The New Moderate’s Guide to a Politicized World
I have a startling confession to make: I’m really not fond of politics.
Why, you ask (and I knew you would), do I take pains to write a political blog if I harbor an aversion to the very subject of that blog? I write it because a politically polarized society needs loud voices in the middle – reasonable loud voices to fill that vacuum, lambaste the extremists when they require lambasting, point the way out of our ideological divide, and build a bridge between the more accommodating folks on the right and left.
That’s the ideal. The reality is that the extremists have politicized our culture so thoroughly that we can hardly order a bucket of fried chicken without inadvertently declaring our allegiance to one political tribe or the other.
While the professional politicos have preoccupied themselves with President Trump’s impeachment hearings, I’ve been entertaining myself by compiling a list of formerly innocuous items that the ideologues have tainted with the unmistakable odor of politics. Both political camps have contributed to the mayhem, although I have to credit the left’s academic PC police for having done more than their fair share.
Come along while I guide you through today’s hyper-politicized landscape…
Pronouns. We use them to substitute for regular nouns when the reference is clear. Simple enough, right? But social justice warriors are increasingly rejecting the gender-specific nature of pronouns like he and she, opting instead for the formerly plural they. In some academic circles, using the wrong pronoun – especially when referring to a person of ambiguous gender – can get you shipped to the re-education camp or worse.
Western Civilization. The study of European history, art, literature, music and philosophy used to be the core of a liberal education. Now those who tout the achievements of Western Civilization risk being tagged as white supremacists. (Of course, it’s fine to tout the achievements of non-Western civilizations.)
Guns. Any talk of restricting access to semi-automatic firearms (or the ammo magazines intended to slaughter mass quantities of humans) will be met with sallies of outrage on the right. They need their assault weapons, the reasoning goes, to fight the government troops who come for their assault weapons. O-kay.
Songs, cartoons and movies from racially unenlightened times. Did the late Kate Smith sing “That’s Why Darkies Were Born” 90 years ago? Banish her memory! (No matter that black activist Paul Robeson sang the same song.) Did a flock of jive-talking crows help Dumbo gain the confidence to fly? Racist caricatures! Was the kindly Uncle Remus too happy working for the white folks? Pull the movie out of circulation! No matter how sympathetic the portrayals, the artifacts of the past are to be judged by contemporary “woke” standards.
Nature. The shocking report that 60 percent of the world’s vertebrate animal population (excluding humans, of course) has died off since 1970 doesn’t seem to have moved the Trump administration – except to accelerate the process by pulling out of the Paris climate accords and loosening restrictions on hunting and deforestation. (Take that, tree huggers!)
Climate change. As glaciers retreat, temperatures rise, and polar bears drown because the nearest Arctic ice floe is miles away, a staunch contingent of climate change deniers has hunkered down and refused to budge. It’s all a liberal plot to destroy private enterprise, right?
Facebook. What started as a lighthearted online platform for rediscovering lost friends, sharing photographs and chuckling over cat videos has morphed into a tool for separating us into mutually hostile tribes. When we read inflammatory cherry-picked news items that confirm our prejudices, we start hating the friends whose prejudices don’t align with ours.
Women’s bodies. Who would have guessed that such a pleasant subject could generate so much nasty political invective? The #MeToo movement sprang from just and reasonable impulses: no woman should tolerate being groped against her will. But does a hand on the shoulder constitute groping? And should that overly handsy man have his career and life ruined based solely on the woman’s account of events? Is flirting dead? Beware of good causes that turn extremist.
Abortion. Here’s a complicated ethical and medical issue that feminists have turned into a political slugfest. As they sound the rallying cry “Hands off my body!” they deliberately ignore the inconvenient truth that a pregnant woman’s body contains a second, genetically distinct body. The pro-choice faction insists that only the woman’s body has rights, while the pro-life faction favors the unborn baby’s rights. Nobody is backing down, so we need a King Solomon to declare abortion permissible during the first half of the pregnancy and off limits after the midpoint – except in rare cases. So let it be written… so let it be done!
Founding Fathers who owned slaves. Bad enough that they’re members of the white patriarchy, but I’m shocked – shocked! – that 18th-century Southern planters owned slaves. Even though George Washington freed his slaves in his will, I think we can expect the U.S. capital to be renamed for a less “offensive” individual – a gay woman of color, maybe? – in the not-too-distant future.
Identity. Speaking of gay women of color, how has the mere fact of racial, sexual or gender identity become such a political lightning rod? On the left, some identities (straight white “cis”-male, for example) are officially reviled while others are celebrated. Is turnabout fair play? Nope.
Holidays that recall mistreatment of natives. Goodbye, Columbus! Outta here, Pilgrims! Columbus Day and Thanksgiving have fallen into disfavor among those who still protest the European conquest of America. Maybe we should just roll back American history and let the continent return to the tranquility of buffalo-infested plains, Stone Age technology and warring tribes. Short of that, I think we can still celebrate our holidays while acknowledging that Western colonial settlement inflicted undue hardships on the native population.
Immigration. Every human being in the Western Hemisphere is the descendant of immigrants – even the so-called Native Americans whose ancestors migrated here from Asia during the Ice Age. Right-wing prejudice against immigrants – illegal or otherwise – dates back to the mid-19th century incursion from Ireland. Now that the primary incursion is coming from Latin America, race is a factor in anti-immigrant sentiment. No sane person favors open borders (sorry, lefties), but we all need to honor immigrants who work to arrive here through legal channels (that’s right, righties).
American flags. Funny, I thought the American flag belonged to all Americans. Some members of racial grievance groups seem to think it belongs to conservative whites – and especially white cops – which is enough to convince them that they can’t salute it or stand for the national anthem. The 13-star Betsy Ross flag is deemed just as oppressive because it dates from a time when blacks were held in bondage. The bottom line is that this alienation from American symbols keeps them from identifying as Americans, and that’s never a good thing.
Grammar. Say what? Yes, we increasingly hear multicultural academics rail against the restrictive rules (imposed by white males, naturally) that govern our language. Is grammar a tool of oppression used by the patriarchy? One never knows, do one?
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. His three collections of dark-humored essays are available in e-book form for just $2.99 each on Amazon.
Rick I’m sitting here at 4:00 am on a Sunday morning wondering when our society will completely collapse but when you bring it all back together and make it possible to face all the challenges at our doorsteps. I thoroughly enjoy your blogs and appreciate your humor. I feel social media will be our downfall but hopefully humor will pull us out of the quagmire we now find ourselves. Thanks it’s now 5:00 am and life goes on.
Thanks for the appreciative note, Bill. I’m convinced that humor not only relieves stress but puts current events in perspective so we don’t get bent out of shape obsessing over them. The fanatics on the far left and right could definitely use a humor transfusion.
Today’s moment of humor:
Jay love this, but I can’t send it to people I want to because they don’t have Twitter. Do you know how I can transfer this to a file that I can send in an email or locate the cartoon not in Twitter or Facebook.. All I get is a twitter link any way I have tried. Thanks Ron
Try this: It worked on a mobile device with touchable screen. But should be similar procedure on desktop.
Go to cartoon on twitter.
Press down on screen to enlarge it.
Press again for menu to pop up. (Might pop up on first press).
Choose “save”- that should save it as a jpeg file wherever photos are stored on your device or hard drive, etc.
Thanks. Tried evefything but that.
Almost funny. Pretty good for someone on the left.
But I always get a kick out of the assertion that people who beleive in CAGW, Still beleive the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, Believe Benghazi was a spontaneous attack over an internet video, beleive that regulating the cosmetics of guns will decrease mass shootings,
beleive that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election, Beleive Trump was not spied on.
…
Can accuse Trump of being a “flat earther”
But one thing the cartoonist has absolutely right – is Trump has YOU number. He can yank your chain at will, and you will yap.
Most of the country is not paying attention – because they understand – you have nothing to say.
Rick;
There are moments I share your depressed view of everything.
The messages we are getting from everywhere is – the world is going to hell, things are worse than they have ever been, pick anything – Trump, race, …. the doomsday clock is 30 seconds from midnight.
More recently my wife and I started watching Ken Burns Vietnam. I highly recommend it,
But honestly ANY historical documentary will do.
Life is not perfect, we have plenty to improve on. But we live in the best place in the world, in the best moment in human history – except tomorow.
In 1864 we were killing each other by the hundreds of thousands.
In 1917 by the millions. In 1944 we were exterminating people we did not like in gas chambers.
Burn’s reminded me that in the 60’s we were rioting, and looting and bombing, and the national guard was killing students on campus.
That mass protests took place everywhere all the time.
That we were the lease racist this country had ever been and 10 times as racist as today.
That Gay men were bullied and beaten – by the police.
That women were out of the house, but making much less than men.
In “Love Story” Oliver is attending Harvard – but Jenny must attend Radcliffe because Harvard only admits men.
There are moments I fear the country is being torn apart. That things can not go on.
But then I remember the 60’s – and in comparison today is peaceful and enlightened.
If you wish to understand the causes of the stress tearing our country apart right now, ask yourself:
What would happen – what would life by like, if legislation and regulation stopped dead now ?
If there were no UBI, no M4A, if we enforced the laws we have, but did not create any more ?
We would not bring about utopia, but the world would not end, and infact if we could just accept that government did not need to try to fix whatever irked some group, we would be better off.
Each year standard of living would rise – not alot, but over the years that adds up.
Absent big mistakes by government that rise is built in. Absent new regulation that increase is a little larger and faster than otherwise – not alot, but over the years it adds up.
I lobby constantly for less govenrment – MUCH LESS. But if the only thing we could accomplish is to freeze government as it is and move our efforts, debates, and discussions about how to change the world outside the realm of government, we would be much happier, much better off, the world would work fine. Not perfect, not utopia, but still the best that any human anywhere has ever been able to look forward to.
Are there things we can do to improve life – absolutely! Even if we can not agree on what those are.
But only one group pounds out a drum beat that we are all doomed but for changes that we must make right now.
There is no existential crisis facing us. Not Trump, not climate change, not the environment, not race, not gender, not the national debt.
It is POSSIBLE that SOME of these things will lower the rate of human improvement.
It is possible that some might result in a brief kick in the pants – like the housing crisis,
but none will truly ruin our future.
We can know for certain that our children – male or female – or something else, straight or gay or … will live in a better world in nearly everyway than we do.
While I beleive the apocalyptic drumbeat is coming almost entirely from one side of the political spectrum – you need not share than perspective, to grasp that wherever drumbeat comes from THAT is the force trying to tear the country apart.
Guns:
As I posted above – those looking to “change the world” have the obligation to prove that what they seek to do will be worth the cost.
You can rant all you want about the NRA or Gun nuts. The fact still are:
Nothing that anyone has proposed regarding Guns is going to do a damn thing and EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.
And if you are selling new laws, new restictions – large or small the burden is on you to demonstrate that they will do some good.
They won’t, you know that, this is nonsense about “feeling good”.
and IT MAKES YOU PART OF WHAT IS TEARING US APART!!!!!
Do not start a holy war – unless you really and truly can bring about nirvana.
The civil war and WWII were bloody brutal and horrid. But there is little doubt the world was better afterwords.
There is NOT alot of other things that government has done EVER that that can be said of.
Regardless, whatever the issue – lets get rid of the stupid appeals to emotion, the name calling, and slurs and insults. The pretense that those who do not agree with whatever changes we are demanding are evil or the puppets of rich masters.
If you want to change the world through force, the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that what you propose will meet at the bare minimum the utilitarian ojective of the greatest good.
IF you can not PROVE that – your DONE. GO AWAY.
If you are trying to force your will on the rest of us. If you are trying to restrict our liberty further for some benefit that you can not convincingly promise will come about – then STOP – YOU are the problem, not the solution. YOU are what is dividing us – whatever the issue.
Nature:
Rick,
Can you name a single Malthusian end of the world claim EVER that has proven true ?
One ? Even one that has been “a tiny bit true” ?
These claims that there has been some mass extinction going on have been debunked CONSTANTLY.
Julian Simon addresses mass extinctions and myriads of other fraudulent scientific claims in
“The Ultimate Resource II” which is now available online for free.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
This is nearly 1000 pages of facts, statistics data, as well as links and references and supporting documents that refutes the notion that the world is going to hell.
In 1965 Paul Ehrlich published the “population bomb”. claiming that if we did not REDUCE the world population immediately we would see mass starvation in just a few years.
55 years later – the population of the world is more than double what it was in 1965.
The average standard of living is more than double.
The amount of land we are using to produce food is LESS than in 1965.
The amount of food we produce is more than 4 times what it was in 1965.
There is no mass starvation. Not only can we feed the entire earth, but any nation or people who can not feed themselves today without outside help can not do so because of violent political conflict – war. There is no part of the planet today so poor so barren that it can not produce – even in the worst of times more than enough food to feed its own people.
NOWHERE.
We spew this political nonsense that one side of the debate is “anti-science”
But the fact is reality has confirmed that the “anti-science” crowd, is more likely to correctly understand reality – and REAL SCIENCE is the understanding of reality.
There are an enormous number of very smart people who STILL cling like DOGMA to beleifs that have been PROVEN not just by “science” but ultimately by reality to be FALSE.
And yet even today more very smart well eductated people beleive things that have been falsified often long ago – and these are the people accusing others of being “anti-science”
I consider BELIEF in “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” to be a litmus test – and IQ test of sorts.
In the 80’s ? Maybe you could beleive – though you would still have to get past the fact that no malthusian claim has ever materialized – EVER.
In the 90’s – from about 1974 through 1998 the earth warmed at a rate about 50% faster than the norm of the past 200 years. That exactly corresponded to the time period in which human CO2 emissions finally reached levels that MIGHT be large enough to effect climate – maybe. Yet from 1998 through to the present – 22 years. the rate of increase has either slowed or completely stopped such that the Trend sing 1974 is Below the trend of the prior 200 years.
The Earth is warming – slowly as it has for more than 200 years. Though there is good reason to beleive that warming is slowing, and may stop shortly.
But even if it has not – the likelyhood that 2100 will be more than .5C warmer than today is very small.
Polarization:
I do not care that we are polarized – we have been much more polarized in the past.
We were certainly more polarized before the Civil War, or during the Vietnam war.
The Civil war was really really bad, and if there was a less painful way to cleans this country of the original sin of slavery we should have found it. But in the end we did something nobel and necescary – and bloody.
We were much more polarized during the vietnam war than today.
We were rioting, at war with police, at war with each other. Blowing things up. Marching like crazy. And we survived.
The only danger of the current polarization is that the ballance of power will be such that one group can gain the upper hand and restrict all of our liberties by force.
To some small extent that is near certain anyway. We just need to keep it small.
So long as government grows slower than the economy – we will survive and thrive.
Shrinking government would be better, But merely constraining the rate of growth will leave our children with better lives than our own.
Social Media: Facebook, the explosion of information sources, and the death of the MSM.
While there are growing pains – and much to rant about, overall this too is a good thing.
There exists some evidence that we need to severely limit the social media use of teens – particularly girls from 13-16 as there is a very strong link between social media use in 13-16 year old girls and VERY serious anxiety and depression, But those same effect do not exist for kids who come to social media after 16.
Overall the death of the MSM is a good thing.
There is going to have to be a correction to social media censorhip but left alone the market will eventually correct.
#metoo
Sorry Rick. I do not see what you seem to see.
Absolutely we need to grasp that we can not “beleive all women” or all men or all anything.
We are going to have to ALWAYS weight each claim on the merits and the evidence.
And we are sometimes going to get it wrong.
But anytime we do not generally excercise judgement – we will incentivize bad conduct. Whether that is rape of false reporting.
Abortion: I am not going to weigh in. Except to note a couple of things,
You can view “One Child Nation” on Amazon for free.
This is a shocking and disturbing account of the One Child policy in China and its effects.
And yet the movie still underplays the effects.
Over the last 55 years there have been 338M abortions in China. Most of these were forced, Often they coincide with sterilzation, During the same period there were over 100,000 babies and young children abandoned each year. Between 60 and 70% of these were left to die.
There were more abortions in china ove the past 55 years than there are people in the US today.
Over 1 million chinese children have been adopted internationally over that time period.
more than 1/3 of them to the US.
The end of the one child policy has reduced the population chinese orphanages by 1/2 and all but eliminated abortions and sterilizations, and China’s population is not growing.
Immigration – Sorry Rick – false dicotomy.
This vast right wing undercurrent of xenophobes does not exist.
You can always find one screwball in 330M, but what you claim is a centrist view – is pretty much the standard view on the right.
Nor is this all about racism – unless we are somehow purportedly more racist against brown people than yellow people.
The immigration of “white people” to the US is almost non-existant.
The largest numbers of US immigrants come from Asia.
The next largest from south of the border, Followed by caribean, Sub Saharan Africa, and the mideast.
Rick, thanks for the reprieve from Trump, impeachment, corruption and Democrats in this article, but Dave and Jay will bring us back to that realm of reality in short order.
Most of these divisions you write about are a direct result of our political system. Our Founding Fathers did not anticipate or desire the existence of political parties, viewing them as “factions” dangerous to the public interest. The Founders’ republican ideology called for compromise for the good of the country at the expense of personal interest. Under republican ideology, politics was supposed to be rational and collaborative, not competitive. But once political parties developed, division occurred, grew and created tribes, not much different than actual tribes in third world countries. Special interest promoted by the parties created tribes that now divide us politically, socially, economically and regionally.
And those impacted the most are those moderates who view politics much like the founding fathers.
.
“Republican” used under the “Republic” idiology, not party idiology.
Mostly I think Rick’s article is pretty good – except the fatalism.
And by not addressing Trump or impeachment Rick’s makes it abundantly clear – Trump is not the problem.
Which circles back to the fatalism.
There is alot wrong.
Most of Rick’s complaints, or those of progressives and the left are valid.
BUT, we still live in the best moment of human existance, except tomorow.
The world will not come undone with the next Trump Tweet.
Our future will be less bright – if Bernie or Warren or Biden or …. get elected,
But it will not be disaster, and even if it goes badly – it will not for long.
As screwed up as many things are – ultimately within the past 500 years humans have come to terms with individual liberty, and the results have been spectacular.
Not only has standard of living spiked – but even our screwups are self correcting.
I keep trying to get yall to grasp – Trump is not the problem, he is the response to the problem.
I worry about most of the same things Rick does.
but I know that tomorow will be better. In every way ? No. But overall.
All the things that are screwed up – the amnesia of the benefits of western thought, the censorship the woke idiocy the naratives over fact – in the long run will self correct.
Our memories are not so short as to fail to understand that freedom got us where we are and if we screw it up, freedom will bring us back.
Dave “I keep trying to get yall to grasp – Trump is not the problem, he is the response to the problem.”
I grasped that long ago, about the time of the first debate and Trumps support was around 35%.
I also know that the world will not come to an end if Sanders or Warren are elected. The worst that will happen is MC4A, more carbon regulation, more labor regulations, higher taxes on the rich, progressive SCOTUS appointments, gun control and higher cost due to climate legislation. But overall little impact on middle America.
But no matter who is elected, the real problems will not be addressed. Trade will continue that negatively impacts American industries, prices for healthcare will continue to grow due to government’s control of the way providers are required to bill, drug prices will continue to rise due to the drug patent laws that provide for 17 years of patent and then additional years due to tweaking the drugs or the delivery mechanism, wages will rise, but so will cost because more money allows for increasing prices, so those in poverty will continue in poverty, the rich will still find ways to shelter their wealth regardless of taxes and the climate will continue to warm because that is what the climate does ,even without man. College cost will continue to skyrocket because student loans will continue to be easy to obtain.
However, even if the world does not come to an end, I suspect that due to many of the issues that Rick wrote about will make people much more unhappy with life than they are today. Just because the LGBTQ groups have more rights, manhole covers and mankind are referred to as maintenance hole covers and human kind, he and she are referred to as they, people will not become nicer to each other because government dictates it.
One only needs to look at the years before Trump and comments on social media to see Trump did not cause this problem. Its just that the liberals and left of center leaners like Jay did not disagree with the environment before Trump and now that their is much more conversation 180 degree from what was present before Trump, it just appears to them things have become much worse.
people will not become nicer to each other because of government involvement. What will happen is a continuation of the division in America. People will have friends of like political persuasion, avoid those that believe different. People will marry those with the same political views, avoid others that differ. City people will avoid rural America, while rural America will avoid the cities. Hunters will continue to support gun rights, while city folk will continue to oppse them. The rich will get richer, middle America will grow in their envy of those with money and the poor will continue to be avoided by both. Because that is what a divided country does no matter who the President.
“I also know that the world will not come to an end if Sanders or Warren are elected.”
Great, but an awful lot of politics today is this nonsense that
This is somehow the worst moment in history,
That we are more racist, xenophobic, evil than ever
and that Trump is the end of life as we know it.
Or from the right that We MUST live with Trump as he is or we will get totalitarian communism.
I will admit that at times I feel like we are coming apart at the seems and that we might even be approaching civil war.
But then I watch another episode of Burn’s vietnam – or some other documentary about other times and realize this is just CRAP!!!!
Absolutely we are highly polarized, but right or left (and mostly the histrionics are from the left)
WE LIVE IN THE BEST MOMENT OF HUMAN HISTORY – except tomorow.
“The worst that will happen is MC4A, more carbon regulation, more labor regulations, higher taxes on the rich, progressive SCOTUS appointments, gun control and higher cost due to climate legislation.”
Progressivism, socialism and big government in general are self defeating.
A major factor in the economic doldrums of the Obama era was the economic impact of PPACA. Though the other policies mattered too.
All of the things the left seeks to do – will help some people – though nearly always far less than claimed. The real goal of progressive reforms is to use government to emote caring, not to actually address an issue. Regardless, always the negative impact is greater than the positive.
If Warren or Sanders win – AND they actually get to do what they promise – the economy will tank – proportionate to the amount of what they want that they get to do. And the consequence of that will be a revolt of voters.
If they win and they only get to do what can be accomplished by the executive – we will have the same doldrums that we had under Bush and Obama.
There is a small amount of slack in this – because as the economy grows, as our standard of living rises we can actually afford more of the progressive socialist stuff and even though there is an economic drag to it, the drag is not as bad as if we had a lower standard of living.
If you beleive in individual liberty – then you do not beleive in Government involvement in foreign trade.
There is no difference between government deciding about Trade with China and NY deciding about Trade with CA, or NYC restricting Trade with Baton Rouge.
The laws of economics do not work differently between nations than they do between states or cities.
Economic works to most efficiently match production to consumption.
If China or Ghana can produce some item at a better value to cost ratio than americans – that is how it SHOULD be.
It is unimportant and stupid for americans to produce every single thing they need.
We should not be focused on keeping those jobs that are moving to china or mexico or Bangeledech.
We should be seeking to create jobs that create sufficient value to support higher wages.
Our standard of living RISES when low paying jobs leave the country and are replaced by higher value jobs.
There is no limit to jobs that can be created, and no limit to higher value jobs that can be created.
But there are limits in what specific people can do and how fast people can change what they do.
Regardless, government efforts to meddle with trade are mostly self defeating.
If you “wall” in the economy – you make us all less well off. That is the approach many developing nations took that trapped them in poverty, and it works no better for developed nations.
Dave “If you beleive in individual liberty – then you do not beleive in Government involvement in foreign trade.”
And there is one major difference in your much more libertarian positions than mine. You believe in open trade. I believe in fair trade. You believe that China can close their country to our products, but ours will be open to their’s. I believe if we open our nation to their junk, then they reciprocate. It is just that they way things are today after years of absolute moronic trade agreements, it takes much more resolve by the government to stick to a plan to get better trade agreements in place.
Everyone laughed at Ross Perot when he talked of the sucking sounds of jobs going to Mexico. Once it happened, they no longer laughed and now we have USMCA that is being proposed as a better alternative. Who knows, may be, might not be.
My level of Libertarianism is less than yours, but much more than 90% of the rest of the voters.
If you value “fairness” in any forum over freedom – the results will always be the same.
The American revolution was about liberty.
The french fixated on Egalitaire – equality, fairness.
Life is not “fair”, get over it. You can not make it fair.
You want to strive for fairness in your own life – go ahead. I am completely with you.
But when you involve government – the entire concept of fair needs shoved out the window.
It is possible to come up with a consensus understanding of liberty.
In fact it is trivial to come up with a near universal definition of liberty – if not an agreement on the extent or limits of permissibly liberty.
Government can make choices clearly weighing liberty interests against security, the common good, …
It may not make those choices correctly, but we will usually have a pretty good idea of what is being exchanged for what even if we are not agreed on the relative value of the tradeoff.
We can not possibly come up with even a majority defintion of “fair”.
In the context of “fair” trade – I think it is immoral for you to demand that US consumers must pay more for products that the chiese will produce “unfairly” according to you, in order to “fairly” according to you – protect US jobs.
To me that seems pretty unfair.
It is not important whether you argree.
What is important is that my perspective as well and myriads of others are just as valid as yours.
Liberty can be understood, We disagree only on the weight we give it, not what it is.
We do not agree on what constitutes “fair” we can not, and never will be able to.
Whenever you use fair, you are almost always talking about your highly subjective judgement, NOT anything close to a measurable criteria.
I can not keep the chinese from screwing their own people.
Where we part company is I am not prepared to screw americans to try.
If you think that Chinese products are “cheap junk” do not buy them.
If the majority of americans agree – they won’t either.
It is irelevant whether I agree or disagree with your judgement of chinese products.
So long as I am free to make my own choices.
Yes, I absolutely want the chinese people to have the same freedom – but I do not run the chinese government, nor have even a vote.
What I may not do is restrict the freedom of american consumers BY FORCE to benefit american workers – because in my oppinion that is more fair.
Can you make the same choice FOR YOURSELF ?
Absolutely.
But you are most defintely not talking about “fair” – you are talking about having government or yourself pick the winners and losers. Nothing more. And you are not even talking about amricans as winners over chinese as losers.
You are pitting the interests of one group of americans against another.
And deciding who to use force to favor.
The fact that I do not think what the Chinese are doing is wise does not mean I think we should compete with them in screwing our own consumers.
Dave “If you think that Chinese products are “cheap junk” do not buy them.”
How do you buy something when most of the time this is the only shit you can buy.
Next time I need something and can not find it other than Chinese crap, I will ask you to locate it for me since you seem to think we still produce everything here also.
“How do you buy something when most of the time this is the only shit you can buy.”
That is not true – you just have to pay more.
Further even if it was true – that just means – the market has spoken, those chinese goods you do not like have been determined by the overwhelming majority of consumers to be of greater value.
“Next time I need something and can not find it other than Chinese crap, I will ask you to locate it for me since you seem to think we still produce everything here also.”
Google is your friend. It is not that hard.
There is nothing of consequence that happened as a result of NAFTA that was not both predictable and predicted. And the net impact was strongly net positive.
Absolutely millions of jobs were lost to Mexico.
BUT 4 times as many new ones were created here. Better jobs.
Further both americans and mexicans were on the whole BETTER OFF.
Dave “Absolutely millions of jobs were lost to Mexico.
BUT 4 times as many new ones were created here. Better jobs.”
Documentation please.
Gauging the impact is difficult.
The US textiles industry was destroyed post NAFTA, while the expectation is that it would be saved.
Why ? Not job losses to Mexico, but job losses to china.
Now textiles are leaving china for cheaper countries.
Regardless the destruction of the us textile industry was inevitable.
There are arguments that US jobs gains were not as good as they should have been because of automation – but automation is also inevitable.
The economy boomed from 94-2001.
Some claim the job gains claimed by NAFTA proponents are the consequence of a growing economy not NAFTA.
Some claim the continued economic growth was atleast partly caused by NAFTA.
I believe the statistics that claim NAFTA job increases greatly exceeded losses.
Further the losses were only temporary. 75% of those who lost their jobs attributable to NAFTA had jobs 18 months later.
BTW that is NORMAL for all forms of job losses.
Your factory automates – you lose your job.
Forever ?
No. You go out and get another.
Whether it is china, mexico, automation … reduced consumer prices are a positive ENDURING benefit to consumers.
Job losses if they occur are temporary.
For 22 years I worked for one employer.
In the past 20 years I have worked for dozens.
I typically file 2 W2’s and 6-7 1099’s per year.
I have been fired twice – and rehired by the same person who fired me (and I still work for him).
My work changes constantly, I am self employed. I am 62 and I will be able to continue what I do now as long as I want, and slowly reduce my workload to suit my abilities and interest in continuing working.
Right now I am growing my businesses. I am looking for people to work for me.
I am having lots of trouble finding them.
We have a worker shortage today – not a worker glut.
BTW that is the NORM for a growing economy.
And trade grows economies.
There is no doubt mexico benefited more than the US from NAFTA.
But BOTH still benefited.
According to the Economic Policy Institute’s study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada.
Supporters of NAFTA estimate that some 14 million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico combined, and the nearly 200,000 export-related jobs created annually by NAFTA pay an average salary of 15% to 20% more than the jobs that were lost, according to a PIIE study
So 415,000 jobs lost and 200,000 export related jobs created at 15%-20% more is still a net loss of 215,000 jobs. And the total income is still less even with the premium on the new jobs.
That is one reason Trump wants USMCA to stop any further losses.
The period from 1993 to 2001 was the longest recorded economic expanision in US history.
There were many factors for that.
ONE of those was NAFTA.
The low end estimate is NAFTA was responsible for an additional .5%/year gain in GDP.
The high end estimate is 1%.
Either estimate produces a jobs gain from NAFTA that dwarfs any claimed losses.
The overwhelming majority of the job loses attributed to NAFTA were inevitable and were either lost to automation or to China – not Mexico.
But let me make it simpler. Economic growth from 1993-2003 averaged 4%.
THAT was a really strong economy. Trump would DIE for that economy.
I think all of us accept that some of that growth was due to NAFTA.
How much of that growth – and the jobs tied to that growth are you prepared to give up ?
In 2000 the US government ran a 200B SURPLUS and that would have grown but for Bush and endless wars.
There were 3M new jobs created EVERY YEAR.
1% of GDP during that period of time is 70B dollars/year
“My level of Libertarianism is less than yours, but much more than 90% of the rest of the voters.”
Who cares ?
We are not debating an issue of pure ideology.
We have an enormous amount of data on Trade. We know how all this works.
The actual laws of economics are not ideology – or to the extent they are they are ideology that works.
I would be a communist or a socialist – if it worked.
It does not.
I think USMCA is a better deal than NAFTA – for the US, for Canada, for Mexico, because it is a step close to true free trade.
I can support it as better than the status quo or better than the politically possible alternatives.
But ultimately as something like 95% of economists know – trade barriers are negative, and the country with the lowest barriers – even unilaterally lowest barriers ultimately has a more rapidly rising standard of living than the one that does not.
Look at the economy.
Within the economy – those places where we have the closest to an actual free market – create more and more value for lower and lower cost – they are inherently DEFLATIONARY,
In many cases the unadjusted price is LOWER than the past price.
In all cases the adjusted price is lower than the past price.
But the more heavily government is involved in ANY market then the price is always higher.
Education, Heatlh care, it does not matter what area. The more government is involved the higher the future price will be for the same value.
This “rule” is nearly a perfect binary – black and white.
You would think given how CLEAR it is that whenever government touches something the price rises and the value declines. we would have understood and learned.
This is one of the most crystal clear areas of economic information.
Pick ANYTHING – if government is heavily involved in it – the long term trend will be an increase in the amount of work you need to perform to buy it
If government is not the amount of work you need to buy it will trend DOWN.
UNIVERSALLY.
And yet we are blind.
I do not like our patent system – but our copyright system is MUCH WORSE, and arguably a 17 year patent on a drug is defendable.
The fundimental problems with drugs is not patents, but government.
Some of the most expensive drugs today had their patents expire decades ago.
You can not get FDA approval for a drug that somebody else makes whose patent has expired.
Dave “You can not get FDA approval for a drug that somebody else makes whose patent has expired.”
Please provide source for this statement. I have a good friend in the pharmacy business. I have never heard him say that. Looking at data, the FDA has increased the number of generic approvals over the past few years, not decreasing them.
My mother owned a business making bottle caps until she died in 2007.
She owned one of the few companies in the world that made 22mm screw on bottle caps.
She made a deal with a company to sell them millions of 22mm bottle caps for a generic nitroglycerin tablet
Nitroglycerin has been used as a vaso dilator to pretty close to halt a heart attack in its tracks for over 130 years.
There are no patents on Nitro Glycerin as a drug.
The bottle cap deal fell through because the company could not get FDA permission to sell nitro glycerin tablets.
There are no unknowns here. 1,2,3-trinitroxypropane was first manufactured in 1847.
There is nothing to approve, Anyone who wants should be able to use any also approved inert binder and standard amounts of NG to make generic NG tablets.
But the FDA requires anyone producing a new NG tablet to go through the same process as any other “new drug”.
This BTW is also true of epinephrine – also in use in medicine for 100+ years. No relevant patents. There is a patent on the “epi-pen” auto injector.
But it is trivial to create a new design that does not infringe.
But it is impossible to get FDA approval. Again it most go through the same process as a new drug.
A company tried selling predosed epinephrine syringes. Again a drug that has been available on the market for 100+ years. You can go to the hospital or your doctor and get epinephrine injected. You are allowed to inject insulin into yourself.
But if you are at risk of anaphalaxis as a result of allerigies – you can not buy a cheaper but less convenient predosed syringe. You must buy the epi-pen at significantly inflated cost, because the FDA will not approve alternatives.
This is quite common. It is also true of Premarin – again something patents expired long ago, but the FDA will not approve generics.
Further we actually have laws that require the FDA to operate differently.
But the FDA does not follow the law, and in practice can not be made to.
No one at the FDA will ever lose their job for being overly cautious.
But you could not get aspirin approved today without a black label to address its side effects,
and frankly you just could not get it approved.
No one is going to spend 2B dollars to get a generic epi-pen approved, or generic premarin, or generic nitro-glycerin.
Nor are they supposed to have to – the approval process for generics is supposed to be easier, but it rarely is.
I will further note that the problem is worst for older drugs.
Nitroglycerin, epi-pens, and premarin (or aspirin) did not EVER go through the modern FDA drug approval process. They never had the testing that modern drugs have. They predate the FDA or predate the more stringent laws passed after Thalidamide, and they are permitted because they were grandfathered. But generics of those grandfathered drugs are not themselves grandfathered, and no one at the FDA is going to approve a generic nitroglycerin.
Also politics quite often comes into play – which companies donate to which politicians, or is the company trying to bring a generic NG to market a US company or foreign owned.
Generic approvals should be damn near automatic – they are not even close.
If the FDA wants to – and quite often they do, they can make a generic go through testing as a new drug.
What is “poverty” ?
I recall a government minister in the UK testifying before parliment that poverty in the UK stubbornly refused to budge no matter what they did to aleviate it.
No matter what 16% of britons lived in poverty.
Duh ? Poverty in britian was DEFINED as the bottom 16% of wage earners.
The minister was an idiot.
In the US we have not defined poverty so rigidly – but we still have the same problem.
Most of my tenants are near poverty. All of my tenants have more and live better than I did as a child – and my family was upper middle class.
Americans in poverty as the top 1% of the world. And even globally those in poverty are far far better off than 40 years ago.
Ron,
A liberal is someone who prizes individual liberty.
I am a liberal. One of the things happening today is many older ACTUAL liberals are getting divorced from the Left.
Alan Derschowitz is being shunned by the left – because he remains a “liberal” not a progressive.
Well the Democrats chose that term years ago when the party was left of center and progressives were the far left of center.
So they chose it, let them live with it.
Democrats did not choose the term liberal.
Long ago the term libertarian did not exist. 19th century liberals were what today are called libertarians.
In the late 19th and early 20th century they OPPOSED progressives. In fact at that period of time progressives had more support from conservatives and even republicans than democrats and liberals.
But progressivism proved disasterous – eventually the label became disparaging.
Progressives started calling themselves liberal and over time succeeded in taking ownership of the term. Now they have besmirched the term liberal and are reverting to the label progressive which has lost some of its tarnish over the past century.
I am entirely in favor of that.
I would further refer to my rants over language.
Most of use have a pretty good idea what it means to be marxist, communist, socialist.
Even progressive is relatively well defined.
If someone says they are progressive – you have a pretty good idea what their political values are.
But if they call themselves – or someone else calls them liberal – their values are unclear.
Alan Derschowitz is a liberal, David Rubin is a liberal, Eric and Bret Weinstein are liberals, Stephen Pinker is a liberal, Johnathn Haidt is a liberal, Jordan Peterson is a liberal.
All of these people share reasonably close political values – values that are completely at odds with the modern left. Values that are also at odds with modern conservatism.
I call myself libertarian – because to some extent many people actually know what that means.
But in reality I am a liberal – like John Stuart Mills, like Thoreaux, like Adam Smith, like Franklin, like John Locke, all self identified liberals. All with values very close to mine.
Further there are myriads of texts, and history from then and now that calls these giants of history liberals – because they were.
But the modern left is NOT their intellectual heirs – though quite frequently they have claim to be – though nowadays all 18th and 19th century thinkers are evil white men, so having the left claim ownership of my intellectual heritage is less of a problem today.
Regardless, in the end any word can mean anything.
But it is actually important for words – especially important words to hold the same meaning for long periods of time. It is important for the same reasons that originalism is so important regarding the constitution and law.
In a perfect world we would not have originalism. The meaning of words especially the words of the law and constitutiuon would not change over time.
Some changes are natural and evolutionary and there is little we can do to stop them.
Or even more commonly words drift out of common use and get reporposed.
But sometimes – and quite frequently today we – particularly the left deliberately destroy the meaning of words, as part of the effort to destroy the thoughs and values and principles they represent.
This is the lesson of 1984 – and newspeak.
Liberal is one of the very first words than I know of historically that was DELIBERATELY coopted and ultimately changed to mean very nearly the opposite of what it actually means.
I can live with natural languange changes,. Deliberately deceptive ones are a bigger deal.
I want “liberal” back.
Today we see – the left especially, do this with most everything.
You can call anyone a nazi, a russian asset, as racist, a mysoginist, a homophobe, but god forbid you refer to someone by the wrong pronoun. Or that you should not be completely up to the moment on the politically correct word for someone’s particular minority or victim status.
Nor is this new. We see exactly the same thing in the USSR, or Mao’s china
Use the wrong words at the wrong time – and you are a political criminal. You must be re-educated, and of course the words meaning change practically daily.
Again Both animal farm and 1984 rely on the ability to play games with the meaning of words to bring about dystopia.
Trump is likely to be impeached for “bribery”. It is irrelevant that bribery has a real meaning that has no resemblance to what Trump is alleged to have done.
Bribery tested well in focus groups. It is not important that we accuse someone of something they have done. What matters is that we accuse them of something people beleive is bad.
We have played the same nonsense with emoluments – an old word that was not used for almost 2 centuries, but since there are two emoluments clauses in the constitution – neither of which apply under any definition of emoluments, mangling the meaning of emoluments has become a cudgel to beat on Trump.
Words have meaning – if you want to play with the meaning – write poetry,
When you are using them in the context of government they must be used with precision.
Because it is immoral to use force to infringe on the liberty of others when the words of the law are not clear.
My complaint about your use of liberal raises another issue that Rick dances arround.
Words and meaning.
Orwell’s dystopia’s make it clear how incredibly important it is to control language – words.
And we are watching 1984 happen quite litterally in front of us.
I really do not give a damn what bathroom someone uses – so long as my children are not involved.
Run your own life however you wish – so long as you are not forcing me to do the same.
I do not give a dam whether a round metal plate in the road is called a manhole cover.
But the near infinite manipulation of language, as well as the fixation on Triggers, and so called hate speach, the intersectional offence driven and victim focused world we have, and the massaging of language to re-inforce that the fixation on feelings rather than facts – especially in our language. The fixation on emotional truth and “narratives”.
IS DESTRUCTIVE.
The attempt to use government to control language to change how people think is right out of 1984 and extremely destructive.
We are not merely trying to silence views we do not like by censorship. We are seeking to deprive them of the language needed to express those views.
One of the most fundimental problems we have today is the inability to agree on basic facts in enormous numbers of areas.
And the primary reason we can not agree on facts has to do with manipulation of words.
Not only do those on the left seek to alter the meaning of words – they also seek to unmoor meaning.
Every conflict I have with Jay could be easily resolved if Jay would agree to a fixed meaning to words. It does not matter what meaning, just one that is not maleable.
If Trump and Obama both did X – whatever X is, then if it was wrong for Obama it was wrong for Trump and visa versa.
But we can not agree on that. We can not hold Trump and Obama or Clinton or Biden to the same standards. Worse we do not even use the same words in the same way when talking about either of them.
I am fixating on Trump at the moment – when the problem is much larger than Trump.
But the left makes it so glaringly obvious regarding Trump.
We are told everything Trump does is ahistorical, unusual, deviant, abnormal, extreme,
Yet by any standard that is constant, Trump is only unusual in his style and rhetoric.
Absolutely we are becoming more polarized – but WHO is trying to polarize us ?
I find editorials on new sites about how to austicize your Trump supporting relative at Thanksgiving.
Study after study show that TODAY conservatives tolerate a wide variety of viewpoints.
But those on the left punish deviation from dogma – especially of their own.
I saw this in christian fundimentalists in the 70’s where one minister would send the congregation next door to hell because the baptized twice forward and once backward.
Look here at TNM – if your posts, if your arguments are nothing more than insults – you are driving people apart not bringing them together.
Saul Alinsky has had an enormous impact on american politics – because his tactics WORK – to a point. But fundimentally Alinsky is deliberately about polarization, About creating divisions about amplifying differences, The broad use of Alinsky tactics by any significant perspective will drive us apart rather than bringing us together.
Our founders, our constitution – are not sacred, they are not the end, the pinacle the epitomy.
They are just a monument a way point on the path from slavery to a utopia we can never reach – but get closer to all they time.
I do not care so much about faction or free speach or the 2nd amendment – but about freedom.
“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.Reagan
There is no pivital moment, there is just a path that inexorably leads to greater freedom and greater prosperity.
You can start at Lexington and concord, or with the magna Carte, or Hamurabi’s code.
There is no real start and no end. just the better life that comes with more freedom, and the lessor one without.
WE do not face an existential conflict. Just a speed bump along the way.
The election of Trump is a reaction, to the woke demands for conformity, to being censored, badgered and bullied into silence.
There is an editorial today that identifies the lefts attacks as Trump’s secret weapon.
We see this today and here especially with Jay.
He can not help but point a shot gun at half the country whenever he takes aim at Trump.
Anyone who does not share his views is deplorable, stupid – a hateful, hating hater.
That is why the left lost in 2016, and why they will lose in 2020, and even if they do not, why they must lose ultimately.
Hatred is poison.
Wonderful synopsis of what ails us politically and culturally, Rick.
I have nothing to nitpick, nothing at all.
But I’m not optimistic moderation will triumph.
Hope I’m wrong.
Time (always slip sliding away) will tell.
Thanks, Jay. I’m not an optimist. either. I just hope the bitterness at both ends of the political spectrum resolves itself without bloodshed. Maybe we could use an alien invasion to reunite this country. (I mean space aliens, of course — although I assume they’d be undocumented.)
I have been harping on Ken Burns Vietnam more recently.
I highly recommend watching it. It is depressing as heel and incredibly uplifting at the same time.
In the past decade we have been growing ever more bitterly divided. It is easy sometimes to fear that violence and even civil war are just around the corner.
This is particularly disconcerting as we truly do live in the best place and the best moment of human history.
But Burn’s unintentionally rams that home.
