condemned it too. Netanyahu himself spoke out against it, offering humanitarian assistance to the Kurds. Trump’s alignment with Putin benefits Iran… I’d explain it further, but it’s useless to spit into the wind …

    • dhlii permalink
      October 10, 2019 11:48 pm

      It appears that the “rival political candidate” the the WB is affiliated with is Joe Biden.

      OOPS!

      Talk about indicia of bias.

      Do you understand that the WB complaint itself now looks like Biden trying to manufacture political dirt on a rival political candidate ?

      I guess we should arrest Biden and the WB.
      And that would make Schiff quilty of conspiring to manudacture political dirt.

      It also make Schiff and Biden wuitly of “obstruction of justice” – and that is actually clearer.
      Because what you seek to do is impede an actual ongoing investigation that has more than reasonable suspicion.

      OOPS.

      • Jay permalink
        October 11, 2019 9:52 am

        You have the reasoning ability of cement.

        Within hours – repeat HOURS – of the conversation Trump’s lawyers – repeat HIS LAWYERS – locked away the transcripts & notes in a secure server, because they knew there was a problem with what the IDIOT said. And numerous other observers with high security clearance we’re finding Trump’s remarks about the Bidens problematic. Were they all Biden buddies too?

        Name one charge the whistleblower made that hasn’t now been confirmed, by Trump himself and by the assembled transcript you claim to have read yourself.

        Someone like you who constantly has his head up his ass will continue to see the world from that HAZY perspective. That you don’t realize what Trump did was wrong speaks volumes of your fuckatude.

        Reminder: GSY

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 3:06 pm

        No Jay – within Seconds the Transcripts were locked away – Because that is NORMAL.
        While it is true that access to Trump communications is more narrow than under Obama – because there are far more leaks than under Obama – AND because Obama sent “Whistleblowers” to Jail, they have ALWAYS been classified.

        In fact Everything the president says that is not public, Everything Sec State says that is not public. Even their calendars are CLASSIFIED.

        Have you EVER BEFORE read the transcript of a private comunication between the US president and a foreign leader ?

        Of course not – even if they shoot the breeze – IT IS Classified.

        Next – there are 3.5M federal govenrment employees. There are about 3500 permanent white house staff.

        The people who work in the Federal Government in The WhiteHouse in the Executive are NOT “trumpsters”. It is NOT the people Trump brought into the whitehouse who are behind this. It is the James Comey’s, it is the CIA agents with personal relationships with Biden.

        You do not seem to grasp there is a WAR going on in the Executive branch.

        The DOJ. State, FBI, and intelligence services participated in an attempted Soft Coup.
        AND THEY FAILED. And Barr and Hunter, and Durham and to some extent Horrowitz and …
        are working to root them out and expose them and discipline them and potentially fire many of them.

        And that is absolutely appropriate.

        And the Ukraine is a big deal – becuase Ukraine is Ground Zero for the Trump/Russia collusion Hoax.

        These people who are leaking are SCARED. They participated some in small, some in large ways in a failed coup.

        Recently the DOJ sent out over 1000 letters to everyone currently in govenrment who received an email from the Clinton bathroom mail or who sent email to that address, notifying them that the entire issue was being looked at an there would be administrative consequences.

        And that is perfectly appropriate – there are differing degrees of error/consequence.
        There is a significant difference between receiving an unclassified email from Sec. Clinton on an internet email address, and sending a classified document to Sec. Clinton on an internet email address. Most of these people will just have security notations in their files. some will require additional security training. A small number will be denied future promotions, a very
        small number may be fired.

        Do you have a problem with that ?
        At the bare minimum using an internet email address for official communications is a violations of federal records keeping laws and myriads of regulations and procedures.

        If we do not expect it to occur again – we must enforce those laws and regulations.
        Only a small portion of these people committed crimes – but ALL of them at the minimum failed to report violations of the law.

        You are ranting about a faux WhistleBlower – where was the Clinton Email WhistleBlower ?

        We know people were fired for Telling Clinton she could not do this – but where was the IG complaint ?

        You fixate over Trump conduct that violates no laws or regulations, and back pedal over massive misconduct that actually violated the law and regulations and politicies.

        The notices regarding the Clinton emails were just the warning shot.

        The Horowitz reports are going to have consequences – not Just for Comey and McCabe but throughout the DOJ and FBI.

        We do not know much of what Hunter and Barr and Durham are doing – but we know that they are interviewing LOTS of people in DOJ/FBI/CIA/State/…

        And those people are talking among themselves, and they have a pretty big clue much more than we do, of where things are going.

        We are talking potentially thousands of people who at the bare minumum are going to see letters in their files. Manyu who are going to see future advancement oportunities curtailed.

        So do you think they are scared ?

        Further these are CIA agents and analysts – they are not stupid people.
        These are people who have conducted disinformation warfare campaigns in foreign nations – these are people who have manipulated the press in the US in the past.

        You think they are not doing so now to protect their own interests ?

        As Schumer said – Do not mess with the US intelligence services – they have a dozen ways from sunday to get back at you.

        Well Trump and Barr and Hunter and Durham and Gulliani are not just messing with them. They are taking them on directly – as well as the media and the left and the democrats.

        This is a gigantic game of chicken – and it you have not figured it out yet – Trump is not “flintching”.

        You Think Trump is hiding things – which is of course why he cooperated fully with Mueller.

        Trump has far more cards than the House.

        While he can not stop these ambiguous implicative anonymous leaks, he does have great control of what information gets released.

        You rant because he refuses to cooperate with the house.

        What happens when he starts declassifying and releasing WHAT HE WANTS made public ?

        The WhiteHouse letter DOES NOT say – we will fight you tooth and nail and never give up anything.

        It says – if you want information from the whitehouse FOLLOW THE RULES.

      • Jay permalink
        October 11, 2019 4:51 pm

        More smug misinformed bs.

        Ordinarily presidential phone transcripts are placed on a server where numerous high clearance individuals within the State Dept can access them.

        These documents were Immediately HIDDEN away, moved to a highly classified system maintained by the National Security Council, where only his lawyers and a few Trump cronies had access.

        That was a departure from how the server is normally used and how memos of the president’s exchanges are typically handled.

        Tell me what was in the transcript you read that required his lawyers to have it hidden away so promptly.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 5:11 pm

        Ordinarily the permanent staff in the whitehouse does not leak like a seive.

        So Ordinary is out the window.

        Next – you do not know what is ordinary, nor does the press,
        you know what someone – an anonymous source has said.

        Regardless, ordinarily is not “the law”.

        You have admitted that these communications are restricted access.
        In doing so you have entirely lost the argument.
        Actually you did before.

        These documents have ALWAYS been “ordinarily” highly classified.

        They have NEVER leaked before

        When something highly classified leaks – EXTRA-ORDINARY measures are taken.
        And these steps were taken in early 2017. almost 3 years before the Ukraine call.

        Next, the classification authority in the US resides in the president.
        While he nearly always defers to subordinates, The president can classify anything, or unclassify anything. There is a process for appealing classifcation decisions but it takes years – often decades and things are rarely declassified.

        The president can decide to severely restrict access to pretty much anything by up-classifying it.

        Further – while severly restricing access has the effect of thwarting leaks, it also has the effect of slowing or stopping the spread of policy decisions.

        We went over this with Putin Trump talks.

        Lets say in a conversation wih putin Trump agrees to turn over the nuclear codes.

        Has a crime been committed ? Treason ? High Crimes and Misdemeanors ?

        No! trump can tell Putin anything, until he does something to make it happen there is no crime.

        If Trump promised Zelenskyy a blow job, that promise is meaningless until he does something to impliment it.

        You rave over restricting access to transcripts.
        Well the distribution of transcripts is the way policy is implimented.
        If distribution is limited and nothing said takes effect – there is no crime.

        We had a version of this with Trump’s purported requests to McGhan and Lewendowski to fire Mueller.

        Telling someone to fire Mueller is not obstruction (even firing Mueller is not obstruction).
        Nothing can be obstruction until actions are taken to put it into effect.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 8:40 pm

        You keep using Loaded words – “hidden” – from who ?

        These are not documents that just anyone is free to access.

        They are available to only the specific people the president chooses.

        There is no requirement that a call to a world leader be transcribed or listed to at all.

        There is no “hidden”
        They were secured from leakers.
        Nor is this speculation – as early in Trump’s presidency all his calls were being leaked.

        If the people who had been granted access to them before had been trustworthy, nothing would have changed.

        There is no negative import to denying untrustworthy people access.

        Even your WB complaint is more evidence that the very people you want to hitch your wagon too are not trustworthy.

        Todate no one has demonstrated that there is any actual issue with these calls.
        8 committees in DOJ reviewed the complaint and found nothing improper.
        Because there isn’t. Even Dershowitz recently noted that like the phone calls or not – they are the routine of diplomatic exchanges between world leaders.
        Biden openly admitted to extorting Ukraine.

