Death by Drone: an Immoderate Proposal
When 62-year-old Iranian General Qassem Soleimani stepped off a plane in Baghdad on January 3, he probably wasn’t expecting to be blasted into the hereafter. But that’s the nature of surprise attacks: they’re quick, unexpected and often lethal.
The longtime leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its clandestine QUDS fighting force had no time to gather his thoughts, reflect on his brilliantly wicked career and utter a final prayer to Allah before the angels whisked him to Paradise – or wherever they whisk terrorist kingpins for the remainder of eternity.
President Trump was quick to take credit for the drone strike heard ’round the world. “Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike that killed the number one terrorist anywhere in the world, Qassem Soleimani,” our chieftain announced. “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”
We still don’t know exactly how “imminent and sinister” Soleimani’s plans might have been, because the Trump administration has been deliberately vague on the subject. But according to Reuters, there was enough evidence of future mischief to justify stopping the Iranian general in his tracks.
Retired General David Petraeus opined that the assassination of Soleimani was a bigger deal than our targeted takedowns of Osama bin Laden and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The latter two terrorists were diminished figures on the run; Soleimani was still in his prime, orchestrating sneak attacks throughout the Middle East. Yes, he had fought against ISIS – no doubt because the would-be Caliphate posed a threat to Iran’s hegemony over the region. But he and his proxy fighters were also responsible for the deaths of at least 600 Americans along with innumerable Syrians and Iraqis.
Few U.S. and international leaders shed tears over Soleimani’s demise. It was the manner of his departure that elicited whoops of outrage from Trump’s opposition. Freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a vocal member of the four-woman “Squad” driving the Democrats ever leftward, tweeted: “We are outraged the president would assassinate a foreign official, possibly setting off another war without Congressional authorization and has zero plan to deal with the consequences.”
The second half of Omar’s tweet actually makes sense: Trump, reckless and most likely clueless as ever, could have triggered all-out war with Iran over his drone strike on Soleimani. (Remember Archduke Franz Ferdinand and World War I?)
Pouring gasoline on the fire, Trump even threatened strikes against 52 historic cultural sites if Iran retaliated against Americans – most likely a strategic bluff, but a wanton and unforgivable crime if carried out. We’re supposed to be better than ISIS and the Taliban, after all.
It’s the first half of Omar’s tweet – the outrage over assassinating a foreign official – that stopped me cold. Many of her Democratic colleagues echoed her anger, and I was left to ponder exactly what they were protesting. Trump couldn’t have announced his plans to Congress without risking a fatal leak, especially with the Squad in attendance.
No, the outraged Democrats were falling back on our official taboo against taking out enemy leaders. Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, clearly states: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
Similar to earlier rules endorsed by Presidents Ford and Carter, the anti-assassination order was relaxed in 1998 to make an exception for terrorists. “But Soleimani was a state official,” the Democrats chanted almost in unison. Yes, but he was also a terrorist. That made him fair game.
I thought about our peculiar reluctance to terminate state officials who instigate war and terror. We think nothing of sending innocent young men by the thousands (or, in the case of the two World Wars, millions) to kill or be killed by other innocent young men. We might express a modicum of regret over the women and children who get in the way – collateral damage, we call it.
But when it comes to taking out the actual perpetrators of war – the gloating autocrats, the bloodthirsty generals, the fanatics with fancy titles who rouse their followers to spill blood in the name of God or country – we’re curiously averse to harming a hair on their overinflated heads.
Could it be that we simply have less regard for ordinary citizens than we do for rulers? That we place a cheaper value on their lives? That we dismiss them as expendable pawns in the great chess games between rival nations?
If I were a raving leftist, I’d have to conclude that the ruling class invents rules to protect its own. But I’m not a leftist, and I’ve still arrived at the same conclusion.
Let me make a modest but blatantly immoderate proposal. Instead of shipping young people off to fight and die in wars not of their own making, I say we start targeting the warmongers themselves. Drone technology makes it easy to Soleimanize any despot or warlord who disrupts the peace or brutalizes his own people.
Imagine if we had been able to dispatch Hitler in 1939 or the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Think of the countless lives saved and the misery averted by a well-aimed missile dropped from a hovering drone. One evil life abruptly terminated could have salvaged the lives and happiness of millions.
But what about a fair trial, you might ask. Shouldn’t we have captured General Soleimani and given him the right to defend himself? I’d answer by asking another question: how many ordinary soldiers are given a fair trial before they’re executed by enemy gunfire?
Of course, we have to think about the consequences of tactical assassination. Archduke Franz Ferdinand still looms large in our historical memory. But if drone attacks can eliminate world-class leaders who preach war and inflict misery, maybe those leaders would think twice before they fulfilled their ambitions on the bodies of young soldiers and innocent civilians.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate. His three grimly humorous essay collections are available in e-book form on Amazon for just $2.99 each.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Rick, excellent! Agree completely! The one thing I would ask is if a country is designated a terrorist country that allows our military to remove terrorist that kill American military personnel and that individual is a military general, is that really an assassination?
I always defined assassination as a political execution. Soleimani has never been identified as an Iranian politician, but as a military general.
I must also comment I was surprised as to your point of view on this issue. Thanks for addressing the issue without the “anti-Trump” positions that have been posted in the previous article comment section over and over. I would have taken the position that you would have been closer to those opposed to the actions taken.
Thanks, Ron. I’m not fond of Trump, as you probably know, but unlike most of the “never Trumpers” I don’t go out of my way to condemn his every move. He took a calculated risk with the extermination of Soleimani (OK, maybe a crazy risk), but it worked out. Iran retaliated only mildly, and a ruthless warrior is no longer a threat. We should be entitled to eradicate world-class villains, although there’s always a danger in killing villains regarded as heroes in some quarters.
I think the murder of any public figure by strangers (as opposed to acquaintances) qualifies as an assassination. You could say John Lennon was assassinated. As I wrote this piece, I was really struck by how the system seems to hold the lives of despots in higher regard than the lives of innocent military men, who are regarded as expendable.
What is clear is that your decision is not driven by nonsense like “orange man bad”
I have an overall more favorable opinion of Trump than you do, one that is frankly improving as he is president longer.
But I think he is wrong on many things. Just wrong on less things than Bush or Obama.
Further though I argued against many of Obama’s policies, I have not been joking that after his election i prayed that everything I knew to be true was wrong.
I wanted obama to succeed as president – for the sake of the nation, for the sake of my children.
If Socialism lite really and truly can deliver a better life for all of us – then “Bring it on”.
I do not know a single person who is “ideological” that is not sure that following their ideology will produce the best results, and knows that the facts support their ideology – whatever it is.