We are fighting about the state at the moment. We are being sold that those in the state – in the CIA, DOD, State department FBI, … are the good people saving us from tryanny.
Yet these same “good people” are in no way consequentially different from the “good people” who got us into vietnam, and relentlessly continued to make it worse and the worse it got the more committed they were to somehow “winning” even though winning was impossible and they new it.
We feel like we are more bitterly divided than ever. In the 60’s national guardsmen were shooting peach marchers, the police and protesters were beating each others skulls in, there were 100 politically motivated bombings a year. Protests and riots were nearly synonymous.
We are told that racism is on the rise that we are in the most racist moment in US history.
In the 60’s we had the summer of rage. We had most of our cities burning.
There were actual KKK members marching.
While I share many of your fears Rick. and I find myself worrying that all this will get out of hand. I am heartened by Vietnam.
Regardless, ultimately we know how this ends.
History repeats itself – first as a tragedy and then as a farce.
I do not know whether the left or right wins the next election.
But I know that while we can not ever kill of the totalitarian left, that it will constantly kill itself off, though it is inevitably reborn, and we start again.
Is there anyone who thinks Venezuela remains “socialist” ?
The only question is when does socialism die ?
In 2020 we have two choices – Kill the extreme left by electing Trump or elect the extreme left and suffer as its own actions drive us to destroy it in 2024 or 2028.
Obama was a small step towards socialism – and 2016 was a backlash against that.
Nothing is more effective in destroying the left than for them to actually gain power.
The problem is that too quickly we forget what the left gaining power means.
Are there all kinds of problems with the right ? Certainly.
Is there some existential threat from the right ? Not a chance.
You talk about the extreme right. What even is that ?
Are the Pat Robertson social conservatives on the rise again ?
Is the KKK marching by the 10’s of thousands ?
Is Cliven Bundy about to stage a million man march in the DC mall ?
What is the extreme right you are afraid of ?
Donald Trump ? Ted Cruz ? You have got to be kidding ?
There is no meaningful extreme right of any consequence.
What if republicans took over the house and senate and whitehouse in super majorities
What would they do that would be as disasterous as PPACA, M4A, Free College, ….. ?
I can complain about some things that some republicans want to do, but the most dangerous thing I can think of coming from the right at the moment would require #neverTrump neo-cons to return to the GOP.
It would require the Chenney’s and Mattis’s and Boulton’s to regain power, it would require a return to the neo-con foreign policy of US beleigerance and the US as policemen of the world.
That is highly unlikely.
You do not have to agree with ALL of this, but much of it is stuff we all already know.
I would further note this connects, democrats, Neo-Cons, never Trumpers, into a gigantic if disorganized conspiracy running over decades to cover their own asses regarding their own incompetent handling of foriegn and particulary mideastern affairs.
The story is simple – the US had a legitimate interest in destroying the Taliban post 9/11 and that is pretty much the only thing we have attempted to do in the mideast since 2001 that was legitimate, and even that was not successful.
Removing Saddam Hussein was a predictable geopolitical disaster that has had the US playing wack-a-mole throughout the mideast afterwords. This disaster sucked in an unified establishment republicans and establishment democrats.
There is a reason that Candidate Obama quietly repudiated the promises to get the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq and to Close Gitmo – because if he had not he would have had the same problems with the “deep state” that Trump is having now.
You can reject (maybe) the notion of some grand conspiracy.
But you can not escape the fact that our military and inteligence and diplomatic core have spent the past 3 decades F’ing up badly in the mideast. AND that much of this was entirely predictable.
While those testifying in the House impeachment inquiry were not the leaders responsible for this decades long foreign policy debacle that has cost the US $7T and got nothing in return.
they were all the foot soldiers in this strategy.
Trump was not supposed to win in 2016. And these people were terrified of Flynn as NSA, as Flynn was intent on exposing their disasterously bad choices over the prior 2 decades.
Once elected Flynn had to go, and Trump had to be reigned in – like Obama was or destroyed.
Unlike Obama Trump refused to be reigned in, and continues to grasp that nothing the US has done in the mideast in over 20 years has been anything short of disasterous, and that there is little or nothing to salvage and we are engaged in a sunk costs fallacy of epic proportions. Unlike most politicians, Trump as a highly successful businessman understands that when something has failed you GET OUT. That pumping more treasure in does not make it any better.
But Getting out leaves almost the entire us intelligence apartus, military, and foreign service with egg on its face.
Lets put this a different way – we have spent the past 20 years replicating Vietnam with the intention of winning this time, and all that can be said is that improvements in our military have resulted in far less dead americans. Otherwise the outcome has been much the same.
Our Military, our Intelligence services, Our Foreign Service have failed us in the same way they did in vietnam. Except that while that failure has been on a larger scale it has not acheived the same degree of public recognition as vietnam.
Both Obama and Trump were “managed” by the assorted agencies, by Selling them a nixonian – peace with honor pig in a poke with the implicit alternative of going to war with the “deep state”
Trump gave “the generals” and Ambassadors and Spooks a chance, and they have failed, and unlike Obama he appears to be done playing games.
Ukraine is a sideshow. It is another F’up of the “deep state” over the past decade.
But it is significant for Trump because Democrats actually did collude with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election. Neither the Ukrainian effort, nor the hugely overhyped Russian effort had any real impact on the election – though the russian witchhunt has tried to suck everything out of the Trump presidency.
Regardless, having survived the Russian witch hunt Trump was preparing to take revenge on the “deep state” and this ukraine nonsense is just their effort to strike first.
But Ukraine is NOT the real focus. The failures in the mideast are the real issue.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/not-a-bad-spy-novel-but-a-national-nightmare/
Sounding awfully lefty
I think you might have missed the irony. When I wrote “Goodbye, Columbus!,” for example, I was mocking the leftist viewpoint. If anything, I thought my latest column tilted a little too conservative — but that’s because the social justice warriors on the left give us so much material to work with.
When I discuss my views on gun control, that is that I actually encourage women and the elderly to own a gun and be proficient in its use but that I also support such things as universal background checks, holding someone criminially responsible if they failed to secure their gun and that gun was used by someone else in a criminal activitiy, and banning weapons that exceed a specific capacity, I am hated by both the pro and con advocates of gun control. There is no mean between the extreme. .
Savannah, what you believe is something many in the middle believe, but support for some like capacity clips fails, not because we dont think that a good idea, but because of government “creap”. Once government gets a foot in the door, they dont stop there. So today, they ban anything over 12 cartridges, then something happens and they ban anything over 8. Finally after instances of violence, they ban a class of weapons and keep going where most guns are banned. It might take 20 years, but it can happen.
Ron,
There are large numbers of reasons to disagree with magazine size limits.
All of those reasons are not determinative – a law can survive if it is imperfect,.
It should not survive if it is not an ACTUAL improvement on the status quo.
Just “sounding” reasonable, does not make something effective.
There are many criteria a proposed law must meet to be moral and effective.
Not being easily circumvented is one of those.
Government should NEVER make laws that increase the number of criminals.
It does not make sense to even Start the process.
None of this at the edges stuff will have any effect.
None at all.
We can debate whether an outright gun ban will have any effect.
The evidence is weak, but what of it we have says that an absolute ban would have a negative impact on safety.
But even that is irrelevant – because it is NOT going to happen.
There are 300+m guns in the US,
There are 10+m ar-15 or equivalents.
Confiscation of those is just not ever going to happen.
I can argue the tremendous spike in violence that would occur if you tried,
But even that is irrelevant – because it is not going to happen.
If you are discussing, thinking about, contemplating a world without guns, you are in some mythical utopia. It is just not happening.
There is absolutely no sane reason to discuss mythical worlds.
In the real world you have a choice of options – none of which have the slightest chance of doing any good, and will do nothing beyond virtue signal.
If that is what you are after – go do it inside your own life. Using the force of government to engage in ineffective virtue signally in highly immoral.
Dave Today SCOTUS debated a law that was repealed by the state of new York that basically prohibited individuals from carrying a gun outside their homes. Basically handgun owners were banned from carrying their pistols anywhere other than seven firing ranges within the city limits. That meant that pistol owners could not carry their guns to a second home, or to shooting ranges or competitions in other states nearby. The lower courts upheld the regulations as justified to protect safety in the most densely populated city in the country.
I have no problems with additional gun laws like background checks, tightening gun show sales, etc. Its a feel good change for the anti gun lobby that will have little impact and only law abiding individuals will follow that, But if that makes them feel good, fine.
But anything that has to do with the gun itself or the rights to carry I am against it because this repealed law is exactly what governments do. I hope that SCOTUS does not bail on it and say it is moot because NY repealed the law, but that might happen.
We already have background checks for all commerical gun sales – that is something like 99% of all sales.
Even the “gun show loop hole” is thoroughly misrepresented. You can find others who will explain better than I, but as I understand – if you are a gun dealer at a gun show, you are not exempt from background checks. If you sell more than some small number of guns a year – you must have a dealers license.
Closing the “gun show loophole” is not about “gun shows” – I do not think a weapon used in a mass killing has ever been bought at a gun show. It is about preventing private individuals from selling (or giving) guns to each other.
That is a REALLY BIG DEAL.
I completely oppose government infringement on the liberty of businesses to do anything that does not involve force or fraud or actual harm to others.
But however bad commecial regulation is, when we foreclose private action that is far worse.
Mostly this just points out something I have said before – there is no such thing as a pure commercial transaction and no such thing as a pure noncomercial transaction.
All human exchange is part of a chain whose tails are ALWAYS private persona gains like comfort, affection, time with family and friends, romance. all the things government should NEVER regulate. The regulation of anything including comerical transactions is ALWAYS regulation of non-commerical conduct and values.
Background checks.
Just about all of us oppose “family separation”.
But there is a reason that family separation started under Obama.
Long enough ago illegal immigrants were mostly men seeking jobs.
They would send money home, or eventually bring them families north.
But we passed laws that made it possible to detain an illegal immigrant captured within 100 miles of the border – hold them until a hearing (usually 30-90 days) and then deport them.
As opposed to releasing them and then spending 18+ months not finding them.
Immigrants adapted to the new law by bringing their families – because we would hold lone males, but we would release families so families got the benefits of the old system.
Obama started “family separation”. but got a political bloody nose.
The families must be separated – because to detain an immigrant until hearing requires charging them with a crime – the crime of illegally crossing the border. We can not charge children only adults, and we can not jail children with their parents. So they have to be placed until their parents are deported.
Trump is more immune to criticism. He has stick mostly to familiy separate and enforcing the laws at the border.
The results – illegal border crossings are DOWN more than 500%.
Family separation is unpleasant but it works.
the point is incentives matter.
The more we expand the number of reasons you can deny someone a gun, the more they will fight or avoid those things.
Many states require people who have a Protection order against them to turn in their guns.
This sounds like common sense but in practice it is STUPID.
Most protection orders are civil and voluntary.
We want the courts – family courts and the like to be able to easily look at one or both parties and say – STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.
Typically PFA’s require no finding. And that is what we want.
But if you tell someone that if their girlfriend, or spouse requests a PFA, they will have to turn in their guns – now they will fight the PFA – and that is NOT what we want.
WE do not want a PFA to be – “you have been found guilty of abusing someone, you must stay away from them” We want it to be “can you just stay away from your ex while we get through all this ?”
Well PFA’s are now a criteria that background checks are considering checking,
As is the no fly list, as is psychiatric treatment.
Do we want people who have mental health issues not to seek treatment because they might lose their guns ?
Laws often incentivize behavior quite distant from the law itself.
Every gun control law has massive unintended consequences.
I do not even support background checks – they have had no measurable statistical impact.
Any law that does not have a demonstrable positive effect towards its purpose should not exist.
We should never be restricting a few peoples liberty to make others feel good.
A law that does not accomplish its avowed purpose should not exist.
Hi Ron, I like to use the simile between gun control and the restrictions that we place on driving. I am all for people owning cars but i don’t want them to be allowed to drive 100 mph except on some type of race track. I don’t want them driving without a license or insurance. I want that license to require passing a test. I don’t want them driving if they are drunk. I want them to ignore stop signs or red lights. I don’t want children driving cars. Yes there are many restrictions on driving a car. This does not mean that the government will eventually confiscate our cars. Rights are limited and without them we have anarchy. You may reply that the Constitution protects our right to own a gun and that it forbids all restrictions. The Constitution does not forbid restrictions. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers they were concerned with the excesses of government, but equally if not more so with the excesses of the passions of the people. They never would have agreed with the notion that rights should be unfettered. Nor would they have agreed to the notion that limitation of our rights means totally cessation of them. If anything, it protects them.
Lastly, I have heard it argued that the right to own guns is protected under the constitution whereas the right to own a vehicle is not. Actually, the right to own a vehicle is protected under the Constitution. When the passage of the Bill of Rights was being debated, James Madison argued that it would be an extreme hindrance to our liberty because it was implying that our rights were limited to the freedoms listed in those 10 amendments. He argued that our rights were much more extensive in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. The Bill of Rights passed but with the caveat that there were more rights than those delineated in the first 10 amendments. The Preamble of the Constitution states one of its purposes is to “promote the general welfare”. What would be more injurious to our general welfare – the government confiscating our guns or the government confiscating our vehicles.
Savannah, nice to have a new person here to communicate with. First, I agree the government does not have the right to restrict ownership of a car, but each state has the right to restrict the way you drive. It is not specific in the bill of rights.
And you look at the constitution as a living document, evolving as years pass. I view it as static, interpreting the words as written.
But what I fear is creeping government. I know few instances where laws were written to cover a few things and they did not grow into complete control. The fear I have with any foot in the door gun control is complete control in the future.
I would expect that the regulation of driving would meet the same criteria as regulation of guns – and visa versa.
That whatever restrictions on our freedom with respect to automobiles is necescary, minimally infringing and effective.
I have never heard anyone propose that if you seek mental health serivces you should be deprived of your drivers license. Yet we seek to do that with guns.
I have never heard of anyone proposing that if you are on the no fly list, you should be barred from driving, yet we have proposed to do that with guns.
Changing the speed limit to 25mph would save 30,000 lives a year.
We do not do that – because we are wise enough to understand that the cost – even in human life would be even greater.
If you seek help from a therapist – should you lose your drivers license ?’
I have a 25 year old car that is essentially junk. I can not get rid of it – because I can not find the title. Laws that seemed to make sense for property valued at half my income make no sense at all for property that is valued at less than a couple of hours work.
We have empiracle evidence that child car seats are at the very best only equal to ordinary seat belts in protecting Children more than 24 months old, and likely actually worse.
Yet we are constantly increasing the age and weight of requirements to place children in car seats.
We know that the strongest correlation between accidents and injury in motor vehicles is drugs and alcohol – approaching 100%. And there is almost no correlation between most other motor vehicle law violations and highway safety – yet we have massive law enforcement efforts targeting motorvehcle law violations that have no impact on safety ?
I hear add campaigns targetting so called “agressive drivers” – yet statistically you are more likely to be in an automobile accident if you drive 5mph below the average speed of traffic than 15mph above it. We actually know that it is MORE DANGEROUS for all traffic to travel at the same rate.
Further it is your comparison that scares the hell out of gun rights advocates.
We are MOSTLY not yet tying all kinds of unrelated things to drivers licenses,
but we are tying them to other licenses.
If you fail to make child support payments or student loan payments or an ever growing list of other unrelated conduct, you can lose your business license, your professional license, your ability to make a living.
There is alot wrong with our licensing system and our automobile laws.
They are NOT a good model for licensing guns.
Madison is far from the only one arguing that our rights exceed those specified in the constitution – in fact the constitution says precisely that – repeatedly.
The priviledges and immunities clause was intended to protect nearly infinite rights from government infringement, But when SCOTUS recognized that the priviledges and immunities clause taken as written would have made slavery unconstitutional, they neutered it.
The 14th ammendment DELIBERATELY echos and gives teeth to the priviledges and immunities clause specifically to add teeth to it.
The reconstruction republicans added the priviledges and immunities clause for many reasons. One of which they spoke EXPLICITLY on – the priviledges and immunities clause was specifically intended to create an individual right for former slaves to own guns.
The evidence of this was one of the driving factors behind Heller and its progeny.
Even more important – the application of the bill or rights and the other portions of the constitution to the states has never been clear. The priviledges and immunties clause of the 14th ammendment explicitly applies to THE STATES.
Nor is the priviledges and immunities clause the only broad bar to govenrment action – the contracts clause – through to the 1930’s prohibited almost all government (federal and state) regulation of voluntary private transactions. Wickard V Filburn effectively erased the contracts clause from the constitution
The 9th and tenth ammendments essentially say what you attribute to madison and were added specifically to counter madisons as well as antifederalist opposition to the bill of rights. They were specifically to address the false perception that the bill of rights lists all our rights.
Madison and the founders would have been as vigorously opposed to govenrment regulation freedom of movement as they were of govenrment regulation of firearms.
With respect to your car analogy – though there are lots of claims – often in state and local courts to the countrary, Driving is actually recognized as a constitutional right.
That has never been an issue. The issue is the level of scrutiny.
There are 3 levels of review that are implicated when a right is infringed on by government.
Strict Scrutiny is the most difficult for government to pass.
As the constitution is actually written – it is the standard that any law or regulation of any kind infringing on a right was required to pass.
Under strict scrutiny very very few restrictions on speech are constitutional permissible.
Currently the only acceptable restrictions on content are those regarding incitement to violence, and the danger must be clear, present and imminent.
Intermediate scrutiny ultimately allows most regulation.
Rational basis review – the lowest level of scrutiny essentially means you have to have a reason – it does not have to be a good reason. Nor does it have to work.
I would suggest reading Randy Barnet’s “Restoring the last constitution” for an excellent examination of the views of our founders as well as the authors of the reconstruction amendments on the breadth and depth of our rights.
Put simply they deliberately intended that individual rights be nearly infinite – and actually said that, and that government powers be narrowly constrained and always requiring justification.
I do not “hate” anyone, based on their perspective on gun control.
Nor do I know opponents of gun control that are hatemongers.
Most everyone I know who is a big 2nd amendment advocate thinks that gun control advocates are just people who have not learned enough yet.
For me the issue is not GUNS, it is about liberty, freedom.
If you beleive – as our founders did, as we have learned over milenia is the only effective way to govern, that government is force, and force can only be used when it can be justified,
Then the questions regarding gun control are straightforward and simple.
Is there an actual proveable benefit that exceeds the cost of whatever you are proving.
The burden of proving that rests ALWAYS with those wishing to use force to constrain others.
All uses of force – as individuals, and through government MUST be justified.
No exceptions.
I do not want to hear your “ideas” regarding Gun Control. I want you to hear a compelling argument – with proof that what you seek to do is the least infringing means of addressing the problem AND that it WILL have a proveably significant beneficial impact.
Those are NOT the criteria for gun laws. That is the criteria for ALL laws.
There are an infinite number of “ideas” regarding solving problems – and so long as you are not using force – aka government – you may try whatever idea you wish.
But where you seek to use force/government – having an idea that “sounds good” or as other posters here sometimes say – is “common sense” is NOT good enough.
What you seek to do MUST provably work, it MUST be minimally infringing, and it MUST not only solve the problem but not create other problems.
I will support any gun control measure that meets those criteria.
I am not away of any that meet those criteria.
Nor is this merely about Guns. If you wish to restrict the cloths I can buy, or the food I can eat or where I can live – you must meet the same criteria.
Savannah, your position on guns is probably too reasonable to be accepted by either camp. I’m with you, of course.
Why is it reasonable EVER to propose anything that if fully adopted WILL NOT have any measurable positive benefit and we KNOW that up front ?
Why is “moderate” fixated on compromise and the “center” not what works and what does not ?
Who cares whether some idea is “left” or right, or moderate if it can not possibly work and we know it ?
Whoever is proposing more government – left or right should ALWAYS at the very barest minimum be obligated to demonstrate that what they are doing will be effective.
If you think something is a good idea – because it sounds good, because it makes you feel good, because it is a compromise. or any of myriads of other purportedly centrist sentiments,
But you have no idea whether it works, but you are ready to do it anyway,
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
And I do not care what your ideology is.
Rick, like I have comment other times, I can accept limited controls. However, can you clarify one issue.
Do you believe in creeping government or do you believe government stops and goes no further once they get their foot in the door?
Do you believe once a crack in the wall of gun rights has been achieved that the progressive government will not continue to chip away at rights when further murders take place?
Creep is not an issue if you START with the requirement that when you wish to impose your will on others by force – which is what government does, the first hurdle is that what you wish to do must demonstrably work.
there should be no disagreement on that. It should not be a left/right/libertarian issue.
If you can not demonstrate that the law you are passing has a high probability of at the very least accomplishing your objective – and hopefully with minimal disruption elsewhere, then left, right, center, libertarian we should all agree – you should not do that.
I am honestly tired of explaining why This ban or that ban is not going to work.
I am not the one proposing the law. It is those of you who want more laws that are obligated to demonstrate they will work.
Sounds good, is not enough.
Dave “I am honestly tired of explaining why This ban or that ban is not going to work.”
Then the solution is stop trying. Some dont agree, some ignore and some dont care. And why not just do the comment on word, then just copy and paste to wordpress. Would save time if you want to continue trying to convince the unconvincable.
Why am I not going to stop ?
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
You worry about going from tiny infringements slowly to large ones.
I think that is the wrong question.
An unjustified infringement is morally wrong – regardless of scale.
A fully justified infringement is right – regardless of scale.
So when do democrats grasp that Faux impeachment has been a disaster ?
I read numerous editorials by left leaning outlets all critical of either Schiff or Nadler.
For the most part the criticism is for failure to get results – the end was assumed.
They are nearly litterally selling Beria’s “show me the man and I will show you the crime”.
All the democrats hearings have been disasterous. According to left media – because they allowed Republicans to run roughshod over them.
What does it take to grasp that republican leverage comes from only one of two places – the facts do not favor democrats, and you either provide a a process that is perceived as reasonable or you face attacks over the process. This is the same whether Republicans or democrats are in power. Both parties tend to obstruct the efforts of the other. Those efforts to obstruct are effective only when there is a real perception that the majority is abusing its power. Republicans have that in spades. When the GOP controlled the house, democrats normallized committee obstruction. But they were ineffective at anything beyond delay – because the facts did not support them, the law did not support them, and republicans gave democrats a process that enabled them to make – or fail to make, their points.
Democrats now find themselves on the opposite side. Having normalized obstruction they have no credibility in dressing down republicans – especially when republicans are bemoaning a lack of due process that has been traditional. And that americans not owned by the left expect as part of processes that seek the facts and justice.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/12/04/the-impeachment-report-is-damning-all-right-for-democrats/
“Do you believe once a crack in the wall of gun rights has been achieved that the progressive government will not continue to chip away at rights when further murders take place?”
Well, Ron, I’m not Rick, but I think that Beto O’Rourke made clear where “gun control” activists are going.
1) blame gun deaths on guns, not people 2) identify guns, not as defensive weapons, but assault weapons 3) anyone who owns a gun therefore becomes a potential assailant 4) public safety requires the confiscation of all firearms, by force if necessary, in order to protect society from these gun-owning assailants.
Once the government has “saved” us from these dangerous weapons, it can better tell us how to be obedient citizens, and rid us of the scourge of fossil fuels, among other things…..
With the following modifications, I agree with your list, Annie Oakley…
1)blame gun deaths on people who use them
2) identify guns as defensive or assaultive weapons, and ban the latter.
3) anyone who owns a gun therefore becomes a potential assailant, as anyone who owns a car becomes a dangerous force – regulate both with rigorous testing and frequent relicensing.
4) public safety requires the confiscation of some firearms, by force if necessary, in order to protect society from the dangers of assault weapons in the hands of dangerous people
2)
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
That requires Assaultive weapons.
From our founding individual gun ownership was intended as a threat against government tyranny.
It is necescary for the people to be sufficiently well armed that government is constrained in infringing on liberty.
That does not require that the people are armed as well as the military.
It requires that the people are armed as well as the largest possible portion of govenrment that would actually use force against them in a conflict with the people of an abusive government.
In east germany in 1989 we learned that 2m protestors against a tyranical government that did not have the support anymore of the police or military could non-violently over through the government.
But it is not always possible to resist tyranny non-violently.
3) NO!
You are no more a potential assailant with than without a gun.
What you are is a more dangerous defender and a more dangerous assailant.
But the odds of your violating the law do not increase with gun ownership.
Regardless, you fail the first test of the justification of the use of force.
You make a false presumption.
The fact is gun owners are statistically more law abiding.
Particularly those “assault weapon” owners. There are about 15M AR-15’s in the US, There are about 160 killings with all long guns – of which AR-15’s are a subset/year.
Of those 160 MOST are justified.
Put simply the proprtion of AR-15 owners who engage in criminal violence is orders of magnitude lower than the ordinary population.
Based on the “evidence” if you want to require licensing and training to reduce violence – you need to target the low hanging fruit – those who do NOT own guns – particularly assault weapons.
BTW who said I thought that our automobile laws were justified ?
4). Absolutely – the government can where actually justified confiscate weapons.
No one is debating that.
I have never seen anyone say that convicted terrorists should be allowed to own assault weapons after their release.
Most states bar felons from owning guns.
Public safety is a justification for restricting rights.
But “public safety” is not a magic incantation
You are still REQUIRED to prove in EVERY INSTANCE that the infringment on liberty is justifed.
Minimally that means you will actually improve public safety as you claim.
You are NOT entitled to assume it.
And thus far the evidence says that most gun restrictions do not accomplish any public safety goals and many make things worse.
Priscilla, after weapons will come speech. We see that on university campuses today after my generation finally opened universities to anyone who wanted to speak. We see that in mass media where more and more opposing views are not covered. Each time and new law is written, drip, drip drip……..
Yay! Finally! Trump talking about something he knows about: toilets!
Hey guys, if you are going to take about anything other than “The New Moderate’s Guide to a Politicized World”, take it back to George W Bush . We don’t need the pissing contest between Dave and Jay with their crap about nothing clogging up this article .Reading there shit storm between each other is like watching are pornographic episode of Steinfeld.
Jay can silence me trivially.
He can say things that make sense.
Dave, my request was so others did not have to put up hundreds of pissing contest e-mails clogging their in boxes. If you and Jay want to slap each other around endlessly like two punch drunk fighters, fine, but can we keep this new blog by Rick on target?
Yes, you are free to post wherever you want if Rick does not say anything. Jay is free to slap back at you. But have you not been taught consideration of others in public or semi-public settings?
I would like to see what a few have to say about moderates thoughts on a “Politicized World” without having to navigate pages of shit you and jay sling at each other hourly.
So don’t read them.
If Jay wants to move this to GWB, or even to private email. That is fine with me.
I’m not reading the damn things. I have to sort through them just to delete them. Being considerate to others is not one of your better traits is it? Why is it so hard to chose one blog over another?
If Jay wishes to move his posts to GWB, that is where my replies will be.
He also has my email if he wishes a private exchange.
I have made alot of comments on “politicized world”.
I know I sound like a broken Drum – but Watch Ken Burns vietnam if you have not already.
It will make you feel much better about the world we live in today. Promise.
I would also suggest searching Youtube for Johnathan Haidt. Particularly his stuff about modern youth.
The current political culture is as it is for a reason. It is heavily driven by changes in parenting and education a couple of decades back. And it is relatively narrowly confined – not merely by age, but even by affluence, our modern nerousis is mostly confined to young white middle and upper middle class.
Do not get me wrong – there are plenty of Jay’s – there have always been SOME people like this. But there has been a massive explosion of anxiety and depression among the younger generation, and that is massively impacting our public culture.
If 10% of the population is normally suffering from anxiety and depression and you boost that to 30-40% in on generational cohort you will radically alter public discourse.
Further you will reinforce the anxiety in the baseline 10-20%
Think about it – we grew up with “duck and cover”. My wife and I did not even think about having kids until we were in our 40’s. We expected the world to end in nuclear winter.
We had vietnam. We had LBJ and Nixon – possibly the most corrupt politicians that ever were. We had the bomb, the pentagon papers, Martin, Robert and John. We had Kent State, We had the weatherman and the summer of rage. We had the chicago Democratic national Convention.
There is nothing that the current generation of young adults faces that comes close to what we had to be anxious and depressed about – and yet they are MORE – MUCH MORE anxious and depressed than we were.
That is at the root of our intense hyper politization today.
Couple that with the fact that while our schools have NEVER done well at teaching civics, logic or critical thinking, but they are far worse today than ever.
So these young adults do not have the skills needed to mitigate their own anxiety and depression.
So if you wish to look at causality – look for WHY young adults are anxious and depressed.
And that is NOT a function of the body politic – at worst that is much better than in the 60’s and 70’s. So why do we have a rising generation of anxious and depressed kids ?
Trump is not the reason.
Healthcare is not the reason.
Politics is not the reason.
The outside world is not the reason.
Our parenting and education are the reason.
The bad news – we are only barely into this, it is going to take a while to understand how we have F’d kids up and change.
The good news – mostly I think anxious and depressed young adults will grow out of it.
Though it may take many years.
The world will not come undone.
The most important wisdom that comes with age is that most things we think are criseses – arent’.
Ron, does my post about Trump flushing toilets equate in your mind with pissing contests?
What does it have to do with a “moderates view of a politicized world.
Its just more of your and Dave’s broken record of I hate Trump, I love Trump.
How many different ways can one make that comment?
Negatives for Trump = infinite ♾. 😏
Some part of what Trump said you have a problem with ?
Do you actually think it is a good idea to have EPA standards that result in more consumption of water as the unintended consequence of trying to reduce water consumption ?
Trump did not address this – but what is the use of water governments business at all.
Water is infinitely recycled. But there are localized limits to how much can be consumed.
We have a system that historically has been the only one ever that converts scarcity into abundance – that is free markets and free exchange.
If for some reason water (or anything else) is scarce in a free market – its price will rise until:
a) Demand declines to meet supply
b) higher prices cause supply to rise to meet demand.
Or more commonly Both.
If water saving appliances make sense – the free market will provide them.
And historically it has,
If the benefits of saving water are NOT greater than the inconvenience – then in a free market water saving devices will fail – as they should.
This is a difference between values and principles.
Free will is a principle. It is immutable. You can infringe on it by force but you can only take it away by the constant and certain application of force.
Efficient use of water is a value – it competes with many other values – like convenience.
And the free market price system is what allows US to rank our values.
How important is water conservation in comparison to convenience, or sanitation, or safety or fire ?
We resolve that through prices. Humans pay more for what is more valueable.
And each human does not share identical values. So some will pay even more for convenience.
In fact one of the reasons we strive to earn more is so that we can pay more for greater convenience. A higher standard of living is by definition MORE free time and greater value delivered.
If we conserve water more than we would naturally do at its market price – we make ourselves POORER, LESS well off, we are harmed by the regulations.
Adam Schiff has just dumped on the world the phone records of Gulliania, and Rep. Nunes.
He has used the power of his office in the house to attempt to do harm to political rivals.
There is no philosophical or legal difference between Schiff’s actions and those of Trump.
Trump and Schiff sought an investigations with political as well as other motives.
Trump used government power to seek that investigation.
Schiff used government power to actually investigate.
Nunes and Schiff are clearly bitter personal and political rivals. There is long record of ethics complaints each have filed against the other.
Innarguably Schiff is seeking to effect the outcome of 2020 elections.
If the mere fact of having a political motive is sufficient to remove Trump – then Schiff must go too.
But most of us grasp that is not enough.
Trump was seeking investigation of actual alleged misconduct.
Schiff is seeking investigation of actual alleged misconduct.
Schiff’s and Trump’s actions are legitimate if:
They have the actual authority to excercise the power of government as he is doing
Trump is the head of the executive – he is the top law enforcement officer in the country, he is the top prosecutor in the country. He clearly has the constitutional power to investigate.
Schiff is the head of the House Intell committee.
That has some oversite power regarding the executive branch, as well as some investigative power with respect to impeachment.
We can argue whether alone he has sufficient power to act, but lets presume that for the moment. That power is still LIMITED to government – specifically the executive branch.
Schiff has no power to investigate Gulliani, or Nunes.
When discussing investigating government – there are no questions of rights – the 4th amendment does not apply. Government is not a person, it has no rights.
It has powers and priviledges. And that is why house excercises of power – such as subpeona’s of the executive when disputed are arbitrated by the courts.
There are no rights involved.
Conversely Nunes and Gulliani are not part of the executive.
Gulliani can not be investigated by government without meeting the same standard – reasonable suspicion that Trump had to meet. And Gulliani can not be investigated by congress at all.
Nunes is a private person and/or a member of congress – not the executive.
This is likely to develop over time – but it is near certain that subpeonaing the records of a fellow congressmen is an egregious ethical violation.
Schiff had better hope that the GOP does not retake the house, because he could find himself the target of the next impeachment hearings run by Devon Nunes.
It is both a crime and an impeachable offense to violate the fourth amendment rights of a person.
And that is one other difference.
Trump asked for an investigation – the standard to investigate is reasonable suspicion – a very low bar.
Schiff issued a subpeona. The standard for a subpeona of a private person is probable cause. Schiff is not even close to that.
“but it is near certain that subpeonaing the records of a fellow congressmen is an egregious ethical violation.”
Snore. Get the facts right. Nunes phone records weren’t subpoenaed. The Dems targeted the calls of Giuliani and Parnas. Bungling dishonest Nunes calls showed up there. Why didn’t lying deceitful Nunes notify the impeachment committee he sub-chairs he was in contact with people who he knew were under investigation????????????
I am glad you know all of this for certain. But given that Schiff is reporting calls about people you claim he did not subpeona to people you claim he did not subpeona – you are wrong about atleast one.
Regardless, it does not matter.
The 4th amendment applies to ALL private parties – that is Parnas, Gulliani, Solomon, and many others. Gulliani is a lawyer. You have a serious attorney client priviledge problem. The 4th amendment arguably applies to Nunes – though oddly there is a court case where a subpeona of the phone records of a congressmen were quashed because of the speach and debate clause. The decision was that your can not investigate a congress person so long as they are presumptively acting as a congress person – i.e in congressional investigations and/or legislation. I think that is a serious overreach. But that is the state of the law. And when that does not apply – the 4th amendment does.
In the case of solomon – the 1dt amendment also applies.
In the case of the executive branch no rights are involved, but priviledges are.
Turley was unaware of this when he testified last week, but he covered it perfectly.
If you act as you are claiming Trump acted – you are committing abuse of power.
If you act as if there are only two branches of government and that you get to proceed unilaterally against the other – you are abusing power.
So far no one has found a precedent where this has happened before – ever.
When you are seeking to do something this unusual – you go through the courts.
The 4th amendment dictates that a search can not be conducted without a sworn warrant.
It is trivial for me to connect the dots here – this is not merely an abuse of power – it is a crime.
A warantless search is according to the US constitution a prohibited use of government power – it is abuse of power. Searches require Warrants. Warrants are not subpeonas. Subpeonas are much more limited ( and usually require court approval). Warrants REQUIRE court approval. Schiff is a lawyer – Schiff clerked for a federal judge and served as a Federal Prosecutor – he KNOWS that warrants are required for searches.
Abuse of government power under color of law is a federal crime – it is also an action that you can sue for – Section 1983.
Get your facts straight. The calls between Nunes and Guliani are from April and May.
There was no impeachment active at the time. In fact nothing being investigated was happening at that time.
Regardless – Schiff can not get records of either Nunes or Gulliani without a warrant – a subpeona is NOT a warrant. Warrants require the requestor to assert that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed AND that the requested search will provide evidence.
Nunes is a clearly a political rival. Schiff’s animosity to Nunes is incredibly well known.
Further Schiff knows better as HE filed unfounded ethics claims against Nunes for allegedly similar conduct.
Gulliani is covered by both the 4th amendment and attorney client privildege.
You can not go after records on ANY attorney without involving the courts – you should already know that from the Cohen case. Not only do you have Trump as a client of Gulliani, but you do not know who Gulliani’s other clients are.
Parnas is a US Citizen – thought SCOTUS has ruled that the 4th amendment applies to anyone being investigated by government.
Solomon is both a citizen and a journalist. Even Obama felt it necescary to get a warrant to search Rosen’s phone records.
As of this moment you STILL do not have probable cause of any crime – you have reasonable suspicion. That gets you an investigation. But without probable cause, you can not search and you can not spy one others.
So far THIS abuse of power is the only crime.
I am not sure what the fallout from this will be.
Personally I think Trump should direct Barr to appoint a Special Prosecutor – that is a start.
Unfortunately I suspect that will not happen.
Regardless, this is something that has never been done before. If there are no consequences, it is going to become the norm in the future.
Should Sen. Graham Subpeona Schiff’s or Pelosi’s phone records ? There are allegations that both had contact with the WB before the complaint was filed.
Or why can’t Barr subpeona Schiff’s phone records ?
Once again the proper standard is NOT politics – though that should drive us to heightened scrutiny. The standard is reasonable suspicion.
My speculation about Schiff’s contact and motives with the WB DOES NOT constitute evidence, not even reasonable suspicion. Just as your speculation about Trump’s motives in an otherwise legal act do not create reasonable suspicion.
Mostly democrats have accepted that – there is no crime in Trump’s actions and a proceeding on the basis that impeachment does not require a crime.
But absent a crime – there are severe limits to any investigation – including Congress.
You can not get a warrant without probable cause of a crime. Subpeona’s require public notice of who you are subpeoning and require that they have the oportunity to quash the subpeona in court.
If this has no consequences – then you are saying the constitution does not apply to congress.
Major timeline problem – these subpeona’s are for records from march april and may.
NO ONE was under investigation at that time. Further the Zelensky call had not occured – Zelensky was not yet elected.
Schiff went on an illegal fishing expedition.
Elon Musk Wins Defamation Suit.
“The victory by Tesla Inc’s outspoken chief executive over a Twitter message describing a British cave explorer as “pedo guy” has raised the bar for what amounts to libel online, according to some legal experts.”
“defendants in modern defamation cases are likely to point to the vitriolic no-holes-barred nature of modern social media, cable TV, and political discourse, in contending that many words and accusations formerly considered defamatory are now understood only as mere opinions, not factual assertions.” Reuters
I beleive in near absolute free speech – even vicsious raw free speech.
I do not beleive there should be defamation laws at all.
I beleive that if we understood there could be no legal consequence for vile hateful lies – we would be less likely to beleive them.
I experienced a version of this myself.
My father died – exactly as predicted by his doctors 18 months prior of complications due to vascular dimensia.
two of my siblings who refused to beleive the doctors claimed just before he died that his MPOA and POA(me) were killing him.
They made this claim to the courts. And the courts intervened – slightly hastening his death and making him miserable.
There was a criminal investigation an autopsy drug tests, and the claim was actually proven false – which is rare.
But the court was not aware of that, and many people who heard the false allegation were not aware of that.
Unfortunately you can not claim defamation based on police reports or court filings.
And claiming that you had been defamed by siblings is a losing battle.
But lots of people are influenced by outrageous claims.
The court never quite beleived the allegations.
But they never quite disbeleived them either.
After all who alleges murder when there is not some hint of something wrong ?
And when does a brother accuse another brother of murdering their father if it is not true ?
I think the Court decision was WRONG on the law.
While I think 190M in damages is egregious. This was defamation.
But I also think the law is wrong, so this outcome is correct.
But I would prefer to see is revoke defamation laws – because they are a bad idea, rather than play games like this.
Pence Coverup: VP hides the bacon Under faux security claim:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/473472-schiff-asks-pence-to-declassify-more-material-from-officials-testimony
The courts get to decide if a national security claim warrants quashing a subpeona – not Adam Schiff.
Take the issue to court.
I am proponent of a very limited scope for national secutity claims and records classifications.
Probably 10 times what ought to be is ultimately marked as classified.
But, Schiff is NOT asking to receive information that is unavailable to him.
Williams testified on whatever this is before – in the House Sciff. The members of the Intelligence committee have already heard it. Any member of congress with a security clearance can be provided with a copy. The house has some unilateral means of declassifying information.
This is purely a battle about making some bit of information public, that is all.
Again lets the courts sort it out.
Generally I do not think that National Security or classification is EVER a legitimate basis for the executive to refuse information to the legislative.
In this case that information was provided. Congress still has not received much of what the house Intel committee requested prior to 2019 – Rosenstein refused to turn it over – for national security reasons
I do not think there is ever a National Security basis for depriving the “Gang of eight” of classified information.
But that is not what we have here. ‘
We have a request by congress to make public something that was previously considered secret. By default the executive should prevail on that.
BTW I am not aware of any unilateral declassification authority of the VP.
Only the president may declassify at whim.
We have a separate game going on here – one which Trump and his lawyers strageized years ago.
They cooperated fully with Mueller. They are fighting everything with the House.
I expect that Trump will lose some of these in court – eventually, if this nonsense continues that long. That is what the courts are there for.
I think there is a snowballs chance in hell of losing this one – Schiff already has the information. This is all about making it public.
The other possibility is that Trump just makes it public – and you have the same mess you had with the Zelensky call.
Jay, I’m curious ~ do you believe that Congress has supremacy over the President?
FYI, it does not, nor does the President have supremacy. The Constitution outlines the powers of each branch, and the methods by which each can check the abuse of power by the other.
The House Democrats are trying to claim otherwise. They’re essntially saying that our system is a parliamentary one, and any demand by Congress for classified or personal information from the President should be obeyed immediately, and with no concern for these Constitutional checks.
Of course, when Obama was asked for documents pertaining to Fast and Furious, a stupid gun-running program concieved in the Bush administration, and expanded in the Obama adminstration, President Obama refused to provide them, citing executive privilege, and that ended the investigation. Just one of many examples of the extremely partisan behavior of this impeachment charade.
The issue is that the Democrats are trying to get this impeachment show on the road, so that they can campaign on it, so allowing the Executive branch any due process or executive privilege, which might slow down or expose their sham impeachment effort is out of the question. As their show goes on, they are losing support, and they seem desperate to wrap it up.
The President asking the courts to decide whether Congress demands are unconstitutional is absolutely appropriate. Why do you think that Democrats are hellbent on preventing that?
What specific documents are Dems asking for that you are referring to?
I do not care much about the details.
It is not obstruction of justice to fail to cooperate with the house.
It would be to refuse to provide what the final court decision requires.
I expect the President to ultimately LOSE on almost every demand of congress for information from the executive branch.
I expect Donald Trump to WIN on almost every attempt by congress to demand information that is from private parties NOT government.
Expect the process might be tedious.
These decisions should NOT be made lightly, at the whim of Schiff.
With respect to the core contention.
It is quite OBVIOUS that politicians act on political motives.
Every egregiously stupid thing that Democrats and Schiff does PROVES that and undermines the case for impeachment.
Schiff’s subpeona of phone records is not distiguishable from what Schiff CLAIMS the president did.
He sought to use the power of OUR government for political reasons against a political opponent.
It would be hard for him to have defended Trump better.
His efforts to thwart due process – exactly the same, arguably within his power,
but not any different from what he is accusing Trump of.
This impeachment is obviously political – and obviously legitimate (though the subpeona for phone calls was a crime).
Just like what Trump is accused of.
If you want the people to support impeachment – beyond those who were ready to impeach on Nov. 9, 2016, you need something to distinguish the two, from merely political jousting.
And you are losing, because Schiff’s conduct is more reprehensible and more criminal and more obviously politically motivated than Trump’s.
Good post.
Much of this is simple.
Congress and the president are almost ALWAYS sparring over their relative power.
The controlling authority is the constitution and the law.
The courts resolve that.
Congress has made some ludicrously broad claims of authority.
So has Trump.
Congress is likely to lose on some of their demands, Trump is likely to lose on some of his claims that he need not comply.