        This is also why very little of the WB complaint is devoted to Biden.
        The thrust of the complaint is opposition to Trump’s policies regarding the Ukraine.

        All you have is evidence the WB and who ever shared with him are not trustworthy with the foreign policy of the US.

        Neither you nor he seem to understand that the PResident sets foreign policy – not advisors, not congress. When we do not like that – we vote in another president.

        Look at the fight here over the Kurds. We do not agree on what Trump should do.
        Is there someone here who can properly assert that Trump CAN NOT do what he has chosen ?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 3:15 pm

        “Name one charge” – The WB has not actually made any charges.

        His allegations all are about policy.

        And BTW several of the “allegations” are very close to PROVEN false.

        Ukraine was investigating Biden since February 2019.
        If the WB did not know that he is very poorly informed and should not be working at the CIA as an analyst.

        You can not blackmail a country into doing what they already decided to do on their own
        BEFORE Zelenskyy.

        Read the WB complaint – Biden is NOT featured.
        The objective of the complaint is to stop ALL investigations into Federal Government Medling in Ukraine in 2016.

        Why in the world do you think it is legitimate for any WB to try to stop the US or a foreign nation from investigating past Government misconduct.

        The transcript is 5 pages long – the WB complaint 9, Biden gets about 5 words in 5 pages and maybe twice that in the WB complaint.

        So what is it about the over 5000 words in Trump’s call and almost 10,000 in the WB complaint that is an attack on a political opponent ?

        To my knowlege aside from Biden protecting his son from an investigation AND doing the same for an oligarch in return for MONEY there are no other allegations – from Trump, From the WB that involve another 2020 political candidate.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 3:23 pm

        You keep trying to conflate “unusal” with guilt.

        Absolutely the Trump presidency has been “unusual”.

        No FBI director EVER briefed a president elect on anything like the Steele Dossier.
        Trump felt like he was being blackmailed and setup. And FBI documents reveal that WAS THE CASE.

        I do not think that a transcript of a phone call between an NSA and a foreign ambassador has EVER leaked before – and that happened before Trump was inaugurated.

        Within the first few weeks multiple phone calls with foreign leaders leaked.

        When has ANY of these happened before EVER ?

        What is unusual is that so much of the permanent whitehouse, the permanent executive has been actively working to sabatoge the president.

        Kelley Responded by significantly reducing access to the very things that were being leaked.

        If you honestly beleive that all the president and the NSC’s communications with foreign leaders and ambassadors should be done in public – then CHANGE THE LAW.

        Regardless, Like you I see alot of unusual things occuring – things that are actually crimes.
        And I see Trump doing unusual things to thwart crimes that other presidents have not had to deal with.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 3:30 pm

        “Name one charge”

        Todate the ONLY evidence that Ukrainian aide was being withheld to leverage Ukraine to investigate Biden has been the WB.

        That is the only serious allegation the WB makes.

        It is not in the Transcript.
        The Transcript has been confirmed by the Ukraine.

        In the leaked Texts, the EU Ambassador absolutely shuts down any suggestion that the hold on the aide is tied to anything political.
        In fact the documents made available indicate that Ukraine was not aware of the hold – even after the phone call.

        There is no indication anywhere outside the WB complaint that The hold on the Aide was not about getting more from the EU. In the Transcript – everything related to Aide was tied to getting more from the EU.

        The only charge in the WB complaint that matters thus far has no evidence to support it – outside hearsay in the complaint. and lots and lots of evidence to contradict it.

  95. Vermonta permalink
    October 11, 2019 6:22 am

    Denial Central. Sad.

    It won’t work.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 10:02 am

      Yes, Robby

      Toss arround mindless repetition of meaningless phrases as a substitite for facts and arguments.

      Denial of WHAT ?

      If your posts are nothing more than “I am right and your wrong”, or “Trump is obviously despicable”, or “Anyone that does not agree with me is repugnant”, then you posts are pointless – unless you believe you can persuade people by insulting them.

      Whatever the issue – I would think EVERYONE would want real valid arguments.
      We are addressing consequential matters.

      We set the constitution, the law, and even our moral standards BEFORE we evaluate the legality, criminality or morality of specific conduct.

      We do this to avoid hypocracy. We do this so that we can avoid our own biases,
      So that we can apply the same standards – whether those are criminal , or moral standards, uniformly.

      AND we do so to avoid chaos and anarchy.

      Some standards are different for different contexts – conduct that is acceptable in a private context is sometimes not in a government context.

      So pick ANY issue – legal, criminal, moral, explicitly identify YOUR standards.

      Then apply them to BOTH Trump’s conduct and the conduct of others,

      If you can not apply the same standards to the same conduct or different people and reach the same result – you are not merely a hypocrite, You are lawless.

      If Hillary Clinton’s conduct with Perkin’s Coi, Steele, Fusion GPS and assorted Russian Assets is acceptable to you – then anything Guiliani has done most also be.

      That does not mean that conduct is not distasteful. But we resolve that through elections.

      If the General Conduct of Comey, Strzok, Mueller is acceptable to you – then so is the conduct of Barr, Durham, Hunter.

      If the Conduct of Biden, Obama, Bill Clinton are president or vice president involving forieng powers is acceptable to you – then so is the conduct of Trump.

      The above are broad generalizations – there are potential reasons why Barr’s conduct could be less acceptable that Comey’s or visa versa.

      But if you wish to distinguish one from the other – you must do so on the basis of FACTS and LAW.

  96. October 11, 2019 8:22 am

    One of the blogs that I regularly read is Instapundit. Yesterday, one of the posts had links to the following articles (I can’t link them here, because the 1 link rule will send my comment into moderation, but you can find all of the articles by googling them) :

    “A People Betrayed : Twice before, Washington let Kurds die to promote foreign-policy designs. Now it’s the Bush Administration doing the deed.” LA Times April, 14, 1991 (Bush 41)

    “US Abandoned Us , Say Kurds” The Independent, September 4 1996 (Clinton)

    “Bush Betrays the Kurds” WND, September 19, 2007 (Bush 43)

    “Obama Betrays the Kurds” National Review September 30, 2014

    “Trump’s Betrayal of the Kurds May Be the Dumbest Move of His Presidency” The Intelligencer, October 9, 2019

    This is not a justification of Trump’s decision to relocate 50-100 soldiers, in order to move them out of the way of a potential Turkish invasion. We can argue that, and we have been arguing that, for days.

    However, it does put into perspective the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Kurds, which has been going on for a very long time. Even the sainted Obama caught flack about it. Jay seems to believve that there is a nation-state of Kurdistan, but there isn’t and the US can’t make that happen, Until it does, the Kurds are going to be fighting the Turks.

    Trump basically said at his press conference that that he does not want to have ti go to Dover Air Force base to tell the parents of American soldiers killed in action, that their son or daughter died in the Syrian desert, helping the Kurds fight the Turks.

    Do the Kurds deserve better than what they’ve gotten from the US? Maybe. But they are fighting for independence from Turkey, Syria and Iraq. It’s not our fight. And there are several factions of Kurdish fighters, one of which, the PKK, are communist terrorists, who have murdered thousands of Turks. Do they deserve our help? Almost certainly not… although they have gotten it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-has-legitimate-grievances-against-the-u-s-11570576128

    My point, which I’m making in the full understanding that none of this complexity will break through the consciousness of the TDS afflicted, is that this is a very longstanding and complex problem, which did not start with Trump (far from it)and which Trump, like presidents who have struggled with this problem before him, is trying to resolve.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 2:33 pm

      I do not know whether the US has betrayed the Kurds in the past – I have no idea whether we promised them anything.

      It is not betray for two groups to work together towards ONE purpose they share, and not others they do not.

      Generally I support a Kurdish nation carved out of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria
      But when we drew the lines dividing countries in the aftermath of WWI – we forked up the mideast.

      I know the PPK is labeled “terrorists” – I have no idea if that is true.
      The US has agreed to label all kinds of groups “terrorists” – in order to build international support for “the war on terrorism”.

      Was the IRA Terrorists ? The Checkens ? the Irgund ? The american Colonists ?

      I am not trying to downplay terrorism just noting that a label is not the same as reality.

      Separately as Samatha Powers book exposes – unintentionally, it does nto matter whether we seek to screw some group or help them – the outcome is bad.

      Powers was a major advocate for the US Humanitarian use of US Hard power.

      That is an admirable goal.

      In practice it has produced outcomes WORSE than doing nothing, even allowing genocide.

      The US does not have the ability to use hard power in a humanitarian fashion unless we are prepared to commit to forces across the globe forever.

      We have peace in Ireland today – that took 1000 years of british occupation.

      I doubt the Kurds are “the good guys” – at best they are the least bad guys.

      • October 11, 2019 3:11 pm

        As I always do, i read the first 3-4 paragraphs and moved on. I am addressing the 3rd one.