Ideology is not the problem. Being wrong is.
Trump is “less wrong” than his predecessors.
With respect to Killing Soliemani. I am almost as non-interventionist as Tulsi Gabbard.
But I would have taken out Soliemani under the same circumstances in a heartbeat.
But I would also have gotten out of all this mideast fighting 3 years ago (or more).
Nor was it “crazy”. i get very tired of it when we take everything Trump does and pretend it is highly unusual. Trump’s tweets are sometimes crazy, his words are crazy, but his actual actions as president are pretty mundane.
6 months ago which US president to you know that would have said “no I am not going to attack Iran, because they took out a US drone” or because they attacked some Saudi Oil Fields. Either Bush or Obama would have destroyed something in Iran.
If you asked people like Bolton, Trump is responsible for the attacks on US soldiers and the embassy, because he did not nuke Iran into oblivion 6 months ago.
Trump’s rhetoric is sometimes crazy, his actions aren’t. Specifically in terms of the use of military power his actions are pretty tame. He is the first president in a long time that has not invaded something.
Again I am pretty “anti-war”. But I would have retaliated for the missile attacks by destroying part of Iran’s missile capability. Of course I would also be saying screw you and leaving Iraq now that they have asked.
i liked Bush – I was not so hot on his policies, I liked Obama, his policies were no better.
I do not like Trump much. But he is a better president than either.
I do not need to like him. We all need him to do the job better than the last two.
And he is.
Perfect – far from it. But I can live with better than the last two.
Rick, I agree as well. A terrific and well reasoned piece. I kept waiting for the inevitable disagreement-in-part to show up, so I could disagree in part…but it never did. I agreed with everything.
Oh, well, I could quibble with the “reckless and clueless” description of Trump. I really could say something like, well, it’s inconceivable that a reckless and clueless man could have succeeded so spectacularly in so many endeavors as Trump has.
But I won’t 😉
Glad you didn’t. 😉 Thanks, Priscilla; I’m afraid my “immoderate proposal” could inflame hatreds and cause even more bloodshed, at least in the short term. But if enough despots and warmongers get themselves whacked by drone strikes, eventually others like them will show more restraint when it comes to unleashing “the dogs of war.” (Maybe they could unleash some Chihuahuas.)
Well written article.
Thanks — I appreciate the appreciation!
Spot on! I recall a professor say that all wars are a result of three G’s. Gold,God and Glory.
Thanks, Lee. It struck me how willing we are to sacrifice young men just entering the prime of life because of those three G’s.
To a large extent what you propose is already reality.
In the Sixties the US (and USSR) had reached a point at which we had or were working on single weapons that could destroy a state or small country. 200+Megaton weapons.
It suddenly made no sense to develop even more powerful weapons. The US deliberately started to target the Soviet missile silos themselves. At first with nuclear weapons, but as we were increasingly able to improve our accuracy with smaller and smaller and more precise weapons – some nuclear some not. This has been the trajectory of US weapons development ever since. Today an F15 can drop a cluster bomb that will disperse hundreds of “bomblets” each with some inteligence that will either find a target – a tank, a APC or will harmlessly disable themselves. We have sniper rifles that can not merely kill from 2 miles away but can kill APC’s or jeeps. We have a phalanx system that can shoot down incoming missles. We ha patriot and THAAD that can protect a fleet or a country from ICBM attacks.
US military development over the past 70 years has focused on more precision, LESS destructive and better targeted weapons.
We have gone from trying to kill enemy soldiers to targeting their support, to targeting command and control.
In the vietnam war we killed over 1M north vietnamese and viet cong.
I GWII we killed a few thousand Iraqi’s – an an enormous part of the Iraqi military leadership.
Drones of all sizes are an increasingly large part of US strategy. The Military is not effective against Terrorists. Drones are. Drones provide a combination of surveillance capabilities, and targeted lethality. They are also more expendable. Earlier this year Iran took our a US Drone. We were apoplectic. This was an act of war. Yet we did not go to war. No american was killed when our Drone was destroyed.
While I am talking about weapons, the important issue is strategy. Starting in the 60’s we shifted from mass destruction to accuracy and precision. Ultimately regardless of whether it is drones, MIRV’s Cruise missles, Long Range Sniper riffles, …..
The objective is to take out small but important rather than large targets.
US Strategy has been to take out the “Command and Control” of any enemy since atleast the 80’s.
Command and Control means many things – communications equipment, but large among those is the military leadership of the enemy.
No enemy can fight for long it its generals are gone.
In the revolutionary war the colonists used hunting rifles which were slower to load and fire but had much longer range both as standoff weapons – shooting at british lines from 300 yards away and then running off to reload before the british soldiers got into range, and also to take out British officers. The british thought this “ungentlemanly”.
In WWII the life expectancy of a US junior officer – a leutenant or a captain in the european theater was months. Both sides targeted the officers. Take out the leaders and the soldiers have been neutralized.
The US was not and is not “going to war” against Iran, unless we choose to do so.
For all of Iran’s bluster, the KNOW that they can not survive a War with the US.
There has been much talk of the US talking out the Iranian Nuclear program, or its ICBM’s or its navy, and these would likely be targets in a conflict with Iran.
But at the top of the US target list – as with the 2003 Iraq War, would be the Irainian military leadership, as well as pasts of their civilian leadership. These would be decimated quickly and after that Iran’s ability to utlize in any coordinated fashion whatever military assets it has would be gone.
Iran knows this. And it knows that we can do this to it.
Iran has ALWAYS been playing a game. Needling the US, trying to extend its own power in the Gulf, trying to appear to stand up to the US without becoming sufficient a threat that the US would actually go to war.
Iran does not want a war with the US – but it does want to confront the US to the extent possible short of war.
The danger in the past couple of weeks was that Iran might – deliberately or accidentally do something that angered enough ordinary americans that they would support a war with Iran.
Even that is highly unlikely. The US has the ability to respond to any Iranian act with something more destructive AND STOP.
That AND STOP is the most fundimental aspect of everything that has been occuring.
Trump orders the Killing of Soliemani in response to Irainian sponsored Hezbollah terroist miliitias killing an americans and attacking and burning the US Embassy, and Iran’s response kills hundreds of innocent people in a Ukrainian airliner.
Democrats blame Trump. But the Iranian people are blaming their leaders.
Democrats worry that Trump may drag us into a war with Iran.
Iranian leaders worry that they have lost power in their own country.
Unfortunately I doubt this is the straw that will break the Iranian regime.