I am not likely to agree with how the court sorts it out.
Probably no one will.
But that IS how we resolve this.
It is NOT abuse of power by the president to claim more privildge than he actually has.
It is NOT abuse of power by congress to claim more oversight power than they actually have.
It is however a crime AND abuse of power to use the power of government to conduct a search and seizure of a private party without a warrant.
Schiff has done that.
The power to issue a subpeona is NOT the power to legitimately subpeona anyone for anything.
The courts have NOT in the past appropriately confined congresses subpeona power to oversight and legislation.
But I think Schiff is highly likely to have problems with the subpeona of phone records of private parties.
Schiffs biggest advantage is that DOJ is unlikely to want to open a criminal investigation of a house member for what is clearly a political act. Even though it is ALSO a crime – unlike Trump’s phone call.
There is actual reasonable suspicion of a crime involving VP Biden in the Ukraine. At the bare minimum there is a huge ethics violation. Biden’s demand to fire Shokin was NOT just bad optics. It was a violation of ethical standards and probably a violation of the law.
The same is NOT true of Trump’s request for an investigation to the Ukraine.
There is reason for heightened scrutiny, but there is not a clear ethics violation, an abuse of power or a crime. Every action that seems questionable IS NOT a crime.
Every action that seems questionable is not even automatically wrong.
Let me clear up your murky misunderstanding about the LEGAL right of authorities (including police) to collect the phone call records of any US citizen.
That means the record list of who-called-who – but not the CONTENT of the call. IT’S LONG ESTABLISHED LAW!
“In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the court said Americans did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information showing who they spoke to on the telephone because the phone company possessed that information. With no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, the court concluded police didn’t need a warrant to obtain it.”
And what is your objection to Americans knowing about that call information?
And you never answered this: why didn’t Nunes advise the committee he was in private conversation with a witness?
I thought you believed in open transparent government? Were you in favor of Trump trying to block public access to White House visitor records (it took a lawsuit settlement to get him to release them as part of a settlement with groups that had sued to obtain them)?
If Trump has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard to hide so much?why is he stopping witnesses to testify?
I thought you were smarter than you turned out to be.
Trump is detrimental to our nation’s future.
Time will show I’m right.
I hope your descendants don’t suffer from the results of his perfidy,
Smith was a 5-4 decision. Further though it has NOT been overruled, the more recent Cellphone location data case is the actual controlling case is Carpenter v. United States,
That was decided last year – all 4 liberal justices signed on to it.
Carpenter is NOT about content, it is about the meta-data – the same thing as the Sciff Subpeona’s.
Further Neither Smith nor Carpenter are about “subpeona’s”.
They are both instances where there were real crimes that were committed and being INVESTIGATED by law enforcement.
Even Ginsburg felt there was enough of an issue regarding the Trump bank subpeona’s to grant a temporary injunction. I suspect Trump may lose that. Though we will see.
Regardless, the most fundimental point is that this still had to go through the courts to get blessed.
“And what is your objection to Americans knowing about that call information?”
That is trivally – the plain language of the 4th amendment is that neither americans nor their government are entitled to know whatever they want to know about anyone else.
Where is it that you get the idea you are entitled to know who Gulliani called or Parnas called or Solomon called or I may call ?
Your wish to know things, is not a right. Nor is Schiff’s.
“And you never answered this: why didn’t Nunes advise the committee he was in private conversation with a witness?”
I fully addressed that – your claim is false. The calls were in March and April of last year.
There was no proceeding at the time.
Beyond that, Nunes is still looking into this.
He is denying ever talking to Parnas. He says there are numerous errors int he call records Schiff made public. He can not swear that Parnas or his wife or someone representing him never called his office – he has no control over who calls his office. But he did not speak to either Parnas or anyone representing them.
With respect to Gulliani, he does nto recall the specific calls – and none of us trust Schiff.
But Gulliani is a personal friend and has been for over a decade and they talk periodically.
Nunes talking to Gulliani in March, April or may would not be unusual.
Though Nunes says he has never talked to gulliani about Ukraine.
Even if he did – that is meaningless.
You still do not have a crime. Without a crime – you do not have a criminal investigation, you do not have witnesses – because we do not impose all those legal standards about dealing with witnesses on ordinary relations to people where no crime is alleged.
Talking to Gulliani about Ukraine is no more offensive than talking to him about Baseball.
This is one of the reasons I have completely rejected the argument that the fact that there is no QPQ matters.
If Gulliani had the conversation Schiff pantomined Trump had done – it would be perfectly legal.
Anyone can ask anyone else to investigated anybody.
It is NOT a crime to talk to Ukraine about investigating Joe Biden.
It is NOT a crime – even if Joe Biden is a political rival.
If it were a crime – then Clinton needs to be in jail many times over.
It is not a crime to seek dirt on political opponents.
There is only ONE case in which there is a crime.
That is when you have the legitimate government power and authority to force an investigation AND there is not reasonable suspicion to do so.
We have numerous democratic members of congress demanding that Ukraine NOT investigate 2016. No one has moved to impeach them. No one has subpeona their phone records.
“I thought you believed in open transparent government?”
GOVERNMENT. I beleive in damn near absolute OPACITY of private conduct absent probable cause that a crime has been committed.
Parnas, Gulliani, Solomon are NOT part of government.
I have not touched the possibility that Schiff subpeona’d the phone records of the Whitehouse or Treasury. To the extent there are any issues there – they are completely different. Though there is one part that is consistent – the 4th amendment requires the permission of the courts to conduct a search. BTW that is a HIGHER legal hurdle than asking for an investigation from a foreign country.
You can game this however you wish – but it is INARGUABLE that Schiff was politically motivated. It is INARGUABLE that he would benefit politically and that he was going after political rivals.
What is the difference ?
Schiff ACTUALLY used government power to conduct a SEARCH. The legal standard to conduct a search is PROBABLE Cause.
Schiff STILL does not have a clear allegaton of a crime.
Trump as president ASKED for an investigation. The legal Standard to start an investigation is REASONABLE SUSPICION
Trump has a clear crime he sought investigated.
If Trump’s action is wrong Schiffs is several times worse.
If as you claim Schiff’s is not – then neither is Trump’s and what are we doing here ?
There is no provision in the law or constitution that only democrats can use the power of govenrment to investigate political rivals.
“Were you in favor of Trump trying to block public access to White House visitor records (it took a lawsuit settlement to get him to release them as part of a settlement with groups that had sued to obtain them)?”
I do not know what Trump actually did – nor do I trust you to report that correctly.
As I rule I strongly favor transparency. I would radically expand the transparency of govenrment – both executive and legislative.
But that is not the world we live in.
“If Trump has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard to hide so much?why is he stopping witnesses to testify?”
Why did Obama do precisely the same thing – on steroids ? Why did Rosnestein do exactly the same thing ?
I can BOTH beleive that government should be more transparent AND grasp that it is NOT a crime for Trump to do what Obama did ten times over.
Get the matter infront of the courts.
Presuming that these document requests do not become moot, I expect that Trump AS PRESIDENT, will lose most of his fights with congress over witnesses – though I beleive it is likely that SCOTUS will not give Congress carte blanche – i.e. that administration witness must be told in advance what they will be questioned on. Must be allowed not to answer questions they were not given notice of and that administration lawyers must be available to them during their testimony.
Conversely Trump as an individual – should prevail against congress. Subpeona’s etc. for tax returns and bank records and …. must meet the requirements of the 4th amendment.
Probably cause must exist of a crime AND probable cause that the search will yield further evidence of that crime.
“I thought you were smarter than you turned out to be.”
More ad hominem.
Grow up. I am not interested in dick measuring contests with you.
“Trump is detrimental to our nation’s future.”
Because you say so ?
So far the key evidence says that he is better for the country than the prior two presidents.
A low standard, but one he has crushed.
And I did not hear this total outrage from you about them.
“Time will show I’m right.”
Time has been very unkind to you so far.
There was no Trump/Russia collusion.
The Steele Dossier was a fraud.
Trump and his campaign were “wiretapped”
Trump and his campaign were “spied on”.
Russian interference in the 2016 election was inconsequential and ineffectual.
Ukraine also interfered in the 2016 election AND democrats “colluded” with Ukraine to do so.
The impact was small – though it clearly cost Trump Manafort’s services.
Even on things I do not care about – you have been wrong.
So far there is no evidence of linkage or a QPQ or a crime.
Pretty much everyone has confirmed that “the call” was exactly as the transcript reads.
As time passes – more and more damaging information about Biden comes out.
And lots of americans can not understand why a congressman can have the phone records of anyone he pleases, But the president can not ask for an investigation into a number of very dubious acts in Ukraine in 2016.
So according to you there is something “suspicious” about Parnas communicating with Nunes. Aparently there is a single short call. Parnas’s wife Called Nunes not the other way arround. Nunes claims she was refered to staff and nothing ever happened.
No one actually spoke to Parnas.
HOWEVER, Adam Schiff has had numerous communications with Parnas.
And Schiff has a long history of meeting with witnesses way outside Washington.
Further Parnas is aparently the source of the false story that Nunes met Shokin in Vienna.
I do not care if Nunes met with Shokin. I do not care if Nunes talked to Parnas.
I do not care if Nunes tried to get an ambassador fired, I do not care if Nunes was digging into Ukraine with Rudy Gulliani.
But while none of those would be a crime or even immoral if true.
None of them is true.
What we appear to have is another version of the Steele Dossier – lots and lots of political dirt being leaked for political purposes – that is FALSE.
And by engaging in this crap over phone records, Adam Schiff is making it look like he is a part of a conspiracy that has a strong resemblance to the Steele Dossier.
You said before that “Time will tell”.
Time is telling a story. Mostly it seems to be telling a story of lots of democrats making up phony claims and abusing the power of government to spread them.
Though Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the house likely is beyond what he is permitted – and the courts will resolve that.
It is actually tame in comparison to that of Obama – or even DOJ under Rosenstein when subpeoned by The GOP house.
Trump is not even close to as non-cooperative as they were.
I personally beleive that the limits on congressional oversight of the executive are SMALL.
i.e. Congress has BROAD powers to demand information from the executive.
I beleive that executive priviledge ONLY applies to communications directly with the president. And does not cover criminal conspiracies – though you must produce probable cause to breach executive priviledge.
I do not beleive there is a valid national security priviledge.
The executive can restrict classified information to members of congress with a need to know and a clearance – but that is it.
I also beleive that congress has its own inherent declassification authority.
That it can make public classified documents.
I think they need to do so orderly and carefully.
I think they should consult the appropriate executive authorities before doing so.
And I beleive that if they do so willy nilly without due process and without deliberately – i.e. VOTING to make something public – that just like anyone else who “leaks” they commit a crime and should be prosecuted.
But if after following a reasonable process either house of congress decides that some classified information should be public, they are free to do so.
If that proves disasterous – the political costs will be paid by congress.
I beleive that congress can demand information that might interfere with an “ongoing investigation”. Again they should do so carefully, but I do not think anyone has the power to tell them NO. Just because their inquiries might “obstruct” an ongoing investigation.
HOWEVER, the consequences of the house or senate prying into an ongoing investigation are likely to result in guilty people being unable to be prosecuted – that happened in the Iran-Contra investigations.
I would further note that Congress CAN access Grand Jury information.
The constitution does NOT bar it.
The current bar is the rules of federal procedure. These are the rules that the Judiciary devises and CONGRESS makes LAW.
Congress is not barred by the constitution, from GJ material. They are barred by a law that THEY passed. They have the power to undo that.
It is entirely possible that if they do, the courts STILL might find against them.
That is a different question – there are legitimate ARGUABLY constitutional reasons for GJ secrecy. But the law passed by congress comes first.
BTW just because congress MAY do something does not mean it SHOULD,
While I favor broad congressional powers.
I actually DO want significant procedural barriers to using them – not absolute bars,
Just requirements to jump through enough hoops that there is time for congress and people to think – is this a really good idea ?
The use of power – by the president comes with responsibility.
Just because you legally CAN do something does not mean that you SHOULD.
Trump should not have fired Comey – Sessions should have.
Comey clearly needed fired.
I think Trump could have handled this Ukraine thing better.
I do not think he SHOULD link aid to invrstigations – but I do think he can, and that means I do not car alot if he did.
Indepedently I think there absolutely MUST be an investigation of the mess in 2016 in Ukraine involving americans. Most of that investigation is NOT likely to produce criminal charges. But the inability to PROVE that a crime occurred is NOT an insurmountable bar to investigation.
Much of dealing with Ukraine SHOULD have been done by the media.
When we have a situation where our media is siloed and those on the left will not touch ANY malfeasance on the port of those on the left, and will take the most trivial questions over conduct and amplify them to impeachable offenses when done by the right – our press has FAILED. And it is a major portion of the partisan divide.
Absolutely media like FOX does the same – though not even CLOSE to the same degree.
Trump/Russia collusion was a fraud that was knowable from the start. It NEVER passed the laugh test. The left claims to be the smart people – and yet they have the ones buying and selling OBVIOUS nonsense. Russia does not have the power to change the minds of myriads of americans, and the Trump campaign could not have “colluded’ with Russia without covert skills beyond those of the CIA and near infinite money.
So what political candidate spends massive resources to prtedictably fail at something they will be in trouble if caught, they are near certain to get caught and they can just go out and buy ?
Anyway people who buy an obvious tin foil hat conspiracy theory should not be making accusations about the intelligence of others.
Of Course impeachment is political.
It is ALWAYS political.
Our founders were not precluding political impeachment.
They could have done so trivially.
They could have required that articles of impeachment have the legal appoval of SCOTUS.
i.e. SCOTUS get to say “article I is NOT a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
They provided no oversite. They left the process entirely to the congress. Vesting separate powers in the house and senate.
What Schiff and pelosi are doing is WRONG, it is immoral, and unethical. And I expect it will have very bad consequences – because if it does not it will become the future NORM.
But it is also constitutional.
There are two checks on the house.
The senate an the people.
I think Democrats should review Prof. Turley’s testimony until it sinks in.
If they succeed the normalization of this will be with us for a long time.
There is some law and constitution going on.
But lots of politics.
And each side is using the law and constitution for political purposes.
I think Trump would ultimately lose most of his legal conflicts with the house.
But it will take months to do so.
Trump’s political goal is for the democrats to look stupid.
Pushing forward too fast is one way of doing that.
Democrats have multiple competing goals.
They have a very serious problem with their own base.
They have amped everyone up on outrage steroids for years.
If they can not keep up the outrage through the election the backlash is likely to be a tsunami.
The extreme left – which now owns the Democrats wants impeachment.
Just as they have from the day Trump was elected.
Any reason will do. They do not need a reason.
Like Jay here – Trump evil. Impeach now, figure out why later, or not at all.
If house democrats do not impeach – far left voters might well stay home.
But the far left is not the country – even though they own democrats and it seems that way if you watch the media
At the same time as democrats are rallying their base they are energizing Trumps base AND losing the middle.
Republicans have always had a similar problem with abortion.
They MUST talk about abortion – because there is a cohort of voters that will not vote at all, if they do not think progress can be made in banning abortion.
But if republicans talk to loud or worse do something that goes beyond what the middle will support – they energize the left and alienate the middle.
That is what democrats are doing with impeachment.
The question is NOT whether it is constitutional – it is.
Nor whether it is political – of course it is.
But whether it is a good idea – it very likely is not.
Another Trump diplomacy failure:
“ North Korea carries out ‘very important’ test at once-dismantled launch site: KCNA
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea has carried out a “very important” test at its Sohae satellite launch site, state media KCNA reported on Sunday, a rocket testing ground that U.S. officials once said Pyongyang had promised to close.
—————-
(Reuters): North Korea says denuclearization off the table in US talks
Country’s ambassador to the UN said dialogue sought by US was a ‘time-saving trick’ to suit domestic political agenda.
“North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations said on Saturday denuclearization is already off the negotiating table with the US and lengthy talks with Washington are not needed.”
——————
But Trump has toilet flush diplomacy under control!
So ?
No one thinks NK is going to be easy to deal with.
Trump might even fail.
If he did nothing – like Obama and Bush – he will fail.
Absent any effort NK is some unknown but short period from having sophisticated nuclear capabilities that threaten not just its neighbors, but the world.
Trump, Obama, Clinton. Absent action, that is happening
Maybe it will happen anyway.
Trump is attempting to thwart that – I support that attempt.
I wish that GWB or Obama had done so earlier.
Trump may fail.
I hope not.
But we will be no worse off than with the inaction of the past two presidents.
Nancy Pelosi was asked by a Reporter why she hates Donald Trump.
The question was fair – reporters have been asking gotcha questions for decades.
Pelosi went off on the reporter.
Though she was not as articulate as the press credits here MOSTLY she responded reasonably.
Except for one thing.
Pelosi has mocked Trump’s manhood,
She has called him an imposter,
Pelosi has been insulting and mocking Trump for a long time.
She is free to do so. But lets not pretend that is no animosity there.
But the more remarkable thing about Pelosi’s respons is how lacking in self awareness it is.
The left accuses others of hatred all the time – but it is not acceptable for anyone to challenge them for the same tactics ?
Pelosi ‘went off’ on an asshole right wing reporter with a history of inane pestering. This was a contextually inappropriate question. If you believe otherwise you’d have no problem with a Rolling Stone reporter asking Trump at a a public meeting how long (maybe how short a better descriptive) he had his dick inside Stormy’s vagina.
That would be the same reporter who worked for CBS, NBC, and Dan Rather and the Obama administration spied on ?
It was a perfectly approriate question. Left wing nut reporters ask the same question all the time.
It is a typical reporters “gotcha” question. But there is nothing wrong with it.
Pelosi’s response was quite good – except that it was an obvious lie.
Regardless, she pointed out that disagreement is not hate.
Something you do not grasp,
Every day 10 reporters as Trump questions identical to Rosen’s.
And atleast once a week they ask Trump questions similar to your hypothetical.
Kamala Harris has bowed out of the Democratic Presidential race.
She – as well as others have attributed her failure to racism and sexism.
And numerous figures on the left have joined in.
Whose Racism and sexism would that be ?
Did Trump cause Harris to fail ?
Wasn’t it Tulsi Gabbard who delivered the fatal takedown – and isn’t she a minority female muslim democrat ?
Is the democratic party drowning in racism ? Mysogyny ?
This week 4 liberal democratic law professors testified before the Judiciary committee regarding impeachment.
Three of those were unbeleivably embarrasing. As one editorial noted – they were so bitterly partisan, nuts and clueless that they ultimately were witnesses FOR Trump.
The 4th, Johnathon Turley is a democrat, did not vote for Trump and is bothered by many of Trump’s actions. But he compellingly noted that Democrats do not have the record to support impeachment, and should not proceed unless they can get it. And the claims that Trump is abusing power by resisting their subpeona’s is itself abuse of power.
The courts not the house get to decide whether a subpeona has merit.
Even losing a fight over a subpeona is NOT abuse of power.
I was just reading an article about the constant death threats that Jonathan Turley is now getting, because he testified that there is no evidence on which to impeach. George Mason University has been inundated with demands to fire him.
Turley actually said that there MAY be evidence, but that the Democrats have moved so rapidly to impeach, that they have failed to do any real investigation. He was a devastating witness largely because he was so measured and non-partisan in his testimony.
If Nancy Pelosi were any kind of true leader, and not just a weak-kneed partisan, who has buckled under pressure from her left-wing base, she would put a stop to this clown show right now, and warn the left that phony accusations of treason and threats of violence would not be tolerated under her “leadership.”
But she is corrupt and weak, and her party is unserious and vindictive. It’s important to them that Turley serve as an example of what will happen to anyone who testifies against impeachment.
The Democrats are trying to overturn a presidential election, less than a year before the next one, simple as that.
The whole thing is a farce, and I hope that they will pay the price for it.
Priscilla – on Jonathan Turley:
Death threats against witnesses who testify at the impeachment hearings are unconscionable. But you conveniently have forgotten the far more numerous death threats made against the witnesses who testified Trump’s Ukraine call was improper; or condemned Trump’s forceful character assassinations of those people which undoubtedly added to the death-threat fever he has generated from his followers beginning with his obtuse personal name calling in 2016.
As to Turley- his testimony was a full flip-flop from his previous legal testimony and musings on impeachment. Here’s a link that lays out his reversal of crucial points of view:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473227-the-shifting-impeachment-positions-of-jonathan-turley
Death threats are unconscionable.
But I would venture that Turley has gotten more “death threats” than the entire rest of the deep state brigade combined.
Jay – join reality. No one is breaking down the doors of those opposing Trump. No one is breaking their ribbs, shooting them on ball diamonds. Beating them up if they wear MAGA hats.
Today and throughout US history there are few significant examples of right wing political violence.
Compare and contrast the american revolution with the French.
There were about 5,000 deaths in the entire american revolution.
There were about 1,000.000 in the french revolution.
“Dont Tread on me” is the defining characteristic of political violence outside the left.
Leave Trump supporters, republicans – even the militias alone and they will not harm you.
But come after them and they are lethal.
The left goes after people. They will kill you or fire you if you do not share their POV.
Absolutely Trump finds and attacks the character of his political enemies – he is extremely good at spotting their weaknesses and exploting them.
But it is entirely a battle of words. There are no actual calls to violence.
Half of Hollywood as publicly fantasized about the assassination of Trump.
And none of us doubt that after they take off Trump’s head they will move on to anyone who thinks like him, and then to anyone who does not think he is the most evil person that ever lived.
Trump is really good at “character assassination” – though his skill rests on identifying ACTUAL character flaws and then exagerating them.
Only the left is talking about ACTUAL assassination.
Regarding your hit peice on Turley.
I do not have exactly the same views as I had in 1998. Is change as you learn impermissable?
As a practical matter there is no actual conflict between Turley’s testimony in 1998 and that today. Clinton perjured himself TWICE, he solicited and got others to perjure themselves – witness tampering. He sought the destuction of evidence.
There is and was absolutely zero doubt that Clinton committed actual serious crimes.
The only question – one that remains today, is whether the commission of a crime outside the duties of the president and the official acts of a president warrants impeachment.
Turley has even in recent columns said that Clinton should have been removed, that his criminal acts are so fundimentally repugnant to the rule of law that even though they are not presidential acts they are just too lawless, and too fundimentally wrong.
Oddly I am more ambivalent. I think the outcome of the Clinton impeachment is appropriate.
Though I think that Clinton should have suffered more serious consequences for perjury and suborning perjury after leaving office.
Regardless, Turley’s remarks then were perfectly correct.
If you allow presidents to commit perjury – a REAL CRIME, A FELLONY, Certainly a HIGH CRIME, what crime is it they can not commit ?
Turley’s argument regarding Trump only appears opposite to shallow thinking.
There is no actual crime in Trump’s conduct. This impeachment is over policy.
The entire parade of witnesses made it absolutely clear that Trump’s foreign policy and national security priorities were at odds with theirs (though nearly all found Obama even worse). But not a one testified to a crime. And just to be clear – “bribing” a foreign country to investigate a political rival is only a crime – if there is no foundation for that investigation.
If you presume that the bright line is “political opponent” and not “reasonable suspicion of a crime” – then you have the logical problem that the entire faux impeachment is the exact same abuse of power. Trump is clearly the political rival of the house democrats. There is zero doubt the impeachment is political. There is zero doubt that Pelosi and Schiff are politically motivated.
Criticising a lawyer because they provided a client with the best possible defense is
repugnant.
My wife defends murders, rapists, peodophiles – and I am incredibly proud of her for doing so.
She does not defend murder, rape, peodophilia.
Porteous was entitled to the best defense he could get.
Had he been asked I expect that Turley would have taken the job of defending Clinton.
I am a big fan of Gerry Spence – he defended Randy Weaver,
But he turned down Terry Nichols, and regrets that.
A lawyer should not be judged by the guilt or innocence of their clients, or their clients character, nor even by whether they win or lose, but by the quality of their representation.
The objective of a defense attorney is to compel the prosecution to make their case, to assure that the defendant has the benefit of ALL due process and ALL reasonable doubt.
“The Democrats are trying to overturn a presidential election, less than a year before the next one, simple as that.”
I agree. They should drag it out until after the election. Prolong it so the faces and names of Republican witnesses who refused to obey subpoenas to testify are plastered daily in swing state media.
We’re in accord! Let his last year light up the skies with even more Trump-dumb fireworks!
I am not going to tell democrats what they should or should not do.
But I am going to criticise your alternate future predictions.
Should house subpeonas complete their legal review, and be upheld and still in some alternate universe go unheaded – absolutely those failing to respond should be excoriated and prosecuted – unlike Lois Lehrner or Eric Holder.
But that is not going to happen. Trump has lost some court cases. Or he has lost at lower court levels. More so than prior administrations, Trump has obeyed the directives of the courts – even if they were wrong.
If the final directive of the highest court to review something require the administration to produce witnesses and documents – that will occur – and if it does not – that is actual grounds for impeachment. It is grounds – even if SCOTUS’s decision is horribly flawed.
Short and fast or slow and thorough – it will not change anything.
One of the gigantic flaws to this impeachment is that it is self refuting.
Democrats are politically investigating a political opponent for seeking a criminal investigation of a political opponent.
There is litterally absolutely no favorable difference between the impeachment itself and the actions Trump is alleged to have done.
Short or long – that comparision will ALWAYS be present.
You can not make it go away.
By YOUR standards – if Trump’s actions were improper – so are those of the house.
but worse – the longer this goes on, the more examples of democrats behaving like they accuse Trump we will see.
So by all means – drag this out all the way to the election.
You have made the case that the state department needs cleaned out.
Lets bring in people from CIA, NSA, DOD, …. lets present ever more evidence that the “deep state” is thwarting the elected president from implimenting the will of the people.
Do you have any doubt that we can find hundreds of witnesses to say that Trump is not following their recommendations THEIR policies, and is therefore dangerous ?
Yes, the way to win elections is to parade an army of witnesses telling the american people that even if they elect a president to do their will – they the elite get the final word.
Keep this up all the way to election day.
I am not sure what happened in 2018.
But I am sure of one thing.
Republicans retained control of the Senate BECAUSE of the insanity of the left in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Everything about that hearing was telling.
Everyone – the witnesses was trying to make an originalist argument.
Listening to Nadler and 3 left wing law professors nonsensically claiming to know what the founders thought was amazing.
Turley was incredible. But Turley was NOT the star of the show. The other professors were.
They wore their political biases on their sleeve. It was absolutely apparant that everyone of them would have impeached Trump on day one. That they did not care what the basis for removing him was – it would be acceptable to them.
THEY made the argument that this was entirely political. Kalman’s stupid joke about Baron Trump was the entire show in a nutshell – as was her subsequent apology.
There can be no doubt at all that the joke was planned – she likely spent weeks before hand working on it, trying it out with friends etc. And then when she delivered it, it went over like a “lead balloon” – Why ? Because Yale, Harvard, Standford Law are NOT the country.
Turley was great, but he was not actually important. The failure of the democrats own witnesses was more important.
The significance of Turley speaks more of the future. Democrats are going so far left, they are driving out their own best and brightest. Turley is a democrat. I follow his blog regularly. He is NOT a Trump supporter. He is not voting for Trump in 2020 – guaranteed.
But he is smart. He is a highly reputable constitutional scholar. The 4 people at the table were probably the 4 most influential constitutional scholars of the left in the coming decades.
It is near certain that Turley is NOT going to be on the left all that much longer.
Like Derschowitz and anyone else on the left who says “Wait this is insane”,
Slow down. Lets get the facts straight, follow the law, think about the 2nd order effects of what we are doing. Turley is being “deplatformed” – as Jay is saying “shunned”.
If you devide the country in half
AND THEN
drive out of your half your own best and brightest – you have no future.
I can name a dozen constitutional scholars who could have made better arguments than Turley. But I can not name one who had more to lose, who was speaking truth to power, speaking ansanity to the insane.
If the left “shuns” Turley – What they will have is a homogenous clown car of the other 3.
Are those the people you want deciding the future ?
Kalman was on Hilary’s short list for the federal judiciary, and then for the Supreme court.
She was supposed to be the left’s next RBG.
Look at those other 3 professors. THIS was the best the left has to offer ?
THIS was the cream of our law schools today ?
Turley was amazing – but the 3 democratic witnesses were the stars of the show.
Because they were the BEST the left had to offer.
I keep hearing from those like Jay that the left is the home of the intellectual, that only stupid people are not on the left.
Well after you have threatened him and taken his job – do you Think Turley is going to be on the left any more ? And how exactly is it you plan on laying legal foundations with the likes of the other 3 democratic witnesses ?
You wonder why lower court decisions go against Republicans quite often – because there are too many people like these professors in the federal courts.
You wonder Why manafort and Stone were convicted ? Why so many Trump actions are reversed by lower courts and then again by the supreme court.
Because intellects like these are the leading lights of the left and them or their inferiors or their alcolytes or those educated by them populate the lower courts.
It was self evident that these 3 leading lights of the law from the left would mow down the entire constitution to get the outcome on each issue that they wanted.
It was self evident that these professors were the powers that be from Animal Farm and 1984 and myriads of left wing dystopias.
That their intellectual predecessors are the people who gave us Stalin and the USSR.
https://spectator.org/vote-for-me-you-lying-racist/
The lying asshole is at it again:
Here’s what the Justice Department inspector general’s report says:
“After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any [informant] or [undercover agent] within the Trump campaign…”
Trump morons don’t get it:
They’re being BRAIN-FUCKED by a despicable dishonest con artist. And are HAPPY as hogs in shit to wallow in his embrace.
I have no idea what the IG has found yet – and I doubt either you or cambell do either.
Nor in this instance is it relevant. We already know that the Trump campaign was spied on.
What we do not yet know – and Horowitz had no ability to determine is whether that spying was by the FBI, CIA, or in coordination with foreign intelligence services.
Horowitz is limited in his inquiry to current government sources within the FBI.
This is why Durham was appointed. It is also why Barr and Durham have made statements indicating that the scope of the IG inquiry was necescarily limited.
Halper was not employed by the FBI. Though the FBI coordinated with him.
One of the reasons for Durham is that Horrowitz does not have the ability to investigate outside of current FBI employees and outside the FBI.
Is anyone dumb enough to believe Trump actually red the IG report?
He’s on the phone now, getting his cues from Hannity & Carlson.
Have you read the full IG report yet ?
If not then why are you insulting others for purportedly not having done so ?
The IG report exonerates Comey.
He was scheduled to appear on Fox tomorrow, before the report was released.
“ FYI: I offered to go on Fox & Friends to answer all questions. I can’t change their viewers on Donald Trump but hoped to give them some actual facts about the FBI. They booked me for tomorrow at 8 am. They just cancelled. Must have read the report.”
James Comey.
The IG report is quite damning – and of Comey.
As I understand it – Horrowitz was unwilling to draw conclusions about motives.
I have ZERO problems with that. I do not care what Strzok’s motives are what McCabes are, what Comey’s are What Trump’s are.
Crimes are ACTS.
Horowitz identifies numerous instances where the FBI failed to follow:
The law,
DOJ guidlines,
the constutuion.
THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER! That is what you still have not come up with regarding Trump.
You seem to think that Trump is vile because he acts within his legitimate power in ways you prefer he did not, and decide those are wrong because of your guess regarding his motives.
If Trump’s actions are constitutional and legal – his motives are irrelevant.
Comey’s actions violated the law, due process, the constitution, DOJ requirements, ….
Therefore they were a criminal abuse of power.
Speculation as to WHY is irrelevant.
If this is your idea of “exoneration” – then Trump is a saint.
Trump appointed FBI Director on ABC:
“We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election,” Wray said, adding that “as far as the [2020] election itself goes, we think Russia represents the most significant threat.”
Trump didn’t like hearing that. The Putin Puppet can’t allow the Russian party line to be questioned, casts ‘deep state’ charges in response.
GOP- Government Of Putin.
Aparently neither you nor Wray are capable of reading the Ukrainain own US embasy web site – or the conclusions of Ukrainian courts.
I am surprised that Wary would say something so stupid.
We are not talking about differences of oppinion. We are not talking about trying to bend what Trump said in his phone call into more than it was.
We are talking about being completely blind to the evidence directly in front of your face.
If Wray is unable to see what is in plain site – not hiding, then it is beyond his abilty to clean up the FBI.
It is very tiresome having to deal with nonsensical claims that the sun does not exist.
We can debate the scale and impact of Ukraine or Russian interferance – both were inconsequential.
But the Ukrainian ambassador to the US publishing an op-ed extremely critical of Candidate Trump in the midst of an election is foreign interferance.
Personally I have no problem with foreign countries expressing their views of US political candidates. I have no problem with foriegn contries making facebook posts.
I have no problem with foreign TV personalities insulting US political candidates. I have no problem with foreign journalists doing the same.
But those of you on the left do.
“I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
For years Donald Trump has falsely spread dishonest self-serving propaganda that the FBI and the deep state was involved in an illegal conspiracy … Now, after A through investigation, the inspector general said, ‘Not true. Didn’t happen.'”
BUT Trump Cult worshipers will continue to shriek those lies anyway. They live in an alternate Trumpian universe created by a Russian propaganda operation using disinformation to divisively undermine and destroy our nation – Trump their Manchurian Candidate provocateur.
Wow, you get one norrowly constrained soundbite in hundreds of pages of relentless misconduct and your off to the races, and nothing else matters.
The Trump campaign was spied on. That is a fact. We are way past that.
Halper was paid by the US government and what he was doing with Papadoulis is called spying. Was he working for CIA ? FBI ? DoD ?
Does it matter ?
I beleive DoD was paying him, but the available evidence is that Brennan was running him.
Regardless CIA and DoD were not part of Horrowitz’s brief.
Horrowitz did not investigate the Deep State – he investigated the FBI, Specifically he investigated the FISA warrant effort, and his results were damning.
He did not exonerate anyone. When you violate someones rights using the power of govenrment – that is abuse of power. It is of little importance WHY you did something criminal.
He most certainly did not exonerate Comey – he did a separate report on Comey that was released this past summer where he refered Comey to DOJ for criminal prosecution for lying.
AG Barr – you know the guy you think is hyper partisan chose not to prosecute Comey over the very Crime that Mueller drubbed Stone, Cohen, Manafort, Papadoulis and Flynn over.
There is no “russian propganda” operation here. Are you saying Horrowitz is a russian agent now ? Are you claiming the Ukraine Ambassador to the US is a Russian Asset ?
Or that the Russians hacked the embassy web site ? Or that editorials that were published in US news did not actually happen – that the Russians hacked reality ?
We have a serious problem – we can not agree on facts, not complex facts, but very basic ones that are plane as your nose.
While I think there is far more evidence – circumstantial evidence or evidence that needs to be further examined. There is plenty of actual factual evidence to support much of what I have asserted – even alot of what Trump has asserted.
Lets try some SIMPLE questions:
Did the Ukrainian ambassador to the US post and editorial on the Ukraine Embassy web site and in a major US news publication during the 2016 election criticising Donald Trump ?
True or False ?
If you say false – you are flying in the face of reality and lots of evidence.
If you say true – the only question remaining is the scale of Ukrainian interference – not the fact.
Did Stephen Halper who is paid by DoD and has worked as a spy for the CIA previously travel to the UK and meet with George Papadoulis during the 2016 election ?
yes, or no ?
True or false ?
I can come up with myriads more of these. But these two are relatively simple and well documented. There is still alot of questions about Mifsud, there are a number of identified FBI informants who were snooping arround the Trump campaign. But it is possible that at that particular moment they were not working for the FBI – unlikely but not impossible.
You complain about a mythical Trump cult. Cults are people who beleive what is not demonstrably true.
They are the people who can see russia in everything – when there is no evidence, and can not see editorials by foreign ambassadors in the news.
“The damage being inflicted by @realDonaldTrump on our national conscience & our government is tragic. Members of Congress & staffers who defend & misrepresent his indefensible actions are telling Americans it’s ok to be dishonest, unethical, & corrupt.
How far we have fallen.“
That’s John Owen Brennan, former American intelligence official who served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, from March 2013 to January 2017.
But brain dead Trumpers, who have fallen to the dim dumb distortions continue to ignore the WAVE of warnings from distinguished Americans like him, to the nation’s peril.
At a moment when Wapo is releasing the modern equivalent of the “pentagon papers” informing us all that the CIA, and DOD and govenrment have been KNOWINGLY LYING to us for 2 decades (and $3T) you think quoting a former CIA director is compelling ?
“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.”
~ Harry S. Truman
(1884-1972), 33rd US President
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
~ William Colby
(1920-1996) former Director of the CIA
“If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched. ”
~ George Herbert Walker Bush
(1924- ) 41st US President, CIA Director, CFR Director, Trilateralist, Yale Skull & Bones Society
Lisa Page should now sue Trump for character defamation –
Jay, you are living in an alternate reality.
Even McCabe has dropped his wrongful termination lawsuit against the government.
No one – not Horowitz, not anyone sane, is saying these people behaved properly.
As I have said myriads of times before – I do not give a crap about your or Horowitz’s or Trump’s or anyone else’s GUESSES about people’s motives.
I care about their acts. It is a crime for a person within the federal government to violate a persons rights.
Speculation as to WHY is only of accademic interest.
Trump is meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow in Washington, that’s the same guy (along with the Russian Ambassador) he met with in the Oval Office in 2017, sharing highly classified information with them.
Want to bet at tomorrow’s meeting Trump and Lavrov share one-on-one private time together, with no notes taken? Wonder what instructions will be passed to Donnie from Vlad?
I would expect given the number of deep staters in the white house who leak like a seive that Trump might well meet entirely privately.
What is your concern ? That Trump might reinstate all the Obama energy programs that F’d over europe to the advantage of the USSR ?
That Trump might end Fracking – to make Putin happy ? That Trump might send blankets instead of Javelin Missles to Ukraine so that Russia could invade.
Who was president when Russia invaded Ukraine.
Who brokered the deal giving Russian oligarchs control of 1/5 of US Uranium ?
Who got hundreds of millions from Russian Oligarhs ?
Whose Son made millions at a no show job working for Russian Oligarchs in Ukraine ?
In 2012 Russian GDP was 2.3T, in 2019 it is 1.6T – which president has made life most difficult for Russia ?
Reality Jay. Try looking at it.
Bottom line: The iG report confirmed there was no liberal FBI conspiracy to get Trump-Putin. BTW, did you red the part of the report showing anti-Clinton pro-Trump FBI agents gloating over his election win?
But yes, the FISA process has serious structural problems. That’s something civil libertarians have been warning about for YEARS, but THE GOP and conservatives never cared about before.
Trump is democracy cancer.
The kind that is contagious.
Make out your will – you’ll suffer with the rest of us when he declares martial law.
You seem to think that if the Horrowitz report did not say something – often things that were outside of its scope, that it therefore proved those were not true.
Horrowitz was not looking for a conspiracy. He was looking for misconduct and he found PLENTY.
The FISA report section is DAMNING.
He found 17 specific errors in the FISA warrant applicaiton – many of which were extremely serious.
He found as most of us have been saying forever – that the Steele Dossier was the keystone to the FISA warrant application – that there was no other consequential evidence.
He found that the FBI failed to provide several bits of exculpatory evidence regarding page to the FISA court.
That is a VERY SERIOUS problem – the FISA court operates entirely EX PARTE.
There is none of the adversarial checks on prosecutorial over reach therefore as with ALL EXPARTE processes because there is no “defendant” or “defendants lawyer” the moving party – the state is legally OBLIGATED to provide ALL evidence – especially evidence that undermines its claims.
Horrowitz found that the FBI mischaracterized – i.e. LIED about Steele’s credibility.
Horrowitz found that the FBI had tried but was never able to corroborate any of the Steele Dossier claims.
Horrowitz found that not only did the FBI fail to corroborate, but they found significant problems with Steeles sources.
Horrowitz found that the FBI put significant effort into verifying the Steele Dossier and that even though with each subsequent warrant aplication they were even more aware how deeply flawed it was they never reveled to the FISA court the fact that its Credibility was substantially diminished over time.
ie. Horrowitz found the FBI defrauded the court.
Horrowitz also found that the Steele Dossier was used to produce that infamous ICA assessment you harp on constantly – though Horrotiz did NOT investigate the ICA assessment so the information that the Steele Dossier not only was all their was to the FISA Warrant application but all there was underpinning the ICA assessment comes from other sources.
Horrowitz found there WAS a conspiracy.
Apparently you can not read. Horrowitz found that the cabal involved in Crossfire Huricane did NOT properly inform their superiors in DOJ
That is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy.
When you are keeping secrets from those you are obligated to inform – especially superiors, you are engaged in a conspiracy.
To the extent Horrowitz “exonerates” anyone – it is Yates and Rosenstein who he says are not culpable regarding their involvement in the FISA warrant because they were lied to by those in the FBI.
He POINTEDLY does NOT exhonerate Comey.
But I will go further than Horrowitz, If you sign of on the work of subordinate – you are CULPABLE. If they have lied to you – it was your job as their boss to know that.
I thought you said Horrowitz found no “spying” ?
“We found it concerning that department and FBI policy did not require the FBI to consult with any department official in advance of conducting CHS [Confidential Human Source] operations involving advisors to a major party candidate’s presidential campaign, and we found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any department officials before conducting these CHS operations,” the report stated, noting that in the future, “department consultation is required when tasking a CHS to interact with officials in national political campaigns.”
CHS == SPYING!
Horrowitz found that FBI did not conduct a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign AS REQUIRED BY LAW since the Church commission investigations of the FBI and CIA in the 60’s.
Horrowitz found NOT ONLY that the Trump campaign was spied on, but that the FBI had from its spies information that was exculpatory that it was obligated to provide the FISA court and failed to do so.
In fact Horrowitz found that the exculpatory information that the FBI had BEFORE seeking the FISA Warrants in 2016 was not made available to higher ups in the DOJ before late 2017
After Trump was president for almost a year.
I thought you said there was no “deep state” and no conspiracy and no spying ?
I should have known better than to trust you
I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”
Or more simply – Horrowitz’s scope was limited to the FBI. This was bigger than the FBI.
Halper and Turk are not mentioned in the report – probably because the evidence is they were paid by the DoD and it is unlikely that Horrowitz was able to talk to them.
Horrowitz also concluded there was no evidence Mifsud was paid by the FBI.
The circumstantial evidence ties Mifsud more to the FBI than other US agencies.
Regardless, Mifsud was with certainty someone’s agent.
And if he was a russian agent – then western intelligence was compromised at very high levels across numerous agencies.
You beleive what you want. I would prefer to beleive that British and american intelligence were not compromised by Mifsud, which means he is a western agent.
“Bottom line: The iG report confirmed there was no liberal FBI conspiracy ”
Try reading – it actually did find a conspiracy – that is what it means when a cabal lies to their superiors so they can continue to do something that they know they would be told to stop if they were honest about.
“BTW, did you red the part of the report showing anti-Clinton pro-Trump FBI agents gloating over his election win?”
So – were those agent investigating Clinton ? If so then we have reasons to investigate that and them.
BTW Strzok was not the first choice to lead the investigation. He was originally rejected because of his laison with Page and because of the appearance of bias.
They should have stuck with that.
“But yes, the FISA process has serious structural problems.”
Lying is not merely a structural problem. The problems unearthed here are orders of magnitude worse than your nonsense about the Trump Zelensky call.
“That’s something civil libertarians have been warning about for YEARS, but THE GOP and conservatives never cared about before.”
Something we agree on. I do not expect ANY significant FISA reforms as a consequence of this. Neither Republicans nor democrats are going to reign in the FISA process.