        “But when we drew the lines dividing countries in the aftermath of WWI – we forked up the mideast.”

        There is a massive mistake in the way one uses pronouns, “we”, “you” ” they”. Those words can be used in very problematic ways . When you say “we” forked up the middle east, I am going to assume you mean “we”, the USA.

        No WE did not! The middle east was divided after WW1 by the British, French and Russians. Their forked up mess is what the USA is bogged down in today. Britain was also the first country to place troops in the middle east in WW2.

        Other than oil money, why are we (USA)there?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 4:23 pm

        We in this instance means the western powers – including the US.

        Wilson was there and heavily involved.

        Nor is this the only instance the US as part of the west has Forked things up.

        I have been watching Ken Burns Vietnam on Netflix.

        The US forked the vietnamese at the request of the british to favor the french.
        And then the British and French LEFT leaving the US holding the ball.

        After which we made innumerable mistakes on our own.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 4:28 pm

        Language, Pronouns etc.

        I would encourage everyone to write as accurately as possible.

        But these are blog comments not doctors thesis.

        Everyone here bemoans my long comments.

        Well “we” takes up alot less space than “the British, French, Americans, and Italians”

        My comments would be alot shorter if rather than trying to accurately related facts, and just emoted vageries generalizations and insults.

      • October 11, 2019 6:50 pm

        So who messed up the middle eadt from your POV. We or they?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 9:13 pm

        We – the Western powers including the US.

        Wilson was an absolutely horrible president – and do not forget he was both an early progressive and a democrat.

        He loathed the constitution, there is almost nothing in his approach to governing that would not appeal to a modern progressive.

        He was incredibly racist – his treatment of Blacks in his administration threw them back 30 years. Blacks in Government LOST decent jobs they had held for decades because of Wilson’s reforms.

        He should have stayed out of WWI – there would have been a negotiated peace without the US. He set the stage for WWII, He participated in peach negotiations that F’d up the mideast – and many other parts of the world that remain problems through today.

        No Wilson was not the most culpable regarding the mideast. Mostly he just Aquiesced as the French and British Fracked it up.
        But he put our name to this mess and is culpable.
        And therefore WE are culpable.

  97. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 11:24 am

    “ Attorney General William P. Barr met privately Wednesday evening with Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul who is one of President Trump’s frequent confidants but whose Fox News is viewed by the president as more hostile toward him than it used to be.

    The meeting was held at Mr. Murdoch’s home in New York, according to someone familiar with it. It was unclear if anyone else attended or what was discussed. Aides to both Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Barr declined requests for comment on the meeting.” NYT.

    Why is the AG of the US meeting privately with Murdoch?

    Because he’s a flunky partisan violating his DOJ mandate to attend to protect the nation in a non-partisan fashion. Another fuckhead Trumpster violating his oath of office.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 3:33 pm

      “Why is … ?”

      Are you owed an explanation ?

      Maybe he is investigating new charges against Bill Oreilly ?

      Maybe he is trying to find out whether Fox knows something about MifSud, or Biden ?

      Maybe he likes Murdock’s brandy ?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 3:35 pm

      Murdock and Barr are secretly plotting a government takeover of NYT and WaPo.

      Remember – you heard it here first!!!!!!

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 3:36 pm

      Murdock and Barr are both Cross Dressors and they were celebrating J Edgar Hoovers death.

  98. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 11:44 am

    Another credentialed Conservative speaks out about the Trumpian assault on America.

    David French: “ I was president of the Harvard Law School chapter of the Federalist Society in 1986-87. I didn’t agree that I was signing up to a defense of limitless presidential power including the right to commit crimes without fear of investigation by Congress.”

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 3:37 pm

      What is a “credentialed conservative” ?

      Is there a conservative accrediting institute ?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 3:57 pm

      French has made a fundimental error.

      Congress does not investigate Crimes. The President Does.

      Congress’s NORMAL powers include executive oversight.

      Powers Congress must vote itself include the power to conduct an impeachment investigation.

      Without voting to open an impeachment investigation – the house is limited to its oversight powers. Any allegations of criminal conduct must be turned over to DOJ.

      eight separate offices of the DOJ have already reviewed the WB allegation and concluded there is no crime alleged. Because there is not.

      Regardless, Congress can dig deeper WHEN THE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

      The entire power of the executive IS vested int he president.
      The entire power of the House is NOT vested in the speaker.
      Pelosi has ONE vote, Schiff has ONE vote.
      To conduct an impeachment inquiry they need a majority vote.

      AFTER that they can conduct investigations that go beyond oversite.

      No one has argued otherwise.
      Not even Trump personally.

      Why is this so hard Jay ?

      If you do not want to be accused of running “star chamber” investigations – then DON:T.

      It is simple.

      YOU have claimed (falsely) that Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders are not classified – if they are not then conduct PUBLIC hearings.

      Contra your claims – Trump has NOT refused to co-operate.

      He has refused to participate in a Sham.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 4:03 pm

      What part of conduct this like the prior 3 efforts to impeach a president or 60 judicial impeachment proceedings in US history ?

      Have the full house vote.

      Form a committee specifically to conduct the inquiry.
      Appoint a chair that is not going to have to be a fact witness.
      Preferably one that is not going to run a partisan shit show.
      Provide subpeona power to the minority as well as majority.
      Allow the minority and majority to call witnesses.
      Conduct nearly all hearings in public.
      Limit closed door hearings to classified information.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 4:17 pm

      In case you have not figured it out there are several reasons the House is NOT going to “play by the rules”

      1). They do not have the votes.
      2), There are LOTS of democrats who do not want to have to run for re-election having voted to start impeachment.
      3). They do not want to give Republicans in the house subpeona power,
      4). They do not intend to actually impeach.

      The actual objective is to use the next couple of months to trash Trump publicly.
      With the hope of:

      stopping the investigation of the investigation.
      distracting attention from the upcoming Horowitz Report.
      Weaken Trump as much as possible before the december Recess after which the focus will be on the election.

      Democrats are not serious about impeachment, They are not even serious about an impeachment investigation.

      When they are serious – they have the means to show that, and when they do, they are entitled to be treated seriously.

      Of all the above items the ONE that is the most important – is holding as much of the hearings publicly as possible.

      Most of the hearings the Democrats have conducted since gaining the house have gone HORRIBLY.

      Even hearings as unrelated to Trump as inquiries into White Supremecy were complete debacles. Candace Owen’s mopped the floor with the entire democratic party.

      The Hearings into ICE have proven disasters.
      Homan is not charasmatic or eloquent. But he is surprisingly knowledgeable, and he has relentlessly made it clear that blame for the current border problems rests with the law.
      That there is nothing Trump is doing that Obama did not do.
      That the house could solve the border problems if they wanted to.

      Regarding Trump – the Cohen, Mueller, and Lewendowski hearings were total disasters.

      We know little of Volkers hearing because it was behind closed doors – but the republicans are demanding the transcripts be published as they thought it was damning for democrats.

      Even the IC IG hearing really did not go well for democrats.

      I am all for Democrats holding as many PUBLIC hearings as they want.

  99. October 11, 2019 12:37 pm

    Have we not lost enough in these undeclared wars that congress supports, but will not go on record to avoid the “hawk” label that may costs seats?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-saudi-aramco-attacks-pentagon/pentagon-confirms-large-deployment-of-troops-to-saudi-arabia-idUKKBN1WQ25P?il=0

    Two thousand more troops, including fighter pilots. As Priscilla pointed out Trump does not want to tell give condolences to parents who have lost a child in combat any longer, and then he pulls this crap.

    We are not dependent on middle east oil. Europe, China and Japan are. Let them keep the straits open! Let the Saudi’s protect their own! So the Saudi Aramco IPO is being impacted. Big deal! So the price of oil goes sky high. Fine, that makes our oil companies much more profitable. Drilling rigs expand, more wells are put in place, more fracking takes place, increasing domestic supply. Fine.

    Give the Saudi’s what they need equipment wise. If they need people to help run them, let them contract with private contractors that have experience with the equipment.

    But no more military in undeclared wars and war zones between two other parties!

  100. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 4:16 pm

    The noose tightens another notch.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s financial records must be turned over to the House of Representatives.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that lawmakers should get the documents they have subpoenaed from Mazars USA. The firm has provided accounting services to Trump.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 4:38 pm

      And it will be appealed and ultimately you will lose.

      We do not get to make up the law and the constitution.
      we can change them – but until we do, we are stuck with the ones we have.

      Congress does not have any authority to investigate individuals.
      We already have a 9th circuit decision that prohibits creating new requirements beyond those in the constitution to be president.
      This has the same problem.
      The 1916 IRS tax law severely restricts access to tax records – even restricting Congress – and the president.

      Congress has NEVER been given ax records that can be identified to a single person.

      There are many many other problems.

      Have you learned nothing from your nonsensical emoluments nonsense.

      If the government has not done something ever before – it probably is unconstitutional or illegal.