But that day is likely coming SOONER as a consequence of Trump’s actions rather than later.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-crash/iran-protesters-take-to-the-streets-in-third-day-of-demos-over-plane-idUSKBN1ZC0P1
As to “assassinations” using high technology, a general is not a politician, he is a soldier. This one (I don’t want to bother with learning to spell his name) was engaged in an underground war against us. From the Iranian point of view, they don’t like us or our presence in their region and why should they? They have their own natural point of view about our presence there. In any case, I shed no tears over the dead general. Sure, I’d rather kill the generals than the privates, who wouldn’t, it makes sense.
Was this action wise? Time will tell, by which I mean years and decades, not the immediate news cycle. It is hard not to suspect a connection between this action and domestic events, but the consequences of this action will come in intermittent reactions to it on a much longer time scale than the daily political warfare.
The real important judgement by history of all of the parts of trumps foreign policy will be made based on its consequences over decades, from his relationships with pulin, little kim, and China to NATO and our allies.
This is an enormously complex web and no man can predict the unintended and unforeseen consequences of trump shaking the established order up in a way that goes against most of the previous ideas of both conservatives and liberals. Its a giant shake up. Give us 2 decades and we may have a pretty good idea of the rough outline of its long-term consequences. Will he be seen as an idiot savant or a destructive bumbler? Will some of his foreign policy have catastrophic consequences and other parts be a big success and will history be able to weigh the one against the other?
Anybody who says they have the answer today on what the full set of consequences will be that result from trumps foreign policy actions and principles in the fullness of time is just flapping his gums.
Oh, I know, no one here is interested in the long term view, that of decades of slow consequences acreting as a result of trump’s foreign policies. Just give everyone their daily political spin so we can throw the daily crap at each other. Bleh, well, carry on.
👍👍👍
Roby, good comments. I agree with your comments and especially the one concerning long term consequences.
However, where you say “Oh, I know, no one here is interested in the long term view, that of decades of slow consequences acreting as a result of trump’s foreign policies “, I have to take exception.
I have been clear that I am a “long term” person. Trade policies, debt and deficits, war.
As for Trump, it is hard to tell. We know the disastrous outcome of Bushes Iraq war. We are witnessing the disastrous consequences of Obamas decision to return $1.7 billion to Iran. With Trump who lies multiple times a day, who knows what he is thinking. We do know what he is doing and only time will tell.
Right now my daily fix of Trumps policies is being fed favorable decisions. What happens in 10 years+ may show a different outcome.
My apologies Ron. But I also have a bone to pick with you. A week or so back you made a degrading comment about pit bulls and rottweilers, you compared the daily shitfest here to the character of these Noble animals. I have a pitbull, she has been with me for 12 of her 13 years. A more charming good-hearted creature would be hard to find. I take her with me on my hikes, everyone we meet falls in love with her. Nor is she an exception to the pit bull rule, the vast majority of pit bulls I meet are sweet people living souls.
Now, really, what did pit bulls ever do to deserve such a slander as you put on them here?
I had not noticed.
I have had dogs my whole life – many dogs, mostly larger dogs.
Usually several at one time. Further my relatives all have dogs – atleast the good ones,
and most of my friends.
I have never had a pit bull, but I have been close to many wonderful pit bulls.
I can not imagine life without a dog.
I wonder about people who do not have a dog.
They certainly have less joy in their lives.
Well, a debate that is worth while!😁
Absolutely nothing about pit bulls are bad if they are raised correctly! Just like any dog. Me daughter has a pit bull that is 6-7 years old and is a complete baby.
But you also have to agree that in play, such as tug of war ( politically incorrect name for a game today) there is few dogs with the strength and determination to “win”.
And that was my point. Dave and Jay will not let anything go. They are like my daughters pit bull in a tug of war. Will not let go until the other end is loose and even then holds on until they are convinced they have “won”.
If the image of two pit bulls tugging at a rope floats you boat – fine. I can live with that.
I am having fun.
As to “wining” – there isn’t anything to “win”.
Jay does not make arguments, he sprays fallacies, almost entirely ad hominem.
You do not “win” against that, you just expose it for what it is.
Regardless, The left has spent decades claiming the moral high ground.
That was wrong, and I do not intend to allow that.
Is there anyone here short of Jay who thinks the treatment of Carter Page has been moral ?
Well, Dave and I have found multiple important things to agree on in one day, not only has hell frozen but the planet Mars is now measurably heating.
Dogs are one of the great keys to a happy life. I have had and loved many. Mostly large to huge, but also one longhaired dachshund, also very much beloved. Never would I marry a woman who would not let the dog sleep in our bed.
I must have ten thousand pictures of Grendel the pit bull. I have taken very good care of her. Other than some grey on the muzzle she has not changed in years, just as energetic. I tell people she is 13 and no one believes me till I point out her grey muzzle. I am as proud of that as anything about my life. I was given to her when she was 1 and I have lived up to the job.
May I be the person my dog thinks I am.
Roby, we also have had many dogs. Just lost one of 15 years this past spring due to oral cancer. Golden retriever mix.
My wife had a newfoundland and he left us 4 yrs ago, so she got another male, now 3 yrs old. There is one word you dont use around him. “No! ” that is like telling a teenage boy no! Newfees are suppose to be laid back, lovers. This one is anything but that. Put an overactive small dog that runs around your feet, jumping.on your legs and put that in a 150 lb body.
He is now becoming an adult and not acting like an adolescent brat. But getting from the overgrown puppy to this point has been interesting work for my wife. Doggy training did nothing for him. Mind of his own. Guess dogs do take on the personality of their owner!😉
I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree on.
That is true of most people.
Even where we disagree – so long and neither of us is trying to use force against the other, it is easy to disagree.
Our current Dog – Hannah is a chocolate Lab. She is a mistaken attempt to repeat the past.
Our first Chocolate Lab. was Brennan, and she inspired us to adopt our children. We have had many wonderful dogs throughout our lives. The dogs we have had have all been the ones we needed at the time.
Nikki our fierce warrior queen was my wife’s protector for years after her assault, and galadriel – the dober ditz was the reminder we needed that there was still joy in life when everything arround us seemed grey and joyless. But Brennan was pure childish joy and brought us our kids, and we lost her too soon. Hannah is old and blind and demented, she has more than a little gray on her muzzle. She has most of the wonderful traits of Labs, but is the most nuerotic dog we have ever had. But she still jumps onto our bed each night and says “snuggle and rub my belly, and everything will be alright” because that is who labs are.
Some of our dogs have been excellent judges of peoples character and others have been horrid. But I have always worried about people who did not like dogs.
My wife came to me in combination with a Great Pyrenees, also about 150 pounds. He believed that he was a General and in charge of all visitors and UPS deliveries, and many other things. Fortunately, he could run pretty fast, for about 10 feet and then was out of gas and just stood and barked.