While Rick covered many subjects, one he did not was our government lying to Americans to promote military actions costing young lives fighting for leaders that cant hit their asshole with a hand grenade.
Once again Viet Nam repeats. Not as many lives, but 1 is too many.
https://www.journalnow.com/news/trending/confidential-documents-reveal-u-s-officials-failed-to-tell-truth/article_bbde1828-8193-55a1-9dcf-2c6a9ff472de.html
And the democrats and republicans continue this insanity. i.e.Trump sending more troops to M.E.
And for the most part, do moderates really give a damn since it does not effect them directly? Was this really just an oversight by Rick? Hum. Maybe not.
Jay is constantly accusing me of being a Trumpster.
I do not trust Trump all that much.
That said what I do, is trust him MORE than most of the GOP, more than any democrat.
Trump is far from a civil libertarian. He is far from a libertarian of any kind.
He is a poor chose for this critical work.
But he is the best choice we have.
Tulsi Gabbard is not getting elected president, nor is Rand Paul.
Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and a raft of other republicans and democrats are NOT going to reign in “the deep state”.
Nor unfortunately is Trump. But he will do more to diminish their power than any of the rest.
That is the best we can hope for.
I am libertarian – that means I have some values held (or once held) by the left, and some from the right.
I want a strong military – that is about 1/2 as strong as today. The US does not need to be able to wage war against the entire rest of the world concurrently.
I do not think we should be paying nearly $1T/year in defense.
We do so because of the power of Eisenhowers “military industrial complex”.
That has had stronger support from the right than the left. But there is plenty of support from the left.
I agree with Jay that Republicans sold out our civil liberties post 9/11 – with the gleeful support of democrats. Neither party has done a dman thing since. Nor will they.
The Horrowitz report will NOT result in meaningful changes.
But we should all remember not only the pentagon papers but now the Afghanistan papers, or the myriads of other instances in which “the deep state” has lied to us.
As you are praising the civil servants purpoertedly speaking truth to power in the impeachment hearings – remember every one of these people – are the ones that created the mess reported in this incredible mess that is the afghanistan papers.
These are the people who have GOT IT WRONG over and over.
Is Trump some foreign policy genius ? Not a chance.
Are the purported best and brightest of the “interagency consensus” – absolutely not.
Look at this impeachment – if Trump is wrong on foreign policy – we can vote him out.
But if these deep staters who are fundimentally testifying that they disagree with Trump on foreign policy – though not as much as they did with Obama – if they “win” there is no checking their power.
Do you wonder why Obama never kept his promises on the Mid east ?
I am not a big Obama fan, but had he actually tried to honor his promises regarding the mideast – I would have supported that.
But the very people – the Bolton’s the Vindman’s the McRaven’s the Yavonovitches, the Ciaremello’s …. would all have been trying to thwart Obama, and ultimately he would have faced impeachment too.
And yes Jay – I expect that the very same Republicans defending Trump for taking on the “deep state” would be attacking Obama.
Are democrats and republicans hypocritical ? You bet your ass.
Had Obama had the big brass balls to keep his campaign promises, We would have seen Obama impeached by Republicans in the house. We would see Meadows and Gohmert and Gaetz telling us that Obama was weakening national security while Adam Schiff, Pelosi and Naddler were warning us about the deep state.
Politicians are mostly hypocrits – get over it.
Figure out the truth on your own.
And get past deciding whether something is right or wrong based on who did it or your speculation as to their motives.
What the hell does any of this Dave “bafflegab” have to do with lies by Bush and Obama and the incompetent military leaders that led 2,500 young men and women to die?
And you state, “As you are praising the civil servants purpoertedly speaking truth to power in the impeachment hearings – remember every one of these people – are the ones that created the mess reported in this incredible mess that is the afghanistan papers.” .
Show me one f’in place I have praised anyone in Washington concerning the impeachment! I have hardy ever praised anyone for anything in Washington except for maybe Joe Manchin and a couple others.
Do you read what is posted or is it just the most recent comment that you access to attach your excessive dissertations that say nothing of importance other than to defend Trump like another messiah.
What you think the only people who have lied to you are Bush, Obama and a handful of Military people ? You think that is the story of the Pentagon Papers or the Afghainistan papers or the multiple IG reports or Benghazi or fast & Furious or ……
I wrote from the top of my head, but I did think I was clear enough for your to discern the STORY is not about Bush or Obama or Trump lying.
It is about the fact that far too much of our government is NOT run by the people, or their elected representatives – whether the president or the congress.
It is run by “the interagency concensus” by our unelected rulers.
As Schumer said regarding Trump long ago – Don’t mess with the IC they have seven ways from sunday to get back at you.
Most every president in modern times has run promising one thing and ended up back pedalling on nearly all promises.
Some of that is partisan politics and the inability of democrats and republicans to get things done together.
But a significant part of that is that you can do what you promised – and face what Trump has from the start – back stabbing by the “deep state” right up to the point of staging a soft coup.
The “deep state” is only Quasi partisan. Today it is more democrat than republican.
But politically it is more like police unions in state and local government. They do not care much about democrat or republican. They care about the blue line – themselves.
They will use democrats to mess with republicans who do not toe the line or republicans to go after democrats who do not either.
I do not honestly beleive Obama came to the whitehouse and said F’ this we are staying in afghanistan and Iraq, and gitmo and starting a few new wars.
Nor do I beleive he came into office and was persuaded by “the generals” or whoever that he was wrong and they were right.
I think he was elected and learned pretty quickly – do not F’ with the permanent state.
In the impeachment hearings we listened to an army of career govenrment employees. Both parties fawned over paying respect for their service. But quickly it was obvious – they were gunning for Trump – not out of hatred, not out of partisan politics – but because Trump made the mistake of beleiving that elected presidents set foreign policy – not the “interagency concensus”. Time and again we were told Trump was violating US policy – that is NOT POSSIBLE – not for ANY PRESIDENT. Time and again we were told he was harming national security – Elected members of congress absolutely positively can claim that. But NO ONE in the executive branch can. The requist degree of national security is a POLITICAL decision – only elected members of government can advocate contrary to that established by the president.
Do not get me wrong – Schiff can howl that Trump is weakening national security. He can impeach because he beleives that. But unelected members of the executive branch ADVOCATE for policies. They provide information, and when decisions are made – they impliment those decisions – or they resign if they can not.
The absolutely MAY NOT openly or sureptitiously attempt to undermine those policies because they disagree with them.
It does not matter whether we are talking about Afghanistan or Iraq, or Ukraine.
The assorted democratic candidates are making promises regarding their actions as president.
Their voters expect they will keep those promises. And constrained by the constitution, and where necescary – and I beleive that is most of the time, the consent of the legislature they are obligated to deliver on those policies – or explain clearly why as president they have discovered they are wrong.
As much as I loath the policies nearly ever democrat is advocating – to the extent that the constitution does not preclude their implimenting those policies AND they can get required legistlative approval – their voters are entitled to expect them to deliver.
None of us should expect that a 4th branch of government – the unelected bureacracy has veto power over anything.
While there is a partisan twist to this – most in government are democrats – they are NOT left democrats. They are more whatever the problem government is the answer democrats.
fundimentally this is not a partisan problem – this is a who governs problem.
One of the things I found most damning in the IG’s report was the extent to which the cabal involved in this was LYING to their superiors. I still have not figured out where Comey fits into this – except that this report at the very least damn’s Comey’s leadership.
The Buck stops at the top, and this nonsense was going on when Comey was the FBI directory. What Horrowitz did make clear was that This was a small cabal of ranking members of the FBI. Horrowitz specifically notes that Yates was DELIBERATELY kept out of the loop, as was Rosenstein, I have not read where Horrowitz claims Comey was part of this, nor where he says this was hidden from him. I am inclined to beleive Comey was part of it – because Horrowitz refered Comey for prosecution in the earlier report.
Regardless, this report may not say the FBI was politically biased but it absolutely says they were KNOWINGLY CORRUPT and they were ACTIVELY hiding what they were doing from their superiors.
To be clear this was NOT what I expected. Horrowitz seems to be saying the corruption ends basically with McCabe or maybe Comey, that it does not extend to Yates or Rosenstein or anyone in the AG’s office – either under Trump or Obama.
I do not beleive that. But even if I am wrong – this is really DAMNING.
Does it matter whether the corruption is at the highest levels of government or at the tippy top highest levels of government ?
Trying to simplify even further.
The “problem” that the afghanistan papers reveal is NOT confined to the DoD.
Government and lying are inextricably interlinked. DoD, FBI, CIA, HUD,
Whether the president is Republican or Democrat – much of our government is lying to us all the time about most everything.
My Rants are basically saying – the Afghanistan papers, the multiple IG reports, the testimony before Schiff – Lois Lehrner, Fast and Furious – all are examples of the same theme. Our government is neither trustworthy nor competent. AND it is NOT under the control of our elected representatives – not our president, not our congress.
Ron,
Can you please quit taking every reply I make to one of your posts as intended to be a litteral attack on Ron P ?
Sometimes “You” is generic.
When I Obama or Trump says “You elected me to ….”
Does he mean Ron P or Dave ? I did not vote for either of them, and I most definitely do NOT want what they are selling much of the time,
you:
pro. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed.
pro. Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one.
pro. Used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb.
“You ” does not always refer to a specific person.
“You” – Ron P, posted an article on the Afghan papers.
I replied making an argument that the problem “You” – Ron P were bringing to our attention was very important, but went beyond DoD, and Afghanistan.
I used the impeachment witnesses as one example of the same problem.
Why were these people being treated with such respect by both parties ?
They were all testifying that they engaged in something more than insubordination and slightly less than a coup. That they arrogantly beleived that THEY set foreign policy.
And like the message of the Afghan papers (and pentagon papers and …)
We are talking about people who have spent their lifetimes BOTCHING their area of responsibility.
While I do not know how Dir. Wray or Jay can deny in the face of OPEN acts in the 2016 election the FACT that Ukraine attempted to influence the election.
I guess they are unable to see things unless they are done covertly or where there is no disconnect between overt motives and presumed hidden ones.
Regardless NO ONE should be arguing that the US has done well with regard to Ukraine.
It is a mess – and the US is partly responsible, and the people testifying in Schiff’s faux impeachment are up to their necks in those failures.
I have subsequently shifted to the IG reports as further evidence of the same arrogance and incompetence.
Yes I did post the article on Afghanistan. I will read your comment again to see how it links to that since I missed it twice.
My FIRST point is that this is ONE of many bits of evidence demonstrating that government is not very good at much of anything. This is not confined to DOD or …
We have a long list of government failures, in every arena that government is in.
These should not surprise us.
The 2nd point is that an awful lot of these examples of failure are NOT failures at the top.
The IG report does absolutely positively make clear that the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was a disasterous mess.
The public political debate at the moment is over whether that is politically motivated wrong doing or not – WHO CARES ?
The conduct was DELIBERATE – that is a VERY BIG DEAL.
I keep trying over and over to get people to understand that motive is irrelevant to criminality.
But even if this was just a giant cockup – it is still damning. And equally important it is NOT all that atypical of government.
During the Obama administration we had a mess ad the VA – that Mess was not “obama specific”. It did not start with Obama, and I have little doubt the VA is still messed up.
Government sucks at doing the critical jobs only government must do.
There is no solution to that – only work arrounds.
But expanding the scope of government is idiocy when it can not do what it MUST do well,
Why do we expect it to do tolerably at things we know the market can and will always do better.
Can you quit channeling Jay ?
In posts today I have:
Written very little about Trump. The fact that Jay thinks everything is about Trump – does not mean I do. I want the 4th amendment back to protect me, and you, and even Jay, even though he does not want it. If that requires railing about 4th amendment abuse of Carter Page Donald Trump – so be it.
Atleast partly defended Obama, i.e. maybe he is just another of the incompetent dupes of the deep state or afraid to take them on rather than the director of one of the most corrupt administrations we have had.
The excepts I have read of the IG report today have told a story different than I expected.
I do not know if I agree yet. Regardless, The IG has “exonerated” Yates, and Rosenstein and much of the DOJ. There is still the problem that this mess occured under their leadership, but Horrowitz is explicitly saying “they were lied to”. I think it is damning that the upper tier of the DOJ is so easily duped.
I still have not figured out where Comey fits into this – whether Horrowitz is saying he was being lied to, or doing the lying. Given that Horrowitz previously refered him for prosecution for LYING – I think the later. But many of the excepts I have read do not have Comey participating. Most of the criticism of Comey is lack of leadership and creating a culture where this was possible.
By exonerating Yates and Rosenstein Horrowitz effectively exonerates Obama.
There is still the problem of Strzok’s text’s claiming Obama was briefed biweekly starting in March 2016. I do not know how you exonerate Obama given that.
I am also willing to consider the possibility that the Lois Lehrner mess might have actually ended with Lerhner – or at worst moved latterally into DOJ (we pretty much know that).
But might not have lead to the white house.
I even defended Schiff and congressional democrats in a backhanded way.
Schiff and democrats CAN assert that Trump is a threat to national secutity – they are elected representatives and they have a voice in policy and national security.
Our unelected bureacrats DO NOT.
Watching this faux impeachment procede, watching these non-witness witnesses, watching the Afghanistan papers watching the IG reports, Admiral Rogers report on NSa surveilance abuse, and many many other examples, I am increasingly inclined to view the unelected government clerisy is the most serious threat to our country – not Schiff or Democrats or Trump.
The lying right targeted Lisa Page & Peter Strzok with vicious smears as the agents who opened the Russia investigation. The IG reports the decision to open the investigation was made by Assistant FBI Director Bill Priestap— he would ordinarily expect quick smears from. Trump, but the lying ignoramus is too busy tweeting against dozens of other report revelations that contradict his dishonest invented conspiracy fantasies about It.
President Toilet Brain needs to be flushed from office now…
Jay – please read the report.
Horowitz Exonerates Yate and Rosenstein. I am still trying to figure out what he is saying about Comey – but his prior to reports damned him.
But starting below Comey Horowitz is DAMNING.
I think that Horowitz’s asserion that this was not political is naive and stupid.
But that does not matter, the actions he documents are CRIMINAL.
And they involve Page and Strzok,
NO ONE owes them an apology. and they could end up in jail – from this report alone.
Just a few of the things I can recall:
The FISA Warrant to SPY on Carter Page was based on the Steele Dossier. The is no chance it would have been granted without the Steele Dossier – and in fact the regest to SPY on page was turned down in June without the Steele Dossier, there is nothing of substance in the application except the Steele Dossier.
So let us dispose of this nonsense that there was any other evidence once and for all.
Horrowitz finds that the FBI investigation into Trump/Russia meets the very low bar – reasonable suspicion needed to open an investigation.
That was BEFORE the Steele Dossier.
Keep that in mind as you keep trying to claim Trump could not ask Ukraine to investigate 2016. The bar to start an investigation is REASONABLE SUSPICION.
But that is pretty much the end of Horowitz being friendly to the FBI.
Horrowitz CONFIRMS that there was SPYING or in FBI Speak – confidential human sources – CHS. He never mentions Mifsud.
He explicitly condenms the FBI for failing to follow DOJ or any other procdures for handlying CHS – SPYS.
I beleive he concludes that the predicates for spying were not met, but the cites I have are muddy on that.
And it just gets worse from there.
He finds that the Steele Dossier was crap. That the FBI knew it was crap. That the failed to tell the courts anything that they knew about its being crap.
That the FBI tried to verify the Dossier – and the more effort they put in the crappier it got.
That if the FBI might have had the basis to start the investigation, that quite quickly they KNEW that they had nothing, that they actually went BACKWARDS, and LOST reasonable suspicion.
And then that McCabe and company LIED REPEATEDLY to their superiors.
If you think this is good – your blind.
The best news for democrats in this is that Horrowitz puts a ceiling on the malfeasance just below Rosenstein and Yates.
And that he somewhat credulously claims that there was no POLITICAL corruption.
Just CORRUPTION.
Horrowitz’s investigation was contained within the DOJ/FBI.
But he does provide some additional facts. Again things that MOST OF US KNOW, but that you have denied – such as that the Steele Dossier was a part of the Intelligence Community Assessment.
So all the posturing about that ICA – there is now a burden on YOU and the IC to prove that the conclusions were based on more than the Steele Dossier.
Horrowitz does not confront it directly – but he does WEAKEN the ICA.
Aparently you can not read.
Strzok did not have the authority to open the investigation on his own.
Strzok DID start the ball rolling. Preistep did NOT want Strzok on the investigation – BECAUSE he was aware of all the Strzok-Page nonsense.
But ultimately he picked Strzok.
Horrowitz found that this entire Cabal was LYING to their superiors – to Yates and Rosenstein, for a long time. That they were actively trying to keep alive an investigation that was on life support from day one and had multiple cardiac arrests,
If you have not figured that out – a group lying to their superiors is a CONSPIRACY,
Horrowitz is at best claiming the conspiracy is smaller and not quite as high level as most of us beleive.
But there is a conspiracy nonetheless.
So you are going to damn Trump because he was not perfectly accurate about the exact membership and scope of the conspiracy that was out to get him WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT ?
Regardless – wherever you are getting your news is full of Schiff.
Conspiracy – Check.
Spying – Check.
Misconduct by Page and Strzok – Check, Check.
Insufficient foundation for a warrant – Check.
Fraud on the court – Check.
Polluted the ICA report – Check.
Lied to superiors – Check.
I think Horrowitz is naive if he does not think there were political motives.
But as I have said repeatedly – I do not give a FORK about anyone’s motives.
If the act is otherwise legitimate – speculation as to motive does not change that.
If the act is corrupt – no good motive will fix that and bad motives just help us understand better. A crime is a crime regardless of motive.
Tom Nichols gets it right!
“Bottom line, however, is that however sloppy the FISA process was, the IG still saw it as legit. You can believe the FISA process needs cleaning up and also believe that the FBI was doing the right thing investigating this bunch of creeps.“
No Jay – Horrowitz did NOT say the FISA process was legit.
Your source can not read. Horrowitz said that in July 2016 – before the Steele Dossier there was “reasonable suspicion” as required to open an investigation.
Pretty much EVERYTHING about the FISA warrant was DAMNING.
Horrowitz is vascilating throught the report as to whether the FBI’s investigation which relentlessly UNDERMINED their evidence might have also dropped below the “resonable suspicion level requiring them to SHUTDOWN the investigation.
Not only do you need reasonable suspicion to start an investigation – but if you find the evidence you relied on is wrong, and you do not get other evidence you lose reasonable suspicion and must stop.
Horrowitz NEVER finds the FBI had more than reasonable suspicion.
The standard for a warrant is probable cause. That is a far higher standard.
The FISA Warrant was fraudulently obtained.
This is NOT “sloppiness” – Horrowitz says those involved lied to the court, and to their superiors. That is Corrupt.
There is no – the FBI was “doing the right thing” – Over and Over Horrowitz notes they were doing the WRONG thing. They barely had enough to start an investigation, they near certainly lost that as they discovered no new evidence and slowly discredited the evidence they thought they had.
They did not follow the law requiring them to notify the Trump campaign that they were spying on it – the required “defensive briefing”. They did not seek the DOJ authority to procede without the defensive breifing.
And lets make this clear. While Horrowitz did NOT investigate the Trump campaign.
He did review all of what the FBI had gleaned from its investigation.
And he found that BEFORE the end, the FBI had sufficiently less that they should have shutdown the investigation. because they new this was all a lie.
Horrowitz did not find that the Trump Campaign was not “creepy”
Horrowitz found that the FBI found that there was nothing there.
And Horrowitz has created a huge problem for Mueller.
Horrowitz did NOT go into the Mueller investigation.
But he did find that the FBI – many of the same people who were brought into Mueller’s investigation KNEW at the start of the Mueller investigation that they had nothing.
That there was nothing in the Steele Dossier.
Had these people not LIED to Rosenstein he NEVER would have appointed a special counsel.
Horrowitz found that the FBI found that there was nothing to investigate BEFORE Trump was inaugurated.
Do I have to start posting quotes from the IG report ?
Or are you going to quit this nonsense ?
Reasonable suspicion is the standard to start the investigation. That is the only standard Horrowitz ever found was met.
Probable cause is the standard for a warrant.
Horrowits found that the FBI KNEW they did not have probable cause when they went to the court.
Love your stuff, Rick.
President Boorish Bullshit Artist At It Again.
“Trump Lashes Out at F.B.I. Director Over Report on Russia Inquiry
The president suggested he lacked confidence in his own F.B.I. director because the director did not share his view of a long-awaited inspector general report.” NYT
This dangerous unstable retard needs to be REMOVED from power. Unless underlings subserviently kiss his ass on everything he says (like despicable toady Barr) he demeans them, no matter how truthful their opinions.
Don’t you Trumpsters understand how deleterious an unstable buffoon like him he is to our government…
Jay – you posted here that Wray said that there was no 2016 Ukraine election interference.
That remark is so OBVIOUSLY false – that I have no confidence in Wray.
I do not know what Wray would say anything so nonsensical.
We can all debate the SCALE of Ukraine interference, the extent to which americans were involved. the importance of Ukraine interferance. There are SOME specific allegations that are less certain than others. But there a couple of examples that are absolutely beyond any doubt at all.
The fact that you and the media are in denial, is just proof that your ability to perceive the world is severely compromised by your political biases.
But Wray repeating such nonsense is very disturbing.
It is similar to but smaller scale to Clappers claim that the NSA was not engaged in mass surveilance.
It is something that Wray either knows better or damn well should no better.
There are plenty of non-answer answers wray could have given.
It was not necescary for him to toe some political line supporting Trump.
But you do not as head of the FBI flatly contradict the president AND be WRONG.
Wray could have simply said no comment.
Or any of a number of other noncomital responses.
I have not been impressed by Wray from the start.
But then unlike you I do not start with some presumption that the people in positions of power in government are either inherently competent or inherently good.
If they were either – they would not likely be in government.
Our founders did not conceive of government of permanent civil servants. Their idea was that public service was something that people did AFTER they had been successful.
They did Not want people like Trump as president – they wanted them THROUGHOUT government.
I am going to refer to “the ugly american” again. I would strongly recommend reading it.
And then watching Ken Burns vietnam.
I think Trump’s “Make American Great Again” theme was brilliant.
What “Makes America Great” -is NOT our govenrment. That is a mess.
You say Trump is deletorious to our govenrment – SO WHAT ?
Our government sucks.
Our FORM of govenrment may suck less than all other forms of government.
But that does not make it good.
America is Great – our Government is not.
Being the lessor of all evils is NOT Great.
The overwhelming evidence that our Government sucks – is not unique to the Trump administration.
We can argue about details of the Horrowitz report.
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO argument that Horrowitz found a MESS.
That the very best you can say and what the left is hanging their hat on is significant incompetence of a significant number of people just below the top of the FBI.
That is NOT a victory of any sorts.
What is also true is THAT IS NOT UNUSUAL.
We have the afghanistan papers saying that NOTHING have changes in the 50 years since Vietnam.
We have Fast & Furious, IRSgate, Benghazi, U1, Iraqi Yellow Cake, the VA, …..
Again you can presume political motives or just gross incompetence, regardless they are REAL and they are PERVASIVE through out our government.
Is Trump undermining respect for Government ?
Absolutely.
Our government is not worthy of that respect.
And that is where you and I FUNDIMENTALLY differ.
I understand that “Government Is Like Fire, a Dangerous Servant and a Fearful Master”
it is ALWAYS to be viewed with suspicion, and always to be tightly reigned in.
You are completely clueless to that.
You see an armada of good career civil servants testifying about the dangers of Trump.
I see people that self evidently should not be trusted with power over others. Who think they are a law unto themselves. Who think they are in control, not the president, not the people.
That difference has nothing to do with Trump.
Thanks to Trump and his toadies who keep rationalizing his lies and distortions of facts, millions of Americans now believe Russia is our friend and the FBI is our enemy.
Duh- that’s a result of Russian kompromat
I am aware of no one who thinks Russia is our friend.
They are just another country. They have their own interests, which are sometimes shared with us and sometimes at odds with ours.
YOU are the one who has only recently and only driven by Trump pushed this nonsense that we should thwart everything Russian. That our entire foreign policy should be opposing Russia in everything.
Yet, just a few years ago you were telling us all there was nothing there with the Uranium One Deal.
Forget whether that deal is emblematic of Clinton Corruption.
That deal was ABSOLUTELY reflective of a view that SOMETIMES the US shares mutually beneficial interests with Russia.
Something that you completely deny today.
A few years ago with different politics, you were able to grasp that our relationship to Russia was not ALWAYS as adversaries.
Today you can’t.
YOU are the one who has changed.
I would have zero problem either abolishing or significantly scaling back the FBI,
For about half of US history we had no FBI and we did fine.
I do not see any need for an FBI.
I do not beleive any agency in the US govenrment is my friend – and the evidence supports that.
That is not a new beleif, That is not a belief lacking evidence.
Ron noted the recently released Afghanistan papers showing that nothing has changed since Vietnam. That we are still clueless in the area of military and foreign policy.
During Obama we had a Mess at the VA – I do not think we or Trump fixed it. At best it is covered up, and maybe a tiny bit improved. The VA is still a disaster.
I can go from agency to agency. Bush, Obama, Trump – does not matter.
Whatever power they have they are abusing.
With political motives ? Does it matter ?
Does it matter if the clerk in the DMV is fucking you over because she does not give a shit about her job or because you have a MAGA hat on ?
Read the Damn Horrowitz report! Get past the politics, ignore the politics entirely.
WHATEVER the motives a cabal near the top of the FBI put this entire country through three years of HELL. Does it matter whether they were politically motivated ? Does it matter WHY they did something absolutely reprehensible ?
And you think that we should think the FBI is our Friend ?
What rock do you live under ?
Today’s delusional rant by Trump Stooge AG Barr:
: “I think our nation was turned on its head for 3 years, I think based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned & hyped by an irresponsible press. I think that there were gross abuses of FISA & inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in FBI.”
Compare the hypocrites remark with his praise for Comey reopening the Clinton email probe right before the 2016 election.
I have serious problems with Barr’s statement.
He should not have said “I think”
These are facts, and they are reprehensible.
I will comment on Barr’s remarks about re-opening the Clinton email probe when you provide those comments.
I am not a big Barr fan – He should have prosecuted Comey as IG Horrowitz recomended.
These remarks are still correct.
The more I read through this the worse it gets.
Earlier you said – “no spying” – can you read ?
There was FAR MORE spying than we have been previously aware of.
Informants wore wires with Page, Flynn, Papadoulis, Manafort, and sever others.
Anyone withing 2 hops of Page had their communications of all kinds monitored – that is potentially thousands of people.
What exactly do you think spying is ?
Horrowitz did NOT find these people were unbiased.
What he FOUND was that when interviewed all of them said that their biases did not effect the investigation. There is some discussion of this, but apparently that is the limit to which the IG is permitted to investigate bias. It is not merely reasonable, it is self evident to any reasonable person that there was tremendous bias – and that is essentially what Barr is saying. That maybe the IG is unable to find Bias using the rules he must follow, but in a criminal investigation it is easy to find bias here.
Horowitz did find that the investigation had sufficient basis to start.
I am extremely ambivalent on that. According to Horrowitz the investigation was started by Andrew Downer’s report of his conversation with Papadoulis. There have been lots of stories, as well as text messages released that indicate this investigation started in late 2015.
There still is very little information about what occured between Dec 2015 and July 2016.
Horrowitz does not appear to have investigated that at all. Durham and Barr are defininitely chasing Mifsud and that involves the period from March to July.
So Horowitz has not enlighted us on that.
I think that it is arguable that Downer’s (innaccurate) report of Papadoulis’s comments meets the invredibly low bar required to start an investigation. I will give Horowitz that and I will disagree with Barr on that. It is flimsy, and Horowitz makes it clear that ultimately the FBI was able to determine that Downer’s report was inaccurate.
One of Horowitz’s problems with Bias is that There are only two things that have EVER provided a foundation for this investigation. Downer’s report of the conversation with Papadoulis – which the FBI was able to determine was inaccurately reported, and the Steele Dossier which from the moment the FBI acquired it through to the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, has stunk worse and worse over time. The only parts of the Steele Dossier that have ever proved correct are a small number of absolutely inconsequential items that were easily gleaned from media reporting of things that happened prior to 2015.
Every time the FBI tried to verify any other part of the steele Dossier it either proved FALSE or it proved dubious.
From the start to the end – NOTHING made the incredibly weak start any stronger.
Next – though we have two specific instances where an identified FBI lawyer made changes to information presented to the FISA court to transform some record item from exculpatory to inculpatory – and there is no means on earth that is not evidence of bias (as well as a crime),
You can not change records indicating that Page WAS a CIA Source to say that he WAS NOT TWICE without being self evident bias.
But that is not the end of the forgery. There are 6 other instances where the FBI altered an exculpatory record to make it inculpatory that Horowitz found but was unable to identify the person who made the change.
Further I am still trying to sort out Horowitz’s finding that the corruption did not involve the DOJ or whitehouse.
Horowitz DID find that the DOJ and Whitehouse were briefed on this investigation.
Horowitz is limiting his findings of misconduct to the FBI as he is claiming that DOJ and the whitehouse were LIED to.
I am personally highly dubious of that – but it does not matter – either the Whitehouse and DOJ were lied to by the upper tiers of the FBI – which is really really bad.
Or they were involved – which is even worse.
Next, it appears that before Comey was fired. Before Mueller was appointed. The FBI had confirmed from Steele’s most significant source that every claim that was attributed to him was gossip and rumour and highly unlikely to be true.
That is BEFORE the Special Counsel appointment, and BEFORE Comey was fired.
It is marginally possible to beleive that Rosenstein was not aware of that AT THE TIME.
It is marginally possible to beleive that Mueller was not aware of that within days of his appointment.
It is NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL to beleive that Rosenstein and Mueller were not WELL AWARE by arround march of 2017 that there was NOTHING.
There is a gigantic difference between there is sufficient basis to start and investigation, and justification to continue it infinitely.
The standard to start and investigation is LOW. But if the investigation finds the initial basis is incorrect, and does not find additional information to maintain the justification – then that investigation MUST be shutdown.
Horrowitz tells a relentless story where the results of the investigation START as barely sufficient, and with every new bit of information, that weak justification is ERODED.
We can debate the exact moment at which the FBI was required to STOP.
But it was BEFORE Comey was fired.
We can debate the exact moment when Mueller was required to STOP, but it was BEFORE the summer of 2017.
Finally – there is an effort to white wash this is 17 “innocent mistakes” – clerical errors.
BUNK. When you change exculpatory evidence to inculpatory and then offer that to a court
THAT IS A CRIME, not an “innocent mistake”
Further Horowitz is clear from the opening of the investigation EVERYTHING lead in a single direction – to the conclusion that this was all CRAP. Every “mistake” what one way – from innocensce to guilt. Every bade decision went one way. Every bit of new information retrieved went one way – towards the investigation is unfounded.
Last Horowitz does NOT extend his investigation into the CIA, but he does document that information from the CIA went to the FBI and information from the FBI went to the CIA.
And that CIA provided the FBI with NOTHING inculpatory.
And that the CIA fed the Steele Dossier to the group doing the ICA and that it was used as part of that. Horowitz’s jurisdiction does not include the IC.
But there has been some evidence that not only was the Steele Dossier part of the ICA, but that it and the Papadoulis exchange with downer are the ONLY evidence that the ICA rested on.
Put simply Horowitz does not put a steak in the heart of the ICA, but he definitely weakens it.
Credibility matters alot.
We have a bunch of spats involving Nunes and Schiff,
Or Schiff and Trump.
Schiff is at the center of nearly everything recent and for a long time.
Schiff has told us there was more than circumstantial evidence of Trump Russia collusion
WHERE IS IT ?
Regardless, Horowitz gives us something else.
There were two competing reports put out regarding this mess by the House intelligence committee in 2018 – the Nunes report, and the so called Schiff report.
Those reports agreed on many things, but there were about 11 points of difference,
Horowitz has confirmed that Nunes was correct on each of those differences and Schiff was not.
But this is not about some claims of mistakes of honest differences – not that Schiff has ever admitted he erred about anything.
Nunes and Schiff – BEFORE Horowitz saw much the same evidence that Horowitz did.
By confirming Nunes and refuting Schiff the Horowitz report
Does everything short of state that Schiff lied to us all.
And right now Schiff’s credibility is a huge issue.
There are now claim’s that Schiff and his staff met with the WB 2 weeks before the complaint was filed. I am told this is BEFORE the Trump Zelensky phone call.
This faux impeachment is starting to look alot like a political hit job – possibly a CRIME.
Finally, by defining the legal standard required to start an investigation, Horowitz makes it clear than it is not possible for Trump to have done anything wrong.
Trump had FAR MORE foundation to ask for investigations into Biden and the list of things he hoped Zelensky would investigate.
Horowitz stated formally what most everyone knows, but the left will not admit.
The burden to start an investigation is incredibly low.
And Trump easily met it.
If you do not like that – change the law.
Finally, Trump FORCED to do good:
(From Washington Post – Ron; full article)
“President Trump has paid $2 million in court-ordered damages for misusing funds in a tax-exempt charity he controlled, the New York attorney general said Tuesday.
The payment was ordered last month by a New York state judge in an extraordinary rebuke to a sitting president. Trump had been sued in 2018 by the New York attorney general, who alleged that the president had illegally used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to buy portraits of himself, pay off his businesses’ legal obligations and help his 2016 campaign.
The money was split among eight charities, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D). The charities were the Army Emergency Relief, the Children’s Aid Society, Citymeals-on-Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha’s Table, the United Negro College Fund, the United Way of National Capital Area, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, according to the statement.”
We have been through this before – this was a settlement.
The court has merely given its preamature to the settlement.
I guess you have never settled anything in court.
I have, several times.
On a small scale, I have taken tenants to court for failure to pay their rent.
I have on occasions “settled” with them – agreeing to allow them to remain – if they paid part of what they owed, or agreeing not to get a judgement against them – if they moved out.
These were not “victories” – either for me or the tenants.
Nor were they findings of wrong doing on my part or that of the tenants.
In most cases the court wrote an ORDER turning our agreement into something that could be enforced – without either of us having to return to court.
In the case you refered to – Trump and the NY AG agreed to end an investigation and lawsuit into Trump’s family charity. In return for contributions to other charities significantly less than Trump’s legal fees would likely have been, the case ends. There will be no further prosecution.
There is no admission of wrong doing on anyone’s part.
That is the NORM for a settlement.
Given the allegations – the settlement is small.
Mostly this looks like the NY AG trying to get out of a losing conflict while saving face.
Alot of the legal issues depend on information that neither you nor I have.
The Clinton foundation was a PUBLIC Charity – the rules are radically different.
The Trump foundation was a CLOSED Private Trust.
My Mother has a small closed private trust. The money in that Trust had rules regarding how it could be spent – but there was not requirement that the use had to be for charity.
I do not know what the actual legal constraints – if any on the Trump Family Trust were – and neither do you.
You have presumed alot that we do not know.
You’re babbling again.
The point your Novacained mind is missing: unprincipled asswipe Trump knowingly, intentionally, greedily misused funds in a charity he controlled.
But here you are, focused on the picayune details of the settlement. My comment was meant to be ironic-: some good was done despite his corrupt inclination to swindle people.
Ignoring example after example of Trump’s corrupt character, avoiding blaming him for bad deeds and moral bankruptcy is your typical modus operandi response. That’s why you are a Trumpanzee in effect if not by intention.
“The point your Novacained mind is missing: unprincipled asswipe Trump knowingly, intentionally, greedily misused funds in a charity he controlled.”
That would be false – at just about every point.
CF is a public charity. TF is a family trust. They only thing they have in common is “foundation” in the name.
I am not precisely sure of the legal structure of TF – as there are many forms of Trust.
Regardless TF is not in any sense a public charity.
I am not even certain it is a charity of any kind at all.
It is a trust – and most trusts ARE NOT charities.
The money in TF is ENTIRELY from the Trump’s – mostly from DJT himself.
It is not from russian oligarchs or saudi princes, or from ordinary people giving to charity.
Again I do not know the details of TF’s legal structure – but in general Family Trusts are tax exempt with respect to principle (income is taxable).
In General funds in a family trust can be distributed in any way consistent with the trust documents.
I have not read the Trust Documents – and neither have you.
But I would be shocked if TF was not fully able to pay Barron Trump’s scouting dues.
Which is one of the allegations.
Further without knowing all these details – I do know that the NY AG settled the case by agreeing to have TF make 2M in charitable donations.
If TF was an actual charitable Trust it would have to use 100% of its funds on charitable donations. So this settlment would be stupid.
It seems pretty clear to me that the NY AG had a losing hand, and they made a settlement offer that was below the legal fees Trump would have faced to win this case.
And Trump agreed to settle and the court ordered the parties to be bound to that agreement.
All very normal.
My mother had a trust. That Trust was used by my father while alive to pay for renovations to an apartment building owned by my sister.
Dubious – but perfectly legal.
I did not address the details of the settlement – you did.
I noted that public trusts and private trusts are not the same, and all trusts are not charities.
TF is a closed private trust. I do not know its structure – nor do you.
But the overwhelming majority of closed private trusts have great freedom with respect to how they can spend money.
I also noted that as a closed family trust – there is very little public interests, and not much law.
There are no public contributors to be harmed.
I suspect one of the other reasons the NY AG settled is that they may not have standing.
Depending on the structure – in the overwhelming majority of private trusts only the beneficiaries have standing to challenge the way the funds are used.
The NY AG is not a beneficiary. The general public is not a beneficiary.
I have heard no evidence that anyone was “swindled”.
As I understand it funds put into trust by members of the Trump family were used for:
Barron Trump’s scouting expenses.
A portrait of DJT,
and a political contribution.
You might not like that – but it is not your money.
The NY AG may not like that – but it is not her money.
Whether that was permissible depends on the trust documents.
It would have been premissible for my mothers small trust.
It would have been permissible for 98% of all trusts in the country.
I am not aware of any of the benficiaries of TF alleging misuse.
What I do know is that the settlement looks alot more like a face saving move on the part of the NY AG than any victory.
But there are LOTS of things we do not know.
The State AG does – under some circumstances have jurisdiction in Trusts.
The State AG represents actual charities in estate and trust cases.
So if the TF had provisions that required specific disburements to charities – then the NY AG would have the ability to enforce that.
Knowing now what I did not know a decade ago, I would have encouraged my father to give 2% of his estate to charity. Had he done so, I could have asked the AG to step in and reign in an abusive executor. But AG’s do not have jurisdiction to step into trusts and estates unless there is a specific provision for charities that is NOT being honored.
Others including Trusts are free to do as they please with their own money.
They are not ever required to do what YOU think of as “good”
Trump’s settlment with the NY AG either conforms to the requirments of the Trust or it is another example of abuse by government.
If as an example the TF was setup to provide porn for DJT, and the NY AG drug them to court and made them give $2M to charity – that is EVIL not good.
Stealing from others for ANY reason is evil. Stealing to give money to Mother Theresa is EVIL.
You keep pushing this false narractive that good and evil are determined by intentions not actions.
When you violate the rights of another – you do evil, not matter what your motives or intentions.
I rarely defend Trump’s character.
The vast majority of my posts are factual attacks on your posts.
Getting facts wrong – that is actual bad character.
dhlii’s favored pollster:
So ?
I have no “favorite” pollster.
Fundimentally, Democrats have a problem – ALL of their candidates SUCK.
We have seen Biden, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren even at one Time Harris show alot of strength
and then slump as they were subject to scrutiny.
Biden for all his problems – has a core of 30% of democrats who just are not voting for any of the other choices.
Most of us understand that neither Sanders, now Warren can beat Trump.
Many democrats do not want either of them as much or more than they do not want Trump.
Conversely there are LOTS of other democrats who do not want Biden, Hence Biden can not truly pull out ahead. He has pretty much never been able to get much over 30%.
Many of the Sanders and Warren voters are not going to vote if Sanders or Warren is not the nominee.
Biden hasn’t slumped in the national polls at all.
He’s consistently maintained the same percentage lead over other candidates.
And consistently leads Trump in the swing states.
He’s the Dems best hope to evict President Dunce.
And the Dems best choice for a Biden VP is Kamilla Harris: black, female, young.
The GOP’s only chance to regain the presidency is to have Trump abducted or committed to psychiatric straight-jacket custody, run Nikki for president with Tucker as VP, to solidify FOX core voter support. Their election slogan best appealing to Trump base mentality: NIKKI-TUCKER – MOTHERFUCKER!
I really do not want to argue with you over polls – polls are not facts, they are predictions.
And there are so many fact that you are so totally completely wrong about, I do not see alot of merit in arguing with you about predictions.
Democrats will have primaries. they will elect a candidate, there will be a national election, and the final poll in Nov. 2020 will determine our next president.
If I am right today – everything could change by November.
If I am wrong – it could still change.
Regardless, you have still misrepresented facts.
Biden’s support dropped significantly initially. More recently Sanders and Warren have taken the heat.
Biden’s support is BACK near what is was before. Though there is substantial evidence that it is weaker than before – meaning he is less likely to get as much of those who did not support him before.
But the big story about the democrats – is that voters really do not want ANY of these candidates.
Everytime any of them seems to be gaining, something happens and they get clobbered.
Democrats want a “do over” – they want a mythical super candidate that can beat Trump.
They want Biden – but without the gaffes, stupidity, without the sundowning. without the attacks on other democratic VOTERS, without the corruption, and without the policy uncertainty.
It is probable that if either Warren or Sanders dropps out – the other will get their votes.
But what is more interesting is that as Booker and Harris and others have dropped out – their support has NOT gone to the leaders. Sanders, Biden, and Warren’s numbers are mostly unchanged as a consequence of dropouts.
We are seeing Buttigeg or Bloomberg grab the votes of dropouts – not the leaders.
There are a variety of polls. Some have Trump behind in swing states, some like the one below have him ahead in ALL swing states against ALL democrats.
But the story is NOT whether Biden is 2pts ahead or 2pts behind based on your personal favorite poll.
The story is that from september to december in ALL polls Trump is closing the gap.
In the midst of what is supposed to be a damning tide against him – Trump is GAINING.
The next big story is we are a year away from an election – and Trump is in easy striking distance (if not ahead) of every oponent.
At this time in 2015 – Trump was something like 35 pts behind.
At this time in 2011 – Obama was 10pts behind
Anything could happen between now and November. But the odds favor Trump gaining significantly.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/poll-donald-trump-2020-election-democrats/2019/12/09/id/945149/
I am not a big fox fan. I do not follow ANY network.
More recently I have found “the rising” on youtube interesting.
I have also been following Turley for years, as well as “the hill” – though for technical not political reasons I hate their web site.
I also use lots of news agregators – like RCP, I especially like that they link to less high profile and more thoughtful commentary on Axios, Medium, Quillette, Tablet, ….
I do not always agree, but these less “MSM” sites tend to have a less ideologicaly fixed perspective.
I do on occasion see clips from the MSM – Fox, MSNBC etc.
Interestingly I found a recent survey that claims that Fox is now the source for 50% of americans news, and that it is the source for 70% of americans in the heartland.
I am not endorsing Fox – I am NOT generally favorable to their specific brand of “republicanism”, but they ARE overall less bat shit crazy than CNN, MSNBC, NYT and Wapo.
And that is what viewers have decided.
Further a couple of surveys of accuracy in the media found Fox to be the most accurate news source and the most politically centrist.
Just to be clear – it did not find fox all that accurate – just that the rest of the media is worse.
But what should disturb you Jay – is that the purportedly right wing lunatic conspiracy sites – like InfoWars have freguently proven more credible than CNN or MSNBC.