      When you go to court with creative interpretations of the law that have never been used before. YOU ARE WRONG – pretty much always.

      It you want Trump’s taxes – change the law and the constitution.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 4:52 pm

      Can you provide a link to the article – as there are two independent cases on this.

      And they each have different problems.

      The one involves the NYC DA and allegations related to the Daniels case.

      If the NYC DA can demonstrate jurisdiction – which might but probably is not an issue,
      Probable cause of a crime – which I do not think they are close to.
      Probable cause that the search will result in further evidence of that crime,
      then the DA will likely win that case.

      It is also the best case, even though it should not be, as the probable cause standard of the 4th amendment has been near obliterated.

      That should concern all of us.

      But just to keep you on your toes – because you do not seem to grasp that there is not “Trump Law” a weak decision regarding probable cause means that Trump was properly allowed to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden.

      In fact the NYC DA is dojng fundimentally exactly what Trump was doing,
      using your language – seeking dirt on a political candidate from an opposing party.

      There are constraints on how that must be done, but it is OBVIOUSLY atleast sometimes legitimate to do so.

      Even I will give the NYC DA Trump’s tax returns IF the NYC DA can demonstrate
      jurisdiction,
      probable cause that a crime was committed
      probable cause that the information requested will provide further evidence of that crime.

      But I do not think she can or has.

      Conversely, there is already probable cause regarding Biden and the Ukraine, and the standard to start an investigation rather than subpeona documents is only reasonable suspicion not probable cause.

      While the house request for documents is different.
      First the House must request the documents through Treasury – the law already provides for that.
      The house does not have any authority over individuals, it has oversite of government.
      Everything the house does with respect to individuals must be justified based on gaining information to write laws. NOT investigation.
      The only time Congress can investigate an individual is in impeachment.
      And then they have to have a REAL impeachment.

      Anyway the issues between the two cases are DIFFERENT.

    • October 11, 2019 6:37 pm

      Could there be something there?
      Could be.
      May not be

      Mazars USA is an accounting firm providing accounting and tax service’s in multiple national locations. They began business in 1921 and now have a large number of employees and partners providing these sevices.

      If this company was 1/2 as annoying with documenting and insuring legality of tax information as were the ones doing our taxes at the for profit leg of our health system, Inwill be very surprised if they find anything.

      It will take getting into the actual accounting entries creating the numbers for the taxes before something is found.

      Accounting firms can also be held responsible for fraud in tax returns.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 11, 2019 8:56 pm

        The fight over Trump’s tax return is just stupid.

        I am sure that if provided to anyone the contents will be leaked and they will be spun into stories claiming malfeasance.

        BUT, Trump does not prepare his tax return.
        Tax returns do not provide the information all those ranting think they do.
        They will tell very little about where Trump gets his money. or where he spends it, only generically what he spends it on.

        Likely atleast 100 accountants work on the return.

        As you note they have shared liability for the return.

        I honestly beleive Trump is fighting the release of the tax return to bait democrats.
        So long as they waste time and energy chasing it, they are leaving him alone on other things.

        And if they ever “catch” the tax return there will be nothing there.

        What happens if after the massive effort D’s make to get the Tax return – they come up dry ?

        It will be the Mueller report all over – all promise, maximum effort to chase down a dry well.

  101. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 4:27 pm

    Yesterday AG Barr visits Murdock.
    Today Shep Smith announced he is leaving Fox News, just finished his last show.
    Tomorrow it is expected Donald Trump JR will be named to fill the slot.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 4:55 pm

      So?

      I have not heard him often, but I suspect Trump Jr. Will suck.

      Do you really think Barr cares who anchor’s Fox shows ?

      But what the hell – investigate even more.

      “At long last, have you no shame ?”

    • October 11, 2019 6:42 pm

      THANK GOD! Shep Smith would only fit in at MSNBC and even then, he may be too extreme left. I have asked Fox News multiple times when were they going to fire him. Guess enough asked the same question.

  102. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 5:10 pm

    Trump Legacy In Action

    “Isis militants break out of prison in Syria after bombing by Turkey
    Escape comes after Trump cleared way for Erdogan to launch offensive on Kurds”

    “Turkey Mistakenly Bombs US Forces”

    “Yesterday the President did a live impersonation of a man having an orgasm at a campaign rally. His supporters cheered.”

    “ WASHINGTON (Reuters) – One of the two Florida businessmen who helped U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal attorney investigate his political rival, Democrat Joe Biden, also has been working for the legal team of a Ukrainian oligarch who faces bribery charges in the United States, according to attorneys for the businessmen and the oligarch.”

    “ The Pentagon has announced the deployment of thousands of additional troops to “enhance the defence of Saudi Arabia”. US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper says he has authorised the deployment of additional forces, including fighter jets and a defence system.” This after Trump in defense of his troop pullout from the Turkish border told Americans he was doing that to bring home USsoldiers from the Middle East.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 8:45 pm

      Sounds like we should have gotten even further out of Syria.

      I beleive the Ukrainians are charged with campaign finance law violations.

      They are also innocent until proven guilty – just like Joe Biden – who is actually accused of Bribery now – can we start besmirching anyone close to Joe Biden because he is accused of accepting a Bribe ?

      Which Oligarch would that be – the One Biden was taking bribes from ?
      That would be my guess.

      Documents of money transfers from an Oligarch to Biden have been made public.
      The most likely source of those would be people who worked for that Oligarch.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 8:50 pm

      Presumably you are aware that an iranian oil tanker was hit by rockets in the gulf ?

      Tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are high.

      I would prefer that the US stayed out of that.
      I would prefer Trump stayed out of that.

      But I am not surpised.

      Saudi Arabia is in our national interests,
      The Kurds are not.

      I will bet all the neocons that have been railing at Trump have quieted down.

  103. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 6:47 pm

    “Kiss Obama’s Ass”

    This is the retarded schLUMP dumbbells think shouldn’t be taken away in a straight jacket

    • Jay permalink
      October 11, 2019 6:50 pm

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 9:02 pm

      Below are the charges in the Declaration of indepence against George III.

      I can find several that apply to Obama.

      I can not find one that would apply to Trump.

      I am presuming you were quoting Krystal.
      All you have done is proven Krystal is as unfamiliar with the declaration of independence as you are.

      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

      He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

      For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

      For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

      He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

      He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 9:06 pm

      Your clip is both obviously and horrible edited.

      That Bill Krystal and you think it is substantive undermines your credibilty.

      Even Trump supporters do not try to sell the memes they create as reality.

      The meme is funny and interesting – but only if you take it as a meme.
      If you try to argue it seriously – all it does is make you look stupid.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 9:18 pm

      God, not the doctored chart nonsense.

      Does the media think saying things makes them True regardless of facts ?

      NOAA openly admitted that Projections included tracks through Alabama.

      And they were not Rolled into doing so by Trump.
      They HAD TO – because their projections are published and because they have been caught fudging with their past work there is a whole army that keeps track of all their past published work.

      That is what happens when you lose credibility – others hold your feet to the fire.

      • Jay permalink
        October 11, 2019 11:22 pm

        “ NOAA openly admitted that Projections included tracks through Alabama.”

        Blah blah blah. Those were projections made days before Trump doctored the chart, which showed the then CURRENT projection, which didn’t show any such danger.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 12, 2019 4:32 pm

        “Those were projections made days before”
        So ? You really want to make this about timelines ?
        You confuse timelines all the time – because you can not reach any of the conclusions you want without a timeline.

        And “doctored” is more word games.

        Do you understand how idiotic your argument is here ?

        To “Doctor” the chart would require a deliberate intent to knowingly deceive everyone into beleiving the Huricane would strike Alabama,

        Are you really trying to sell that Trump knew the Huricane would not strike Alabama but projected it would – I guess Putin asked him.

        I would have to check – and you are just not worth that much effort, But I am pretty sure that NOAA had hurican path probability diagrams that included Alabama within 24hrs of Trump’s chart.

        ….
        “Trump showed the current projection” – what – do you think that Trump personally called NOAA 10 minutes before going on air and asked for an updated chart to be transported to the Oval by Marine 1 ?

  104. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 8:39 pm

    Armenian families remaining in Turkey are under threat today from the Turkish Army, many already having to flee their homes

    Armenian Relief Society (ARS) ; “ Unfortunately, during the past days, in northeastern Syrian towns of Kamishli, Hasakah and Derik, many of the 600 Armenian families have been forced to flee their homes in order to escape the bombardments.”

    There’s over a million people of Armenian ancestry in the US- think Trump will get any applause from them in 2020?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 11, 2019 9:24 pm

      Read your story – it makes no sense.

      You have the armenians in Turkey and Syria simultaneously.

      The turks have never been nice to armenians – killing atleast a million in a genocide almost a century ago.

      Regardless:

      ARE YOU SAYING it is the US job to prevent Turkey or any other country from harrassing any group inside or outside their borders ?