In my early time with him he bit me once when I reached for his food dish. He got a nice solid tap on the head with a baseball bat, a fine lecture, was thrown out of the house overnight (we live the in woods so he was not about to wander) and after that we got along famously and knew our roles. Dogs are pack animals, they will take the No. 1 or the No. 2 spot in the pecking order equally naturally, whichever one you choose to let them assume. I’ve never wanted to be No 2, so that is their role.
Well this pact animal was going to be #1 come hell or high water. My wife would wear heavy coats since his ” grabbing” arms and jumping on you was his “fun” time, he thought he was playing with his pack. For 18 months she would wrestle him to the ground or floor and lay on him until he stopped squirming.
His dominance came from his father as he was the lead dog from the breeder we purchased him from. She was well known for producing off spring that became show dogs, but this one had way too much testosterone even after neutering.
Like I said, he has the personality of his owner and thats not me!
I have never had a conflict with a dog over who was the boss since I was a child.
As an adult the only times i have ever been bitten by a dog was in separating two dogs who were fighting.
Most of the dogs I have had were very low in dominance. But my wife and my first dog together – Nikki, who we took in as a stray, who had lived wild for a year before we got her, was the most dominant dog I have ever encountered in my life – though not with humans.
We likened her to Eowyn – the slayer of the lord of the Nazgul. she expected every living non-human in existance to grasp her dominance – or they were dead.
I was constantly scooping her up into my arms – because with all 4 feet off the ground, whatever creature had failed to show sufficient respect was safe, and she never ever challenged me or other humans.
But she killed a neighbors dog when it forced its way into our yard. She escaped occasionally, and I remember chasing her through the neighborhood – where she chased a german shepard twice her size onto the roof of its own dog house.
In the park one time she broke free of my wife draggy Galadriel (ladrie) our other dog spinning and rolling off balance behind her as she chased after a young Shepard that had dared to bark at her. I went running after and was bit by the shepard as I separated them.
She was only 65lbs, but she went for the jugular. She let toddlers crawl all over her and abuse her, but she was my wifes defender after her assault going with her almost everywhere, and she knew her job was to keep my wife safe. And she was always safe when Nikki was arround.
And, I am sorry your dog just passed. I cry like a baby every time we put an animal to sleep, there is no stopping it, and I do not even want to think about age finally catching Grendel, I will be gutted.
I have been tearing up all over constantly just thinking about the dogs that I have had to put down. It is never every easy. It shouldn’t be.
The issue I am having now is my age and getting another dog, even with my wife having one. What I fear most is something happening to my wife and i before the dog and then it ends up as an aged rescue. I see that too many times and that is also upsetting.
“For 18 months she would wrestle him to the ground or floor and lay on him until he stopped squirming.”
Forget about the dog, that is an impressive wife you have there. Must be an interesting home.
Ah, I love my dogs to distraction! I have two small dogs (20 and 30 pounds) and they are now 13 and 15, very elderly as canines go. So, I am already dreading the the inevitable loss, although, as of now, they are both relatively healthy, and smaller dogs often live into their late teens.
I once listened to a radio talk show, on which the host asked listeners to answer the question ” If your house were burning down, and you and your famility had safely escaped, woud you go back into the house to rescue your dog or cat.
About 75% of the listeners said yes.
Unanimous. We all are dog lovers.
We have two: Jake a 6 year old Giant Rat Terrier (meaning he’s 35lbs); Sasha a three year old Border Terrier (20 lbs). My wife trains Sasha to compete in obedience events – and Sasha has won multiple AKA trophies after only 1-1/2 years training. She bosses around bigger Jake who nevertheless gallantly leaves her dinner scraps in his dish. He’s our second GRT – the first made it to age 14. Rat Terriers large or small are smart, agile, athletic and affectionate.
Can we agree not to go towards my breed is better than yours ?
All dogs are different. All truly are man (and woman’s) best friend.
I have had dogs in my life from the time I was 4 until today, and I will until I die.
I can not imagine living without a dog. Most of my life we have had multiple dogs.
And will likely again when we lose Hannah.
We will probably go back to rescue dogs after Hannah, as it is easier to allow each dog to have its own character and expectations and not be compared so much to the prior dog of the same breed.
But that is my choice.
Why would you wrongly jump to the assumption I was suggesting my dogs are better than any other dogs?
“Why would you wrongly jump to the assumption I was suggesting my dogs are better than any other dogs?”
No explanation is necessary.
Amazing, pretty much nothing I disagree with.
I would note, that you are correct that only the future will answer many questions.
But Trump, congress, voters, have to act in the present.
Whether it is Obama or Trump trying to decide whether to kill Bin Laden, or Soliemani.
Or commit US troops to Syria or Libya, the decision must be made today, and neither have crystal balls that will show them accurately what the consequences intended or otherwise will be 20, 50 years from now.
Many factors have Forked up the mideast – but the wests bizarre carving up of the ottoman empire at the end of WWI has had negative consequences that are with us more than a century later.
Despite our lack of crystal balls – the opinion of each of us, has an impact – even if small on the decisions being made.
Not one of us can say with absolute certainty – and even history may never be able to do so, that Obama’s or Trump’s handling of Iran was better.
We can not know what the future would have been had Chamberlain not sacrificed Czechoslovakia for a piece of paper from Hitler. We only know how bad what did happen was.
There are incredibly few people shedding tears for Soliemani.
But nearly all of us regardless of our position on the political spectrumn are worried about what might come next.
Each US president since Clinton and probably for a long time to come faces something prior president never faced. Smaller beligerant nations that either have or are near to having weapons of mass destruction.
We started a multitrillion dollar war over false assertions that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
North Korea has had nuclear weapons since Clinton and will have nuclear ICBM’s when they inevitiably solve engineering problems. Iran may or may not have nuclear weapons, but absent regime change they certainly will, and the too eventually will likely have nuclear ballistic missiles.
This is scary, and it is difficult. It is what anyone we elect president must deal with
Probably the most sensible thing you have ever posted here, I completely agree with your opinion, mine is exactly the same. Ice skates are being distributed in hell as we speak.
I can add that we will also never know what the world would have been like had we not fought the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Would stalinist cancer have won out across the globe, or would the infection have contained itself and died out on its own? We will never know whether our choices were the worst possible or whether our tragic bloody wars averted an even more terrible future world.
We can not perfectly predict what would have happened had we done something different, but we are more accurately able to assess the effect of changes on the past than the future.