That is not an endorsement of infowars. It is really serious criticism of the MSM.
When you can compare Alex Jones to tapper, Cuomo, and Maddow and come up with a draw. the MSM is bat shit crazy.
“ Further a couple of surveys of accuracy in the media found Fox to be the most accurate news source and the most politically centrist.”
Who conducted the survey. Fox?
An egregiously dangerous organization owned by a foreigner whose politics are as shady as Trump’s business dealings.
“An egregiously dangerous organization owned by a foreigner ”
There you are channeling your inner Trump
“whose politics are as shady”
Meaning you do not like them ?
I find your “politics” revolting, you are prepared to use force against others on a whim.
Right, Biden has age related mental slippage:
I have not noticed – but we have a fairly old field of front runners, and yes, we should be paying attention. Whether it is Trump or Sanders or Biden, or less likely Warren.
All are old enough that the odds of a major health problem as president are high.
Sanders had a heart attack. We are very good with those today. But it is still a concern.
It is difficult to tell whether Biden is just his normal degree of incompetent or if he is showing early signs of dimensia.
If you say Trump is slurring – we should pay attention.
But I have been hearing Trump has this or that problem since he was elected and so far they have all proven false.
There is Zero evidence Trump is playing Basketball any time soon. But he seems to be in good mental and physical health, and he is definitely enjoying himself.
Honest Don ADMITTED misuse of foundation money. Don’t you just love his rectitude, taking the high moral road confessing a moral judgmental lapse! BTY – did he donate the portrait to a charitable organization?
“President Trump has paid $2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement in which the president admitted he misused funds raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid and pay off business debts, the New York State attorney general said on Tuesday.
The foundation’s giving patterns and management came under scrutiny during Mr. Trump’s run for office, and last year the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit accusing the president and his family of using the foundation as an extension of their businesses and the campaign.
The payments were part of a settlement announced last month that capped a drawn-out legal battle. In the end, the president admitted in court documents that he had used the foundation to settle legal obligations of his businesses and even to purchase a portrait of himself.” NYT
Ordered?
They didn’t volunteer?
Will we taxpayers have to pay for required Secret Service details ?
“As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump’s three children who were officers of the foundation — Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump — were ordered to undergo mandatory training to ensure they do not engage in similar misconduct in the future.”
That is what I would expect the NY AG would say.
What does the actual settlement say ?
I highly doubt the word “misuse” appears.
But whether it does – you are also left with what does “misuse” mean.
Aparently you and the NY AG think it means – use differently than I would prefer.
I thought my father using my mothers trust money to make apartment repairs for my sister was a “misuse”. Most everyone who heard about it thought it was.
But it was a permissible use according to the Trust documents which essentially allowed my father to do pretty much whatever he pleased with the Trust funds.
Regardless, you still do not seem to get it. The TF is a PRIVATE trust.
It is NOT a charity, it is NOT public.
You and the NY AG do not get to decide how those funds are used.
To the extent that the state has ANY input, it is that If and only if there are some sax advantages to the Trust, they can charge taxes and penalties – maybe.
That still would not constitute misuse.
To be a crime – Trump would have to use someone else’s money in a way they did not wish.
No one has come forward to say that occured.
My guess reading this is the NY AG overstepped and this is a face saving measure.
Trump is settling because it will cost more in legal fees to fight and win.
And you can not get legal fees from the state if you win.
You’re right.
The Trump Family was rail-roaded by another corrupt AG for purely political reasons.
None of the charges Trump pleaded guilty to were valid.He didn’t misuse the charity money for any of the reasons cited. Instead he agreed to admit he and his family members committed dishonorable financial acts to save paying expensive legal fees. How noble a decision! Question: why didn’t he admit guilt sooner, and save a years worth of legal fees already paid, fighting the charges?
You continue to misrepresent – this is not a criminal case there is no guilty plea.
There is no plea at all.
It is a civil case that was settled – there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
The AG and the Trump family mutually agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in return for the Trump family agreeing to make charitable contributions smaller then their legal fees would have been.
You can pretend whatever you want. But you can not make your wishes into facts,
nor the AG’s spin into substance.
If she beleived she had a case – she should have pursued it.
After all it would not be her money she would be wasting.
TF is NOT a charity, it is a Family Trust. They are not the same thing.
There is almost no public accountability – nor should their be.
The accountability is to the those who funded the Trust – the Trump family, and the named beneficiaries of the Trust – the Trump family.
No one has “admitted” anything.
The fact that the NY AG is settling for so little demonstrates the weakness of her case.
Why didn’t he ….. ?
First civil cases almost never resolve that way.
There is no such thing as a guilty plea in a civil case.
If the case proceeds to trial THEN there are conclusions of law and findings of fact,
and having dealt with actual civil cases – often very bad conclusions of law and findings of fact.
Courts are just about the worst place to resolve civil disputes – short of at 20 paces with pistols. But they are what is available to us when other means fail.
This is one of the major differences between us.
I fully grasp that some govenrment is NECESSARY, but that does not make it good, or even not corrupt. Just better than anarchy.
You seem to think of all government as a positive good rather than a necescary evil.
And you think that despite a relentless stream of evidence to the contrary.
Whatever you might think of them
Horrowitz, I, II, III are NOT studies of good government, nor is Mueller,
nor are the Afghan papers, nor are ….
Nor is the VA debacle nor Benghazi, nor Fast & furious, nor …
You think /i am not worried about Trump abusing power – of course I am.
But:
Most – though not all Trump’s actions move towards less govenrment power.
There is no danger in that.
Every example of abuse of power I see, and every threatened abuse of power comes from those in government or those on the left.
I am going to direct my ire at the most seriuous threat.
Trump is not on that list.
Blah fucking blah.
Blah is not an argument.
“Shame on you if you can’t win arguments without insults”
Some good advice from Kenya
https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/editors-picks/whatsapp-introduces-call-waiting-feature
Haven;t we had enough double and tripple hearsay in the fax impeachment ?
What are the FACTS ?
WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM ?
Until you can identify a person who has been harmed – I have very little interest in your spin about “missuse”
What people SAY is not evidence. FACTS are.
Why aren’t those actually harmed making this claim ?
Wow, Trump spent money on his campaign, or the campaign of others or on artwork !!!
News at eleven! Democracy will collapse ?
Was it his money ? If so then why do you care ?
If it was not his money – have the people that money belonged to objected ?
If not – why do you care ?
What does it take for you to grasp – YOU do not get to decide how others live their lives.
Until you have someone who can say Trump used my money without my permission
then what this is about – is your or the NY AG’s idiotic beleif that you have the right to control other peoples lives.
In 2017 Burisma “settled” Twice with the Ukraine PG’s office for over 100M.
Does that prove that Burisma was corrupt ? That Hunter Biden is corrupt, that Joe Biden abused power ?
If you are going to impute guilt to settlements – VP Biden is headed to jail and the flimsy reed of your faux impeachment is gone.
More WTF?
White House says “President Trump warned against any Russian attempts to interfere in United States elections” In meeting with Lavrov.
Lavrov just now: “No, we haven’t even discussed elections.”
Whose words should we trust?
They are all politicians – you should not trust any of them.
You should not Trust what Trump says about a private meeting.
What Lavartov says., What Schiff says, what … says.
Frankly, you should not care all that much what these people SAY.
What matters is what they DO.
Trump At Work:
Really ?
So I guess that in Jay world Trump is not ever allowed to mention – on his personal twitter account any aspect of his life outside of 1600 pensylvania avenue.
If he mentions he his going golfing – you will decide that is somehow a crime.
Keep trying, Jay.
Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that “she” got a USMCA deal that the Democrats, the President and the unions all liked. And boasted “we at their lunch!”
Umm, if the President negotiated the deal a year ago, gave up a small concession to Dems that still made the deal a thousand times better than NAFTA, and got Nancy to sign off on it in order to cover up her huge impeachment fail, well, then…..
Exactly whose lunch did she eat, lol?
Although, when it comes to mumbling and slurring, Pelosi is the champ, I’ll give you that.
Tend to exaggerate much?
“ Umm, if the President negotiated the deal a year ago, gave up a small concession to Dems that still made the deal a thousand times better than NAFTA, and got Nancy to sign off on it in order to cover up her huge impeachment fail, well, then…..”
Show us the THOUSAND TIMES EVA added that’s better than NAFTA.
Yes it’s slightly better, and the DEMS slightly made the slightly better. And so it’s slightly-slightly better. Yay For Trump. Yay for Pillosi. Yay for US consumers who may see marginally better prices biologic-medicine prescription prices (DEMS provision) and for US auto workers, who may see an increase in hiring over the next decade (GOP provision) but modest bad news for USconsumers who are expected to see ‘slightly’ higher prices.
What impeachment fail? It’s turning out to be wonderful anti-Trump publicity for the Dems.
Everyone knows the Trump-Toady-GOP Senate wont remove him. But the daily media reminders of Trump-GOP perfidy has solidified 60% of the defeat-Trump electorate. And who knows what additional anti-Trump evidence will surface at the Senate trial. I’m hoping against hope Stormy Daniels will be called as a witness to testify. Media news rating would explode off the charts!
DEM QUESTIONER: “Ms Daniels, during your encounter with Mr Trump, did he mention or make reference to previous sexual experiences in a Russian hotel?”
Yes, Jay absolutely – make Priscilla’s obvious hyperbole into a crime!!!!
Do you read most of your own posts ?
You are ready to draw and quarter anyone who does not think Trump should be impeached because Lavrtov denied having talked about elections with Trump.
In this weird Jay world – we can not ever Trust the Russians – except when they do not perfectly concur with Trump. Then their word is golden.
And you want to attack Priscilla over hyperbole ?
Alas, alas, for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrites that you are
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you
You will not venture half so far
Other men that might enter the gates you
Keep from passing through!
Drag them down with you!
You snakes, you viper’s brood
You cannot escape being Devil’s food!
I send you prophets, and I send you preachers
Sages in rages and ages of teachers
Nothing can mar your mood
Do you actually want to have a serious discussion of USMCA ?
Or are you just looking for a way to spin it to attack Trump ?
You are correct It is not 1000 times better than what we had before.
We can quibble over details. Everything government does – even chosing not to do something has winners and losers.
There is nothing government can do (or not do) that will not be good for some and bad for others.
But Freer Trade is ALWAYS on net better for all parties – even though it might be worse for a small portion of people.
What we SHOULD do is get government entirely OUT
Let each of us make our own decisions whether to buy mexican or chinese goods.
320M individual USMCA deals, that are dynamically renegotiated every day – that is how free markets work.
Regardless, this has forced Pelosi to climb into bed with Trump.
She deserves credit for doing so.
But YOU are stuck with the inescable admission by democrats that Trump has done something good – you can say it is not perfect – fine.
But it was good enough for pelosi to sign on to.
AND it is something Obama could have done something about and did not.
Ok, ok.
500 times better!
😀
Priscilla – you owe no appologees,
the left has no sense of humor. No understanding of the use of hyperbole.
It is very weird Jay lies and exagerates and says completely over the top things all the time here – but he is actually brutally serious, he barely if at all grasps that he is engaging in hyperbole. He really does beleive the end of the world is nigh.
I waste enormous amounts of time explaining the obvious to him.
What the NY AG says about Trump is not an admission by Trump, nor is it a proven fact.
It is not even hearsay. It is just opinion.
It is nearly certainly self serving spin.
But for Jay it is gospel.
And I used that as an example – but it is just one of thousands.
I hear constantly that Hispanics will not forgive Trump for calling immigrants rapists.
But I have actually watched the clip in which Trump purportedly said that – and the whole clip, not the deceptively edited bit the left wing media sprayed has Trump saying that many mexican immigrants are “very fine people” – a classic Trump phrase.
Just about every purportedly racist or sexist, or hateful or discriminatory remark Trump has purportedly made is entirely different in context.
The left is incredibly litteral. More than people with autism or aspbergers.
Far more than I am, but worse still – they constantly play word games and engage in hyperbole and exageration – just as Trump does, and you do EXCEPT, they expect their exageration to be taken litterally.
No one thinks that USMCA is exactly 1000 times better than NAFTA.
But Jay would be here beating you if it was 990 times better or 1010 times.
If Trump did something perfectly legal, but outside of what Jay is familiar with – such as spending FAMILY Trust money on Baron Trump’s scouting, Jay would immediately exaggerate anything outside his own experience into a criminal lie.
i.e. the left exaggerates and then takes their own exaggerations literally.
Is it surprising that there is far more unhappiness, anxiety and depression on the left ?
These people have no sense of humour, no sense of joy in life, no sense of persepective.
There has been a “meme” floating that the left can not meme.
So left leaning social media artist took it upon himself to disprove that. He contacted the Warren campaign and was appointed to some social media position responsible for the creation of political memes – I beleive they had a different title.
A bit of this work leaked before their official opening – and was roundly criticized – by the LEFT. Those on the right had fun with it – and made memes of the memes.
Then they had an official opening of the Warren Meme force – with some other name.
Within a few hours all the memes were taken down – because the left took offense at their own memes. But many of these were captured and those an the right are having Fun memeing the memes.
I beleive Tim Poole did a video on this.
We see examples of this problem all over the place.
Proponents – even purported climate scientists DELIBERATELY exagerate the dangers and outcomes of Global Warming – because the truth – even the left leaning only subconsciously exagerated version is just not that scary or dangerous.
But then hordes on the left take these exagerations deadly seriously.
A left wing Journalist on the BBC had a recent exchange with some climate dystopian who was demanding we go to zero carbon emissions by 2026.
That we must stop flying completely and driving and ….
The journalist pointed out that even the IPCC did not support any of this, and he was told repeatedly with absolute sincerity that absent draconian measures immediately the world was doomed.
Not only are your OBVIOUS exagerations and Trumps taken litterally, and then framed is lies,
But their own intentional exagerations are taken as the truth.
In some instances by the very people making the exageration.
It is like telling a child the boogey man will get them if they do not finish their ice cream, and then spending all night guarding the doors to keep the boogey man out.
Jay, the media jumped the shark long ago.
In 70% of the congressional districts in this country more than 50% (often much more) of the news viewing is FOX.
That is not because FOX is great – they aren’t. It is because no one trust the MSM.
When MSNBC and CNN and … rant about Trump – they are speaking to the choir.
Most of the country is NOT LISTENING.
And with each day FEWER are.
CNN and MSNBC combined have less viewer than FOX in most prime time slots.
While CNN’s ratings have risen since Trump was elected (more recently they have seen about a 50% decline, though they are still above 2016), Fox’s ratings have increased faster.
Trust in the media is at a 30 year LOW – more than 50% down from Clinton.
The “approval” rating for the media is BELOW Trump’s.
Further numerous polls are showing that impeachment has turned off independents, and it has turned off voters in swing states. That Trump’s polls – especially in swing states has RISEN through the impeachment.
That impeachment has been a gift to republicans at all level – that fundraising is way up, that it has energized the GOP base AND that it has alienated those in the middle.
If this is your idea of success – please sir can I have more ?
Most people get the extremely obvious.
Asking the Ukraine to investigate clearly suspicious acts by VP Biden is not troubling.
You can not focus group test rhetoric to transform what most people do not see as wrong into something they do.
You have to persuade people with arguments, not word games.
Dave “When MSNBC and CNN and … rant about Trump – they are speaking to the choir.
Most of the country is NOT LISTENING.”
AMEN BROTHER! I have a friend of almost 50 years, retired Director of Pharmacy at the healthcare system we worked at, raised on a farm in the upper peninsula of Michigan, that became a flaming liberal that can almost regurgitate Rachel Maddow and co. daily news offering. Most of the time I just bite my tongue when he goes off using their facts. Other times I cant and tell him ” I dont want to hear it, do some research before running your mouth
As they said during colonial times, men do not argue, they have spirited discussions. Well we had a spirited discussion when he found nothing wrong with a FISA warrant being issued based on incomplete evidence or other problematic information contained in the request. And does not believe any legal action should take place if it is found that this was done on purpose, because, like Jay, he believes Trump needs to be removed using any means possible, including falsification of legal requests. His closing was ” Well I am not a Libertarian! “
I know you do not read all of my comments.
But I have been careful.
I have made it clear from the begining that there was NOTHING illegal about the DNC and HFA seeking – even manufacturing dirt on Trump. Repugnant, dirty politics, fine. But not illegal.
There was also nothing wrong with shopping it to the FBI.
The misconduct, the crime was what the FBI did with it.
Law enforcement should ALWAYS validate allegations before taking actions that infringe on the rights of others.
Can the police go lights and sirens to the scene of an alleged liquor store robbery ?
Certainly.
Can they shoot the first person coming out the front door ?
Absolutely not.
Horowitz is absolutely right – the standard to start an investigation is incredibly low.
The standard to ASK for one is FAR LOWER. Pretty close to non-existant.
But merely starting an investigation DOES NOT mean presuming the allegations are true.
It is the obligation of law enforcement to confirm as much of what is alleged as quickly as possible and if the allegation does not hold up – the basis for the investigation dies.
Horowitz focuses on the standard for a Warrant – because that is much higher and much clearer.
That standard was NEVER met. Not even close. FBI got warrants 4 times (and aparently was turned down for additional warrants on Flynn and Papadoulis) by LYING to the court.
Nor was this “mistakes” – Horrowitz just testified that he has never in his career seen anything like this, and he has seen occasional “mistakes”
Of the 17 specific egregious errors he found, most he had never seen before.
So everyone is clear – these people were not walmart cops.
Every single one of them was a lawyer – most having gone to excellent law schools.
Every one was an FBI agent. But not merely an agent, not even just a Special Agent in Charge. These were the heads of counter intelligence, and deputy directors of the FBI.
These were purportedly the best of the best at the worlds purportedly premier law enforcement agency.
It is quite simple to conclude that the Cross-Fire huricane was illegitimate but Trump’s request for investigations of Ukraine was legitimate. It is not possible to beleive that Crossfire Huricane was legitimate without also concluding that Trump was free to ask for investigations.
You are actually still trying to sell the “pee tapes” ?
“At Long Last, have you no shame ?”
Did you actually read the horowitz Report ?
The FBI talked to Steele’s source.
He said the Pee Tapes (and the rest of what he told Steele) was just gossip, and that he told Steele it was just gossip.
EVERYONE has tried to verify the pee tapes.
The AP, the FBI, Mueller, the rest of the press. Schiff.
If there were any reality to it – there would be a million dollar payday for someone.
As to your faux stormy testimony – If Stormy had anything damaging to say – she would have sold it to the media long ago.
And more power to her if she did.
I have no problem with Daniels getting as much money as she can whether it is to tell her story or to not tell her story.
Perfectly legal either way.
I would love to see Democrats call daniels – that would make total asses of them.
I can not think of anything stupider Schiff could do.
I am not making predictions at the moment – except that no matter what happens – this will flop for democrats.
If the house votes for impeachment – that will make life hell for swing district democrats.
If they do not – that will demoralize the democratic base.
If they do something will happen in the Senate.
It is possible that Republicans will vote to dismiss as insufficient before the start.
And they should. But I doubt that will happen.
I think That McConnel beleives that the Senate proceding is politically advantageous.
Republicans can spend days ranting of the pointlessness of this, and how democrats are wasting the publics time.
McConnel can give Schiff a lesson in due process – fair hearings do not permit hearsay, and do allow rigorous cross examination. I think McConnell will vote to use the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure, and Roberts will get to make the determinations as to what is allowed and what is not. And McConnell and republicans will not challenge him.
I do not think Schiff or the Biden’s will be called as witnesses, but I do think there will be a fight over it – and even losing makes Trump look good.
If they are called as witnesses – they are screwed.
Nor do I think Trump will testify. The evidence is not there – it is not even close.
I think that McConnell will figure out how to schedule this to most interfere with democrats political efforts, and most help republicans. Sanders and Warren must attend all the impeachment hearings. If past process is followed – that means being in DC for 6 days a week. The Senate normally does ordinary business in the morning. McConnel can force Sanders and Warren to take politically damaging votes, then tie them up all afternoon 6 days a week mute.
If the public pays attention (unlikely) that will damage democrats.
If they do not – that will damage democrats.
Next – democrats have just ensured that holiday discussions will be over Trump and impeachment.
Mostly left wing nuts trying to beat on their less lunatic relatives who do not wish to be hounded.
You will be manufacturing Trump voters by the score. You will be making people angry.
The reason most people have not paid much attention to this is because the most egregious version of it is just not consequential.
After Crossfire Huricane and Mueller most people do not have a problem with Trump investigating his harrassors.
Read Horowitz’s 3 reports. Read Mueller. The FBI Tried, Mueller tried. They came up with NOTHING.
Lots of people think it is Trump’s turn.
For those who actually pay attention – Horowitz just said the standard to open an investigation is very low. If the FBI met it – then Trump has easily.
But most people did not need Horowitz to understand that Trump doing to democrats what they have done to him for 3 years is not abuse of power.
You can not spin that away. And shouting and frothing just alienates people.
I told you that there is a price to pay for getting caught lying – particularly about false moral accusations of others.
Guess what – you are paying it now.
The people you most need to convince – do not trust you – for good reason,
They do not trust democrats, they do not trust the media..
Read your own quotes.
The Trump foundation is a FAMILY TRUST.
It is not money from russian oligarchs or the milk money of school students.
It is money the Trump Family has put into Trust.
It is THEIR money – not the NY AG’s , and they may use it as they please.
You point out that it was part of a long drawn out legal battle – so the Trump family decided to spend less than the legal costs – which can not be recovered from the state, to settle this – and you think that is some victory for the NY AG ?
Let me give you a clue – anytime any defendent in any action settles for less than the legal costs would be if they won – that means THEY WON. No matter how much spin you and the NY AG put on this She was unwilling to risk going forward and settled for an amount that she knew the Trump’s would agree to – because they are smart people who are not going to spend more than the 2M settlement to get an at best symbolic court victory.
I have been sued many times in my life as part of business.
I can not think of a single instance that did not settle.
And I beleive every settlement required me to pay money.
Sometimes I both paid money and received money.
There is not a single instance that I would say that I LOST.
In one instance I was sued for age, race, religious, and every other form of discrimination immaginable. The adjudicator on the State Human Relations commission took my lawyer aside after I testified and said – the plantif has no case. But this is going to take several more days, can you offer him half what the legal fees would be for the next 3 days and maybe we can make this go away ?
I agreed happily. It cost me $2500 to avoid wasting 3 days of my time and my lawyers.
But in your lunatic world – that means I must have been guilty of something.
Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board: “we endorse a vote to impeach the president. While his removal from office is unlikely, his crimes against the country, and the Constitution, warrant that outcome.”
GOP – PartyOverCountry
Cite an actual crime, and provide incontrolvertable facts to support it ?
I can produce a LONG list of the crimes of his opponents – Horrowitz just did.
Horrowitz just – as expected cut the legs out from under “fantasy impeachment”.
The burden that must be met to open an investigation is very small.
The burden to ASK is even lowerer
Trump easily met the burden of constitutional legitimacy in his requests of Zelensky.
And would have been justified to do EXACTLY what democrats claim – to have demanded an investigation as a condition for receiving the money.
If Trump could constitutionally demand more than he did, he certainly can demand less.
As to the faux national security claim – while the Russians were actually shooting at and Killing Ukrainians – an event that Obama (Clinton) provoked. President Obama provided Ukraine with blankets.
If Trump is offering Ukraine Javelins with strings – we are more secure than with Obama.
If your criteria is security – why were you not demanding Obama’s impeachment ?
No one beleives you (or the house) gives a shit about National Security.
Nor do I beleive the Philedelphia Enquirer does either.
So if you wish to bitch about federal Aid not getting through – how about this.
Congress appropriated the aide – Adam Schiff even voted for it.
The white house has ordered the aide to be provided.
Yet the state department has been failing to deliver the aide – for more than four years – because the people being exterminated by ISIS who were directed to receive the aide were christians and jews in the mideast, and The Obamaphiles in the State department will not allow any aide to anyone anywhere to go through or to anyone with a religious affiliation (unless it is muslim).
So lets quit the idiotic handwringing about minor diddles in aide to Ukraine.
And since you like to pretend this has something to do with national security.
These are people in a recognized war zone being exterminated by ISIS and designated by Obama as victims of Genocide. With absolute certainty people died over this.
And just to be clear – those responsible are in many instance the same people – Yavonovich was in Syria, or of the same cliche as those paraded in front of the house impeachment committee.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/11/career_officials_thwart_aid_to_christian_yazidi_genocide_victims__141929.html#2
It’s just one more irony of our time, that a satire news site is more accurate and reliable than the mainstream news media:
https://babylonbee.com/news/trumps-popularity-rises-after-revelation-he-obstructed-congress
I am chortling at the claim that republicans and Trump supporters are “conspiracy theorists”.
On just about every major claim thus far – Trump has been fundimentally correct.
This was a witch hunt, his campaign was wiretapped, his campaign was spied on – according to horrowitz at high levels. There is a deep state cabal out to get him.
There was no “collusion” with Russia – atleast not by the Trump campaign.
Had Mueller found the connections to Russia that even Horrowitz is echoing in the Steele Dossier and Hillary for America – in the Trump campaign – Trump would be in jail by now.
The only collusion with foreign powers was in the Clinton campaign, the only collusion with Russia was with the Clinton campaign.
Much is made that the Investigation of Trump did not go public (mostly) until after the election – and somehow this favored Clinton, while emailgate was very public.
Yet, Russia provided the anti-Trump nonsense in the Steele Dossier to the Clinton campaign. Clinton could have gone public with it, but instead chose to foist it on FBI/CIA/State.
It is trivially arguable that Russia was deliberately feeding Clinton dirt on Trump to destroy HIS campaign. Regardless HFA and the DNC were clearly “colluding with Russia”.
We have had Comey’s testimony, the Nunes Report, Horowitz I, Mueller, Horrowitz II, and Horowitz III, and each of these is relentlessly damning to democrats.
Each of these says that our government – our CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD have spent 4 years in a WITCH HUNT.
Horrowitz has confirmed everything in the Nunes report. It has also rejected every contradictory claim in the Schiff report.
The democrats have been wrong, The media has been wrong, the DOJ, FBI, have been wrong about pretty much everything.
We have several Trump people who have been destoryed even jail for purportedly lying to congress or investigators – lying about their own innocence in a witch hunt.
This is quite litterally soviet tactics – threaten and even prosecute people for false crimes to get them to make false confessions to support your false narrative.
Mueller new or should have know very early into his investigation that there was NOTHING THERE. And yet he forged on. We do not have the equivalent of the Horrowitz Report on Mueller’s investigation.
But there is zero reason to expect it would be different.
Most of the same people who are excoritated in the Horrowitz Report were key players in the Mueller investigation.
Papadoulis has gone to jail, Page is very lucky to have avoided the same fate.
Stone is facing the equivalent of life – because a DC Jury and an Obama judge want to punish him for Trump being elected.
Yet nothing has happened to any of those who foist a lie on all of us. Those who used the power of government to torture people like Papadoulis and Page and Stone.
If what Horrowitz found is all there is – it is still ACTUALLY worse than watergate.
And I really do not want to here nonsense from anyone on the left about Republican Conspiracy theories and conservative “fake news”.
Have none of you any shame ?
Yesterday we heard top democrats talking about solemn duties to the constitution and oaths of office.
These would be the very people who have been lying to us for 4 years.
After the MacCarthy hearings in the 50’s Joe MacCarthy was scorned and ridiculed and faded into oblivion.
Adam Schiff is more prominent than ever – for …. Selling LIES.
It is somehow Trump’s fault that we are bitterly divided – yet who is it that is lying about who ?
The media, the left and democrats have been accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being a “russian asset” – including other democrats, yet the only people Russia successfully manipulated and colluded with was THEM.
Jay, how do you square the fact that Trump was a very, very famous businessman and reality TV star, known for his pro-American and pro-captialist views (as well as his braggadocio and womanizing) for decades, long before he ran for president, yet, as soon as the Steele Dossier, now proven to be complete, unsubstantiated rubbish, was presented to the CIA and FBI, they immediately began a counterintelligence operation against Trump, without ever giving him a defensive briefing?
As far as I know, there is zero evidence, from his past life, or from his campaign and presidency, that he ever had any treasonous or nefarious dealings with any foreign government or person, yet you believe that he is a traitor ~ or at the very least, unAmerican~ in the same way that people belive in God.
I honestly can’t understand it. It seems as if half the country has minds that have completely shut down on this, and there is no persuading them. As the old joke goes, if Trump were to walk on water, you would say that he can’t swim.
Can you state any specific reasons why you think that he should be impeached? Hating him, and thinking that he is an asshole don’t count.
It seems to me that politics is now seen as sport by many people, and they root for one side to win and the other side to lose, NO MATTER WHAT THAT SIDE DOES. If Trump became a socialist, would Sanders and Warren supporters be happy, and start to like Trump? Or would they just say that he’s faking it, and impeach him for that?
How have we gotten to this place? Maybe it really is that politics has replaced religion?
I do not like the term “defensive briefing”. It implies that it is optional.
It is actually not. Horrowitz did not investigate that very deeply.
As a consequence of the CIA’s and FBI’s domestic spying and infiltration of the anti-war and civil rights movements, severe restrictions were made into law following the recomendations of the Church Commission.
These severely limited the FBI’s ability to spy on US organizations – not just political campaigns, but church groups, etc.
Whenever the FBI wishes to use these techniques on a US organization, it must either notify the leadership of that organization OR it must seek the explicity permission of the Attorney General.
We know that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. The implication in the Horrowitz report is that they did NOT get permission of the AG. But one of the problems with the Horrowitz report is that Horrowitz’s ability to question anyone not currently in the FBI or DOJ is non-existant.
BTW this is also why so much of this mess takes place in England or involves Mifsud or Downer. Because the FBI was looking to circumvent the law by operating outside the US with foriegn assets.
Hypocrite Trump at bullying best:, picking on a minor with autism after numerous railings against a harmless joke about his son’s first name:
“So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!”
If this is still your guy, you’re subhuman.
Is this the first time Trump went after an underage girl without Jeffrey Epstein’s help?
You do know that the conpiracy theories regarding Epstein are that Hilary killed him to keep Bill;s kiddie diddling from coming out ?
Joe Walsh answering what kind of president bullies a teenaged girl”
“ To answer your question sir: An insecure President. A lonely President. A cruel President. A narcissistic President. An ignorant President. A cowardly President.”
But Trump Cultists will defend him no matter how obnoxious his actions.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Greta – she is being used.
But it is Not Trump who is using her. It is the perverts that have fed her this malthusian climate garbage.
When you set up a child – an autistic one at that, to push your political garbage and malthusian nonsense, you do EVIL.
We should not be attacking Greta – outside of her family we should not be listening to her at all. Much less giving her Nobel prizes.
Children should not be used in adult political conflicts.
And YOU started that.
So you’re going to ignore Trump bullying her in his tweet?
Typical ignoble double-standard whataboutism bullshit.
For me to express any more contempt for you a new synonym needs to be invented –
First I do not pretty much ever consider free speach bullying – if it was – you would be in jail.
That is all you do. I was actually bullied as a kid – other students beat me up, or tried.
Greta has taken a highly public political stand.
BTW I have zero problems with her doing so at an age appropriate platform.
But those thrusting her onto the global stage despite her age lack of experience, maturity and knowledge (otherwise known as being a teenager) did her a great disservice.
Worse they are doing so deliberately – because when Teens spew ill informed nonsense. we are disuaded from saying “That is Bullshit”.
My family has debates like this all the time at the dinner table.
But my Son and Daughter do not take their views to CNN or MSNBC – they are not ready, well informed or mature enough for that.
Greta is being used – by people like YOU and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Hiding behind the skirts of a teen with autism.
As a completely independent issue – Time botched it.
The obvious “person of the year” is the Hong Kong Protestors”.
Greta is beating a dead horse badly.
Worse she is being used – by you, and Time, and you are clueless.
Joe Walsh again ? Really ?
You do understand that he IS what you accuse Trump of ?
You do know that Walsh shoots holes in your repetitive gurgling that lefties and neoconservative are the only ones condemning Trump for the asshole divisive inept moron that he is.
Look at the GROWING list of genuine Republican-conservatives who keep warning you what a disaster Trump is to the nation.
Look at you-having lost all sense of proportion of the damage that lump of deceptive divisive crap is doing to the nation. Look at you – too self centered with your own image of political clairvoyance to look at it objectively.
Trump is the WORST thing to happen to the nation in your lifetime; likely in the history of the nation. and you continue to rationalize his acceptability.
Shame shame shame on you…
Were talking about the Joe Walsh that Actually attacked Tammy duckworth for being seriously disabled as a helicopter pilot in Iraq ?
“My God, that’s all she talks about. Our true heroes, the men and women who served us, it’s the last thing in the world they talk about.”
On June 19, 2014, Walsh was removed from his radio show for using racial slurs
On January 14, 2015, following the Charlie Hebdo shooting, in a tweet which he described as satirical, Walsh called for Islamists to “behead” reporters on CNN and MSNBC and referred to them as “appeasing cowards” for not airing cartoons published by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which depicts prophet Muhammad.
In another tweet, Walsh stated that not showing cartoons of Muhammad would lead to more attacks.[
On July 7, 2016, the night of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, Walsh wrote on Twitter, “This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out Black Lives Matter punks. Real America is coming after you.”
On October 24, 2016, Walsh wrote on Twitter, “On November 8th, I’m voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket. You in?”
On September 23, 2017, Walsh described Stevie Wonder as “Another ungrateful black multi millionaire” after Wonder had taken a knee at his concert in protest of what he termed police brutality
In 2018, Sacha Baron Cohen’s television program Who Is America? premiered showing Walsh supporting the hoax “kinderguardians program” which supported training toddlers with firearms
In July 2011, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Walsh’s ex-wife, Laura, was suing him for $117,437 for past due child support dating from 2005 for their three children.[59] Walsh allegedly had told his ex-wife that he did not have the money because he was out of work; she had later seen from his campaign disclosures that he had been employed
On February 1, 2013, Walsh filed a motion to terminate child support obligations, claiming that as he was now unemployed he was unable to contribute to the support of his children
No Jay. Republican support of Trump is GROWING.
I am not republican. But if Democrats were wise they would not Take Neo-Cons back.
They are toxic to anything they touch. Little could harm democrats more than crawling into bed with Neocons.
Rassmussen Has Trumps support at 51% and 6pts higher than Obama’s at this time.
If Republicans are fleeing SOMEONE certainly supporting him.
Actual contenders for the worst thing to happen to the nation in my lifetime:
9/11
Vietnam
The John Kennedy Assassination. The MLK assassination.
The summer of rage.
The Iran Hostage Crisis.
The Lockerbee Bombing.
OKC
Wacco
Ruby Ridge.
The Beltway Sniper.
ObamaCare
ARRA
Akilli Laro
Munich Olympic massacre.
Bhopal
MV Dona PAz
Chernobel
Three Mile Island
Challenger
Columbia
Columbine
Las Vegas.
Trump – not on the list.
No matter how long you make the list. Trump will be below Obama and Bush II.
Spittle does not make something consequential.
Trump did not push Greta to advocate for scientifically unsuported malthusian crap that is dividing people – others like you did.
Trump did not force on half the country a healthcare program they did not want.
Trump is trying not to force on the country millions of immigrants they do not want.
Trump did not push on the country a completely bogus and divisive collection of false allegations that has consumed the country – or atleast the left for 4 years.
I look arround at everything in this country that is getting worse – and what I see behind it (or in front of it) is the left.
Ending the national divide is trivial.
Cease trying to get your way by force and persuade people.
That is all it takes.
If you can not persuade people – then you are not free to force your will on them anyway,
Persuading people is NOT alone sufficient, but it is an absolute requirement.
Trump was elected because you failed at persuading voters.
Current numbers suggest that if the presidential election was held TODAY – Trump would win – against any current democrat, by the same or more than he did in 2016.
Calling the people who voted for him cretans – and you do daily – is NOT persuasion.
It is highly divisive.
Getting along is easy.
Resist the urge to get your way via force.
Meh, come on , Jay.
You don’t seriously believe that that the people who exploit this young girl, who is afflicted with Asperger’s, keeping her out of school, and sending her out to parade herself around as some sort of climate change expert, really care about her, do you?
When she ceases to be of value to them, they will toss her aside like garbage. I hope that she will at least have some money at that point, although it’s probably her parents who will benefit from any financial gain. And we already know that they are more than willing to pimp her out to political interests.
You’re fine with mockery of 13 yr old Barron Trump, who is kept almost entirely out of the public eye, and whose privacy is carefully guarded, but you get all riled up when anyone criticizes an autistic16 year old, celebrated by the media, who claims that climate change “dnniers” are literally killing her?
Who is paying for her world travel, her lodging, her meals? Who is scheduling her speeches? Who’s writing those speeches?
Who decided that she is more important, in the scheme of things, than the Hong Kongers who are risking their lives for freedom? I suppose Time Magazine, for one.
I have no ill will toward this poor kid, but seriously the whole thing is a cruel farce.
WTF does any of your blabbering have to do with TRUMP BULLYING HER?
You failed to condemn him for that, yet you were indignant when a dem merely referred to Trump’s kid’s name.
Jay, yes, I failed to condemn him for saying that a young teen, who sails and flies around the world, angrily denouncing everyone who disagrees with her apocalyptic view climate change, should go to a movie with friends and “chill.”
I think it’s similar, actually to the mockery of Barron Trump for having a name that some lefty law prof “jokes” is his father’s way of conferring a royal title on him. It’s not nice, and I wouldn’t say that about a kid who has to deal with a lot already ~and I mean that about both Barron and Greta. But it’s far from “bullying.”
The difference is that Greta and/or her parents have willingly put her out there to be used used as an “attack child,” by political activists, who know that, whenever any adult tries to fight back against her “How DARE you?!” attack speeches, they can be called bullies.
I don’t think Trump really cares if the people who are willing to make fun of his 13 yr. old’s name on national tv, call him a bully……
He’s been called worse, prettty much every day.
“ He’s been called worse, prettty much every day.”
Yes, justifiably.
But Priscilla, if you’re OK with Trump singling out a teenager for advice on Twitter, you should be OK if a major Dem Tweets similar advice:
“Chill out Byron, no one blames you for your father’s vulgar sexual behavior the night you were born, or his groping women admissions, or sexual payoffs, and misuse of charity money, and associations with mobsters. You can still lead an honorable life.”
Another news organization describes the slimy prez:
USA TODAY:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/11/impeach-president-donald-trump-usa-today-editorial-board-editorials-debates/4391506002/
“Clinton was impeached by the House (but not removed by the Senate) after he tried to cover up an affair with a White House intern. Trump used your tax dollars to shake down a vulnerable foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election for his personal benefit.
In his thuggish effort to trade American arms for foreign dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump resembles not so much Clinton as he does Richard Nixon, another corrupt president who tried to cheat his way to reelection.
This isn’t partisan politics as usual. It is precisely the type of misconduct the Framers had in mind when they wrote impeachment into the Constitution.“
Clinton lied under oath MULTIPLE TIMES.
He Suborned Perjury.
He obstructed Justice.
He directed others to destroy evidence
These are ALL real crimes.
And actually no Trump did not use “your tax dollars”.
Had he actually done as you claim, particularly had he actually denied aide to Ukraine – he would have SAVED tax dollars.
Not spending Tax dollars is not stealing from americans.
I want far more president to NOT SPEND tax dollars as much as possible.
And I would cut US foreign aide to ZERO.
No, Jay this is pretty much exactly what the framers DID NOT want.
They explicitly left foreign policy – short of declaring war, as the domain of the president.
Our founders did not beleive the US government should be giving money to other governments.
For washington and Madison and Jefferson and Adam’s US Aide to ukraine is itself unconstitutional.
You have a very warped view of the world.
You have had multiple reports – done by Democrats, Obama appointees, your own chosen people – Horrowitz and Mueller.
And despite Mueller’s growling and huffing these have all RELENTLESSLY contradicted YOUR world view.
No one Trusts you or those you associate with.
At worst you are all demonstrable liars of the worst sort.
At best you are completely unable to see the world as it actually is.
You celebrate Horrowitiz’s legal conclusion – that it takes very very little to START an investigation.
But are completely oblivious to the fact that it takes EVEN LESS to ask for an investigation.
There is no conceivable legal system where the initiation of Crossfire huricane is legitimate and Trump’s request of Zelensky to investigate Ukrainian interference in 2016 is not.
But in Jay world that is somehow True.
The ghost of Nixon is present in Comey’s FBI, not Trump.
What was done to Trump in 2016 is exactly what Nixon wanted from Hoover and could not get. An FBI that he could use for political goals.
Todate there is zero evidence of Trump ever using the institutions of the US govenrment – it is self evident that through his entire presidency – they do not listen to him.
When EVER has the FBI spied on a political campaign before ?
You and those like you are investigating the wrong things.
Trump is not even close to a problem.
So lets be clear – I WANT THE NONSENSE THAT WENT ON IN UKRAINE IN 2016 INVESTIGATED.
I am tired of your nonsense that this is all right wing conspiracy theories.
You have lost that argument.
Alex Jones has more credibility than Jake Tapper.
The democrats have no clothes. You have lied and smeared and you are unrepentant.
Get Out Of The Way!
I am glad to hear that Durham and Barr are pushing back.
That means there is some hope they take this seriously.
While I think that Horrowitz did a good job, it is also self evident that he is too part of the institutions that he is investigating and is just unable to reach the OBVIOUS conclusions that we are way beyond individual malfeasance.
That at a minimum a significant part of the FBI was SYSTEMICALLY CORRUPT.
I do not agree with Mark Levin’s editorial below.
But you should be deeply concerned, because I and millions of others are NOT FAR from supporting this.
YOU have decided that people who disagree with you politically are the enemy and that we are at war and that you are free to use any means necescary to win.
If you continue to behave lawlessly – then there will be no law. You can not have law, when only half the country follows it.
Regardless This is what is coming.
————————————————
I am of the opinion that the next Democrat president must be impeached.
That’s the only way to stop this.
If the Republicans control the House, they must impeach the next Democrat President to ensure this sort of thing is never repeated.
The next Democrat President must be impeached? What are the grounds? It doesn’t matter.
With Trump, they were talking impeachment when he was a candidate. They were talking impeachment the day he got elected. I told you, this is all sham. It’s a scam. It’s a ruse.
The only way to stop them is to turn the political and impeachment guns on them.
The next Democrat president must be impeached.
The Republican Congress can take a page from Nadler, from Waters, from Engel, from Schiff and all the rest.
They should issue scores and scores of subpoenas. Scores of subpoenas, for financial information, for bank records, for tax information; all kinds of communications with, around and about the president; issue subpoenas for the president’s White House Counsel, Chief of Staff, National Security Adviser, and other people who are closest to the president so he ceases to function.
You want to burden this Democrat president as much as possible. You want to undermine him as much as possible.
And you can wave around the Pelosi doctrine, the Schiff doctrine, the Nadler doctrine, and all the rest of them. Use their rules and take him down.
Do the Republicans have the guts to do so? I doubt it, but they must.
It is the only way to fix the Constitutional order when it comes to impeachment because the Democrats are creating this precedent.
Now let them eat it.
Joe Biden would be the perfect Democrat president to be impeached.
Start subpoenaing all of his records; all of his phone calls with Ukraine, all of his phone calls with Red China.
You bring Hunter Biden in for 30 hours of secret testimony like they brought Don Jr. in.
You create a special counsel, the way they created a special counsel against President Trump.
You demand Joe Biden testify in person and, when he refuses, you claim he has something to hide.