      I beleive something like 2M Uighers are in concentration camps in China right now – are we supposed to do something about that ?

      So let me be clear:

      If some group elsewhere in the world is being harrased – by Turkey or any other group,
      you are personally free – or free to send your sons and daughters to aide them in whatever way you see fit.

      You may NOT however send MY Son and Daughter.

      I did not raise my kids to be cannon fodder in your virtue signaling.

      • Jay permalink
        October 11, 2019 11:12 pm

        My mistake substitutingTurkey for Syria.

        So, you’re willing to send your sons and daughters to fight and die with the Saudis who are being harassed by the Iranians. There ya go again, hypocrite signaling…

      • dhlii permalink
        October 12, 2019 9:15 am

        I am not willing to send my Son and Daughter to fight anywhere that is not in our interest.

        I would have left the mideast on Day one – regardless of the mess it would have made.

        As would George Washington.

        I think Trump is too much of a war monger.

        But he is still the LEAST likely to send my kids off to die of any us president or candidate since Reagan.

        I would like a perfect president.

        I will settle for the lessor evil.

        The only current contender less likely to get us into a stupid war is Gabbard.

        When you are selling a slate of candidates – democrat or republican that is less of war mongers than Trump – I will be interested in your criticism.

        In the meantime you are just a hypocrit.

        BTW the entire syrian debacle – is on Obama.

        Here is an excellent article on the mess in Syia.
        There are no good guys in Syria – and unfortunately that includes us.
        We have accomplished what we set out to.
        It is time to leave.

        No ISIS is not defeated, nor is Al Qeda.
        And they are not going to be – certainly not by us.

        Islamic Jihadi’s terrorists will exists so long as the people in those regions support them.

        Our involvement makes things worse. Not better.

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/turkey-and-the-kurds-its-more-complicated-than-you-think/

      • dhlii permalink
        October 12, 2019 9:21 am

        “So, you’re willing to send your sons and daughters to fight and die with the Saudis who are being harassed by the Iranians. There ya go again, hypocrite signaling…”

        I am glad that you know my heart and mind better than I do so that you are able to expose hypocracy I was completely unaware of.

        I do not recall saying we should fight for The Saudi’s.

        Only that the US has an actual interest there.

        But apparently it is hypocritical for me to suggest that if we are going to make mistakes we make the least stupid ones.

        And how is it that you can let yourself off the hook ?

        You do not want to provide the Saudi’s any assistance, we have had to listen to you rant about the Saudi’s for the entire Trump presidency.

        But the YPG – somehow we owe them our children’s blood according to you ?

        Yell me in what world that makes sense ?

        Absolutely we shared an intterest with YPG – defeating ISIS.
        They have been driven from Syrian.

        That was purportedly our reason for being their. Though even that is debatable – you would have to ask Obama why we and in syria. No one else knows.

  105. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 11:06 pm

    “The president held a campaign rally last night and attacked Hunter Biden.“

    What a Disgusting lump of shit he is, to use the power of the presidency to attack the son of his political rival like that.

    Who of those here will be first to will wrap themselves in the same shit mantle and defend that.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 8:40 am

      Democrats NEVER say nasty hateful and disgusting things about republicans ?

      Grow, up Jay. What is unusual about Trump is that he plays the game by the same rules as the democrats and the media.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 8:50 am

      every single republican in my lifefime has been derided as a cook, a nazi, a racist.

      What Johnson did to Goldwater was absolutely despicable.
      Goldwater was one of the most decent people in US politics.

      The left tried hard and failed to slime Reagan.

      I do not think either of the Bushes, were good presidents. But they were decent people,
      and the left was relentless in attacking them.

      I have no idea whether he would have been a good president – but we could have had Dole rather than Clinton and we would not be talking about BJ’s in the oval.

      I doubt McCaine would have been a good president – but he was a genuine hero, and he was certainly dignified and respectable, and he could not have been a worse president than Obama. And you smeared him.

      Romney would have been that perfect centrist that you all seem to love – but will not actually vote for. Romney, Kaisich, Flake, again a decent respectable person, well spoken,
      Yet you called him a nazi and a racist and all kinds of other things.

      I am constantly telling you that Trump is the CONSEQUENCE of the left.
      Get rid of him if you can – you could end up having to deal with an actual totalitarian, racist, …

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 9:05 am

      You and the media have been attacking Don Jr. Eric, Melainia, even Barron Trump since before the election.

      You attacked Palin’s children. You attacked the Bush Children.

      Yes, the families of politicians should be left out of the circus – you first.

      Regardless, Hunter Biden has INARGUABLY profited greatly off his fathers political power.
      As apparently have the sons of Kerry, and Pelosi as well as many others.

      Getting jobs you could not possibly have gotten based on your skills or talents is not illegal – and it should not be. But it is fair game for criticism.

      You Attacked Trump himself for the leg up his father gave him – and there is no doubt he benefited from his parents, as has his family. No one in the entire Trump dynasty would be where they are but for the first shots they received from their father.

      But there are differences – Trump succeeded. He grew what he got from his father to something far larger and more diverse. Trump’s children are delivering as the hears to his crown. The Trump family might have a silver (even golden) spoon – they might because of their father have opportunities that their experience and background does not qualify them for. But they are delivering on expectations. They are doing difficult jobs successfully.

      They are not in cushy sinecures, Tony Soprano no work jobs.

      And more important still Niether Trump’s nor his children;s success has come as a result of leveraging public power.

      Even if the Biden’s, the Kerry’s the Clinton;s the Obama’s have done absolutely nothing illegal. Their wealth and that of their family was NOT made in the free market. it was made BECAUSE of the public power they weild. Even if that is legal it stinks to heaven.

      You have zero problems unsuccessfully claiming Trump is really in government for the money – as if he needs more and as if he and his family made billions by selling public power.

      Legal or not what all those politicians – democrats or republicans who have gotten rich, and whose families have gotten rich because of their ability to weild public power are far more deserving of criticism.

      Hunter Biden decided to live off the drippings of his fathers power.
      I have no problems with Trump attacking him.

      And you do ?

  106. Jay permalink
    October 11, 2019 11:29 pm

    Poetic Justice.

    ‘NEW: SDNY, an office Giuliani once led, is investigating whether he broke foreign lobbying laws in his dealings in Ukraine and are examining his
    efforts to remove the US ambassador to Ukraine.” NYTIMES

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 4:57 pm

      And HOW is it that you think Gulliani could have broken a law here ?

      John Kerry has been telling Iran to ignore Trump he will not be president after 2020.

      If that does not break any laws – then there is no way anything Guiliani did breaks any laws.

      BTW – I do not beleive that SDNY has any jurisdiction at all over actions outside the US or actions of the state department.

      Regardless, please explain this Guilini broke the law thing ?

      Joe Biden got foreign prosecutors fired – how can that be legal and ANyTHING Guiliani did be illegal.

      Anyway there is lots of stupid crap going on about the Ukrianian Envoy.

      But the story is real simple.
      Trump did not like her
      The Ukraine did not like her.

      She serves at the pleasure of the president – as does most of the state department.

      To the extent Trump has done something wrong – it is not firing nearly all fo the state department, and the CIA, and the NSA and ….

      You do not seem to understand this

      TRUMP WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

      The PRESIDENT determines foreign policy.
      Not the state department, not the Ukrainian Envoy.
      Not even the house and senate.

      That is in the constitution.
      In the event that any law exists that conflicts with that – it is unconstitutional.

      As to Guiliani – he is private citizen. There is very little that he can do in the area of “foreign policy” that is illegal – just as Kerry can go running arround interfering with US foreign policy to his hearts content, and just as Basketball stars can go to North Korea, and Clinton can hire MI6 operatives.

      Absolutely positively Guiliani was working to “dig up dirt” on pretty much the entire democratic party. And it looks like he found LOTS of dirt in the Ukraine.
      And he is free to do so.
      And Trump is even Free to Ask Rudy Guiliani private lawyer to go to the Ukraine to dig up dirt.

      This is not the most seemly side of politics – but Hillary spent the entirety of 2015 and 2016 doing precisely this – and I did not hear you shouting “lock her up” ?

      Trump excercising the powers of the president – as in a phone call with Zelenskyy,
      Can not legitimately ask for something like an investigation – unless there is reasonable suspicion to do so. That is the only allegation in this whole nonsense that comes within 100,000 miles of being an actual crime.

      Rudy Gulliani can go to the Ukraine – as Trump’s lawyer, with explicit instructions from Trump, to “get dirt” on political enemies – he can even go and ask the ukrainians to “make dirt up”

      This is not different from the Crap Clinton did in 2016 – except for the fact that Clinton and the DNC really were asking the Ukraine to “make things up”, and Guiliani is merely asking them to expose what happened in 2016.

      I want to hold my nose when I hear about Clinton in 2016.
      But it was legal.
      Guiliani’s actions don’t even smell as bad as a Clinton fart.
      And they are legal.