I have recomended this before – but there is a serious on pbs/bbc “the commanding heights – the battle for the world economy” that is excellent. There is also a book – which is less pleasureable, but chock full of data – i.e. the series tells a compelling story, while the book provides the backup.
From the early 20th century to the present many countries tried communism/socialism in many forms. And many countries went with freedom. Thje data from that tells an overwhelmingly uniform story. Bigger government in ANY FORM leads to slower rates of improvement.
Communism was not defeated by our military forces. It was defeated by its failure to deliver the higher standard of living of the west.
There are many reasons – one of those is Price’s law – which applies to almost everything that involves humans. And it is true in all systems – free market or socialist.
https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/
The creation of value is unequally distributed. If the incentives are not sufficient for the few who are the most productive – all of us suffer, badly.
With respect to vietnam – I recently finished Ken Burn’s series on vietnam.
I lived through most of vietnam, as I beleive you did. But I had little familiarity with the early events – I knew of the french defeat at Dien Bin Pheu.
Anyway the series excellent and it made me feel much better about the world today.
What I was reminded:
The government has been lying to us about pretty much everything, pretty much forever.
Whether it is the pentagon papers or the afghan papers. or Iraqi yellow cake or the vincense, or …. We should not trust any government – and not our own. We should not trust it when republicans are in power, or when democrats are in power.
We are far far far less racist today than in the past. The racist David Dukes of today are barely worse than ordinary people in the 50’s and 60’s.
We have been far more divided in the past than today. Despite fears and threats – the national guard are not killing students on campus, bombings are not happening twice a week. we have not burned down our cities. In short whatever our divisions today – we were far more bitterly divided then than now.
I found burn’s series simulataneously disturbing – so many more bad things that I did not know, and at the same time uplifting – the world is so much better today – in most every way,
We got past, Johnson and Nixon, we will get past Bush, Obama and Trump.
In a prior posts you describe the improvement in your life and attitude from being away from politics for a long time as tremendously positive.
I would suggest that maybe it is not so much putting politics behind you as separating yourself from the constant harangue that the sky is falling, that this moment is the worst that has ever been.
I might have linked this before. I am not sure that I accept that “gratitude” is the key to everything. But attitude is. If you see the world as going to hell – you will not be happy.
Nor will anyone arround you.
Further, I can not change you, or Jay, or Ron. I can not change anyone else in the world.
The only thing I can change to make the world better is myself.
And before any of us go off to fix all that is wrong with the world.
We should start with “the man in the mirror”
Gratitude IS the key to life. I am entirely grateful that I was born when, where, and to which parents I was born. I am grateful to my kids, my wives (yes I know how that sounds) and my friends as well. I’ve been blessed. My life has NOT been easy at many times, not at all, there has been lots of pain. But it has been a paradise compared to what most people in most times and most places have had to cope with. I never forget that and I always bring it to the top of my thoughts when I am in a rough patch.
Every intelligent person who is convinced that life has short changed them should sit down and read some history books till they see the error in their thoughts.
Its another area on which you and I agree Dave. Its nice to have this break in the clouds today.
As to the areas where we disagree, Oh boy, there are plenty! I have learned not to debate those with you.
Roby, sorry to butt in, but just want to make two comments.
1. Looking at history and learning about the past is being removed from everyday life and education.
2. People are being convinced they have been short changed by politicians and activist who blame the rich for most every negative aspect in ones life. One can tie most everyones thinking of a short changed life today on someone else.
Reading history to find your not so bad off is a thing of the past. History!😡
I look out my window at clouds and walked to the mailbox through grey skies and drizzel.
All the talk of dogs is both wonderful and bittersweet. All the good and the bad in my life has been intertwined with dogs. Hannah follows as I go for the mail reminding me that not tomorrow, not next week, but too soon I will lose her. She is 13 and with no serious problems , but a month, a year, two maybe, not a decade and i will have to decide if her eyes are asking for another day or for me to let go. And reminding me, that there are fewer dogs left in the rest of my life than there have been.
I have had a wonderful life, but not without some horrible times. There is always some who have had worse, but I have spent my time in hell.
Ultimately it is irrelevant whether life has “short changed you” – it will not make it up to you.
Whatever bad life has inflicted on you, the rest of your life is your choice. If you chose to be a victim – you are chosing to sacrifice whatever you might make of the rest of your life.
If you want to make your life better – there are always lots of people who will help. But there is no one else who can do it besides you. Almost no one will help you if you do not help yourself.
As to our disagreements.
During the debate on the Clinton effort to nationalize Healthcare, someone – I think it Was Boyden Gray said:
“A funny thing about things that can not continue as they are – they don’t. ”
The collapse of the USSR was inevitable.
The global trend away from socialism was too.
If i am right about all the wrong directions we are headed – sooner or later they will reverse.
The only question is the extent of the damage they cause before hand.
I do not want to move to Trump, or economic growth or anything controversial.
Except to note that – right or left, whatever we are doing wrong, might continue longer than it should, but will not continue forever. We will either fix it on our own, or it will fail and force us to.
Butting in? Would that everyone here had such a politer attitude toward conversations!
I am not so sure there ever really Was any golden age where many people knew history past what they were forced to sit through in school. If there was such a golden age of knowledge about history in America, it probably lasted for a few years in the 50s, before that nearly everyone was working like a dog and had little little time for leisure and much after that TV took over leisure time. Rising levels of people going to college after WWII would perhaps have affected that, if they were required to take such classes and the classes were any good. But no one other than an actual history major has time in college to truly read a large volume of books on the subject, more than barely scratching the surface takes quite a lot of time and a passion for the subject. As well, one soon forgets the details if they do not have a practical tie to one’s life.
An interest in history, I would bet, comes most of all from the cultural level of one’s parents.
The average person has probably never been very likely to read in any detail about the past.
More agreement. There was no past golden age.
i think there is pretty solid data that US education has declined over the past 40 years – as its cost has risen. Oddly though be inumerable standards we are behind much of the developed world, we STILL produce more entrepeneurs, more nobel winners, more progress per capita than anywhere else in the world – so we are still doing something right.
I think that the education I got in the 60’s and 70’s was mostly superior to that my kids got and certainly what they would have gotten in ordinary public schools.
But my education was not from some golden age.
If you want to have a discussion of education – what is right about it, what is wrong, what we should change, what we should keep. I would be interested in that discussion.
I think it is likely we might agree on alot, but even if we did not. The further we are from politics the less likely the issues are to devolve to insults and slander.
So long as our discussion is confined to “facts, logic, reason” – so long as we need not insult each other or resort to other fallacies, civil discussion even disagreement is possible, even the norm.