Imagine using their tools and their rhetoric against their guy. Or gal, it could be Elizabeth Warren, another liar. She’s another one with interesting finances. Well, we want to get to the bottom of it.
The next Democrat president must be impeached.
And Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Nadler and the others; CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC and the others; they have all laid the foundation.
And the only way to stop this is to destroy their foundation with their guy or their lady.
No single person has done more damage to this country in the past 3 years than Adam Schiff. He is the head cheerleader of the Coup, and though the Horrowitz report does not address Schiff it does repudiate every single thing he has said over the past 3 years.
Schiff will likely be re-elected as he comes from a safe seat.
But ANYONE would be a better choice.
Regardless, as we move into the future Adam Schiff is about as credible as Alex Jones – MAYBE. Jones has been right more often.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-adam-schiff-horowitz-report-20191212-52rjydsgzvb7tf7pgh3gfy45qq-story.html
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace:
“I believe President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on freedom of the press in out history.”
He’s right.
He should resign on air, and moon Trump as his parting gesture.
Watching what the rest of you are doing to John Solomon and you can say that with a straight face ?
And I like Chris Wallace, but this is pretty much NOT the day to be attacking Trump for criticising the Press.
Most of the MSM has spent 4 years chasing snipes – Read the Damn Horrowitz Report,
Nearly all that anti-Trump reporting of the past 4 years has been LIES.
Trump has not nationalized the press.
He has not gotten search warrants against Journalists – as Obama did.
He did not pass a stupid sedition act – like our founders did.
Trump has been highly critical of the press.
AND THEY DESERVE IT.
Trump’s criticism’s can be muted or atleast blunted quite simply
REPORT THE FACTS, ONLY THE FACTS.
Save opinion for the opinion page, and even then – support your opinion with FACTS.
Regardless, Trump seems to have read Justice Brandeis
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill
Keep up the whataboutism- you’re so good at it.
And keep ignoring the Trump stench – that’s become second nature to you.
What you call whataboutism has a more accurate name
Your hypocracy
No one believes that you actually care desperately about something you never did before
Nor do we beleive you will in the future
Obama withheld military aide under the sam e law
Pv bide threatened to withhold 1b in aide
You still don’t care
This is about trump not facts not acts
6 in 10 say Trump has not cooperated with the house.
That’s easy. I do not either. Nor do I think he is obligated to, until either:
Ordered to by the courts
or
the house and whitehouse negotiate an arrangement.
But 44% oppose impeachment and only 38% now support it ?
And you are moving forward ?
And you KNOW there is more bad news coming – unless after reading the Horrowitz report you beleive that Barr and Durham are bluffing.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/12/leaving-half-the-country-behind-poll-shows-majority-now-opposes-impeachment/
Fox News Poll:
“ Nearly half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a new Fox News Poll. In addition, 6-in-10 believe the president did ask foreign leaders to investigate political opponents — and two-thirds say that action is inappropriate.
Forty-nine percent want Trump impeached and removed from office, 4 percent say he should be impeached but not removed, and 41 percent oppose impeaching Trump. That’s about where things stood in early October, when 51 percent said impeach/remove, 4 percent impeach/don’t remove, and 40 percent opposed altogether.”
100% shoul agree that he asked for an investigation of Biden
Asking for an investigation is not a crime
Many of us absolutely want that investigation
Just as 100% should agree that Clinton violated many laws with her bathroom email server
And 100% should agree that mueller and the fbi conducted an improper witch hunt
Sounds like nothing has changed since he was elected
Sounds like the same sore loser soft coup problem we have had since he was elected
Todays domestic financial headlines “November Lackluster Retail Sales Bad Omen for America’s Economy”
I am sick of reporters that tell part of a story to fit THEIR agenda. I am almost to the point every article should contain a warning to readers that this reporter is considered “x or y” in their political leanings.
They are like women that had family recipes that shared the recipe, but left out the one ingredient that was critical that made theirs better than the others recipe.
.
Yep, sales were down.
Yep, there was 30 days in November, sam as last year.
Yep, there was a Black Friday and Small Business Saturday in both years
HOWEVER!! Cyber Monday fell on December 2, the first time this has happened in years.
So tor those with an agenda, they have 31 days to run around with their sky is falling message and the huge impact the trade issues are having on the economy. Then when December blows away sales totals compared to Dec 2018, not a word will be spoken, nor will they compare total sales for the two months combined.
So nov 2019 was the same as nov 2018 without cyber Monday ?
Another Dumb Ass Deal by Trump: The Tweeter’s Ten Billion Dollar Loss
-China has agreed to buy $50B of ag products next year (but no guarantee they will). That’s an increase of $29B from pre-tariff trade.
But the tariffs cost U.S. farmers $11B. And taxpayers put up $28B in emergency ag payouts.
So…we lost/spent $39B. Gained $29B. 10B flushed down Trump’s Toilet.
And it doesn’t help any of the Americans who lost their farms as a result of TTT (Trump Toilet Tariffs). Or any of the Americans still losing jobs for the TTTs still in place.
Atta boy, Donnie – the Art Of The Dumbbell; high-risk low-reward outcome, just like you ran your casinos.
Jay, I am linking an article from yahoo, not known to be a Trumpanszee site. So read it and explain exactly what is wrong with the agreement that has significant increased purchases over 2017, before the tariffs. And please note the paragraph that reads:
“Soybeans made up half of China’s agricultural purchases in 2017. Demand has since cratered because the pig herds that eat it have been reduced by African swine fever, however.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-phase-china-tariffs-beijing-153122949.html
So blame Trump for decreased soy shipments, but when a far left site like Yahoo writes this, I question your thinking.
But you and Dave are two peas in a pod. Open borders for anything coming into USA with no recourse for closed borders for our stuff. As long as you can buy your cheap Chinese crap, you could care less about the industry workers out of a job. As long as your cell phone works, too bad others in technology dont have a job because China stole the intellectual properties.
So far I am behind Trumps trade actions 100%. After 30+ years at least someone is trying, unlike those selling out to trade agreements like TPP and NAFTA. I have no idea how USMCA will comenout, but someone is at least trying to make things better.
The $40 to $50 billion in AG exports is over two years. It doesn’t increase farm exports above where they were before tariffs went into effect. There’s no promise the increases will extend past two years (per Larry Kudlow)..
In 2018 thru Oct 2019 US exports to China fell close to $100 billion, post 2017 tariffs. in other words it isn’t much of a deal. And the tariffs have been an economic failure.
Are you sure?
Beijing has committed to buying $32 billion more in farm products over the next two years, or about $16 billion a year, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told reporters at the White House, on top of a baseline of $24 billion in Chinese purchases in 2017. In addition, Beijing said it would make a big effort to spend an additional $5 billion a year. ”
Why would a liberal site report the 32B is in addition to the 24B purchased in 2017 before the tariffs took affect?
According to trading economics data us exports to China a re highly volatile even seasonally
But the log term trend is not and current exports are slightly higher than when trump was elected
Further the peak to trough difference is ess than 60b
So the max possible impact was closer to 30b
And that is a reach
This trade deal s neither a great try or a defeat
I think we should have stayed out of this
But that does not make it crime of the century
Trumps trade deals have been nastier than Obama’s
They have been slightly better for the us than Obama’s
But they have been neither great nor the end of the world
Probably the biggest effects up has had whether in trade or other aspects of foreign relations is that he has sent a message to the world that the us has weight to throw around and will do so in its own interests
Macron and treudeau can joke about trump but when they were talking together
THEY were answering to the US
I do not care nor do most Americans whether macron or Trudeau laugh at our president
So long as they respect our power
And Ron – re: your swine flu comment- it has cut pork production by 50%, of course they’re going to import more agricultural products.
Did Trump’s tariffs cause the the swine flu?
Jay, read this again.
“Soybeans made up half of China’s agricultural purchases in 2017. Demand has since cratered Soybeans made up half of China’s agricultural purchases in 2017. Demand has since cratered because the pig herds that eat it have been reduced by African swine fever, however.have been reduced by African swine fever, however.”
See where it says “because the pig herds that eat it”. Soy bean exports were cut because they had many fewer pigs eating the soy beans.
You said “of course they’re going to import more agricultural products.”
No they are not. They cut back on the amount of Ag products when this happened.
We will never agree on trade just as Dave and I do not agree on trade. If I had anything to do with it I would slap a 50% tariff on all Chinese crap until their economy was in shambles.
There is. Requirement that China import more products from the us because of swine flu
Ron
Am I supportive of actually free trade ?
Like 95% of economists
As to your criticisms
If Chinese goods are cheap junk
Do not buy them
But why are you forcing me and everyone else to live by your judgement
Stanard of living rises ONLY when more value is produced using less Human Resources
Always and everywhere that means rising standards of livin will result in people losing one job and having to find another
The us China does not matter
If the Chinese do not take those jobs illegal immigrants or automation will
All that said while I am not supporting trumps trade war
I am not exaggerating the negative impact
The global economy and inelasticty in supply of agricultural products means if China does not buy our food some one else will
Probably for more not less mone
The Chinese devalued their currency essentially transferring the cost of the trade war to the Chinese people
The highest est impact on the us I have seen is 1%of gdp
That is likely an order of magnitude off
The lowest is 0,01% of gdp
The latter being more likely than the former
Dave, we have already had this discussion so many times that I am going to copy this so I can paste it and not have to rewrite it each time!
There IS a difference between free trade and FAIR trade. You support free trade like 95% of economist. I do not. I support fair trade.
Free trade = their stuff comes in free, our stuff blocked by high tariffs. They steal intellectual properties, we follow trademark rules.
Fair trade = their stuff comes in free, our stuff goes to them free of tariffs. Our stuff has high tariffs going to them, their stuff gets high tariffs.
And stop telling me to buy things not made in China. For instance, find me a regular incandescent light bulb made in America!
Also, I was in the market for a pressure washer. Website stated, “produced in America”. Humm, I wrote company and they said pressure system was American, the assembly plant is American, the engine ( not a minor component) is Chinese made.
No I did not buy it! But had “produced” not caught my eye instead of ” made in America”, I most likely would have.
Buy they way, I just today replaced a high cost, Chinese made LED 100 watt equivalent bulb, 4th one in a box of four that has a 15,000 hour life. Box was purchased last spring. Even if these bulbs were on 5 hours a day ( which they are not), they should last 3000’days! All four went bad within 200 days.
Dont tell me to guy something else since something else is almost impossible to find!
Of course there is a difference between free trade and fair trade
We know universally what freedom is
There is zero agreement in any context regarding fair trade
Regardless ALL trade has the negative effects you attribute to unfair trade
If you up steel from the us instead of China
Americans are out of a job regardless
Just as consumers should decide whether they want low flow toilets
They not governments should decide whether they want the goods you call junk from China
You only get to decide quality and affordability for yourself
Trump has just forced the Chinese to buy lots of government subsidized farm products from the us
That might be good for us farmers
It is not so hot for the rest of us
Just as China subsidizing goods sold to the us harms the Chinese the us subsidizing farm goods sold anywhere harms Americans
There is a reason 95% of economist support free trade
It is well understood that the best outcome for any country is the lowest barriers to foreign trade
No matter how badly your trading partners behave
You are better of if your trade is freer and the freer the better
I have taken jay to task for magnifying the harms of trump on trade
But I have not said there is no harm
Trump has been wise in that he has played from a position of strength
The us ecomy started growing after trumps election and us unemployment continues to drop
China, the world are in a weaker position
While China’s growth is higher than ours
They need to sustain that growth and they are having trouble
Further there is an abundance of countries starting to do to them what they did To us
Textiles will leave China in the next decade
Just like Japan and Korea in prior decades China must shift to higher value products
Or hav a stagnant standard of living
Ultimately China will benefit as low skill low pay jobs leave and they must compete at higher skill
Just as the us benefited
If you want to go back to making textiles in the us you must
Kill minimum wage
Open the borders to allow low skilled cheap workers in
Joseph schumpeter identified a market force called creative destruction
For standard of living to rise those who can not compete must fail
To free those resources like workers to be used more productively
If the jobs you seek to protect in trade deals are secured from China
They will ultimately fall to automation
The price of anything is what a buyer will pay
If they know consciously or intuitively that the price is too high
As it is when th government engages in protectionism
They will get lower prices another way
If the Chinese can do your job for less
You are living on borrowed time
What you call fair trade is inherently unfair
By your definition of fair trade we should be sure that red states are not being ripped off by blue ones
The states are not ripping each other off
It is not my job to find you what you want at the prices you want made by the people you want at the quality you want
If that place existed and they do not now it is because most consumers found other choices better and they. Failed
Failure is a good thing in markets
It is how thing improve
You keep talking about cheap crap from China costing American jobs
Would it be ok with you if the Chinese goods were superior to us goods ad more expensive ?
We are near certain to have a trade deal with the us shortly
That deal will create jobs in some us industries and kill them in others
Is that ok with you ?
All trade creates and destroys jobs
All trade occurs because the goods purchased elsewhere are either better or cheaper
Trade would not occur otherwise
You are really opposed to trade
Or arbitrarily opposed to some trade
Trump just got the Chinese to buy billions in us farm goods
How is that fair
Us farm goods are sbsidized by our government
That means tax payers are paying for benefits to the Chinese
That you are ok with ?
shouldnt American famers sell soy or whatever because theirs is the best price or the highest quality ?
Not because trump strong armed the Chinese ?
I am not outraged over trumps trade deals because they are not the Ed of the world
They are not errors n the magnitude of PPACA
That does not make them good
As to jay
Is there anyone who doubts he would be a protectionist if trump was a free trader ?
Dave HELLO!!!
Fair trade¡!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Has nothing to do with jobs directly.
If its fair, trade free of tariffs coming and going, or 10% coming and going, fine.
If it protects one job and eliminates another, O.K.
Free trade does NOT do that.
It destroys jobs because we import without tariffs when they add tariffs.
Understand?? Free??? FAIR????
If you voluntarily agree to sell to me and I voluntarily agree to buy from you nothing can possibly be more fair
Anything that interferes with that is unfair
Tarrifs did not cost taxpayers anything
China devalued its currency
They were still a bad idea
Bailouts were a bad idea
This deal is not a big deal
China does not have to live up to it and neither does trump
Mostly it is both sides backing from the brink and continuing to negotiate
It is a SMALL victory for trump
so dhlii, having read the entire IG report as you claim, why didn’t you mention this?
“ Another fun finding? That Ivanka Trump has been buddies with Christopher Steele—the author of the dossier that her father has blasted as “phony and corrupt,” and the basis of the F.B.I. “witch hunt” against him—for years.
Rather than harbor a bias against Trump that led him to produce a negative, highly embarrassing file on the then-presidential candidate, the report found that, if anything, Steele was “favorably disposed” toward the Trump family, given his friendship with Ivanka, which @realDonaldTrump failed to mention at any point while slandering the former British spy as “dopey,” a “Trump hater,” and a “lowlife” on Twitter. While the apple of Trump’s creepy eye is not mentioned by name, the “family member” referenced is said to be his eldest daughter, according to ABC News. Per the report, Steele told investigators that the allegation he was biased against Trump was “ridiculous,” considering well before he started his research, he visited “a Trump family member” at Trump Tower and had “been friendly” with [the family member] for a number of years. Steele described his relationship with said family member as “personal” and told investigators that he’d once gifted them a family tartan from Scotland to.
According to ABC News’s Julia Macfarlane, Steele and Ivanka initially met at a dinner in 2007 and subsequently met up at Trump Tower. Emails suggest they stayed in touch over the next several years, with mentions of other dinners coming up. And not only were the two personal friends, Princess Purses reportedly invited the former spy to her office in 2010, after he’d gone into private practice, to “discuss the possibility of him working for the Trump Organization doing due diligence abroad as part of his work for Orbis [Business Intelligence],” the firm he founded. Strangely, however, none of this came up while the president was maligning Steele as an associate of “Crooked Hillary.” ”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/ivanka-trump-christopher-steele-inspector-general
The House should subpoena Ivanka to find out is she was the source for the Russian hotel bed peeing story.
Really ?
This strikes me as not very relevant to much of anything.
You are the one who seems to think that who knows who or guessed motives matter
The clintons and trumps we’re freinds too
Ivanka was close to chelsea
What I care about is facts
Btw most of the Steele dossier was the work of Glenn Simpson
Are portions were crap Simpson tried to use on McCain in 2008
But no one was buying Then
So Simpson changed names
I do not care if Steele voted for trump and slept with ivanka
The fbi is supposed to verify
And stop if it can’t
The creation of the dossier was legal
The selling o& the dossier to state and fbi was legal
The buying of it esp long after it was known wrong by the fbi is a huge problem
Horroitz is wrong about political bias
But the why does no matter
This is what actual abuse of power looks like
Not asking Zelensky to investigate a lot of allegations
I occasionally play this stupid guilt by association game with you
It is your game
It is a fallacy
But what the hell
I can connect pretty much every democrat with hitler in two hops
Is who knows who interesting ?
Sure
Is it evidence
?
No
The scumbag gaetz is the AOC of the right. Democrats should welcome his every moment as an attention grabbing jackass in the spotlight. He is the perfect face for today’s contemptible sleazy GOP. Trump, the epitome of an asshole, and his little buddy minitrump from the panhandle. He makes a very strong case FOR impeaching trump and in effect the GOP itself. The GOP has descended into shameless honorless pandering to the worst characteristics of America. They will be remembered for their actions for a very long time.
So, being an attention-grabbing asshole qualifies as a “high crime?”
I would venture to say that a majority of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, might qualify on that standard ~ so many, in fact, as to make it the norm.
Adam Schiff, for example. As the saying goes, the most dangerous place in D.C. is between Schiff and a TV camera…
Priscilla, the democrats are making a huge mistake trying to remove a president because he is an “attention-grabbing asshole”.
Many told Harry Reid not to change senate rules on super majority votes because it would come back to haunt them. Well Trump has filled more judicial appointments than most of his predecessors did because there was not long that 60 vote threshold. Paybacks are hell.
Now with this action by the house, the precedent has been established. The next time a house is GOP controlled and there is a Democrat president, any questionable actions before or during the administration will be open for impeachment. Maybe in the long run that will be good. But I doubt it. No longer is it what is good for the country, it is getting elected the next election.
If only trump was merely an attention grabbing asshole, yes, no one would even notice and he would not be under impeachment. And if AOC and gaetz were merely garden variety jackasses they likewise would go unnoticed. But they are much more, that is why the media follows them and not some other political assholes. This is obvious, denial is useless. The GOP has made AOC their focus, the dems should make the equally repulsive gaetz theirs. The truly exceptional assholes, the assholes who rise above all the mediocre assholes are pure gold for the opposition.
The feigned innocence, the denial of any understanding of what trump has been doing, its just kabuki theater, an act. Any intelligent person understands that trump has done far more and far worse than merely having bad manners. Any intelligent conservative knows full well that the GOP would be impeaching any democrat who did a small portion of what trump has done, and with reason. I do not believe the insincere feigned stupidity for a second.
I do not believe for one second that lindsey graham et al, and in fact any intelligent person, do not understand perfectly well that trump has committed impeachable offences and that the GOP themselves would be furiously attacking and impeaching a democrat who did these the same things. This is what has earned my utter contempt for the trump GOP and all its members and all the so called conservatives who are playing the so what game. In fact they completely understand that trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. They are simply willing to have trumps behavior be the new standard if that is what it takes to survive the next news cycle. Its not what I would call love of country, patriotism, or honorable behavior.
When there is a democratic president and the GOP tries to bring him down with ginned up controversies, I will be saying so what, so what, so what and so will many many other people. They have given up their honor and so have lost the ability to complain about the other side and be believed by any intelligent person. They are betting that there will be enough unintelligent people to save them.
If I were the democrats I would make graham the center of their attention and replay his role in the clinton impeachment ceaselessly. Even stupid people can understand that he has all the sincerity of a mercenary.
I used to respect graham. I am so embarrassed that I was fooled.
Roby “I used to respect graham. I am so embarrassed that I was fooled.”
Anyone that respects ANY politician is a FOOL. I like Joe Manchin’s political positions, but I dont respect Manchin.
If Adam schiff had proven truthful he would have our gaging respect
What has Gaetz been wrong about ?
I will condemn him over that
Agree.
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” Mark Twain
Nothing has changed in 100 years
Twain’s public remarks were the pentagon papers of his time
Then it was the Philippines that we needed to invade and pummell into submission
Funny how those looking to send us solders to kill elsewhere often argue it is to protect others
Like the ypk
Mark
Being an attention grabbing asshole is a prequisite for Congress
Has Gaetz lied about something ?
Has he tried to violate anyone’s rights ?
Is he pushing to spend more money we do not have ?
Gaetz likes to hear himself on tv
That makes hm a politician
AOC is pretty much wrong about all facts
Se has lied
She is constantly seeking to infringe on rights
And spend over peoples money
There is no equivalence here
You do not like Gaetz ok
That does not create equivalence
He is hypocritical – accepted
Still not AOC or pelosi or Nadler and certainly not Schiff
Put simply no one purportedly on the right is morally as reprehensible as those one the left
Prior to an impeachment trial, according to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, the senators serving as a jury “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”
According to the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials that oath is:
”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-SC, on impeachment trial: “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell: “We have no choice but to take it up. But we’ll be working through this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president, in the way all of the Senate.”
Imagine other jury members coordinating with defense attorneys at a federal trial. Both these bozos are as impartial as Puritan judges at witchcraft trials. They, and any other Republicans with similar attitudes, should recuse themselves from the impeachment process. But of course they won’t: Party Over Nation is the new GOP motto.
Can you cite a part of the constitution they are violating ?
Not a big graham or McConnell fan
But in what world should anything produced by schiff who was wrong on every single item in this report on fisa ever be taken seriously ?
Would you expect the senate to take anything produced by Alex Jones seriously ?
Well that is where your credibility is
You keep pretending that you the left democrats and the media can lie over and over and
Still be believed
Why should I have any more trust in the accuracy of these arricles of impeachment that in crossfire hurricane or mueller ?
You should be happy they are dispatching this pile of schiff quickly
The alternative is to call the Bidens schiff an ciarimello as witnesses
Regardless everyone has already heard the best evidence that democrats have
You Took your shot
That was a poor choice
The best thing you could do is accept that you blew it
Apologize and move on
Most everyone knows this is only happening because 2020 is looking Ike a Democrat blood bath
You do not understand that democratic support has two pArts
If you go for award with impeachment you lose one
If you do not you lose the other
Why don’t the Republicans just repeal the oath taking?
That way they won’t have to show what kind of untruthful despicable shits they are..
What part of that oath are they violating ?
Jay they are giving you and the country a gift
Quit moaning
You could get your wish and have a real trial in which trump calls witnesses and schiff only gets to present actual evidence
This as goe Harris for you
Why do you want to complain about ending this farce ?
If trump really wants to use this to dig into Biden and schiff h would be free to do so
The impeachment rests on the validity of the request for investigations
Trump would 100% allowed to present evidence that the investigation was justified
The democrats failure to allow that in the house was a huge mistake
It made this about poloiics not truth
Ha! Jay, come on… Schiffty and Nads can break all the rules, impeach the president with zero evidence, and remove all semblance of due process and fairness from the hearings, but if a Republican says, very reasonably ~and truthfully ~ that there is no way that this whole thing is anything but a partisan political sham, and he’s going to treat it as such, you all of a sudden want procedural integrity?
And, Dave is right, getting this circus over quickly would be a gift to Democrats, who have blown it from the very start. The longer it drags on, the worse it gets for them, because the more obvious it is that they have failed to make their case because…well, there is no case to be made.
It’s hurt Biden much worse than it has Trump. It’s actually helped Trump.
Oh sure, I have been hearing that “Biden is toast” here for quite a while. And yet, he is still on top of the polls. My advice to blovulators and spinners: Declare victory when you have actually won. There is a long dirty depressing war ahead before anyone will know who was helped and who was hurt. I would not bet a nickel on a prediction of how this turns out. But I do know that impeaching trump is absolutely the only moral course given his actions and I support the dems in taking it, whether it hurts them or helps them, its not about winning, its about the future and whether trumps actions are the new acceptable standard for the POTUS. If they are, we are all just fucked and the GOP will be among the most badly fucked in the future, though they will richly deserve it.
What the history books will say in the future matters more to me than what the media or the countless little spinners say today.
“And, Dave is right, getting this circus over quickly would be a gift to Democrats”
Blah blah blah.
Since impeachment fever began nationwide in October there’s been NO CHANGE in the number of Americans who want him impeached.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/12/1862/1048/1fd05045-1.png?ve=1&tl=1
Jay
It is irrelevant that you are wrong
I am perfectly willing to let you screw yourself
Let’s have long hearings
Bring in schiff ciarimello the Bidens
And limit democrats to fact witnesses
Make this last months
Trump is supposed to be president of all the people, not just his core voters.
If 50% of the people don’t want him to remain as president after an almost complete first term, he should resign.
Never before in our lifetime has a president been so divisive, so untrusted. If he gave a shit about the nation he’d quit now, so Republicans could find a more suitable human to serve as president.
Come on Jay, when was the last president that was “president of all the people”? And PLEASE dont say Obama!!! He was about as divisive as Trump in his policies.
Us presidents and politicians are not popularity contests
Trumps current approval is 6pts above Obama’s
Obama did not resign
Plenty of presidents have been below trumps
If you really believe popularity matters
In 11 months you can get rid of Trump
If you are right
One of your problems is that the actual standard is not popularity
But more. Like he physicians oath
First do no harm
Trump has mostly restored the rule of law
Has mostly brought government back to enforcing the laws passed by Congress not concocted by the prior president
Apparently being president of all the people to you means screwing everyone not on the left
How did we get ppaca ?
Is there anything democrats have done that all the people wanted ?
That half the people wanted ?
When we do not agree
We should do nothing
Most of the time
We should not us force
Apparently you forgot the Obama presidency
Roby, I didn’t say that Biden was toast, I said that the impeachment effort has hurt him more than it has hurt Trump.
Biden is still the best that the Democrats have got.
I will say it Biden is toast
And I am not going to be silenced by those who said trump colluded with Russia or was not spied on or was not wire tapped
Graham is prepared to dump this
How does that violate any oath ?
Democrats are bringing a pile of schiff to the senate
The Horowitz report demonstrates conclusively that schiff can not get the facts straight even when he is spon fed them by an actually honest process as Nunes conducted as HPSCI chair.
Why woul anyone believe that he will do better with the deeply flawed process he concocted
While due process is typically viewed as a right of defendants
Fundamentally it is about running legal processes to get at the truth rather than paint the picture the prosecutor wants to sell
If schiff wants graham or republicans to take this seriously
Then he needs to have conducted a serious inquiry
Which he can do at any time
Purportedly schiff seeks to call new witnesses at a senate trial
Sorry Adam and jay
You do not get to make the same farce of the senate as you did the house
If you want to subpoena new people
That just means you know you do not have a case
Nothing prevents schiff from continuing to investigate in the house
And when he can bring articles to the senate that have actual evidence then he can expect the senate to take him seriously
Regardless the senate is not the place to fix the mess he made in the house
Ultimately the court will rule on schiff subpoenas
But even Ginsburg grasped there is a case
Had she said no the lower court ruling against trump would have stood
Regardless I expect that scotus will give schiff his subpoenas
But I also expect it will require him to follow rules of due process
Which would preclude schiff kangaroo court approach
Need I remind you that Horowitz has just said that when the fbi failed to abide by rules that are there to direct investigations to seek and find truth rather than predetermined outcomes those inquiries are deeply flawed and do not find truth
I think the truth is obvious
So do you
But we see exactly the opposite results
I trust A proper inquiry following the rules and ending when the rules dictate it can not continue
You do not
Schiff did not and does not
You seek to ignore due process because it is design to thwart distortions of the truth
And you do not what the truth
You do not trust in truth
To you there is no truth except you desired outcome
Regardless if you want a full hearing before the senate
Conduct a proper investigation
Make your case
And except that if you can’t it is because your hope is not the truth
Regardless one of the first thing that the defense does in most cases is seek to dismiss because the prosecution has not made a prima fascia case
I have staunchly defended the houses right to impeach for any reason at all though I have strongly advised that this reason is a poor choice
The senate is equallly free to decide on its own what constitutes an impeachable offense
And is free to return this to the house without a trial on the basis that the senate finds no valid claim of an impeachable offense
Which they should do
Something all should know, conservative, liberal, moderate, centrist…..too many do not.
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/12/15/happy-bill-of-rights-day/
From the Washington Post:
“A private campaign is underway to draft Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) as an impeachment manager in the Senate trial of President Trump, a bid to diversify House Democrats’ appeal to voters with a rare conservative voice.
A group of 30 freshman Democrats, led by Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), has asked House leaders to consider the libertarian, who left the Republican Party earlier this year, for the small group tasked with arguing its case for removing Trump in the upper chamber, according to several Democratic officials.
The thinking, according to these people, is that Amash would reach conservative voters in a way Democrats can’t, potentially bolstering their case to the public. He also would provide Democrats cover from GOP accusations that they’re pursuing a partisan impeachment; Amash is one of the most conservative members of the House and a vocal Trump critic.”
By the way, the LNP supports impeachment, not entirely due to the articles, but their perspective the President has exceeded his authority in many ways.(Paragraph 4, Official statement)
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/12/13/libertarian-party-officially-supports-trump-impeachment/
BUT REALLY, if we impeached for violating powers provided the president by the constitution, would any president finish a term?
“BUT REALLY, if we impeached for violating powers provided the president by the constitution, would any president finish a term?”
No, and SCOTUS, by agreeing to hear the case for compelling the release of Trump’s financial records, has pretty much destroyed the “obstruction of Congress” charge. If the Supreme Court thinks that it’s appropriate for the Executive branch to ask for a ruling on this, than it can’t very well be “obstruction.”
Not to mention that the whole concept of checks and balances is really a constitutional method of each branch “obstucting” each other. Almost every president (maybe every one) has claimed executive privilege, so, as you say, no president, would ever finish another term.
Or we’d just devolve into a British style parliamentary system, where every time the Congress opposed the President, there would have to be a new election.
I hadn’t heard of Amash being proposed as an impeachment manager, but I don’t think that he would influence things much. He was always a never Trumper and he’s not even a Republican anymore, so he doesn’t carry much weight with either side. And with Van Drew now leaving the Democrat Party over impeachment, he kind of cancels Amash out.
Hamilton warned of partisan impeachments having the potential to destroy our system, and here we are.
“No, and SCOTUS, by agreeing to hear the case for compelling the release of Trump’s financial records, has pretty much destroyed the “obstruction of Congress” charge. “
No, they’re going to decide if potential financial crimes Trump may have committed prior to his inauguration can be investigated.
SCOTUS hearing this at all is unusual
No they are not going to decide if potential financial crimes can be investigated
That was decided long ago
Of course they can
They are going to decide two things
Whether the ny ag has probable cause that a crime was committed to permitt a warrant
That btw is the stronger case
I hope they say no
But that is unlikely
But they should say no because the 4th amendment should be restored
I am tired of I wanna know warrants
And any decision that is specific to trump is wrong
The 2nd issue is settling whether congress can violate a century old law an supernatural the tax records of an individual
Impeachment complicates this
But that actually ties back to the first case
As an investigative body they need probable cause and they do not have it
But they are also addressing house witness subpoenas
I expect the house will win a physic victory
Scotus will order the wh to Mae witnesses available
But I will als rider that they must have time to prep
Have White House counsel and be informed narrowly of what questions they will be asked
Nor will that preclude the wh from asserting executive privilege narrowly
Put simply scotus will say that the house can subpoena members of the executive
But that it can not violate due process or prevent the White House from making claims of privilege
Members of the executive are not subpoenaed as individuals but because f their office
Therefore the house must negotiate their testimony with the wh or go to court
There is no shortcut and congress is not a law unto itself
Jay, law enforcement cannot simply seize personal property without reasonable cause. That is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Politically motivated “fishing expeditions” do not qualify.
I realize that you don’t care, because orange-man-bad, but once that constitutional protection is gone, it’s gone for all of us.
If they can do it to the President, they can do it to anyone. The President’s lawyers are challenging this in the courts, and the Democrats will have their chance to present evidence that indicates reasonable cause for a warrant.
If they have it, they will get what they want. SCOTUS will likely hand down a ruling before the election, so be patient.
As far as the 2nd impeachment article, “obstruction of Congress,” ~ it’s based on the Executive branch refusing to provide documents and testimony that it considers privileged or personal. SCOTUS has basically said that the President has the right to challenge this in the courts, before he can be compelled to obey King Adam Schiff and his minions. So, there is no basis for the article, until SCOTUS rules.
If they can do it to the president
The president can do it to them
It requires scotus to rule AND trump to fail to comply with that ruling
The most relevant issue is that congress does not get to decide what its powers are any more than the president does
Frankly we have f’d the 4th amendment and the standards applying to congress are backwards
I think congress is entitled to most anything they want from the executive
Though there still must be due processs
I,e, they do not get to demand it yesterday nor preclude witnesses from having department provided attorneys or knowing what they are to be questioned about
But I think congress has zero power to compel the testimony or records of private parties
The 4th amendment allows search’s to investigate crimes congress is not a criminal investigative body it has no power to search private parties
I would give about anything for a Rubio, Bush (45) of even (gag) Cruz as president instead of Trump, even if the economy would not be where it is today.
But individuals that do not realize that even a small crack in constitutionality in investigations of anyone are living in a dream. Anytime a crack, no matter how small, develops in constitutional rights, it is the first steps in the weakening of the foundations of all rights.
Comey said “I was wrong. There were 17 things left out or mistakes in the FISA warrant”. If that was anyone else, the whole damn case would be thrown out.
But now that a FISA warrant stands with this, the same proceedings will be used against citizens. COUNT ON IT!
The economy does not boom if freedom is in decline
I can not bring myself to vote for trump
But he has been a better president not only than every person you mentioned but also rand paul or Gary Johnson
Several libertarians and even anarchy capitalist have noted that even though trump is not libertarian
His immigration and trade policies are anti libertarian
And he is status quo on our horrible drug laws
Still in terms of actually accomplishing libertarian goals no president ever except maybe carter has been better
So sorry Ron
I will turn off the tv pay in attention to twitter and be happy that trump rather than Rubio or Cruz is president
I do not beleive they could have done nearly as well
And the ecomy is the sum of ALL the things we value
So no
I am never taking a weaker economy
Trumps un popularity stems from two things
First he is undoing Obama
And 2nd he is fighting back against all the slurs of the left and the media
Trump has incredibly effectively provoked the media and the left into burning their own credibilty to ash I celebrate that
He has faced down those and we have too man here who think it is moral to insult people into silence
Well trump will not shut up
He is painfull to listen to
But I do not listen to him I pay attention to what he does
The left fixates on his every word torturing them selves
That makes me happy
The left including others here have made it clear they will turn this country into a dystopian hell. All at once or n small compromises
I am happy that trump is undoing 8 years of leftist nonsense and the result is that the country is thriving
I probably disagree with trump on much more than you
But I am happy about many of the things you do no like about trump
I am happy that the press has openly shown their bias
I am happy that democrats have exposed themselves as lawless incompetents with no clue about reality
Why should we buy the nonsense of democrats on healthcare or climate or trump or foreign policy or …
Republicans including trump are no hero’s but democrats are pretty much always wrong
Until that changes trump is more valuable than Cruz
I would note that thatcher saved England quite litterally in myriads of ways and she was more Similar to trump than Reagan
Do left wing nuts have a clue ?
I actually respect amash
If he was my rep I would vote for him
But his vote on impeachment will not change the facts
Libertarians in particular are NOT followers
Respect is not worship
Republicans are starting to put nation over party:
Former GOP Homeland Security Secretary and GOP GOV of Pennsylvania —
“Tom Ridge says Trump’s Ukraine call left him ‘disappointed and troubled,’ says he won’t back president in 2020″
“As far as I’m concerned, it is abuse of power”. (Fox News)
I am a big fan of ridge
But he is wrong
This was not abuse of power it was not close
If there was a qpq it was not abuse of power
If the aide was never provided it was not abuse of power
This issue is trivial
Does reasonable suspicion exist regarding the items trump wanted investigated
That is it and as Horowitz made clear at is a very ow bar
There is not a world we’re downers inaccurate repetition of papadoulis remarks is reasonable suspicion and Bidens public remarks are not
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/12/15/fox-news-poll-shows-over-half-americans-support-trump-impeachment-and-removal/
This about mirrors the political split in America.
My only concern is the reported 45% that still believe he committed bribery when that was the Democrats #1 issue they wanted in the articles of impeachment and could not find enough evidence to support that. Once they were convinced there was bribery, he is still believed to have committed bribery even without any evidence.
I suspect Jay is in that 45% because Jay would believe Trump was guilty of any crimes that the left ever mentioned. But when the articles did not include bribery, I also suspect there was none.
There are two issues with this entire mess
1 none of the known conduct and nothing but the most ludicrous allegations violates the law
It is not wrong to investigate where there is reasonable suspicion
That is what democrats are holding to from the Horowitz report yet it completely undermines impeachment
2 voters are not stupid they understand that trumps actions are less egregious than your typical politician
If trump bribed the Ukraine what did Biden do ?
Wasn’t t
Obama’s Iran deal massive bribery ?
Isn’t hunter Biden the bribery of joe Biden ?
What of bill Clinton’s speaking fees ?
Or donations to the Clinton foundation
If you define bribery broadly you catch all past and future presidents as well as all of congress
If you are really going to change the standards then make THAT case
But if you tell me that Trumps conduct is unusual
Hell if you try to tell me it is half as egregious as Clinton or Obama or democrats
Then you are bald faced lying
Dave “2 voters are not stupid they understand that trumps actions are less egregious than your typical politician”.
So why does 50% support impeachment?
I may argue polls but I do not weigh them heavily
Until a persons oppinion has a cost it is highly inaccurate
Robby
“Biden is toast”
We have heard nonsense from you about trump for three years
Not really interested in being tol by people who said trump colluded or was not wire tapped or was not spied on or was lying about all kinds of things that we now know and could easily have known at the time we’re true
Nope do not place much credence in the views of those who have “born false witness”
Against others
Absolutely only time will tell
Absolutely “Biden is toast” is speculation, opinion
But it is a reasonable conclusion from the facts
If the house votes to impeach the trial will likely be mercifully short for democrats
But the follow up will not
But for impeachment the senate likely would not have taken up Biden and Ukraine
Now they will
If for no other reason than to punish as they deserve democrats for faux impeachment
Biden can not handle softball questions on Ukraine from friendly reporters
Trump has not run adds against him yet
Everyone has thrown him softballs
You think he can handle real scrutiny ?
Regardless this is already over
Post fax impeachment
Democrats Hail Mary trump is beating all democrats in all swing states
You needed to strike a fatal blow and you barely nicked trump
Democrats did more damage to themselves
The question now is not will trump win in 2020
But whether the GOP retakes the house
Probably not
But dems are going to have to spend enormous resources trying to maintain the status quo
Momentum has been running against democrats since the mueller report
This was their shot at changing that and it has backfired
It is not just Biden in trouble
It is anything with a d behind their name
https://humanevents.com/2019/12/12/daca-an-actual-abuse-of-power/
Priscilla & Dave & Ron:
If you’re having trouble wrapping your Christmas presents to me, this will help:
Well hell. I have all mine wrapped and many pieces of “just a little too small” pieces.
So now I know who to blame!
Jay!
He could have shared this last week before I wrapped.😁.
Just kidding. And i have paper for next Christmas!
Great idea. Unless someone is OCD and needs seem right down the long bottom of the box.
I’ve gotten so lazy wrapping Xmas presents, whenever possible (like for wine or whiskey bottles) I just slap on a ribbon or bow.
🥴
Yep, gift bags work real well for lazy ones like me also.
Wow. This is a revelation.
But I also have gone mostly with gift bags. Life’s too short to wrap presents!
Educate yourselves.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/
Jay
This crap is boring
If the actual elements of any crime were present or even close the house would have alleged it
It has not
They even dropped the ludicrously stupid claim of bribery
Someone has not committed a crime because you sat they have
Nor because someone else does
Actual crimes are specified by the law
They have specific elements
And you must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt to convict
And assert each element with evidence just to get into court
We do no play this game you are playing
Or at least people who care about the rule of law do not because many perfectly moral and legal acts are indistinguishable from crimes until you apply the law narrowly and require every element
If trump bought a burger at McDonald’s that can by the broad arguments the left makes constitute bribery and many other crimes
It is obviously a quid pro quo
When you game the law like this you make criminals of all of us
Whe n you game the law like this we are a very short distance from soviet gulags and political prisons
I am not interested in this kind of crap
Pick an actual crime
List the elements from the actual law
Demonstrate with facts how each and every one is met
I can trivially do that with Clinton and the espionage act
I can do that with bill Clinton lying under oath
I can do that with some of the things Horowitz found
And I can do so with each example above without making criminals of half the country
I typically define crime as an unjustifiable use of force
That is a very common definition
But another frequent definition is harmful conduct that only 1-2% of people engage in
That understanding of what is a crime is important because the larger the broader you define crime the more lawless and totalitarian you society becomes
When you make a new law or you interpret a law broadly
You make a larger portion of people criminals
The examples you cited who catch all of congress
Every politician
At moments I could be ok with that
It what I would not be ok with is allowing you or those of any other ideology
Deciding who among the guilty based on a broad definition of crime gets prosecuted
That is litterally the same as the USSR
Think of it this way
At this moment trump is president
Using the same broad definition of crime
Trump could arrest an jail half of congress
Do not try to game the law
Th most likely victim of that gaming will be you and yours
Another Republican standing up against Prez Cancer.
Former Republican presidential candidate @CarlyFiorina tells @poppyharlowCNN it is “vital” that President Trump be impeached. She says his conduct is “destructive to our republic”
You keep offering this stuff that is all rooted in emotion
Things like destructive of our republic require a basis besides emotion and not getting your way
If we can start throwing temper tantrums to dismiss our leaders
They are all gone
You have spent years telling me trump is a liar
Yet on your core claims
On the matters of great importance
Not only has trump been truthful
But you and the left and the media have lied
About trump
And about the facts
YOU are the clear and present danger
YOU are the threat to the republic
We have spent three years being told our nations political institutions and process had been cooped by a foreign power
A very serious allegation
An actual threat to the country
And yet it was a complete LIE
If Trumps conduct is a crime
So is yours
It is that simple
The division in this country is not driven by Trump it is driven by YOU
You are converting political differences into crime
That is litterally from the gulags
Facts logic reason
YOU keep dismissing valid opinion with nonsensical dismissals that have nothing to do with the opinions expressed.
Of course I keep dismissing opinion
Whether a crime was committed must be far more than a matter of opinion
It must be established to a high degree of certainty as a matter of FACT
If all you have is oppinion
The argument is over
Further this goes well beyond crime
You may not use force against others on the basis of oppinion
You can run you own life on opinion
You can not run others on your oppinion
You are quite litterally arguing for the totalitarianism you claim trump might impose
But Dave, the opinion of all those people I’ve quoted And linked, with extensive reputations and credentials for intelligence and probity, agree there is more than sufficient evidence to impeach and remove the asshole.
I presume that the motive of politicians is always political
I do not judge their motives but their results
Whether it is schiff or nadler Warner or Schumer or coons or ….