      What is NOT legal is when the government got involed in 2016.

      https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/11/andrew-mccarthy-unravels-the-real-russia-collusion-narrative/

      And that is what – Guiliani, Barr, Durham, Hunter, and Trump as looking into.
      And it already stinks to high heaven, and as more facts are added it is only going to get worse.

      Your fixated on Guiliani. I do not even think DOJ has an actual credible case against the two Ukrainians they arrested. The campaign finance complaint that is being alleged, is minor and the only person ever prosecuted for it was Dinesh D’Sousa – and that was blatantly political, and Trump rightly pardoned him.

      And you really do not want people prosecuted for it – the FEC found $65M in contributions over the limit in the Clinton Campaign. Thousands of people would be going to jail.

      What we need to do is just get rid of the FEC – they are unconstitutional.

      The government may not constitutionally interfere in the non-violent private actions of private parties in an election

  107. Anonymous permalink
    October 12, 2019 9:37 am

    Jay, really, what are you expecting from them? Davilla will ascribe the view on trump that you and I and 50+ percent of the country have to tds. Apparently the Georges, that is, Will, Romney and Conway, not to mention any conservative with any actual standards and principles, are all tds cases. So, all you will hear on tnm is ” So what” from them no matter what trump does. They will tell you that big trump ever does actually do something truly bad they will certainly join in on the criticizing. So who actually has tds, us or them?
    You are beating your head against a wall.

    • Anonymous permalink
      October 12, 2019 9:44 am

      Tnm is far from being a moderate venue, what can one do? Drop me a line Jay at tennis658@aol.com if you wish to have a sensible conversation. I use that particular address to receive tnm comments.

      • vermonta permalink
        October 12, 2019 10:41 am

        Ha, I can’t get into that account, its been too long since I used it. If you are interested in e-mailing me Jay try 66cityband@gmail.com

    • October 12, 2019 1:06 pm

      As I read the pissing contest between Jay and Dave from a little distance, the issues are not a Davilla issue, it is a couple that will never be solved.

      Dave overwhelms this sight with so many comments and words within those comments that most of them are not read or not read completely and many facts are overlooked. Much of what is read are the first few paragraphs and that is mostly personal comments about the others position, not facts documenting the fallacy of the position.

      On the other hand, Jay uses other twitter or news comments and then follows up one a one or two sentence comment that is 100% anti-Trump which provides no support for his own position.

      So we get the two individuals arguing from a TDS perspective, or commenting somewhere in the post that actually addresses the issue.

      There are not enough here to get into substantial discussions on things taking place because anyone who does gets inundated by emails and turns off notifications and trying to follow anything on word press is totally impossible with the numbers of comments made.

      But if someone wants to discuss issues, Dave and Priscilla will discuss that with facts that can be researched and found to b true for the most part. One may not agree with the theory of the facts, but that is also an opportunity to discuss why.

      TDS has destroyed logical debate .

      • dhlii permalink
        October 12, 2019 6:41 pm

        I have not studied the structure of my comments to the extent you apparently have.

        Regardless, things on TNM get too personal all the time.

        Because that is what happens when you engage in fallacy and ad hominem.

        The argument shifts from debate over the facts, to debate wrapped arround the fallacy.

        When you hurl insults – you get insults back.

        What Trump has changed about politics – is that the spitballs are not all coming from one side now.

        I would prefer to clear public discourse of spitballs – and fallacies, and insults.

        But that is not happening.
        And even if it did – I would start with the source, and that is not Trump or the right.

        Oddly I am probably the most ardent “defender” of Trump here.
        But of those not falling off the left side of TNM, I am probably the least politically supportive of Trump.

        But I am the MOST tired of the lying and slurs and insults of the left.

        I am not mostly defending Trump – I am mostly attacking the REAL problem

      • October 12, 2019 6:57 pm

        What happens when someone gets in a pissing contest with a shunk?

        Who wins? Who loses? Is it better to back away and avoid the skunk?

      • dhlii permalink
        October 12, 2019 6:46 pm

        There is nothing preventing substantive discussions of
        Trade,
        Foreign Policy
        Immigration

        or innumerable issues here.

        When Jay and Robby choose not to inflict continuous TDS on us,
        those serious discussions happen.

        And they rarely hinge on, and sometimes do not even mention Trump.

        There are two ways of viewing the world that show up on TNM.

        One is what are the facts, what are the principles, and how do assorted politicians and parties conform to those facts and principles.

        The other is What has Trump said. done, thought – whatever it is – it is wrong.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 5:15 pm

      “Jay, really, what are you expecting from them? Davilla will ascribe the view on trump that you and I and 50+ percent of the country have to tds.”

      If you do not want accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome why in god’s name are you opposing Trump keeping Promises that Obama made that you claimed to have supported ?

      We all know that the neo-cons, way too many republicans, the generals and way too many in CIA, NSA, State …. would have the US drug into every skirmish in the world.

      The fact that the so called “experts” support endless war is not news.
      It was not news when Both McCain and Obama promised to get us out of all these wars in the mideast and elsewhere.

      We – the american people VOTED to get out of these wars in 2008, and 2012, and 2016.
      Is there someone posting on TNM that until Trump tried to get us out was actually opposed to getting out ?

      All the people you are now citing as experts that we should defer to – these are the same experts that got us into these messes in the first place, and the same experts we voted AGAINST in 2008, 2012 and 2016.

      Please give me a credible reason that you oppose any of this today – after voting for it got atleast 8 years ?

      If you do not want to be accused of TDS – then do not change your values like the wind based on whatever party or person is in control.

      My positions on every single issue have been the same – whether the conduct being examined was that of a democrat – or a republican.

      All of Clinton’s actions in 2016 – including ACTUAL Collusion with Both Ukraine and Russia were offal but legal. The less offensive actions of Guiliani are even more clearly legal.

      Bush should have gone into Afghainstan, taken out the Taliban and left IMMEDIATELY.

      I will admit I was not ADAMANTLY opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq – but I was very troubled by it. I was dubious of the WMD claim – and openly opposed to the Bush “preventive war doctrine”, and not comfortable with the “humanitarian war” thesis that many democrats floated. I opposed Iraq – but not as vociferously as I should have at the time.

      To my recollection Bush avoided every other oportunity for intervention in the mideast – and I supported that.

      Obama was elected to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and not get us into other foreign wars. I supported that – I did NOT support Obama – I did not BELEIVE Obama, and 8 years later – we were not out of Iraq or Afghanistan and we were new messes in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Nigeria – and probably others. Further to this day no one can really explain our interest in any of those places.

      In case you have forgotten WE DID NOT get into Syria to fight ISIS. The initial goal was Regime Change. Fighting ISIS became a goal because Obama could get republican support for it.

      Trump was elected promising to get us out of all these messes.

      I did not beleive him either. He has not done a very good job of that.
      But he is actually making progress – shitty progress, but progress nonetheless.

      Why is anyone here actually fighting that ?

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 5:57 pm

      George Romney died 25 years ago.
      Mitt Romney is a milquetoast version of Obama who actually did built something in his life – unlike Obama.
      George Conway is the husband of KelleyAnne Conway is the first female campaign manager to win a presidential campaign. That is the only significance to George Conway.

      George Will is probably the most significant political thinker in this country over the past 40 years. It is likely that Will and I have very few differences over policy or ideology.

      While more – there are also few differences between George Will and Donald Trump over policy.

      Unfortunately no Republcan with the character of George Will or even Mitt Romney is ever going to be elected president.

      What all of your “Georges” have not grasped is that you can not change policy if you can not get elected. And leftists selling disasterous policies and ideologies will destroy anyone (even democrats) of good character in an election.

      Why ? Because people like you do not give two shits about character – until anyone not of the left is elected. After that – actually long before, you will pummel that person relentlessly – you will call them racist, nazi, mysoginist – hateful hating haters. For you the ends justifies the means.

      And before you tell me you are not really a leftist.

      We have heard it before – and I will give you one of your own fallacious arguments back.

      You stood there and did nothing – and Bill Clinton was elected.
      You did nothing and Democrats selected “Al Give my boner a massage, Gore”,
      You did nothing and Democrats selected Hillary – no one could possibly more vengeful or corrupt Clinton.

      You have accused The Trump campaign of Colluding with Russia – when the only ones Colluding with any foreign power was Clinton – and she was colluding with just about every foreign power – including Russia.

      You had no problem at all with Obama – and his administration investigating an opposition political candidate (apparently SEVERAL – as well as journalist, and congress) as president with absolutely no reasonable suspicion of an actual crime.

      Joe Biden’s OVERT Threat against the Ukraine was made Publicly in 2016 – while a couple of NYT reporters took note – I did not hear anyone – not even the most extreme members of the republican house demanding Biden’s impeachment.
      I did not hear anyone demanding an investigation.
      I did not hear anyone even suggesting Biden’s conduct was a problem.