You know that I argue agressively. I expect the same from others. I see debate as a furnace in which arguments are tested.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
John Stuart Mills.
Truth is tested in fire.
I do not often revise my positions as a result of an argument – not because I am pig headed and stuborn and unwilling to cede when I lose. But because I have argued most issues for decades, and long ago repaired any errors, or threw out bad positions based on the past argument of others.
And that is how things should be. Experience, exposure to many ideas and arguments should result in wisdom from experience as we age. We should be found wrong less often as we age or we have done a poor job of learning.
The residents of hell could go ice skating today. I’m heartened by the amicable conversation between the two of you. Leave it to our canine friends to bring you together! Seriously, there’s so much wisdom in this thread that I’ll have to reread it at my leisure.
I loved a dog once, with all my heart, when I was a boy. I don’t think I ever fully recovered from his death. We’ve had other good dogs since, but they belonged to my parents.
I’ve never had a dog of my own as an adult; I switched to low-maintenance cats long ago. They’re beautiful, sweet and charming, but they can’t really measure up to a good dog in terms of the joy they bring to a household.
Time for a rescue pup Rick!
The death of every dog is difficult for anyone who loves dogs. I have had to deal with way too many dogs dying. In the early 21st century almost every dog in my extended family died from complications due to lime disease. Now they have a vaccine.
I am highly allergic to SOME cats. We allowed my son (20) to have a cat, when a rescue became available and I did not seem to be allergic to it. But for some reason this cat behaves more like a dog than a cat. and despite its supposed to be my sons cat, it has attached itself to me.
but there is nothing quite like a Lab jumping into your bed at the end of the day, sticking it paws in the air and looking at you as if to say – “rub my belly, it will make everything better”.
And it does. If a dog loves you – it loves you no matter what.
One of my never ending themes is that overall the world is better today than yesterday.
Many of the things we fight over here are important. But they are NOT the end of the world.
Our government takes up far too much space in our head and consumes far to much of our wealth. But despite that it is NOT all that big a part of our lives.
As Adam Smith noted:
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Our world is pretty good. Even in Adam Smith’s day, and it has improved hundreds of times over since then.
Even the things that Ron and i care about – like the debt and deficits, might inflict some pain at some point – but they will not kills us. They will not drive us back to the stone age.
Whether you think “Orange man bad” or you are one your a MAGA all the way, the world did not end with Trump’s election, and it will not end if he does or does not get re-elected.
We are doing some things wrong and some things right, but we are STILL overall at the best moment in human history to date – except tomorow.
We have the highest standard of living ever, the least racism, sexism, homophobia, … ever
And tomorow will be better.
Tomorow might be slightly less better if we make the wrong choices – but it still will be better.
Anyone telling you the world is coming to an end- for whatever reason is either lying or decieved.
Excellent, Roby.
Not being an extremely political person, I understood your reasoning and agree with it. We must understand that Trump could be viewed from Iran’s ideology as a “terrorist” to them and use like methods to eradicate him. I would not believe they would do that and bring the wrath of the world against them, but some extremist might attempt it.
Once again, your opinions were well stated and easily understood.
“We must understand that Trump could be viewed from Iran’s ideology as a “terrorist” to them and use like methods to eradicate him. ”
We must always understand how others think.
But that does NOT mean we should be confused into believing that their thoughts are reasonable.
The absence of absolute truth does not mean that anything anyone says or beleives is true.
Ultimately as even with physics and science – we do not have to have absolutes, to establish that many things are absolutely false, and to determine that there are only a few possible arrangements of what is possibly true that work.
I have been as saddened by the loss of my dogs, as by the death of my parents.
Worse, as a dog fails, the choices are ultimately yours. Nothing has been harder as they have declined than trying to decide when they look at you if they are saying that the pain and suffering are to great and it is time to let go, or if they are pleading for another day or week.
I am sorry for your losses.
And I am sorry for yours Dave. Apparently our humanity is showing its best side when it comes to the things we love, with pets being near or at the top. Perhaps when world or any political leaders get together they should bring their dogs along and find common ground that way.
Roby, bringing dogs to political gatherings would probably not work. To Islamist, dogs are Najis, or unclean and unable to be cleaned. In China, they eat them, right? Who wants their pet to end up the main course? And Lil Kim uses them for executions, so unless he works a deal with the S.S. to get rid of Trump, he wont be bringing his.
As painful as some parts of dealing with dogs is, I do not regret any of it.
‘Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Alfred Lord Tennyson
True of pets too. Some times sad but never something to regret.
I would prefer our leaders stayed home and played with their dogs and left us and the world alone.
“I would prefer our leaders stayed home and played with their dogs and left us and the world alone.”
A platform that most of us could support…
Could not find a healthcare link on Ricks subject to open a new discussion, so its here. Nothing about taking out Soleimani.
Bloomberg has a ton of ads running in N.C. Most cover healthcare for the most part, hos people need healthcare and states ” freedom to choose” when it comes to child birth.
I tried to find a good place to send him a comment and like all politicians, they dont want to hear from voters. The only place to comment was someplace that ends up asking for donations.
All I wanted to say was freedom to choose if one buys healthcare is just as important for some as freedom to abort a baby is for some women.
If women can choose, then anyone should be able to decide to buy insurance or not and for those that want to, buying into Medicare at the current costs should be an.option. For those under a certain income level, subsidies would help buy it. But no one should be forced to buy a private companies service or product that was part of PPACA.
Agree 100%, Ron.
For the progressive left, “choice” is very narrowly defined as the freedom to abort.
Lets see if this works:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/EMW1K7gvPmQtY8jZ6
👍
It appears to work so I will try a few more:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/up9yXkVvfaSvxCK36
I’ll try a video clip:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/xA8SrMTi9nMtiUED8
These are from last summer. Last one I promise.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m1uBPsAfKww2MAas9
Thanks for posting those, Roby. Great looking dog! ❤
Thanks Priscilla. It’s a lot easier to get pictures of her looking like a monster than a sweetheart. But she is a sweetheart.
I think I could live another 30 years and still be amazed at what people know and dont know. Tonight while watching Jeopardy where little known and useless facts result in contestants winning alot of money, they answered questions about far away geography, science from Einsteins theories to formulas and other subjects including political congressional members. They answered even a useless question about Jouquin Castro and Loui Gohmert being from Texas
But then they showed a picture of Adam Schiff, described his position and district and complete silence.
How does anyone avoid any news, social media or osmosis about Adam Schiff over the past couple years, especially people who know more facts than most.
And what does that say for the rest of voters when those more informed about everything than an average person has no idea who brought about the impeachment of the president. And Joepardy is only filmed a few weeks in advance.