Democrats and the press have turned out to be 100% wrong about pretty much everything regarding the 2016 election
Why am I to beleive the opinions of people who have been wrong constantly
You constantly call trump a liar as do they
But as this article notes schiff Nunez nadler Horowitz and mueller all saw the same facts
After seeing them schiff nadler the msm you and democrats canal led Nunez and trump liars and their claims conspiracy theories
Mueller told us 6 months ago the allegations against trump were false
Horowitz has just told us those made by trump and Nunez were true
you seem to think that ACTUALLY lying has no consequence
Some advice I gave my kids when they misbehaved or lied years ago
Keep it up, it only gets worse
I will beleive people with a reputation for truth
I will treat as a threat those who have actually lied repeatedly
Without regard for motives or guesssed intentions
In the long run most voters are likely to do the same
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/12/16/ig_report_undercuts_credibility_of_impeachment_manager_nadler_121654.html
To those spreaders of faux information who claim Trump is ahead in all the swing states, these are the five states that trump barely squeaked wins over Hillary
Most Recent RCP Polls:
Michigan. Biden plus 8
Wisconsin- Biden plus 8
Pennsylvania – Biden plus 9
Florida – Biden plus 2
RCP is a running average not a poll
It is called a lagging indicator
There are several recent polls that have him ahead
All polls are trending towards trump
You can quibble all you want
I don’t care
You can beleive what you want
How did that work for you in 2016 ?
It is not my job to save you from yourself
“It is called a lagging indicator”
Your brain is lagging reality.
Those RCP polls are compilation averages of the most recent polls.
You described rcp accurately an fail to grasp that a rolling average is by definition a lagging indicator
Regardless until nov 2020 it’s the trend that matters
So long as we both accept that we avoid stupid arguments over which poll is better than which
They are all showing the same trends
The ‘trends’ you quote in Trump’s favor are minuscule. A week or two trend of a point or two is an insignificant Fluctuation.
Want to make a wager it doesn’t fluctuates down again?
The trends are from the start of the impeachment inquiry to the end
They range from 6 to 10 pets
Large numbers of pundits beleive that MN WI and OH are likely trump
That NH may be too
That fl is locked
That OH is likely trump unless sherrod brown is the Democratic pv
Some polls have trump leading in PA but most do not
You needed a win
You got a loss
Does it matter how big ?
Not surprised. I have been saying this for months, even well before any action on impeachment began. Dave is the only one in a dream world thinking Trump will sweep these states.
Apparently an awful lot of democratic analysts are in the same world though they would call it a nightmare
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-beats-democrats-battleground-states-2020-poll-1476382
Well looking at 2-16, apply “X are like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink”
Here X = Presidential preferences
If we elected presidents by polls, Clinton would be in the White House.
However, if Trump was not like the bratty little kid that can not keep his mouth shut and would concentrate his tweets on everything positive he has done, the polls would mean something because he would be blowing his competition out of the water. Trump is his own worst enemy because for every 5 people that he wins over, he loses about as many with his obnoxious personality. That is why he can’t get over 50% in job approval.
Tremendous job growth
Structural changes in the trade agreements that will have lasting impacts (unless another free trader gets elected and reverts back allowing China to send their crap here without following accepted agreements)
Effectively eliminating any authority the WTO has and sending the Geneva vacation ministers home for good. (Had they done their jobs, china would not be stealing intellectual properties without recourse)
Solid economic growth
Lower taxes
Low inflation
Low interest rates
Freedom to choose health insurance without government involvement
More freedom of workers to choose representation or not.
Recognition that global warming is driven by tunnel vision blaming CO2 and not additionally other major contributors like lack of active volcanic eruptions and solar activity.
Industry freedoms to move toward electric cars and not being forced to move in that direction until buyers are ready to buy, cars can go farther than 300 miles without a 2 hour recharge and recharge stations are readily available when traveling.
If anyone else, even with an impeachment hearing over their head just tweeted daily these issues and ignored the political crap going on, they would be far ahead and there would be no question who was going to be elected.
But for trumps tweets he would not have been elected
But for his tweets he would not be re-elected
I too wish it were not that way but like it or not it is true
Both Romney and McCain should have been more appealing candates
They lost because the left and the media successfully defined them
And they did so falsely and negatively
Trump fighting back harms him
But it also harms his attackers more
But for trumps tweets comey and company would have gotten away with this
When the left and the media comes after you and you place nice you lose
“The Court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn’s arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements and that the government pressured him to enter a guilty plea. The record proves otherwise,” Judge Sullivan writes.
Fuck-the-law Trump’s Rump is going to pardon him anyway.
“To hell with the truth! As the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything. It’s irrelevant and immaterial, as the lawyers say. The lie of a pipe dream …” Larry/The Iceman Commith/Eugene O’Neill
Apparently Sullivan has not read the Horowitz report
I am disappointed in Sullivan
James comey admitted to setting up Flynn
Worse is according to the agents involved
They failed Flynn was truthful
But then over time the 302s were altered
Like the 6 times that evidence for the fisa warrant was altered by this very same team
The people who need to be in jail for abuse of power are Flynn’s persecutors
McCabe was ethically barred fromparticipating in an investigation of Flynn as Flynn had been a witness against McCabe in a sexual harassment case
People like strzok and McCabe and comey are your hero’s ? And Flynn is your idea of a crook ?
What is the crime Flynn has committed ?
The agents involved said he was truthful in their reports
It is only months later they were altered to say the opposite
Just like the alterations of evidence in the fisa warrant
Flynn wasn’t set up.
Flynn out and out lied.
That’s what the judge said.
He saw/heard all the evidence.
You’re just offering your own SLANTED opinion.
Do you remember what you just said about judgements made FROM opinion?
You need to repent.
Pray to the Universe for forgiveness.
Ask to have your mind cleared of Trump-fog.
So that you can SEE the forest from the GOP!
Jay comey admitted in his emails that they were setting up Flynn
They told him they were reviewing security procedures
And then conducted a criminal interview without telling him
They bypassed the office of whitehouse council which is standard procedure for any interagency communications
They deliberately took advantage off the confusion associated with the transition
None of this is speculation
It is all documented in comey
McCabe and strzok emails and texts
This has all been public knowledge for years
It is referenced in the Horowitz report
There are 6 documented instances o f altering evidence just associated with the fisa application
There are several more involving the Flynn 302s
All the same people are involved in all of this
Falsus in unmute falsus in omnibus
There are 17 serious errors in the fisa process
But Horowitz found 51 total serious errors in the overal investigation
One of the problems with Horowitz is that he stops with mueller and starts in July 2016
As bar and Durham have noted
There investigation starts in 2015
And does not end with muellers appointment and is not confined to the fbi
Or the fisa warrant
Frankly Sullivan should throw out the Flynn investigation on multiple counts of fruit of poisonous tree
Horriwitz found the start of the investigation based on downers statements (which ultimately proved wrong) to meet the low bar to investigate
BUT you miss the fact that Horowitz also concluded that the investigation quickly LOST that basis
By November 2016 there was no credible evidence and the investigation had to end
Flynn was after that
So the Flynn investigation did not have sufficient predicate
What is it Flynn lied about ?
The original 302s of Flynn interview say he was truthful
Both agents say that
The 302s do not mention sanctions
They quote Flynn as explicitly stating that he does not remember the details of the call
And that if the agents say he talked about them it is possible that he did
As does the records of Flynn’s interviews
This is also why this is an improper setup
The fbi can not just acost someone on the street
Question them
And then prosecute them for lying based on errors in their remarks
None other than Ginsberg has asserted this in scotus decisions
An interview must be scheduled
The person interviewed must be informed of the areas they are to be questioned
They must have acccess to council if they want
The erosions statements must be deliberate and must mislead
They can not be erroneous statements about something the agents already know
If the agents do not meet all these criteria they are engaging in entrapment
In Flynn’s case
The case should’ve dropped based on a tiny subset of the damning facts we know from the fbi
And I am certain that you can not provide actual evidence that Flynn lied about anything
Find the notes or transcript by the FBI agents with Flynn’s words that are purportedly lies
They do not exist
No that is not what judge sullivan said
He said Flynn gave up his constitutional rights by pleading guilty
Sullivan is only correct when the guilty plea is finalized
Flynn still has the right to withdraw his plea
And therefore as a matter of law he still retains his constitutional rights
I am not sure what will occur here
But my guess is Flynnn withdraws his plea
In which case Sullivan’s ruling mostly goes out the window
At this time it is near impossible for Flynn to be prosecuted successfully
McCabe can not testify
Strzok can not testify
The other agent can not testify
….
They would all have to take the fifth
Most of these people have been dismissed for LYING to investigators
For every single one Sullivan would have to give a crim in falsi jury instruction
Basically a these witnesses are known liars
The issues is does Flynn take a near sure thing zero time guilty plea followed by a near certain pardon
Or does he gamble on a trial with a dc jury the near certainty of a conviction because dc juries do not give a shit about facts followed by a successful appeal
Regardless Sullivan erred
There is much more than enough in the Horowitz report to find malfeasance in prosecuting Flynn
Further Sullivan should have taken heed of bar and Durham
Some of these people are headed to jail
McCabe is being prosecuted now for lying
And McCabe is core to setting up Flynn
If this were an ordinary criminal trial
This would be dismissed
I am disappointed in Sullivan
He is mostly a good guy
He found fbi misconduct and threw out the Stevens conviction based on a forged invoice from an FBI agent
We have multiple altered 302s here
Further the mueller prosecutor should let go
Horowitz has just destroyed the foundation of the mueller investigation
Every claim Horowitz makes regarding crossfire hurricane applies to mueller
The same people worked for mueller
If the fbi knew they had nothing before mueller was appointed
Nothing changed
Pretty much by definition mueller’s investigation can not be justified if by early 2017 cross fire huricane was not
Mueller and his team are not stupid
That leaves only abuse of power and malice
Continuing to prosecute Flynn is just about the stupidest thing you are doing
Flynn is a bonanza Fidel hero
He spoke truth to power and was fired by Obama
And proved right
The afghan papers are making him a sane voice in an insane world
And as you fixate apron motives lots of people had motives to get him
And many of them are part of this
I hope Flynn withdraws his plea
But I suspect he will not
“ We now know Rudy Giuliani’s indicted ex-business partner Lev Parnas—who paid Rudy $500,000 to do Trump’s Ukraine election meddling—had a Russian funding stream.”
Huummm. Trump’s lawyer-pal Rudy paid by Russian money.
There’s an honest explanation, right Trumpees?
Will the GOPers allow the Dems to call Rudy to testify at Senate Impeachment hearings?
Oh, sorry – I forgot. GOPers don’t want witnesses to testify.
https://thebulwark.com/why-is-mitch-mcconnell-afraid-of-this-man/
Rudy is already going to testify before graham
Be careful what you wish for
Btw Burisma has a huge Russian funding stream
If you are going to do this two degrees of separation guilt by association nonsense then Biden is a Russian spy
Rudy’s manufactured testimony (will it be under oath?) was assembled by unsavory Ukrainians like Viktor Shokin, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general who was removed for lackadaisical corruption efforts at the insistence of the US, including GOP congressional politicians who approved Biden’s trip, as well as numerous international critics who wanted him gone.
You think Shokin doesn’t have a Biden axe to grind? He and Rudy have held numerous telephone conversations since last January. The Trump whistleblower also said that Giuliani and Shokin met in person in Europe late last year. They’ve been cooking up this Biden crap all that time. And have you conveniently forgotten about Rudy’s other Ukraine pals Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, recently arrested – what’s the odds the GOP will let them testify at the impeachment?
I don’t understand how you can be that blockheaded a defender of all this suspicious Trump bullshit. That you’re not the least bit skeptical of Trump’s & Rudy’s purely political motivations makes me conclude you have some un-tone-deaf remedial thinking dysfunction.
So are you claiming Biden water Shokin fired because he was Not digging into Burisma fast enough ?
Btw you seem to think trump is no allowed t influence Ukrainian investigations
Why can Biden ?
Next from Bidens own remarks the Ukrainians did not want to fire Shokin and wild not have without Bidens threats
Of course Shokin has a been axe touring just as Biden ground the axe first
Of course Rudy talked to Shokin
Rudy has been digging into American misconduct in Ukraine
He is doing exactly the same thing Steele was doing
There is nothing wrong with that
The problem with Steele is not that he investigated or bought gossip
The problem is the fbi ruled on it and knew it was wrong
No one is expecting you will assume what rudy found is true
It should be investigated
Having reviewed a lot of it
It is pretty compelling
But still it must be validated
But just slurring evidence does not make it go away
Unless doj comes up with something more on Parnas and Fruman the charges should be dropped
Obama refused to prosecute Rosie O’Donnell for the same thing
And Hillary received 65m in donations that involve the same “crime”
No one was prosecuted
No one except republicans have ever been prosecuted for this
Nor should it be a crime
What one does with your money is your business
What are Parnas and Fruman supposed to testify to
They had no involvement in a thing schiff is trying to peach over ?
I fully expect both will ultimately testify
I have no problem with schiff callin g them to testify in the house
Though the courts already have said that if the house compels the testimony of someone being investigated for a crime
The criminal prosecution must fail
See Iran contra
I am sure Parnas and Fruman would be happy to be subpoenaed
Why do you keep presuming that whoever you want to testify is going to help you ?
Parnas and Fruman have evidence of corruption involving Burisma
Do you think that will help you ?
Careful what you ish for I want and expect gulliani to testify
There is nothing h can estifytoo that will hurt trump and lots that will harm impeachment and Biden
Parnas and Fruman May testify too but they have less to contribute
Basically Burisma is corrupt
You do know that Rudy interview Shokin
And that Shokin has testified 7nder oath ?
You do know that almost half the damning docs on hunter Biden and joe Biden come from
The us state department
Doj
Fbi
Bidens lawyers
Us news sources like nytimes
It is pretty simple to build more than probable cause against Biden without using a Ukrainian source
The primary role of Ukrainians besides corroborating us sources is the malfeaance that did not involve Biden
Though even some of that is from us sources
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/horowitz-report-confirms-john-solomons-scoop-fbi-spreadsheet-regarding-steele-dossier/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/12/media_attack_on_john_solomon_is_an_attack_on_the_free_press_141946.html
Gulliani motives do not matter if what he says is true
Trump’s taxes will show he has a huge Russian finance stream – no degree of separation.
If it were true trump was getting massive revue from Russia his taxes would not show that
You have claimed before to have business experience if you really did you would know what tax returns show
I have no doubt publicly releasing them will be harmful
It does not matter what his returns say you will find a way to spin it as negative
But no matter what his tax returns will not provide actual evidence of a crime
His taxes went through an army of lawyers and accountants as well as the irs
But that does not mean you will not make something of it
I can throw a dart at a dart board and pick a number for trumps income
And you will manufacture a claim that is bad somehow
There is not an answer you would not disparage
It is not possible for you to beleive anything but negative things about trump
And that is true of the media democrats and the left
And it is true of anyone not on the left
You have fo7nd ways to trash gabbard
How do politicians become so two-faced?
Is there new evidence we have not heard ?
If so why isn’t schiff holding hearings on it ?
Democrats have chosen to bring a cas without evidence and a seeing to use the senate to continue the violations of due process they have engaged in from the start
Who jay has not head the evidence ?
You have failed to make your case
Graham is asking republicans for the equivalent of a directed verdict
Or summary judgement
Basically asserting that’s for despot show up on the doors of the senate with a prima fascia case
In many instances a directed verdict is appropriate
Reardlesss w are botching jay ?
A real trial would be a disaster for schiff
Trump gets to call schiff and the Bidens
Schiff gets no hearsay test only which rscs him to some of Sondland
Schiff gets no new witnesses
He had the opportunity for that before impeaching
You do not seem to grasp how badly a real trial will go
Thank graham for minimizing your embarrassment
You do understand that prosecutors are obligated to show up on the day of trail wit sufficient evidence to convince the court they can win
There is no “maybe I can make my case with new witnesses”
There is no “ maybe I ca ,are my case if you allow inadmissible evidence”
Only he defense is not required t have its case established a trial
The prosecution gets Adria witnesses in tw instances
As rebuttal to what defense witnesses say and where new evidence is found that was not available before
The senate has transcripts of Sondland testimony
They also have the democrats articles impeachment
The senate can by a simple majority return this to the house saying either
The house articles of impeachment do not offer a claim that if true the senate accepts as impeachable
Or the only admisssible evidence is not sufficient to prove the claims
Bth happen frequently in courts
Demrats should feel lucky
A court can dismiss with prejudice
The senate can not
But it is just as free as the house to dece what is impeachable
And that is not a evidentiary question
Put simple
Go back and do this right
Yeah. He really admitted this:
Giuliani: “I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way. She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”
Rapidly approaching senility?
So what ?
I beleive even yavnovitch should have been fired
There is plenty damning abut her
Absolutely she was asking nvestigationns difficult
That is both obstruction and the opposite of her job
🖕🖕🖕
Russia confirms Trump subservience:
“ As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov returned home from his visit with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, Russian state media was gloating over the spectacle. TV channel Rossiya 1 aired a segment entitled “Puppet Master and ‘Agent’—How to Understand Lavrov’s Meeting With Trump.”(Daily Beast)
I think absolutely everyone Democrat republican are all agreed
Trump wanted investigaons
If there is reasonable suspicion then the job of the ambassador is to get them
If she will not she must be fired
If there is not reasonable suspicion
She can try to persuade the president and failing she can resign and go public
There is no thwart the president choice
Yavonovitch does not have final say on s policy
You keep raising truth that is Damon to you and gasping and claiming it means the opposite
You are also under the delusion that gulliani is a government actor (tough that is not relevant in this instance)
Any private citizen is free to seek the removal of anyone in government
You want trump gone how is that different ?
dhlii I’m bored, waiting for roast chicken dinner, so a reminder:
Remember when Trump was told North Korea was about to test an ICBM, and he said: “It won’t happen.”
Then it happened.
Once.
Twice.
Three times. ? ? ?
Why haven’t you figured out the extent of his incompeyence?
Dhlii what has happened to your inexhaustible Trump defense?
Have I exhausted your rationalizations in defense of the indefensible?
I am not defendng i am attacking you
Further I am in Japan right now s responding to your craps about twice as hard
But I am having a great time and you seem miserable
This is totally off politics, impeachment, Trump, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, etc.
This has to do with science and alternative causes for global warming.
Open and then think about this.
Sunspots and solar activity warm the earth
Water absorbs heat and retains warmth longer than land.
71 percent of the earths surface is covered by water
1000+ years ago the earth was as warm or warmer than today.
In the 1600’s the earth experienced a “little ice age.
Since that time, global temps have increased
So if the solar activity minimized to the 1600’s as shown here and a little ice age occurred, is there a link as the ocean temp cooled allowing global temps to cool?
With the increased solar activity over 400 years and the resulting record ocean temps, is there a link to global warming as the oceans release heat and moisture into the atmosphere?
I am not saying there is not climate change, but asked why other factors other than CO2 are being ignored.
The phrase climate change is an admission of the failure of CAGW
CO2 has a small impact on temperature
Solar factors have a demonstrably larger impact
But we understand the effect of co2 better
And want o blame it for everything
We all should hope the impact f solar activity is weaker than historical evidence as predictions for the approaching solar minima are the weakest in at least a millennia
I would Also suggest looking up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
As these are purely solar
Radical impacts on climate and broadly accepted
Ron, I’ve never been able to take the climate change movement seriously, not because there is no such thing as climate change, or even some evidence that human activity might have some role in it. I can’t take it seriously, because the people that we’re supposed to be listening to, are the same people that refuse to acknowledge any cause for climate change, other than CO2.
Of course, there is also the issue of blaming the United States for global warming, while giving a pass to China, Russia and India. Also the issue of ignoring sunspots and solar activity. Also, putting a 16 year old, without scientific expertise, front and center, as the leader of a movement that supposedly has hard science backing it up. There are other oddities ~ why do so many people who publicly call for eliminating fossil fuels, have a personal history of using private jets, driving SUV’s and limos, and buying large mansions, often oceanfront mansions, that have a huge carbon footprint?
If the world is ending, what good are carbon credits?
The climate is supposed to change
“Climate change” is a left wing nut with word propaganda game to paint anyone who questions CAGW as a nut job
You can tell there are problems when advocates think they need the right words to make their case
A silver tongue is fine when convincing me to buy a car
When you want me to jail someone I want FACTs
When you want to limit my freedom
You must prove you argument with FACTs
When you want to impeach you must have FACTs
This is pretty good
I think that the analyst underestimates trumps understanding f circumstances
Trump can not fix the problem with his negatives without going after the press
Every recent republican that has not confronted the bias and error in the press as been slimed and crucified
You want Rubio or Romney or McCain
We have seen what happens when a epublican who will not take in the press runs
They are called heartless nazis by the left and the press and they lose
There is a current fact check on trumps chain that fox apologized for screwing up his mike in one debate
That is false according to fact checkers because fax admitted the error
Bu purportedly did not “apologize”
There are really only two forms of admission of error
The on is an apology which is presumed in all admissions of error
The other is “we were wrong f#@k you”
Is the media saying that was fox’s response
No republicans moderate or otherwise will get a fair shake from the press until they have to pay a price for bias
Trump is imposing that price
The press is not going to change sort of paying a price
Today fox which I do not like is #1 in 70% o markets in many instances with higher ratings than there competition combined
That is because fox is more trustworthy
And I think fox is not that trustworthy
Trump is winning in the only way a republican can today
By confronting the liars
Her analysis is accurate.
There is no analysis
Does putting country first require buying the unsupported assertion of proven liars ?
If so count me out
This is not about country
Or party it is about truth
And it never should have started
There is more than sufficient evidence to investigate Bidens and the Ukraine
And that should have been the end of this
A legitimate act does not become illegitimate because you do not like the person doing it
Nor because you guess or even they admitt to motives you do not like
This is simple and you have never ever addressed it
We have wasted 3 years on XFH and mueller
The results of each have been a cabal including all the current players who have been wrong about everything
Many of them are solidly proven liars
Schiff Nunez and nadler all knew the same things that Horowitz has just reported
Only Nunez has been truthful and even he understated things
The very people leading the charge on impeachment have all lied to us constantly
Not just been proven wrong but been proven liars
The upper tier of the Obama doj and fbi has proven at best incompetent and many of them criminals comey lied to Congress McCabe lied to investigators klienstein tampered with evidence
There are 6 other instances of evidence tampering that someone at the fbi did but no one admits – clearly at lest on person is criminally lying
Mueller had to know much of this
At the very least he had to know the foundation of his investigation was rotten to the core yet he continued
You call Ukraine interference in 2016 and Biden corruption a hoax
Believe that if you want
But there is plenty to investigate
We already have the ic ig saying something Horowitz was unwilling to
That the wb is biased
We know he is connected with the people we now know as liars and crooks
You want to look into Parnas and Fruman and gulliani
Fine right after we look into a long list of those involved in ukraine corruption
There are claims that yavonovitch obstructed investigations the administration wanted in Ukraine let’s investigate that and if it proves true convict her
Hill says there is nothing to claims regarding Ukraine
But there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise
Let’s investigate there
And if there is substance to Ukraine claims and evidence hill knew that lets prosecute her for lying to Congress
We have lots of ethical violations of schiff and a few of nadler
Censure them
We have more that end investigated
We also have Durham investigating criminally and beyond Horowitz scope
Do you expect that will go any better for you ?
Keep going after trump
In the end it is your credibility that is destroyed
If you care about truth and the country
Trump is not the problem
The problem is that you continue to beleive proven liars
Keep it up
This only gets worse
Jay according to rcp of the last 6 polls not one has a plurality of support fo impeachment
Since early October the average has seen a 6pt drop
From about +5 to -1
If you have lost 6% in 3 months your in trouble
So by all means keep it up
I do not actually expect either republicans or democrats to do anything substantive about baseless government surveillance
Any San reading of Horowitz makes it clear not only was the FISA warrant a violation of rights
But much of XFH ad Mueller
The standard for a FISA warrant is no different from any warrant
The big deal is the degree to which they are secret
The abuses of FISA warrants are no different from warrants issued everyday without basis throughout the nation
Jay was mostly correct that the courts have allowed warantless access to phone records
That access is narrower than jay claims
But more importantly that access is WRONG
The expectation of privacy standard the courts created is both wrong and wrongly applied
We do not expect that our neighbors will have access to our bank or hone records
The lying distorting motherfucker is at it again.
His deceptive, creepy, historically incorrect letter to Pillosi is filled with distortions and lies.
TRUMP: “VP Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.”
That’s UNTRUE!. The corrupt prosecutor Shokin was NOT digging. This has been documented: The investigation into Burisma Holdings had been dormant for more than a year: It had already been shelved when Biden acted. Shokin was a Russian aligned holdover whose removal was supported by Republican senators ROB PORTMAN & RON JOHNSON, the IMF and most of all of our western democracy allies. This Shokin is the ‘reliable source’ shit-for-brains Rudy and despicable lump of feces Trump is relying on to discredit Biden.
But the Trumpanzee party-over-truth scum sucking right will propagate the distortions to undermine Biden, a basically good guy with a good heart who truly relates to ordinary Americans – to re-elect an inferior loud mouth low life like Trump. It is with a heavy heart that I’ve come to conclude those of you who go along and continue to support President Crapola are no better. You’ve been blinded by the sleaze…
No jay it is absolutely true Biden did use $1b in us aid to force showings firing
Not only is there no doubt bout that Biden has said he did exactly that
Shokin was investigating burins a which had given hunter a no work high pay job
We also know that pv Biden was aware of his sons business interests and the the us state department though they were trading influence and that Biden knew that
We know that hunter was to be interviewed by shokin the day after shokin was fired
Pretending the facts away changes nothing
And we know all of the above from us sources
And we know much of it from the Biden’s
Calling truth lies damns you not those you accuse
Again shokin was scheduled to interview hunter Biden the day after he was fired
We know this from emails from Biden’s us lawyers
Shokin was slow
And thorough
He had a long reputation for that
Jay you have to quit listening to CNN WaPo MSNBC and NYT
You know the media that got pretty much everything wrong so far
No it is not documented that Sokin was not investigating Burisma and Hunter in fact the Opposite is well documented
There are emails that schedule a shokin interview of Hunter
The schedule date was the day after Joe demanded Shokin fired
Coincidence ? Maybe, but certainly not an inactive investigation
There are emails documenting rose not Seneca lawyers contacting the new PG to see if Biden was to show up and promising they had nothing to do with firing Shokin
There is myriads of documents most from us sources like rose not Seneca lawyers and the state department confirming a slow but thorough investigation
That appeared to be about to heat up
There also exists no evidence that Shokin was corrupt beyond naked assertions from us or us affiliated sources that Biden heavily influenced
Even miracle of miracle Sorros shows up in this
We can speculate about what Joe Biden knew
Though much of that is provable unless you believe joe is deaf and does not listen to his son and that hneither he nor his staff were aware of nyt articles and requests by reporters for advance comment
And that the vps staff did not tell him about state department memos asserting that hunter was engaged in influence peddling in Ukraine
All of this is from us sources
And there is twice as much and more if you add Ukrainian sources
So yes I want gulliani to testify
And furman and Parnas and john Solomon
And hunter and joe
And damn straight I want an investigation an Biden is just one part of that
I want an obstruction investigation into yavonovitch
And a lot more
New Post/ABC poll:
— 71% of Americans say Trump should allow top aides to testify at Senate trial
— 55% say House hearings have been fair to Trump (not a “coup”)
— 49% say Trump should be impeached *and removed,* versus 46% who say he shouldn’t
You have no moral authority to led the nation as president if half of the citizens want you removed.
During Clinton’s impeachment His approval polls had him at plus 70% . Americans didn’t want him ousted for lying about a blow job – a far less serious charge than Trump is facing.
Trump is a disgraceful human.
If you don’t get that you’re FUBARed beyond redemption.
Jay.
1. I agree with the 71% if they have information pertinent to the senate trial.
2. I can’t comment if the house hearings have been fair since I have not watched any or read anything about them. I guess 55% of the people are more informed than I am.
3. I hope I am never on trial and have anyone like the 49% who have made up their minds BEFORE the trial begins. But they are the same people that give a crap about anything in the constitution to begin with as long as it fits their needs and desires.
Just like the FISA warrant based on missing and incomplete data that judges allowed to go forward without question, what is in the constitution is secondary to a political agenda.
You keep telling me that constitutional rights reduction “creep” does not happen every time I say amend the constitution if one wants it changed ( gun control). That is total B.S. and this is a perfect example of what happens when you make laws and dont use the amendment route (Patriot Act).
Nothing precludes house democrats from calling administration witnesses when the courts resolve who is permitted to testify and under what terms
It is near certain scotus will give house democrats these witnesses it is also likely
It will require normal procedures to be followed not schiff star chamber
Democrats chose to rush ahead without waiting for the courts
They created their own problems
If they want the senate to try this now it must be with the evidence they impeached on
No Hail Mary passes
You do not get to demand others fix your mistakes
Especially when it is in your power to fix them yourself
The senate should not be used to short circuit the courts or repair the mistakes democrats have made
All of these and more will eventually end up testifying
And likely long before the election
If that testimony produces anything useful
Democrats are free to impeach again
I do not think McConnell should allow any hearsay
Or any new house witnesses
And though trump has a right to call witnesses
He should be strong armed into not doing so
Or more accurately the senate should have a quick vote on whether the house has referred an impeachable offense
Say no
And dispose of this
There is nothing here
Let’s assume as an example Mulvaney testified that there was a clear qpq it would not change this
The only question that is relevant that democrats failed to look into was whether there was sufficient predicate to ask fo an investigation
There are plenty of good reasons to have a probable outcome before a trial
This is a perfect example
No actual crime or malfeasance is alleged
Saying something is wrong does not make it so
Buy impeaching without a crime
By saying the house can impeach for whatever reason it pleases the senate is free to say and if you do not state a good enough reason we will refuse to hear your case
That happens in court all the time
Most every trial begins with multiple defense motions including motions to dismiss for failure to properly state a crime or for insufficient evidence
These rarely succeed
But sometimes do
Insufficiency of evidence typically has a better chance after the prosecution presents its case but before the defense does
But the prosecution always faces a high bar to introducing new evidence
In a normal trial the defense is supposed to not merely have all the prosecutions evidence at the start but also any exculpatorial evidence
And the defense can and usually does move at the start to dismiss asserting 5hat if the prosecutions alleged evidence all is proven there still is not sufficient to prove the allegation
Prosecutors are rarely permitted new evidence or new witnesses
Though they are always aloud to rebut any defense witnesses
If we are going to follow the rules of criminal procedure this gets dismissed before it starts
Horowitz did not investigate the FISA warrant he investigated all of XFH
While the left makes a big deal that the investigation was found to have started with sufficient basis, lost in the discussions of the FISA warrant is Horowitzs conclusion that the investigation LOST sufficient basis before the first warrant was issued
Not early was the FISA application fraudulent because of mistakes
Not only was it fraudulent because probable cause did not and never existed but because the entire investigation LOST validity as the evidence became weaker rather than stronger
Lying under oath is one of the more serious crimes it is destructive of the rule of law
President Clinton did it twice
He encouraged others to do so
Hillary Clinton did it at least once
James clapper did it
John Brennan did it
James comey did it
Everyone who signed each of the 4 FISA warrant applications did it
Only stone is accused of it
Flynn, papadoulis, van der Zant, gates were all accused of a lessor crime – lying to a government agent
The list of people who also did that is huge
Almost everyone who lied under oath also lied to a government agent
Plus McCabe and most everyone in the XFH team
The only people prosecuted thus far are trump surrogates
the criminal conduct of those enforcing the law is far more significant than that of ordinary people
We might be able to make society work if ordinary criminals lie
We can not of law enforcement lies
While the FISA process needs work
The most important thing that needs to occur is those who swore a knowingly false oath to get these warrants must go to jail
That is far more important than any claims regarding trump
Rules changes will not fix this
There were already plenty of rules
The rules were broken
And absent consequences that will happen again
Byron York has an excellent article on this
Basically this is just a Hail Mary to try to stretch this out
But I am perfectly willing to have more witnesses
Lots more witnesses
So AGAIN think about what you ask for ?
We can have a two month senate trial that adds the 4 witnesses that democrats want
And hunter and gulliani and firmament and Parnas and pv Biden and Shokin and Chalay and …..
As a practical matter though
Democrats ran the house investigation
It is near certain that they will ultimately get all the witnesses they asked for
Under terms set by the courts
That is they appropriate resolution
The house can continue to chase down faux impeachment and have more kangaroo court hearings as they please
While graham follows due process and digs into Ukraine 2016
But schiff nadler pelosi decided to bring this to the senate now
It should be decided now exactly as the house asked on the same evidence of high crimes that house democrats think is compelling
If the house can not make their case
Then they should wait until they can
Of course these people and more
Every witness republicans asked for
Including the wb and schiff should testify
And ultimately will testify
Though hopefully under circumstances where the rule of law is followed
God knows where your data is from since the rcp average is well below your numbers
According to a link in your own wapo poll story a small majority do not want trump removed if impeached
Did wapo ask if schiff should testify
If the wb should testify
If the Biden’s should testify .
I expect majority support for those and more
Did the poll ask would the person still want these people to testify if it drug this out for months ?
Did the poll ask if they would prefer democrats waited until these people were called by the house ?
McConnell’s answer to this will be trivial
If democrats want more witnesses they have control of the house and can call who ever they want that the courts allow
The senate is going to try the case the house brought
Not the one they hope to bring
The house has full control of impeachment
The have no control of the trial
Ordinary rules should be followed
A trial is not an investigation
You do not go to trial if you do not have the evidence you need
We should not repay the kavanaugh fiasco
You made your bed
Lie in it
There are going to be lots more witnesses and investigations
But house democrats have brought impeachment now
The real law and fairness requires the to try the case they have or withdraw the impeachment and wait until they have what they need
Lying under oath is one of the most serious crimes there is
Our entire system of government can not work if people regularly lie to courts
I would further note Clinton suborned perjury conspired to have evidence destroyed and obstructed justice
There is no one credible that thinks those are less significant
Clinton’s misconduct violated the fundamentals for working government
Clinton also got a fair hearing in the house and was convicted on evidence from a protracted independent counsel investigation following the rules of legal procedure
The house action was political – impeachment is political
But it was based on a thoroughly done apolitical investigation
But even in the house Clinton was allowed to cross examine and subpoena witnesses of his choosing
Trump has not been
The core question here is was there sufficient basis for a request to investigate
Horowitz just laid out how low that standard is
Everything democrats (and republicans) have fixated on is irrelevant
It does not matter if trump threatened Zelensky
Not that there is evidence he did
What matters is was the request legitimate
If the answer is yes which it clearly is
We are done
Neither hunter Biden nor joe nor the wb nor all the witnesses the democrats called are relevant to the legitimacy of the request
It does not matter whether the Biden’s are crooks or saints
What matters is whether the information known to trump at the time was sufficient
And it clearly was
Should in the course of investigation it turn out that reasonable suspicion is disproven
As did occur during XFH
Then the investigation must stop
But proving someone guilty is not required to start an investigation
And subsequently proving the innocent must end the investigation but it does not undermine the start
Everything you need to know about what is necessary to start and maintain an investigation is in the Horowitz report
Republican Conservative tells it like it is:
Really Nichols ?
Do we need to go to the way back machine for the thousands of false tweets of Nichols
He is another never trump neocon who has Ben wrong about everything for years
You want to offer this as your model for moral .
Have you no shame ?
Well at least we have one Judge not buying the government B.S.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/secretive-court-rebukes-fbi-errors-russia-probe-67785339?fbclid=IwAR3i5bYWkFR6CoyNa1OG0b_6JViuhBUro6J_v-o6_EoFGgvbeghFw0SALd8
But most people will pay no attention and those that do will blame it on a conservative judge that was a Bush 943) appointment to the court and later to FISA by John Roberts.
Insufficient
The FISC can huff and puff but procedural changes are insufficient when an entire invesgitive team conspires to break the law
And have no doubt this was a large conspiracy
Every. Breach of procedure
Every crime required that multiple people were aware
There is as an example no possibility on earth that kileinstein as the only person to see the cia email that page was a source
Kleinstein May have altered the email
But many others were aware of the change
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/
Sullivan erred and it is a serious problem to falsely attack defense counsel
The oppinion Sullivan cites says you can not cite an authority without attribution
Another brief is not in terms of law an authority
It is an argument
Turley notes prosecutors do this all the time and badly
Regardless plagerism in a brief is nearly impossible
There are strict rules on arguments
And there are only a few ways to frame each
Plagersims is about stealing someone’s creative work
Myriads of laws that apply elsewhere do not apply to court documents
As an example you can not defame someone in court
The judge can sanction you but the victim can not sue for defamation
The same is true of copyright and plagerism
Sullivan appears to be losing his marbles
Which is disturbing he has been an excellent judge in the past
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/flynn-judge-accuses-defense-counsel-in-curious-plagiarism-claim-in-flynn-case/
There is one and only one point at which I think I concur with Sullivan
It is nearly impossible to expect a judge to essentially find you innocent while you are still pleading guilty
If Flynn has the balls to withdraw his plea
Which he is free to do
Sullivan should dismiss with prejudice
The conduct of the fbi has been atrocious
I do believe this case warrants dismissal without requiring Flynn to drop his plea
Things are that bad with the fbi in this case
But I can not fault Sullivan fo4 resisting doing so
That said Sullivan has made several remarks that are highly inappropriate and unusual for a judge of his caliber
And for jay
I greatly respect Sullivan
I understand why he will not dismiss if Flynn will not withdraw his plea
Even though I disagree
But Sullivan has made many pretty bad errors in this case
Something is very wrong
These mistakes are not normal for him
Page is the most clear cut victim hear
And what has been done to him
By the FBI
By doj
By the government
By the media
And by many other posters here is despicable
When you make false accusations of others it is YOUR reputation that should be trashed
Have YOU no shame!,,,
But page is not alone
Papadoulis was investigated because an Australian diplomat made an erroneous report to state which found its way to the fbi
It is arguable that the error was innocent
Though the ties between downer and Clinton
Indeed all the ties in this are really disturbing
And we can all be justified in wondering how large the ESTABLISHED conspiracy to get trump was
Regardless FBI knew
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/16/an-apology-to-carter-page/#more-150639
This is getting scary when 1/2 the people in a major party think like this.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.com/content/uploads/2019/12/672/378/fnc3.png?ve=1&tl=1
Anyone with a favorable view of socialism has ceded any claim to intelligence regardless of political affiliation
Thats why its so scary because 1/2 od a major party supports this crap and even more than 1/2 of those younger.
And this is not going to be confined to California and New York because our educational system is promoting this crap nationally.
It is marginally excusable in the young who do not know better
One big deal is that many countries today that the us left call socialist aren’t
Switzerland Sweden norway Denmark might have some form of universal healthcare
But they are as free economically or freer than the us
They have less regulation
They might have a broader safety net
But there are enormous legal and cultural pressures associated with getting off
Socialism?
But what about Trump’s billions of dollars of socialistic give-away to farmers – govt payment for his tariff game.
These would not be required had previous congresses and administrations not signed such fucked up trade agreements in the past. Now, while trying to fix the crappy mess we have with trade, temporary measures are being used to support those hurt by the current tariffs. Once an agreement is attained (hopefully he stands his ground for this), those additional support payments will end.
Socialism and its programs like Medicare for all, entitlements like student loan payoff programs and others never end.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475037-trump-approval-up-6-points-since-launch-of-impeachment-
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/18/new-york-court-dismisses-state-charges-against-manafort/
This Cnn article makes a number of false or suspect statements and fails to attemp to understand why things are not working out
Still it at least grasps as jay is unable to that the impeachment inquiry has had a significant negative impact on democrats
I would strongly suggest that at least half the country is not stupid and understands that asking even damanding an investigation of political corruption in Ukraine including corruption of an opponent is not a crime
It is not even wrong
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html
We keep hearing that everything john Solomon or Rudy gulliani say and trump repeats about Ukraine is debunked
Russian propaganda
A right wing conspiracy theory
Where have we heard that before ?
By the same people when attacking trump over claims he was spied on
That trump Russia collusion was a hoax
In the real world those who have lied repeatedly in the ast are less credible in the future
While people who have told the truth in the past are more likely to be correct now
Tailibi notes that Horowitz leaves open a number of unresolved issues
Most having to do with the start of the campaign
Horowitz essentially says he has not gotten to the bottom of several things
Either Loretta Lynch is lying or comey and McCabe are
If lynch is telling the truth XFH began much earlier than Horowitz reports
Otherwise lynch is lying
Regardless someone violated 18 usc 1001
You know the statute being used to prosecute Flynn papadoulis and van der Sandt
Then we have either comey and McCabe are lying or Brennan has been lying repeatedly when he claimed to have intelligence about Russian effort to collude with trump
Neither outcome is good for the left
If comey and McCabe told Horowitz the truth that seriously undermines the ic report on Russian interference in the election
And then there is mifsud
If mifsud is not a Russian agent and the us ic knew that
Horowitzs fiding that the investigation was properly predicated is gone
That makes this all much worse
Mueller found no evidence mifsud was a Russian agent
Horowitz found no evidence he was an FBI agent
Mifsud was absokutely working for someone
Likely either mi6 or CIA
Regardless not a Russian agent alone is a huge problem for the left and the media
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-
It is impossible to keep track of the mountain of evidence that claims that the Biden Ukraine story is Russian propaganda
Aside from th latviain ones laundering evidence here
I completely forgot that several of schiff witnesses had confirmed that there was a great deal of concern over hunter Biden’s activities in the Ukraine, that the vps office had been informed and that us aide programs had been stopped because of hunter Biden’s connections to them
https://johnsolomonreports.com/
Yah!
NEW YORK (AP) — “The first line of President Donald Trump’s obituary has been written.
While Trump is all but certain to avoid removal from office, a portion of his legacy took shape Wednesday when he became just the third president in American history to be impeached by the U.S. House.”
But his numbers are improving:
Trump by the numbers:
4 bankruptcies
3 wives
But only 2 articles of impeachment
0 foreign wars
0 journalists spied on and wiretapped
0 instances where he used the irs to target enemies
0 money for Iranian hostages
0 swaps of terrorists for traitors
0 foia violations
0 solyndras
If pelosi refuses to send articles to the senate did it even happen ?
How impeachment will be remembered depends n what follows
You pelosi nadler Clinton schiff have all jumped the shark
And long before impeachment
Purportedly pelosi was not pressuring anyone
Believe that ?
Tulsi gabbard is being destroyed by all of you on the left
Are you incapable of seeing yourselves ?
You keep saying trump has divided the country
But trump did not make you channel joe McCarthy
Everything you disagree with is Russian propaganda
You convinced almost 2/3 of the country at one point that the trump campaign was actually colluding with Russia
Mueller grudgingly and Horowitz unequivically not only found that was a lie
But the the person you put a bullseye on was actually voluntarily working for the CIA and had taken down actual Russian assets
It is increasingly easy to tell truth from lies
If you say it it is false
There is a lot we still do not know about Ukraine
Actually that is false most of us are well aware that a lot of dubious acts took place in Ukraine
The question is whether they were crimes
Do you have the slightest doubt that Burisma did not hire Hunter Biden for his knowledge of energy or corporate governance ?
Is there a crime there ?
Using actual law rather than leftist infinite law probably not
But it sure smells rotten
You want the trumps anally probed because the hotel they have owned for years continues to rent rooms to diplomats
An exchange of actual value for value
What value did Burisma get from hiring Biden ?
McCabe and comey have been forced to admitt that the FBI was shoddy
Of course that was only the low level agents on the seventh floor
They are now playing the clown because they have the limited choice between boobs and crooks
People should be burning comedy’s book purportedly on honor
Is there anyone who does not grasp that comets firing was justified ten times over ?