      But Trump is elected – and SUDDENLY Character matters.

      Those of us who actually have good character are supposed to suddenly start foaming and frothing – because now that Trump is president – you suddenly give a shit about character.

    • dhlii permalink
      October 12, 2019 6:04 pm

      I think George Bush (both) was a poor president, but a very decent person.

      You called them Nazi’s.

      I think John McCain is a national hero
      You called him a Nazi – and your presidential candidate called his running mate a pig.

      Mitt Romney is a decent honest man – even if I disagree with him on many things.
      You called him a Nazi and a murderer and all kinds of other things, you lied about Benghazi – when Romney was immediately right about it.
      Regardless, Romney lost.

      My fundimental disagreement with George Will is that regardless of all of Trump’s flaws, he remains not merely the least bad choice, but the least bad character, and the least bad policies.

      It has taken my entire lifetime – and then some, but Trump has taught republicans something that Democrats have known for a long long time.

      Nice Guys finish last.

  108. Anonymous permalink
    October 12, 2019 10:01 am

    It is humorous that trump enablers react to the thoughts of principled conservatives like George Will by discounting him because he has strongly criticized trump. “Why should we take the opinion of a trump critic seriously, when they are simply a trump critic?”
    So, they can stay in their bubble and reject all the contrary views as tds. They have chosen Trump’s character as the hill they are willing to die on.

    • October 12, 2019 1:19 pm

      Roby, I know this was a comment for Jay, but if your willing, please answer a question. It will help me with your comment as well as Jays use of third party communication.

      Scenario:
      George Will writes article.
      Jay copies a statement from article and states ” How can any despicable Trumpansee defend this position”
      Jay has not made his position known.

      So how would someone be expected to reply?
      State why Trumps position is defensable?
      State why they support Will’s position.
      State why they are not a “Trumpansee”, but support the position.
      Isn’t all of these debating George Will and not Jay since Jay never said what he believed?

      • Vermonta permalink
        October 12, 2019 2:27 pm

        I do not know why Jay bangs his head against the wall of “so what” from Trump’s defenders here. I have in the past gotten into long fruitless bouts with Dave that I should have known better than to do, so I am in no position to tell Jay not to.

        I would disagree that Dave’s posts are composed of facts in the best sense. They are composed of a mixture of truths, half truths, and pure bullshit. They are Dave attempt to build a wall of NO! Around the things he wishes to deny, which is a lot of things. You can argue with him, as a fellow libertarian. Anybody from the left, in even the mildest form is just falling into a pit to take up the Dave argument challenge.
        I think that Dave and Priscilla make up a block, and that block is one the is ideologicaly your home as well. Anyone with the slightest liberal tendency is just going to interact with that block in frustration, I don’t mean mild frustration, especially given the daily events and how they appear to people like me. Really, it’s a davilla flavored site and that is how it will remain. In my opinion Jay and I would be better off having our own conversation and leaving tnm to the libertarian right.

      • October 12, 2019 5:17 pm

        Roby, you may be right about Dave. Like I said, if he has not made his point in the first 3-4 paragraphs, I delete. If he has and then goes off on his tagents, I delete when they start. I dont waste time on things that are not pertinent to my debate.

        However, I do not agree fully with your description of me being in the block with Dave and Priscilla. You and I have had discussions in the past where we have agreed on certain things. Dave and I have had numerous debates where we disagree completely. I am further removed from Jay here than anyone because we dont agree on immigration, taxes, trade or government regulations. and since Jay will not get into any discussion other than arguments with Dave, I cant get past him being a Pelosi/Warren democrat. And Dave does not agree with me on government oversight of certain industries or trade, with some other issues.

        The difference with you and I is we have discussed our difference in the past, as well as where we agree.. Jay post some tweet against some Trump policy, I comment with my reasons I think he is wrong ( I argue the policy, not the ass making it) and he comes back with some snide comment that has nothing about why the policy might be wrong other than Trump did it.

        Just because I believe we need a completely new immigration law, we need fiscal policy to balance the budget, we need a complete revision to social security so individual contributions can be invested in equities to earn 5-7% instead of 1.5% in government debt, we need trade policies that require free and open trade if we are going to buy their cheep crap. we need a completely different foreign policy where the free countries all contribute to freedoms interests equally, we need a totally different environmental policy where all countries contibute based on output to CO2 reduction and we need a government to get the devel out of social tinkering once rights have been determined, all of this does not make me a Trumpansee.

        (As a note to social tinkering, look at what has happened to womens sports once transgenders have been allowed to identify with a sex.)

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 10:03 am

        Robby’s entire “block” debate is just a demonstration that he has no understanding of anything outside his own bubble.

        The primary thing that you, I and priscilla share is the ability to discuss our differences without loaded emotional language and insult.

        We all decry the bitter divisiveness of things today – but that bitter division disappears when those on the left are absent.

        Look at the current Democratic Slate.

        Do you think that Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Tulsi Gabbard, could have an interesting and informative debate ?

        I Do.

        Do you think anyone not on the extreme left can have any kind of debate with Sanders ? Warren ?

        We have constant wars here about Trump – Trump’s STYLE – is exactly the same as that of the left. Everything that Jay or George Will loath about Trump is just “rules for radicals” writ large.

        Except one thing – it is just style for Trump. Trump rants about silencing others, but he does not mean it – we can tell because he actually has some power to do so and he does not use it to do so.

        While with the slightest power – those on the left do actually silence people. for the left it is much more than style.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 10:06 am

        I do not believe it is possible to know where you actually stand with respect to Jay.

        Jay, more so than anyone is so driven by bitter loathing of Trump, that you feel like he would disown his children if they supported Trump.

        I do not think it is possible to know what Jay thinks on any issue – because everything he says on any each is driven by his loathing of Trump.

      • October 13, 2019 11:28 am

        “I do not think it is possible to know what Jay thinks on any issue – ”

        And other than extreme blinding hate for Trump, neither do I. And that is why I dont try discussing issues with him any longer other than asking him “his” position on something he copies from another source.

        He has been ranting about Trumps middle east policy and other than saying he would worry about his adult kids if they were there, he is silent on his position of America in endless wars without a declaration by congress. I stopped asking!

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 10:25 am

        I disagree with you on many of the things you think we need.

        But there will never be a rational discussion of ANY issues where anyone from the left participates today. Not even Robby.

        With Jay – Trump is the center of the world. Someday Trump will actually be gone and I am not sure Jay will have a soul left when Trump is gone.

        Robby’s world does not revolve arround Trump, But his approach to everything still hinges on argument by insult and moral accusation rather than facts logic reason.

        If we could tone down the vitriole it is likely that Robby and I are closer on values than I am to you or Priscilla. But values are not principles, values are what you want, but principles are foundational and constrain HOW you can acheive what you want.

        I would be surprised if anyone here has a life that is farther outside a bubble than I do. I would be shocked if anyone here interacts with more gay and trans, people than I do, or more minorities of every possible shade. I would also be surprised if anyone here interacts with as many purported Trump supporters.

        The friends and people I know who are the most rabid Trump supporters, get along with everyone – gay straight, black, brown, yellow – they are also the most prone to self censor.
        They will not tell you what their view are unless they think you either share them or are tolerant of them. While the friends I have on the political left presume that in almost any setting that everyone agrees with them and they are free to say offensive and intolerant things.

      • October 13, 2019 11:46 am

        ” But his approach to everything still hinges on argument by insult and moral accusation rather than facts logic reason.”

        this might be true with response to your comments, but he has never gone off the rails with me. He has commented about my Libertarian leaning positions and lumped me in with you and Priscilla, but I did not take that as an insult.

        I could be totally wrong about Roby, but I think if Trump or Sanders/Warren were running against a politicians with political positions like Manchin or Kasich, he would be more likely to vote like me, Manchin over Trump or Kasich over Sanders/Warren. But he will not do what I will do with Trump/Warren. He will vote for horse manure over cow manure, even though we will still be in deep $#)/ either way while I will give the Libertarians one vote toward 15%.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 1:02 pm

        I started this – paricularly with Jay – who is just low hanging fruit and so obvious.

        But it is still WRONG to be debating the people rather than the issues.

        I am going to offer the legitimate excuse that – when fallacies – particularly insult and ad hominem are introduced into the argument – logic is lost and the debate quickly devolves into an argument about the people involved, not the issues.

        Jay explicitly demands that constantly.

        Whenever an argument becomes – agree with me or your evil, any possibility of rational debate is gone.

        I will further confess to following Jay and Robby into the personalization of everything.

        I am conflicted over that. Alynsky’s tactics work. They work whether you are on the left or right, they work whether you are right or wrong.

        And they work against facts, logic reason.

        So what is the appropriate response to the Alynskyite tactics of the left ?

        Trump has very successfully adopted the same tactics.