I guess there are a lot of people not paying attention to the impeachment…
Thats what I was watching! How do people know all the poop like these contestants and not have a clue on who this idiot is? And they vote!
To the extent congress is unable to come together to change our imigration policy, I expect that the President will enforce that law as it currently it.
The law and the courts allow the border patrol to briefly stop people within 100 miles of a US board to inquire about their resident status.
I am not sure if I agree with that. But that is “the law”.
It does not grant them any more power than that. Pretty much everything in this video clip is actual abuse of power. This needs to be stopped. Whether it is trump or Obama, or whoever responsible.
Law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion to detain someone. They must have probable cause to search there person, their papers or their property.
I do not support Comey or Mueller engaging in lawless investigations – and I want to see them prosecuted for misuse of power under color of authority.
But the 4th amendment and individual liberty are not limited to presidents.
When officers have stopped you and verified legal residence to the standard allowed by the courts – which is low, any further action to detain or question you unsupported by an expressable probable cause is illegal. It is itself a criminal abuse of power.
We are oddly debating exactly that with this impeachment.
I the case of border checkpoints – they are being detained – that is what not being “free to leave” means. The officers involved no that, that is the standard the courts have establed that determines whether you probable cause is necescary – a search and seizure, anything more than a brief stop and limited questions goes beyond an investigation, which only requires reasonable suspicion but does not empower searches or seizures – detention is a seizure. removing someone from their car by force is a seizure. Wiretapping is a search. All of those require probable cause.
Starting an investigation is neither a search nor a seizure, it only requires reasonable suspicion. Should those investigating wish to conduct a search or seizure – THEN they need probable cause.
We are in an odd world. The president can not ask for an investigation of someone who openly extorted a foreign country likely for personal gain, but border patrol agents can seize you and your car and search you without probable cause without even reasonable suspicion.
For some reason I cant play video, but know the issue.
I have said this before. If our elected congressional representatives would actually do some constructive work cor the country and stop working just to get their party in the white house, maybe some common sense immigration policies would be legislated. When we have one party almost wanting to ignore laws and another almost to the point of wide spread rights violations, what we have will never be fixed.
It appears that Youtube has blocked the video.
So now they are blocking video by John Stossel – libertarian, that though it does not name Trump is pretty negative about one part of our governments border law enforcement that is interfering with the lives of anyone living withing 100 miles of the border.
I guess the video was “disturbing” – video of CBP agents behaving arrogantly and breaking peoples car windows and then tasing them because the produced identification and refused to answer other questions when they were pulled over at a border patrol checkpoint 70 miles from the border. Traveling from home to work and never getting withing 50 miles of the border.
The biggest problem in the country today and growing is the massive divide between the few on the progressive left and the few on the conservative right that molds the agenda of their parties, all while the large moderate population results in the sounds of crickets and frogs and nothing more. And then the only time anything is heard is when they have to hold their noses when voting because of the stench of the candidates.
I am going to use centrist rather than moderate.
I do not care if you are on the right, left or center of the political spectrum.
If you are using force to infringe on the rights of others – you are wrong.
The rise of China is the ultimate, existential long-term threat to the American way of life – even more than Global Warming and increasing economic inequality. Most US politicians prefer Free Trade with China for the short-term convenience, but this will be disastrous in the long run. Only trump, with all his warts,sees the problem and is trying to do something. For this reason Trump must be reelected!
Raymond, I agree and have been one of the few here that has supported Trumps “fair” trade
(as opposed to free trade) and agree with the reelection. But how can anyone convince him to stop uncovering his warts every time he tweets something daily or makes public appearances. This week two significant trade deals concluded and he helped the Democrats keep impeachment the top story.
I think he needs to shut up about impeachment, concentrate on his positives and reduce the coverage impeachment is getting. Every time he opens his mouth about impeachment he is playing into the democrats game plan.
Define significant.
So far all he’s done is patch tires he flattened.
Trump has neither been as great or as bade on Trade as either side claims.
I do not think his spats with Mexico, Europe, Canada or Japan are great wins.
nor are they great losses.
While I think some of the claims of some of the sources you cited are laughably off.
I do not doubt that Trump’s “protectionist” measures have cost US jobs. But those losses are small and dwarfed by other gains.
I do not think these Trade wars were wise.
But they are all about more than Trade. Alot of what Trump is doing is sending the world a message. Quite often Trade and defense go hand in hand in Trump discussions.
Everyone in NATO agreed decades ago to spend 2% of GDP on defense. US Defense spending is about 4% of GDP now, and 40% of the defense spending of the entire rest of the world.
Trump wants and gets spending increase from countries all over Europe and Asia.
In some cases by shaming, in others because these countries are welcoming US confrontation of China – economically and militarily.
Under Obama the South China sea was China’s private lake. Now US warships traverse it regularly to re-assert that it is international waters. Countries like Tiawan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and India are joining the US to challenge China’s regoinal dominance.
Trump’s beligerance towards China has agrevated capital flight in China, Agrevated China’s debt issued AND agrevated the departure of business from China – some returning to the US, and other fleeing to other countries with cheap labor. This was going to happen anyway – Trump does nto get credit for that, but it is happening sooner because of Trump,
Whether it is the Tiawanese or a re-emerging Japanese Navy or an increasingly western facing Vietnam, or … Trump has increased the challenges that China faces – both internally and externally in a way that Obama did not.
From a pure Trade perspective Trump’s trade actions with China – though not as bad as claimed, are not defensible. But they function on more levels than Just Trade.
You repeatedly tell us all that the US must Confront Russia. But the Russian military is rusting in place. The Kirov was the flagship of the Russian Submarie force – hopefully we know what happened to it. That was NOT during Trumps watch, but the point is that it has not been replaced. The US has had two generations of nuclear Subs since that. Further we reduced our Nuclear Boomers by treaty, but we did not retire them – many have been converted to non-nuclear attack subs. They are suplanting a role that used to be performed by Destroyers and Cruisers.
Russia has one Aircraft Carrier – BEFORE the recent 1.5B fire that has left it a carcas, it was not able to travel under its own stream. China has 4 Aircraft carriers – all equal or superior to the Russians and all actually in service. Most of the old Russian airforce is rotting through lack of mantanence. Russia has only produced one new combat aircraft in something like 4 decades and there is talk of dropping that because they can not afford it, and it is not exporting well. China has produced several new generations of military aircraft.
While they are significantly short of US aircraft in overall abilities – they are numerous and they are improving Russian military development of almost all kinds appears dead.
My point is – who is the real threat ? Our DoD thinks that the US military needs to restructure and redepoly to be more China facing, that Russia or mideast forcused.