Horowitz has just said there was no basis left by the time of the inauguration
Or put more simply that firing comey solely to stop an unfounded investigation would have been legitimate
As has been said many times
You can not obstruct injustice
Alex Jones is right far more than Chris cuomo
That should disturb you
Do you have no shame ?
The will ultimately be a public airing of what we know about Ukraine
Likely soon
What happens to your faux impeachment as it turns into the schiff memo ?
With it being rebutted point by point ?
I warned you, the left, democrats, the you had shredded your credibility with the mueller report
And yet you have doubled down
You tell me my polls are false and cite RCP
Yet rcp shows the same trend
Both in impeachment and job approval
A 6 pt swing in trumps favor in3 months
Time is unlikely to improve that
Pelosi is now tryi to leverage impeachment to corrupt the process in the senate
Who cares ?
Send them
Don’t
Call witnesses
Don’t
You have a losing hand
You doubled down past mueller
You are betting on lightning strikes
Maybe you will get that
But the odds are not
The “Perversion” is trump and his lawless presidency. The trump GOP, which lindsey graham has made himself the loudest poster boy of, is, likewise, a perversion. It is howlingly funny, in the darkest way, that the same conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution, have supported trumps unfettered lawless destruction of the Presidency and bent themselves into pretzels to defend his actions.
The democrats are the party that is now protecting the Constitution, they did what they had to do to preserve this country. The evidence that trump withheld military foreign aid to Ukraine as a lever, as a quid pro quo, (ask Mulvaney) to get a purely trump-serving search for dirt on his strongest democratic rival for the presidency is crystal clear and indisputable. That cannot be allowed to stand without impeachment. Bravo! I do not know how this will play out politically, even if it plays out badly for the democrats, then it was still necessary. If it plays out badly for the democrats that they defended the Constitution, while the GOP is busy trying to destroy it, then we don’t have much left anyhow. But the question needs to be put to the test.
The best quality polls tell some slightly conflicting stories, we know about the Fox poll, others differ by a few percentage points and within their margins or error as to whether a majority want trump removed. According to 538 trump support has a base level of 40% and trump disapproval has a base level of 52% There are about 2% who still sometimes change their minds and account for the 3-4% swings that we all breathlessly watch. Meanwhile, there is a locked in 52-40 majority whose opinions are very solidly formed. As Fox found, that group corresponds nearly exactly to the number who want to see trump impeached and removed. So, the impeachment by the democrats is the only possible outcome considering both trumps lawlessness and the opinion of the people.
Those who think there is “not a shred of evidence” that trump has abused his Presidential powers, cry me a river. I can’t help your fantastic and grotesque blindness and I am not going to bend to it. Neither, evidently, are approximately 52% of my fellow citizens.
The whole issue is of course complicated by bernie sanders marxist takeover attempt of the democratic party that has had at least some success, although he is polling at about 15%. Without the too strong influence of what I would call the far left on the democratic party, it would be easier for conservatives to act on their Constitutional principles with trump. It is also complicated by the fact that trump has done some bold and interesting things in foreign policy, some of which history may judge in the end to have worked (or, just as likely, not worked), along with some incredibly wrong and destructive things, of which his actions regarding putin and Ukraine are the loudest examples.
The most similar previous POTUS to trump was Nixon, a very flawed and destructive man, who nevertheless did some interesting and successful things in foreign policy, along with some terrible things. The other closest previous POTUS to trump is Bill Clinton, a scoundrel of a man, who did have a successful presidency in many ways. All three have been through impeachment.
trump is getting what he has richly earned, so will his party I certainly hope in time. Successful or not in some ways, no POTUS is above the law, and that is why impeachment was created by the founders.
I am not here to argue. This is my opinion, that is all I will have to say about it. I know what the response of every other person here will be to it without the need to spend my efforts reading the outrage and blind denial of trumps defenders.
Ditto.
😊
If trump is lawless you could cite a law that was violated
No prior impeachment ever not of a president
Not of a judge
Not of anyone has ever before not cited a crime
The burden is on you
If you impugn someone else
If you call them a liar
If you call them a criminal
YOU are obligated to prove that
Withou warping law to a pretzel you can not do that
Saying something is true does not make it true
Today I can call you jay the press the left all liars
With no potential risk to my reputation
You beat the drum of trump Russia collusion
You got behind all these self serving leaks/lies
You owned them and you bet your reputation on them
You damnedand continue to damn anyone who is not fullthroated behind you
I have given up on democrats
They are like lemmings running off the cliff
I am hoarse from yelling stop
You have near certain assured trumps reelection
You have near certain assured great gains if not an outright victory of republicans in the house
If you wish to give republicans the senate too – go ahead
https://images.app.goo.gl/7MSConypJDT5qwH47
When you state that someoeelse is a liar a crimsoned
That is not just an oppinion
That is a moral judgement
It is also a bet of your own integrity
You have done so and you have lost
You do not have the integrity to appologize
The character to ask how you could have been so wrong
Instead you double down
No an is good enough to be a successful liar
Lincoln
Man bears the seeds of his own destruction
There is just shy of a year until the next election
Democrats and the media barring a miracle are done
You can impeach
Again and again
No one will come
But people will slowly digest mueller
And Horowitz
They may be no fora investigation of Ukraine in 2016
But more will get out slowly
It is inevitable
Durham will start indicting people
And possibly produce a report
Republicans have massive amounts of political weapons from the mouths of democrats
You have constantly doubled down
Raised the stakes
Been found wrong
And come back again
We are past mere opinions
We are deeply into lies
We even have crimes
Actual crimes
Not of trump
You want to complain about voter stupidity
Who would vote for schiff who has lied repeatedly
Apparently we live in different worlds
Horowitzs inquiry ends at the doors of the fbi
Nor can he compel witnesses excep those currently in government
Yet what he found as damning
Fast and furious
Irsgate
The va scandal
Lying about Benghazi
The Clinton email mess
Uranium one
And now crossfire huricane
Either Obama was the most clueless and incompetent president in history
Or he was corrupt
I fully expect gop adds of Biden saying he is proud of an absence of scandals
And after 3 years what do you actually have on trump ?
That you do not like his policies ?
That he and “the generals” and the career bureacracy are at odds over policies ?
That he wanted to investigate suspicious conduct in the Ukraine ?
You talk about history
Spin does not fare well over time
I do not expect that history will remember what you do
The world you live in is clouded in trump-fart.
I have spent three years saying almost exactly the same things as Horowitz
And the same things as mueller absent the sore loser spin
I have bEen relentlessly right about the facts and the law
You have repeated lie after lie
You have slandered not just trump claiming truth was lies
But lots of the rest of us
Have you no shame ?
GOP – Good Old Putin – Criticizes Dems for Impeaching Asset
MOSCOW—Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized U.S. Democrats for impeaching President Trump on what the Russian leader called “made up charges… WSJ
Buzzards of a feather…
What has the world come to when Putin is more accurate than schiff or comey
If Putin told you Trump fucked Pillosi in the Oval Office, you’d believe that too, right
Trump has been f#@king pelosi for a long time
She keeps coming back for more
I do not need Putin to know that
Speaker Nancy Pelosi should “Merrick Garland” the impeachment of Donald trump- hold off submitting it to Senate until after 2020 election.
She may do that as the calendar is not benefiting Democrats running for the nomination. Unless this happens the first couple weeks in January, Booker, Warren, Sanders are all going to be in Washington sitting in a trial while Biden, Buttigieg and others will be squeezing hands on the streets of Iowa campaigning for votes to get the early momentum if she waits much longer. And that is critical because money comes with momentum.
But it will help whoever ends up running to have the impeachment still hanging over Trump’s(ugg) neck like the Sword of Damocles.
In the next months more negatives will undoubtedly surface to further tarnish his name: SCOTUS will have ruled his pre-presidential taxes and documents are not privileged, revealing more of his dirty deeds. Maybe someone even as anti- Dem as you will see the light when that package is opened
His core Zombie-Cultists won’t care, but more Independents & Undecideds will shift to the Dump Trump side, and, hopefully, Trump-cancer will be excised.
Jay, “Maybe someone even as anti- Dem as you will see the light when that package is opened”
How many different ways that someone who did not vote for the bitch have to say they did not vote for Trump.
1. I did not vote for Trump
2.’I did not vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2016
3. I voted for the Libertarian
4. I voted for Johnson.
5. I did not vote for Clintons opponent
So I saw the light in 2016. Again, I did NOT vote for Trump.
1. I will not vote for Trump.
2. I will not vote for the GOP nominee
3. I will vote libertarian or not vote for president if the LP runs some half wit like they dobso often.
4. I will not vote for the democrats opponent
5. I will not vote democrat unless that democrat does not support forced purchase of private company products, does not force climate deals that do not require the same sacrifice for China and India as the USA, does not force auto companies to produce high mileage cars that no one wants that results in most everyone buying trucks and SUV’s on truck frames, does not support spending billions on student loan forgiveness for idiot students that ran up 6 digit debt when state university educations were available atca fraction of the cost and does not support one size fits all healthcare reimbursement systems, but supports medicare buyin if that is whatnpeople so desire.
Run a democrat that fits that mold and I will vote for them even with other bad agenda items.
Again if the democrats retain the house
They can impeach again as many times as they want
If democrats win the senate
They can hold the trial how they want
But I would suggest that will reduce their chance of wining the senate
But do what you want
Normally I completed actions of one congress must be restarted under the next
There is no way that democrats can lose the house win the senate and still move forward on impeachment
And in every other scenario this is just stupid
But hey go for it
I Trump will be happy to have you keep this in the news as slowly Ukraine heads the way Russian collusian went
If you think impeachment is hurting trump you are heavy into your bubble
Keep it hanging as long as you want
You fail to grasp you just make it look more stupid
It was so important it had to be rushed but now there is no hurry ?
Get a clue
This impeachment will be a major republican issue in the election
Eventually the already existing evidence regarding Ukraine will percolate to the surface and all democrats will have James comets choice between corrupt and stupid
Go for it
What do you expect to surface ?
Durham is going into the places like doj and cia that Horowitz couldnt
And he can compel people to testify which Horowitz could not
He is near certain going to establish who mifsud was working for
We now know that the XFH team forged evidence
Do you think the same people became suddenly law abiding when they went to work for mueller ?
The house still has not subpeoned the witnesses they claim trump denied them
How do you ever expect their testimony if you do not ask for it ?
In the event the ny ag gets trumps tax return
Anything that leaks is a crime
I think it is not likely the house gets his tax return
Law back to 1916 is against them
Regardless trumps tax return will not lead to crimes
At most it will be embarrassing because he is rich
Or maybe 10 years ago he donated to planned parenthood
You are betting on magic
How has that worked for you so far ?
Seek help
There is a gamblers anonymous chapter near you
The first step is to admit you have a problem
Jay
This is not going to get better for you
You should not be hoping over the next few months you should fear them
It is near certain gulliani will testify in the senate soon
He is dying to do so
That should scare you
Be carefull you could get what you hope for
Independents are moving away from you
That 6 pt shift you keep pretending did not happen was independents
I do not think Ron is anti dem
I am certainly not
I am anti stupid
Anti self destructive
Anti lying
Anti socialism
Anti big government
Anti corrupt government
I am a propenent of divided government
I was happy that moderate dems were elected to the house in 2019
Pelosi has lead them to slaughter
That I am unhappy about
I want democrats to look in the mirror to figure out why the lost 2016
And to change to better reflect the country than the left
Right- .but I’m hoping others in swing states have a different opinion.
Hope is not a basis for policy
Government should get out of trade period
I do not understand pelosi threat
I can argue that she can’t do this
But why ?
This is politically a loser
It is and admission this was stupid
The house does not control the senate just as the senate did not control the house
It will be easy for McConnell to politically games this
As has been noted the house can impeach as many times as it wants
If they are not happy with the senate handling
They can win the senate and impeach again
The only scenario that makes the slightest sense is somehow democrats lose the house and win the senate
And even that does not work
This makes no sense
There is no leverage in this
It just looks stupid
It is not worth fighting over
Just ignore it
“ Government should get out of trade period”
Tell it to the Chinese, who are surpassing us in every manufacturing industry.
The fact that the Chinese are screwing up and subsidizing us citizens is not a good reason for us to make the mistake of. Subsidizing Chinese citizens
“Tell it to the Chinese, who are surpassing us in every manufacturing industry.”
Well thats because of people like you and Dave that support “free” trade with no rules.
The Chinese surpass us in very little
This is an old stale argument
It was not true of the Japanese either
I am in Japan right now
They did an amazing job of catching up to the us from behind after wwii
But even today their standard of living is lower
And they have lost ground on the us since the 80’s
At the same time
Do I care ?
Do you ?
Why ?
I keep getting told american exceptionalism is bunk
Then why do we need to do better than China ?
The us did catch up to Europe from behind in the 19th century
And then moved ahead
It can happen
China could surpass us
Or Japan could
If they actually do
Great we will all be better off and let’s learn from them
In the meantime no diverse nation
No nation with a population over about 10m has a higher standard of living
I am more interested in how we van do better than in keeping the Chinese poor
I could care less who is ahead or behind us in economic development. That is not mine to worry about.
If china surpasses the USA, fine, but just not at the cost of economic development here like we have seen in the last 30 years.
And DO NOT give me a bunch of B.S. that we are better off today than we would have been had the Chinese had FAIR trade and not free trade where they kept products out of their country produced here,sent us their products subsidized by their government, piss poor working conditions and pay, pollution that they do nothing about and we hear daily how bad we are in the USA for using petroleum products and steal intellectual properties and sell the products back to us.
There is absolutely no way you are going to convince me that producing a Buick in China and sending it here with no tariffs and selling it for the same prices as a domestic made car all while they slap 25%+ tariffs on domestic made cars going to China creates jobs in America and stimulates our economy.Spend all day writing why you think all that is fine and I will ignore it like I have so many other comments because no one is going to convince me that Fair trade is not better than free trade without extensive documentation.
Sorry Dave, I do not buy it!
I have addressed the problems with any argume involving “fair” before
It is the Chinese harmed by lack of access to our products
There is no right to have your product bought
The infringements of the Chinese government on the freedom of its people are the business of the Chinese people not us
The same is true of subsiding products for sales in the us
And we should stop subsidizing our goods too
Chinese working conditions are bad compared to the us
They are fantastic compared two 30 years ago or to those in Cambodia
The world is not going to have flat working conditions
Even the us does not have flat working conditions
Ideas are not property
You can not in a meaningful way steel them
No country has ever become competive by steal up
The ussr sent spies to steal us ip
By 1989 they were able to make the equivalent of an 8008
A us CPU from 1972
The perceptions about protectionist trade are false
No rules ?
Absolutely there are rules
No unjustified use of force
Keep you agrreements
So the house leaves town and does not send the articles of impeachment to the senate.
Is the President really impeached?
Is this another ploy to just have that over his head going into the election?
Will Queen Nancy say she is not going to send them and say they will if the voters elect him again?
I did not watch the debate last night, but heard clips. Yang was the only one making any substantially sound arguments from what I heard.But common sense does not get you elected. Spending money and buying votes with more entitlements does
This faux impeachment has buried democrats presidential campaign and harmed their house campaign
If democrats are hell bent on self destruction
Let them
The longer pelosi holds this in her pocket
The easier it will be for senate republicans to dismiss without hearing
She is making it clear it is political
She claims that democrats were free to vote their conscience
While she is demanding that senate republicans do as she says
She is actually makin McConnell look good
And that is hard
I can not find any likely scenario that favors democrats
But maybe pelosi will get lucky
Has not happened so far
Yes he is Impeached. The articles were passed.
She had this all planned out to start with.
She ansered the call of the radical left.
She is answering the call of the senators that dont want to be caught in trial while others are campaigning in Iowa.
She is using the articles to hold over Trumps political head giving his opponent the issue Trump will be removed if he is reelected.
And a few other political ploys.
I do not want to debate whether trump has been constitutionally impeached
Several lawyers including one nadler called say no until pelosi delivers the articles of impeachment to the senate he has not actually been impeached
I do not know if that is correct
However if it is false then McConnell can schedule a trial now
What is not true is that the house can actually impeach without triggering a trial in the senate
But honestly
I don’t care
There is nothing over trumps head
There is now a debate over how long the vote remains valid
No act of the house remains valid after the end of that house unless acted on by the senate
Pelosi can not pass a Democratic house impeachment to a democratic senate in 2020 without holding the house
This is just a stupid game
And there is no reason to fight it
Dave “There is nothing over trumps head”
I am so happy you live in a dream world where you believe voters understand the constitution, have followed closely everything that took place in the house and know what you believe them to know.
I dont have that same warm and fuzzy feeling because I dont believe voters are this smart. Had they been that smart, we would have never had such a cesspool of nominees in 2016 to choose from. Both Clinton and Trump were the worst.
So you keep thinking that the articles will not be used extensively during the campaign and voters will not believe that propaganda. I dont have that same trust in voters..
This is not about the constitution
Impeachment is only leverage until you do it
Now it is a flop
Both trump and house democrats are itching for a fight in the senate and neither is really looking to change the minds of senators they are after each other and appeals to voters
Who are not likely to watch
I actually think not forwarding this to the senate is a smart choice
I is even possible that Schumer is quietly telling pelosi not to drop this in his lap
We do not understand 2018 but we do know senate democrats suffered a backlash over kavanaugh
We do not know how impeachment will effect the house in 2020
But I suspect Schumer does not want to find out
Schumer wants to be majority leader
No matter what he says publicly a bitter senate trial is not likely to improve his odds
Pelosi can hold the faux impeachment in her pocket forever
It is not going to smell any better in a month or a year
I find it strange that you think democrats threatening to commit sepuku is harmful to trump
This is how history will judge Trump’s (ugg) Impeachment:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-steny-hoyer-speech-on-trump-impeachment-20191219-iak6h2v5kjhrzegf56dmj664qy-story.html
These Conservative Christians are radical lefties (or so Trump soon will say in a tweet or comment )
“ But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
Christianity Today’s call for Trump’s removal comes the day after Republican representatives compared his impeachment to the crucifixion of Jesus.
Christianity Today was founded by Billy Graham.
You think Graham’s ghost may have been offended by the comparison?
We can play this game forever
Dershowitz
Turley
Even gabbard could not tolerate this
I have many problems with gabbard even her explanation for her present vote is confusing
But it still was a profile in courage
Btw I know you think the right is homogenous but Christian fundamentalists are pretty socialist
Apparently they (and you) failed to read Horowitz
Investigating a political candidate is not a violation of the law or constitution
What matters is whether there is a basis to do so
Horowitz barely found there was in XFH
There clearly is enough based solely on Biden’s public statement
You have completely refused to address this
In what world is asking for an investigation of Biden’s successful extortion of the Ukraine a crime and Croofire huricane and mueller not much worse
Or is there a provision in the constitution I missed where only trump is bared from investigating
CT considers itself a Moderate Christian publication.
This is supposed to be a MODERATE site.
Why aren’t I hearing a moderate defense of their stand against Schlump?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/20/christianity-today-mark-galli-berman-intv-bts-newday-vpx.cnn
Jay stand on principles and stop playing politics like everyone else.
“Why aren’t I hearing a moderate defense of their stand against Schlump?”
Why are you not as outraged at Queen Nancy not sending the articles of impeachment to the senate as you are with Trump?
how in the hell can they spend all this time and money and then have her say she doen’t know when she will send them because she doesn’t know how they will be handled.or some such crap as that. It is not her position to decide how the senate will handle them. The constitution says the house creates the articles, the senate holds the trial. Period.
They are all as corrupt as those that controlled chicago during the 30’s!
I am not outraged by pelosi game
It just makes it obvious this is all a political game
One of her own constitutional scholars has said that it is not impeachment until
It’s turned over to the senate
It is just another stupid political game on Nancy’s part
“Do what I say or I will shoot myself in the foot”
I can not get outraged over this
If this is what she wants to do
So be it
Well I dont know who the dim wit that considers themselves a scholar is that says its not an impeachment until sent to the senate is, but I hope they are not teaching the constitution to anyone.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 ” The House of Representatives shall choose the Speaker and.other officers: and shall have sole power of impeachment”
The articles were passed, impeachment happened, no other body of government need be involved.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6; “The senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments”.
They can not hold a trial until the individual is impeached.
Other than those few words and who presides over the trial, the founders left everything else vague about impeachment and up to congress. However, Hamilton did warn about what just happened in Federalist 65.
As I said I do not care much about this
The scholar testified in nadler hearing
He was bad there
But he has written and nyt open that there is no impeachment unless pelosi names managers and forwards articles
Yes the constitution leaves a lot to the respective chambers
But nowhere is there an impeach but not try option
Either trump has not yet been impeached because pelosi has not finished the process
Or he has in which case McConnell can start the trial as he pleases
Frankly i am not sure this is not a good outcome
It makes this the equivalent of a partisan censure
Jay posted that weld opposed Trumps foreign policy
So ? I opposed Trumps foreign policy.
I want out of Iraq and afghanistan now
I do not give a crap if the taliban take over
If they fork with u again we go back and spend 30 days obliterating them
And leave immediately
In the meantime afghanistwn is a problem for the afghan
If Rubis want to fork up in afghanistwn again let them
As to Ukraine just say no to not jut in Ukraine all us foreign aide anyway
If the Ukrainian want javelins they can buy them from Rockwell Collin or whoever make them
I do not mind if us arm manufacturers sell whatever they want to Ukraine
This is close to the foreign policy Trump promised
It I not hat he I delivering
But there is no candidate with a snowballs chance of getting elected that would do better
I disagree with both you and trump in trade
But again every other candidate is worse
I disagree with most everyone here including trump on immigration
But again every other candidate I worse
The horowitmreport was damning
First I want the 4th amendment back
You want to search – get a fracking warrant PERIOD
I would give Congress very broad access to the records of government
But I would give Congress ZERO ability to compel.lthe disclosure of private records
Subpoenaing gulliani s and Solomon’s phone records is absolutely an abuse of power and
There must be a price to pay
I do not care if congress engages in politically vindictive wars – it is the job of voter to reign that in and I hope in November they do I hope pelosi and schiff and nadler lose their seats unfortunately it is the more sane democrat who will pay
I do not give a crap what witnesses are called in the senate
But the rules of criminal procedure Gould be followed
That means no hearsay
That also means that the prosecutor I obligated to provide its case including the elected testimony of witnessses before the trial
No surprise prosecution witnesses
Prosecutors build their case before trial snot during
But it does not matter
I am not getting what I want
I understand that
I did not get what I wanted under Obama
And if trump i impeachable
Obama should have been impeached 50 time over
But I am really pissed over the FBI
Horowitz did not follow thi outside the FBI so we do not know the cope of thi conpiracy
But inside the FBI it polutted the top of the agency and was criminal by any standard
I will send you to jail for swearing a warrant you know any part of Is false
I will send you to jail for swearing a warrant where others know part are false and you have not checked
Swearing out a false warrant is worse than perjury
But thi went beyond that
The FBI might have had sufficient cause to investigate Trump
I though we’re the hell does anyone who thinks the Origen of the trump investigation was legitimate ,get off being upset about trump wan ting investigation in Ukraine ?
This is another effort to hide the misconduct of democrat and those in government
It I probable that we will never have a provable case of criminal conduct by Biden
But his conduct was insrguably unethical and think to high heaven and need a serious investigation
To date no one has found away trump trading influence for money
Cohen was locked out of the whitehouee for trying to do just that
The trump trade meals and golf games and room for money
Value for value
It I arguable that Burisma got squat for what it paid hunter
It I inarguable that what they expected was not corporate governance or energy experience
George papadoulis has much more of that then hunter
Regardless on many levels what happened at the FBI is thoroughly repugnant and must not happen again
Not to Trump
Not to Flynn
Not to a democrat
Not to an ordinary person
And the likelihood this does not go well outside the FBI is ZERO
Those things I care about
Do I give a rats ass about Trumps requests for investigations ?
Yes! They should have been demands
I want all the malfeasance of the us government in 2016 investigated
And let’s get something straight
Whatever was done by Russia or the Ukraine in the 2016 election
What was done by the FBI was much worse
We can not stop foreign governments
We especially can not and should not stop them voicing opinions
But our government gets ZERO voice in who should win an election
Proper basis or not XFH lost any basis almost right after it started
To congress
We do not need more laws
If you want to assure this does not happen again we need convictions
And not silly faux impeachment’s of those actually trying to find the misconduct of OUR government
You consider yourself moderate
I see no reason based on evidence to beleive that
Nancy Pelosi is guilty of abuse of her office.
As Ron states, “It is not her position to decide how the senate will handle them.” It’s also not her role to have the entire house vote on something, only to have her decide that she has the sole power to temporatily veto it. She is violating her oath, and acting like a dictator.
Wait, haven’t I heard something like that before?
Pelosi is making it clear this is political
Yes her actions
In fact the actions of the whole democratic leadership are an abusive of power
But a legal one
Arguably trumps refusal to cooperate with the house is an abuse of power
But unless the courts order something and he continues to. Stonewall it is a legal abuse
Just as that of every president before him
Republicans debated going after rosenstein for resisting house subpoenas
But ultimate chose not to
I beleive the courts need to make clearer the ability of the congress to get documents from the executive
And I would broadly favor the ability of congress to quickly get what they want
But there is such a thing as executive privilege and they can not get everything
I do not as an example think the house can seek records about policy choices that were considered but not acted on
We wat the advisors of the president to be able to consider all options and to advise on all potions without being 2nd guessed over acts they chose not to do
Putin told Trump that the Ukraine tried to undermine his election.
The Asset Idiot believed him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html
why has President Schlump spent the past year overruling his own nat security team to dramatically realign US foreign policy towards Russia?
Will the answer be revealed in his hidden taxes?
You mean the counter intelligence people at the fbi who ran XFH ?
What is the reason Anyone should trust them ?
Or do you mean the same people who concluded that Russia interfered in the us election based on the Steele dossier
And yes we do now know that was a significant pat of the ICA
The Steele dossier has just poisoned the left the media the state
What should be disturbing is how little evidence the government has for any of its conclusions and how vigorously it defends the flimsiest of threads
Who cares what Putin said there is plenty of actual evidence
You keep fixating on what people say
Particularly people who have been lying
When Putin is more truthful than us media
You have a problem
Why should trump not trust these people ?
Vietnam
Pentagon papers
Iranian coup
Chillean coup
Collapse of the ussr
Aldrich ames
John walker
Robert Hanson
9/11
Golf war i
Golf war I
The Steele dossier
Assad chemical weapons attacks (debunked)
The afghan papers
Richard jewel
The anthrax letters
Iraqi yellow cacke
Need I go on ?
The question is why do you trust these people
“\Trump being Trump:
“Trump laments that Debbie Dingell voted to impeach him despite the fact that he allowed the normal state funeral to proceed for her late husband, former Rep. John Dingell. Trump then suggests John Dingell is in hell — to audible groans.”
And this, not the impeachment cra is going to be why Trump loses the swing states he won. Tonight on Fox, they said comments like this will cost him the handful of votes he got last election allowing him to defeat the bitch.
No matter how many times Dave tells me people dont care what he says, I will continue to say he is his own worst enemy.
I am always suspicious that whatever jay says trump said is significantly different from what trump actually said
Because way too many time that is true
It does appear that trumps remarks regarding dingle were over the top
Though I still have no5 heard the actual remark in context
It is things like this that are why I could not vote for trump
But that does not alter the fact that not a single democrat is more palettable
Oddly graham got it pretty right today when he said this remark was wrong
That trump is understandably angry that so many are lying about him
But that republican presidents should be better than that
I would sat this degrades abs debases our politics
But how can I
Democrats went there long ago
Trump is not the inventor of insults as arguments
He just responds in kind to those who insult him
I will disagree with you on the impact of this
There is very little trump can actually do that is worse than what he is constantly accused of
Remember in the story of the boy who cried wolf
Eventually the wolf comes
And no one pays attention
Politically trump does not lose if insults are your criteria
Trump is gonna be Trump. What he said about Dingell was a rude joke ~ the kind of joke that people make in private all the time, but is very inappropriate for any statesman, speaking in public. I guarantee you that nearly every politician who has publicly excoriated Trump for saying “maybe he’s looking up” has made ruder and meaner jokes than that. Just not in public.
Trump is not a statesman. He doesn’t act like one or talk like one. He won’t pretend to be one. And, he’s not going to apologize to a bunch of phonies, who have been trying to destroy him since Day One.
If he ever did, he would have to keep apologizing forever. As it is now, regardless of what you think of him, he has taken more abuse ~ by FAR ~ than any president in recent memory, yet he remains standing. There’s something almost sociopathic in the way that he relishes the kind of abuse he takes. But the things that are said about him are also pathological. Violent, cruel, vicious things (just read Jay’s comments).
Trump’s not going to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules in a mud fight. Am I happy that this is the state of our politics today? No, but it is what it is.
Masochists relish abuse
Sociopaths are more malignant
Well, he’s definitely not a masochist. And I don’t think he’s malignant ( mileage often will vary on that one)
But, for whatever the reason, he relishes the battle.
Trumps comments about dinglevwere nasty and immoral
But they were not important
Priscilla, I dont disagree with our comments, but I look at NC in 2018 where “Trump backlash” energized voters on the left, as well as swing voters, to elect democrats into positiins they had jot won for 25+ years. Forsyth and Guilford counties, as well as a couple others, elected democrat sheriffs which had jot happened since “forever”.
In states like Wisconsin, it only takes a handful of votes compared to the total number of voters to not vote or switch votes to give the democrats those electoral votes. These are not the life long GOP or Democrat voters. They are the $75,000-$125,000 income families that had a good job in 2016, have the same job today, did not see much difference in tax bills, have slightly more income today than 2016, have higher healthcare premiums and see college tuition increasing for kids they will have in college. They are the ones who saw two really crappy candidates they did not like and after 3+ years like Trump even less due to his totally unacceptible personal behaviors as president that his base thrives on. These are the ones that wont vote for president or will vote for the democrat.
Unlike Dave, I dont see much that won’t prevent that happening and see much, like what happened in my swing state in 2016 that supports this happening.
Ron, I agree that 2018 was a disaster for the GOP. It didn’t help that something like 55 Republican House members resigned or retired ahead of that election, leaving their districts open to so-called “moderate” Democrat candidates, who promised to work with Trump and the Republican Senate on health care , trade and infrastructure. None of which they did.
The Democrat strategy of all impeachment, all the time, has been popular with the media, but not so much with swing voters.
That’s not to say that swing voters will go back to the GOP in 2020, but the Democrats are not doing a very good job of locking them in.
I agree with you that Trump is often his own worst enemy, and it may turn out that he self-destructs, but, now that the moderate Democrats who won in 2018 have turned out to be not so moderate, I don’t think that it’s a sure thing that Trump loses swing voters. If the economy stays strong, there might still be a lot of independents who hold their nose, and vote for 4 more Trump years, rather than vote for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All (really Medicaid for All), amnesty and free healthcare for illegals, repeal of the tax cuts (it’s one thing to be disappointed in the tax cuts, another to want them repealed) and taxpayer bailouts for students who borrowed tens of thousands of dollars for useless degrees.
I guess I think that the Democrats are their own worst enemies as well. They play politics with everything, to energize and drive their base…but their unpopular policies could energize the Trump base as well.
Of course, a strong third, or even fourth, party candidate could totally change the dynamics. Also, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, all hell will break loose on both sides.
By the way, I will be an NC voter by November 2020. Another blue state refugee moving down your way….
I do not know what 2018 was
Democrats did well in the house but republicans did well in the senate
There is not an explanation that covers both results
The explanation probably has to do with the relatively small number of GOP Senate seats that were up for re-election, and the high number of GOP House incumbents who chose not to run.
Republicans did better than expected in the senate and even the losing races were very close
A lot of this was likely do to kavaugh blow back
Regardless I would like to know how well republicans did in the house in states where they did well in the senate
I do not think 2018 was a clear rout I do not know what the message from it was
Nor would I presume to be able to predict 2020 based on it
There are many reasons I predict a big trump victory in 2020
But one of the biggest factors is democrats are burning out their own voters and alienating the middle while republicans are getting more and more angry
Well we could use a few right wing voters offsetting all the damage that the majority of new voters being democrats have done. They move here because taxes are lower, the cost of living is lower in most cases and the quality of life is better. Then they demand spending and programs that they had where they came from, trying to make Raliegh or Charlotte a mini New York City
So welcome. What area are you moving to?
We will all get to find out in 2020
Based on polls as well as small contributions from swing states Trump is doing much better than in 2016
No this is not a small number of voters
Trump flipped over 2m voters in swing states
His margin was narrow but the swing was huge
The actual evidence is these voters are not routine flippers
These were mostly life long democrats
I am not as familiar with NC and different parts of the country are different
FL is not even considered a swing state any more
This is mostly because republicans are doing well with minorities there mostly blacks ad mostly over charter schools
That is a major factor nationwide but it impacts different states differently
Purportedly NC and AZ are potential democrat pickups
Absent dems picking sherod brown as VP trump is going to win OH
PA is undecided But WI is probably locked and MN is more trump than 2016
Despite all the insider stuff the big deal is voter motivation in 2020
I would like data on how voters voted in the house in states where republicans did well in the senate
My guess is the explanation for 2018 is that republicans came out to vote in states with a competitive senate race and did not in states with no senate race
So what does that mean in 2020 ?
Democrats were energized in 2018
But they have had 2 years of relentlessly bad news
And they have spent the past 6 months making republicans angry
We do not know what 2020 will bring
Lots of things could energize on side or the other
But the odds favor republicans
Even if Durham does little before the election there will be leaks and they will favor republicans
Ukraine is going to be further investigated and that is not just bad for Biden but dems overall
A very large body of republicans are very happy about trumps judicial picks
And republicans vote over the courts
Democrats don’t
We are all doing tea leaf reading
Maybe you are right
Maybe I am
Most likely we are both wrong
“Trumps comments about dinglevwere nasty and immoral”
I don’t disagree. His comments about John McCain were, too. But, there is evidence that McCain was actively conspiring with the IC to take him down. He was literally trying to get Trump accused of treason. That’s pretty nasty too.
I guess my point is that Washington D.C. is a town full of backstabbers and hypocrites. Trump stabs you in the front.
I’ve said more than once that politics is bloodsport.
i Thought trumps remarks about McCain during the primary were the end of his campaign
But McCain’s response by participating in the trump Russia collusion nonsense was practically criminal
All that said while McCain was not such a hot congressman
Ha was a genuine war hero and we do not piss on dead war heros
I am not a dingle fan
But he is dead
Leave him alone
We’ll be moving to Southport.
Very nice area, but the humidity can be brutal sometimes. We spend a week at Ocean Isle in July each year. Great area for recreation, especially fall, winter and spring. Have to send you an email next time I head that way and meet you somewhere for coffee. ( and talk about Dave😁 )
Yeah, we’ve heard that the summer humidity can be brutal. Definitely let me know when you’ll be in the area!
Someone interviewed Shokin recently
He claims that
He was under pressure to drop specifically the Burisma investigation for over a year
That he was told that vp Biden was pressuring Ukraine president poreschenko
That the big deal was that shokin had frozen Burisma assets especially in foreign countries
And that vp Biden had specifically demanded that those assets be released before us aide would be delivered
That these demands were made in phone calls to Ukraine and that shokin had read the transcripts
So let’s release the transcripts of Biden’s calls with Ukraine
If this is all a Russian hoax there should be nothing about Burisma in the calls
At the very least turn them over to the gang of eight
Why doesn’t trump trust us intelligence
This would be one reason
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/19/amid_fisa_scrutiny_critics_warn_of_fbi_briefing_subterfuge_141993.html
You tell me that you are outraged that trump asked to investigate Biden’s overt extortion
So what was the basis for spying on the top tier of the trump campaign in an intelligence briefing ?
Schlump is a Russian asset.
I hope our security agencies are still investigating him.
That’s their job – to protect the nation from traitorous intent.
You really are nuts
Can you read ?
The more we learn the more we ow that claim is tin foil hat conspiracy theory
Do you actually want to be taken seriously ?
Hell, you are approaching a point at which your delusions could be considered dangerous t yourself and others
Are you going to continue down this road until you lose your mind altogether ?
Absolutely nothing from before trumps election to the present has vindicated any of your crazy conspiracy theories
The good/bad news is you are not alone
Much of the Democratic Party is with you
You tell me trump is authoritarian
But you keep chasing nonsense often using the power of government to do so
The trump is a Russian asset nonsense never made any sense at alll
There is nothing Putin could ever offer trump he could not have done for himself more easily
Regardless you are entirely blind to facts
Trump has for the most part ignored Putin
Doing what he promised
Most of which is not good for Putin
Russia has lost ground economically
They have not invaded anyone
They are going backwards as a world power under trump
Every item above wa false under Obama
Putin invaded Georgia just before Obama’s election
And invaded Crimea just after Obama’s re-election
Under Obama Russia held gas as a sword threatening Europe
Trump has guaranteed Europe’s energy
He has been able to do so by reversing Obama stupid energy policies
Trump has sold Russia nothing
Obama sold them control of 1/5 of all us uranium
If this is what a Russian asset does
Please can I have more
But beyond that
Today China is far more serious a treat
The only Russian air craft carrier is a burning hulk as we speak
Russia has very limited ability to project power
There only card is the worlds largest stockpile of nukes
China’s navy is growing by leaps and bounds
And they are deliberately seeking to nuetralize the advantage the us navy has over them
China’s transition from an emerging free market back to a totalitarian state took place under Obama
Trump has reversed almost every Obama policy towards china
You’re blaming Obama?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Is Obama responsible for Russian TV calling Trump their “agent,” and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as the “puppet master” following Lavrov’s visit to the states?
Or for Putin saying the US is no longer a major world power (wanna bet Douche-bag Donnie doesn’t respond to that?)
You keep fixating on what people say
I am interested in what they do
At the same time as you lost your credibilty long ago there is no chance I am going to take your word for a naked assertion
What is it you think is Russian television RT ?
Does that make BBC a propaganda arm of the UK
What about VOA ?
Apparently the only government sources you think are suspect are Russian ?
The FBI did not fare too well recently
In fact they and you bought a crap load of Russian propaganda paid for by Clinton and knowin both that it came from Clinton and gru took it as gospel
As to your claim
Presuming rrt actually said that
You seem to think the Russians are both brilliant and stupid at the same time
If Trump was in anyway helpful to Russia do you think they would admit it ?
This is the same nonsense as the Russia is responsible for the dnc hack
The us hacked Iranian centrifuges
But for years stud was blamed on Israel
Because the us put Israeli fingerprints all over it
We only figured out that stub came from the us as a result of Snowden
You can not tell either the intentions of a nation like Russia or the source of a hack by what you see on the surface
If something points at Russia
That is most likely not where it comes from
If Russia tells you something
It is probably not true
Kind of like the New York Times.
Why do I care what Putin says
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-their-agent
This is your idea of news ?
Are you this easily duped ?
S you think this is evidence Putin wants Trump to win in 2020 ?
Are you so clueless that you can not grasp that Latrobe is not pulling trumps strings Putin is pulling yours
And like Pavlovs dog you respond
I guess you think joe maccarthy was a Russian agent too
Because clearly Russian directs its agents to screw Russia at every chance
More Republicans seeing the light.
Republican @GovBillWeld rejects @realDonaldTrump’s foreign policy: “He has not even a child’s understanding of what’s at stake.”
Those still defending the malignant narcissistic inept idiot are brain dead.
A Republican MODERATE reminding the Dazed Trump Core of their Dizziness
“To my former Senate Republican colleagues:
“What is indefensible is echoing House Republicans who say that the president has not done anything wrong. He has.”
Jeff Flake.
If trump has done something wrong
You and flake should be able to identified it
Specifically and cite the law violated
With the evidence that each element of that crime has been committed
There is evidence that joe and hunter committed a crime in Ukraine
I want that investigated
Only in left wing nut world do we not investigate credible evidence of a crime
There is evidence you’re a male model for tin hats
What does that even mean ?
And who is it directed too ?
Regardless it is false
If you beleive there is evidence of something you can provide it
Th is now irrefutable evidence tat numourous statements and accusations of. Yours the left the press democrats are blatantly false
Many of these were made by people who had seen the evidence
The remarks and even some official acts of schiff nadler Warner are inarguably bowing lies slandering trump and others
Even mueller was inarguably conducting an investigation he knew had no basis
Are you really prepared to see this as the new political norm ?
Are you really this blind to who and what is dividing the country ?
If two people loath each other and lob bitter and nasty accusations at each other
The party found to have actually lied about the other is morally bankrrupt while the aber of the other is righteous indignation
Facts matter
You did not have access to the same information as schiff or nadler or Warner
You are not as culpable as they
Further you spewed this garbage provided to you by massive numbers of other bitter angry hatefilled IYIs
But you do not get exonerated for being a lemming
The entire argument was nonsensical from the start
To beleive trump was colluding with Russia you had to beleive he was both an absolute idiot and a total genius concurrently
You have undermined you character
No one else did that to you
You can not blame me
Or trump
Worse still
You continue to push these everyone you do not like is a Russian agent garbage
To the extent anyone is serving Putin now it is clearly you
Trump has actually been hard on Russia
Far harder than Obama
Putin has good reason to want trump to lose in 2020 as does Xi
They are near certain to try to inluence 2020
Regardless their impact will be small
Most of us are not as gullible as you
Most of us do not hold tightly to nonsense after t is obvious it is false
I can not keep you from the bitterness that is eating you alive
No one has asked you to support trump
Just to quit selling obvious lies ad hurling false insults and accusations
The evidence continues to stare you in the puss: the impeachment charges, you know- the ones for which 60% of the nation want him removed.
He’s guilty as charged.
You’re blind to the charges.
Additionally, he’s morally, intellectually, constitutionally unfit to be president.
You’re indifferent to those presidential failures.
You deserve each other.
I have not seen a poll with plurality much less majority support for impeachment in a while
Regardless opinions are not evidence
Horowitz relentlessly cited FACTs
If you wish to challenge those it is easy to evaluate the dispute – by looking at FACTs
The house impeachment resolution cites almost no evidence
Does not offer a crime
And seeks impeachment over conduct every president has engaged in
No president has given congress whatever they have asked for
It is not an actual abuse until the courts final adjudication is not followed
VP Biden blackmailed Ukraine under very dubious circumstances he clearly benefitted personally and politically
The Obama administration participated in an investigation of a rival political candidate
Any claim that rump can be impeached over Ukraine’s requires either
Demonstrating there was even less justification for investigations in Ukraine of 2016
Than supported XFH
You say the Biden claims are some Russian propaganda conspiracy theory
Maybe that is true
Though it is highly unlikely
But we know that XFH was based on a false conspiracy theory sourced by Russian agents
The faux impeachment is democrats last gasp effort to thwart trump from looking at malfeasance of democratic candidates and members of the resistance in his administration
The impeachment itself is part of a soft coup
Do you think it is legitimate for members of the house to impeach to prevent a legitimate criminal investigation ?
If those in government seek o remove a legitimately elected president because they beleive the people decided wrong
Is that acceptable in jay world ?
To me that starts to look like a totalitarian state
What was he charged with ?
We go through this nonsense with you all the time
I can list ten thing trump is wrong about
But he was still elected to do those things
Whether I like it or not
Your arguments are all assertions about emotion an emotional conclusions without evidence
The collusion you claim was false
The lies you claimed have proven false
And now we are supposed to remove trump as president based on testimony of people withou direct knowledge that what trump who has proven far more truthful than you or his accusers is lying about actions that would not be improper even if you were right
Which failures would those be ?
If Weld remains libertarian on foreign policy than it is likely I prefer welds over trumps