        That is the most disruptive thing Trump has done. It is the font of all conflict surrounding him.
        It is what offends Romney, and Will and lots of rational conservatives.
        It is also what attracts his base. It is why democrats lost in 2016,
        And probably why they will lose 2020.

        When Trump turns the tactics of the left against them, he is also championing aver person in this country who feels that when the Hillary spoke of deplorables – she meant them. That when those on the left rant of hateful, hating haters – they mean them.

        Everyone has seen the sign’s “Hate not welcome here”.

        On one level that is obviously a good message.

        But it is also massive virture signaling.
        And if it means anything much more than I will not let Hitler in my home. it is really a message of hatred and intolerance.

        If I disagree with you over who should make what wedding cakes – you will not tolerate me ?
        Or who should participate in which sports ?

        Christian fundimentalist’s trope is hate the sin love the sinner – in otherwords ALL are welcome here – even haters.

        As Maryann Wiliams noted – conservatives are more tolerant of her than progressives.

        Regardless the question is how do you deal with those who will use effective tactics that are destrictive of logic and reason, and have no place for facts, and intentionally destroy people as the means to use force without justification ?

        I would like to beleive – as Will does that getting into the mud with them is the wrong choice.
        But we have history to teach us – they will roll over the Will’s in a heartbeat and he will die labeled a racist if they have run unchecked.

      • October 13, 2019 3:18 pm

        “So what is the appropriate response to the Alynskyite tactics of the left ?”

        it depends on what level your on.
        As the president, you do basically what 43 did with the lefts attacks on him and what Clinton did for the period when the GOP was trying to crucify him.You stay above the fray, work for the country and make short comments like letting others handle the situation because there are too many important things to concentrate on.

        As a member of congress, you get into the weeds and defend anyone you want to defend in any acceptable method.

        As a member of the media, what can I say. They have denigrated that profession where it is no better than used car salesmen

        As an individual, you address the issue once with another on the left and then ignore them when they persist without logical debate like you would with any bully.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 6:04 pm

        The question was actually rhetorical.

        But addressing your answers – if letting it roll off your back means getting More Bush’s McCain’s and Romney’s elected – if you can get elected at all – then NO!

        There are issues with respect to the GOP handling of Bill Clinton.

        But actual issue based investigation is legitimate.

        Character assassination, False moral claims are NOT.

        I do not recall anyone claiming Bill Clinton was a fascist or a Nazi.

        There were claims that he was a liar – given that he perjured himself twice, I think you can say that.

        With specific respect to Trump, He is what we elected AND he was elected BECAUSE of who he is.
        Few who voted for Trump thought that once elected he would be polite and above the fray.

        Trump voters were tired of being called hateful hating haters and they elected someone who was going to fight back for them.

        MOSTLY George Will is not constantly called a racist – though it has happened.
        And MOSTLY Will is able to here the character assassination of the left and think – they do not mean me. But the guy on the Ford Assembly line does not have that luxury.
        When the left talks of Deplorables and hateful hating haters – they mean HIM and he knows it. And they mean the evangelical christians in this country – who are content to allow gays to marry – so long as they are not forced to mary them in their church or bake them cakes or …

        If we were merely talking about personal attacks on the president – you might be right.

        But we are not.

        Read Jay’s comments – “FU and anyone who looks like you”

        Ron this is not even a close call. The very people ranting about hateful hating haters ARE the hateful hating haters.

        Except that they do not yet control government – we are not far from the USSR or China where people were accused by their neighbors of thought crime and had to be re-educated.

        In 2017 Milo Yanopolis could not speak on campus without violence breaking out.
        Today Dave Rubin can not do so.

        Schiff has changed the rules for his hearings – they are now being done as depositions.
        The House rules subject anyone leaking information from a closed deposition hearing to ethics investigations, which even if without merit get you removed from the committee for the duration of the ethics investigation.

        This occured with the formed Ukriane Envoy who testified yesterday.
        Before she completed testifying – all of her testimony that favored the left – leaked out – as did that of Volker. But Republicans are now silenced – and Schiff will not release the depositions.

        Can you say “Star chamber” ?

        There is apparently some pressure on pelosi by democrats to hold an actual vote authorizing impeachment hearings. And maybe that will happen.

        That is a good first step.

        But either democrats are prepared to inquire into the truth – or this is a farce.

        The reason that Democrats are running this “star chamber” is because Nadler’s earlier hearings went horrible. Democrats looked BAD.

        They looked like their goal was not to elicit facts from witnesses but to get them to frame their words with the right spin to be able to reach impeachment.

        Either your goal is to find the truth or your goal is political advantge.

        MAYBE the latter is tolerable if you are deciding some arcane facet of the budget – though I think not. But impeachment may be political but it is serious.

        So let me make this clear.

        Just as the house is judging the president.
        Voters are judging the house.

        If you are trying to game the process – YOU are the problem.

        You want Trump to be respectful ?

        People are entitled only to the respect they have earned.

      • October 13, 2019 10:58 pm

        “But addressing your answers – if letting it roll off your back means getting More Bush’s McCain’s and Romney’s elected – if you can get elected at all – then NO!”

        So your dominating Ricks site with overwhelming number of verbose comments with Jay will keep that from happening? I dont think so!

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 6:07 pm

        Maybe for you the standard of speech is different for the president than Congress.

        Not for me.

        Regardless, respect is earned. It is not an entitlement.

        I treat with respect those who have earned respect.
        I do not owe respect to those who do not behave in a way that deserves respect.

        If you have been caught “bearing false witness” – you are not entitled to anyone’s respect.
        Not Trump’s, Not Romney’s, Not Bush’s.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 10:45 am

        I want to distinguish between individual freedom – in the context of gender, I support anyone’s freedom to be whoever they wish to be, and the ability to impose that on others.

        Your example of women’s sports is the perfect example.

        There is a difference between your freedom regardless of your genes to express your identity as any gender you wish, and a legal requirement AKA FORCE that others must accept you as that identity.

        We are rapidly approaching the destruction of women’s sports – there will be only men’s sport’s and men identifying as women’s sports very soon.

        Nor is sports the only domain that is likely to be transformed.

        As MTF Trans becomes more common place MTF Trans people are going to replace biological women most everywhere – especially those places where women have had the greatest difficulty competing.

        Women’s equality could be rapidly acheived in a very perverse way by MTF Trans people. with the odd outcome of biological women ending up inferior to men even as women.

        Regardless, my point is that there is a difference between the freedom to be whoever you choose and the right to force others to accept you in all contexts in that choice.

        If you actually value freedom, you must also value the freedom of those who do not accept your freedom – so long as no force is used.

        We must take care that when we use the law to protect the freedom of one group we do not diminish the freedom of another – including the freedom to not accept others.

        It is my hope that Transgender is an area where we MIGHT come to the understanding that – we must both give people the freedom to say “I am a woman” or “I am a man”” independent of biology, while at the same time understanding that we can not FORCE everyone in all contexts to accept that. AND that we are not going to resolve this with a bunch of laws that decide on a case by case basis precisely what is a women in sports, or in business.

      • October 13, 2019 12:18 pm

        Dave, trans issues. Agree 100% with your comment.

        Womens sports is being destroyed, just read what has already happened. Articles are on internet for reading.

        Hopefully schools will create teams for trans. Universities need to do the same. The olympics needs womens track, trans track and mens track along with all other sex divided sports. Professional leagues like golf need PGA, LPGA and TPGA. Basketball needs WNBA, NBA and TNBA.

        Females identifying as males will never threaten a male athlete position, but few females can match a male athlete in speed, strength, height or weight when competing for positions. Yes, there may be a few females that can defeat borderline males that would never qualify for male teams, but those situations are far and few between.

        I am going to be very interested in how those who have stood up for identity positions react when womens sports, such as womens track, is dominated by a couple men who have switched or local kids are negatively impacted by boys saying they are girls.

      • dhlii permalink
        October 13, 2019 1:14 pm

        Ron.

        I am not exactly trying to “answer” the Trans question – though I AM using it as a proxy for myriads of other issues.

        I am ABSOLUTELY for the freedom to live as you wish – so long as you do not use force against others.

        My interest in whether gender is a rainbow or fixed by biology or any other thesis is purely accademic. If you want to identify as gender fluid or pan sexual or the opposite Gender – I am OK with that.

        I am also OK with you shooting heroin, overdosing and dying. Or atleast I am NOT going to use anything stronger than persuasion to thwart you.

        But there is a difference between your freedom, and imposing a duty on others to incorporate your freedom into their lives.

        Your free to be who you wish to be. You are NOT free to compel me to hire you or agree with you or serve you.

        Lets try a more extreme example.

        You are free as an adult to be sexually attracted to children.
        I do not like that. I find it revolting. I do not accept it.
        But I beleive there are people who that is true of – possibly even driven biologically,
        But you are not free to ACT on that – because acting incorporates another person.
        Your freedom to be as you wish can not compel another to accept you

        Those constraints apply to peodophilia.
        They