That is not a new choice, it has been in progress for atleast a decade.
As i noted in another post – it is also a significant factor in many of the internicien powerplays that are often presenting themselves as conflicts involving Trump.
The US strategic focus is shifting from Russia and the mideast to Asia.
That entirely changes the balance of power among various elites in washington.
The fact that the Trump campaign was accused of colluding with Russia, the constant claims that X is a Russian asset are no accident. These are more than efforts to “get Trump”, these are efforts to continue to prop up Russia as the great boogey man.
Whether we are talking of Strzok, or Ciareillo we are talking about Russian and eastern european experts seeking to retain relevance. in a US foreign policy that is increasingly asia focused.
The US Government – Starting BEFORE Trump, increasingly sees Russia as NOT the threat it once was, and is relying more and more on European countries to Check Russia.
BTW we are also increasingly not seeing the Mideast as as signifcant and ALSO expecting more of Europe there.
Trump guaranteed European Natural Gas supplies from the US’s now world leading production of fossil fuels. This was deliberate – it greatly strengthens the European’s ability to confront Russia. Without US natural Gas, Europe depends on Russa and the Mideast.
The US no longer does. Trump is expecting Europe – not the US to prevent Russian adventurism. The Russian economy is 1/10 that of Europe. There is no reason that Europe can not keep Russian in Check without the US. Europe not the US depends on mideastern oil. if any nations are going to shed the blood of their soldiers to secure their oil supply in the mideast that increasingly needs to be the Europeans. Further China is the great power today seeking mideastern oil – not the US China has an economy about the size of ours with energy demands nearly ours, but only has coal within its borders.
WWII with Japan started because the US choked Japanese Energy access.
If you are on the Russian Desk in CIA, NSA, State … Or on the eastern Eurpean desks – like Ukraine, or on mideastern desks your significance to US policy is WANING as US foreign policy and threat assessment shifts to Asia.
Alot of the ranting in washington about Russia, Russian agression, Russian Assets, Russian influence, is an effort buy those losing significant to delay the inevitable.
He’s a despicable clown, Dave.
You wouldn’t rent him a property you owned unless he paid for it upfront, in American currency.
A thousand times over – insults are not arguments.
Calling anyone some name does not make it true.
If you make a moral claim about another – you had better be right because you have bet your integrity against theirs, and the burden of proof is on you.
Doubly so because you have little or no integrity left.
Trump would have no problem passing the background check I apply to prospects.
He has income in excess of 3 times the rent. He has no outstanding evicitions in the past 5 years. He has not been convicted of a crime recently or a violent crime ever.
I do not think he is likely to rent my apartments.
But I would rent to him if he did.
I would further note, that I rent to democrats, republicans, libertarians, moderates, communists, fascists.
I could care less about their politics. I care if they will pay their rent and will not cost me in other ways.
You on the other hand have an established reputation for false moral allegations.
Knowing that I would not rent to you.
You would be trouble.
When you rent from me. I expect that you know what you are doing, that you are an adult.
I have not twisted anyone’s arm. They have the same opportunity to check me out as I have to check them out. They also had the oportunity to check out the apartment, and talk to other tenants if they want.
You are the type of person who would likely do most of that.
Rent the apartment and THEN when everything was not perfect cause me all kinds of trouble and claim you were promised things you were not.
You seem exactly like the tenants who when they sign the lease than me profusely and tell me how wonderful the apartment is. and when they are behind on their rent and facing eviction are telling the district magistrate I am a slum lord.
You are someone who when things do not go your way resorts to insulting people.
I am guessing a bit. Obviously you are not one of my tenants.
But there is not a change in hell I would rent to you.
I do not rent to people who have “crim-in-falsi in their past. I do not rent to people who lie on their applications.
Integrity matters. Possibly more than anything else.
USMCA…”Democratic Congressman Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the leader of the House Ways and Means Committee, heralded the deal as “transformative,” and said the agreement is a “triumph for organized labor” and “for workers everywhere across America.””
As for the China deal, its a beginning to fairer trade. But going any further with you about this is not worth the time as those blinded by Trump hate cant be debated with using anything but facts after the fact. And that will not be known for some time.
If the fact were known or knowable at this moment – that would not make your ability to persuade half the country any greater.
No one on the left, and no one with TDS gives a damn about facts or truth or morality.
Ron, Trump is not going to “shut up” about impeachment – becuse it is a winning issue for him.
I understand that when he talks about it – or many other things – it ticks you off.
But politically it works for him. He is now about 50% in Rasmussen. And at or near peak in all other favor ability polls. He is above where Obama was at this time.
Impeachment is raising massive amounts of money for Trump. And he is both using t on himself AND to hold the Senate and Retake the house.
It is still way out on the election, but apparently the GOP is targeting something like 90 House members in seats that they think are potentially winable.
While The GOP has had a larger than normal number of retirements it also has since Impeachment started seen a big spike in quality recruitments to challenge democratic representatives. Further there are a record number of highly qualified GOP women running in 2020.
It is near certain he will do better among blacks and hispanics than he or any other republican has in a long time.
Way too many people see 2019 as a bad year for the GOP – to some extent in the house it was. But it came very close to being a GOP sweep in the Senate, and several states like FL and OH were very red. Further In FL there was a significant shift in the black vote AGAINST democrats – even though a black democrat was running for governor.
I do not want to say everything Trump is doing is driven by shrewd calculations about the election. But you MUST after 2016 credit Trump for knowing how to win elections.
Democrats are now shooting themselves. Most Democratic Big Money has made it clear – if Biden is not the candidate they will sit out the election. Warren and Sanders have finally gotten the knives out and are flaying each other. And key Sanders constituencies are claiming that if Sanders is not the nominee they are sitting out the election.
So pick whatever democrat you want – how do you expect them to beat Trump ?
I do not like the way Trump talks either. Except that his language is less polished he talks the same way as democrats – all insults and slurs.
But I think he speaks the way the people who vote for him identify with.
And that is not you or I.
He hasn’t risen appreciably in the polls for a year and a half – the impeachment isn’t going to change anything. It will only harden core voters on both sides. But the ‘swing’ voters (independents etc) want witnesses to testify, notably Bolton (71%) and they won’t be happy if GOP doesn’t allow it.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
(Swing voter info today at Newsweek)
I guess i read the same graphs you do quite differently.
Trumps approval was BELOW Obama’s at the same time in his term from Election day through to the begining of his 2nd year. It was pretty much the same as Obama’s through his 2nd year. It has been slightly higher than Obama’s through his 3rd year and now into the start of the 4th.
Obama was re-elected.
Obama did not face impeachment in his 3rd year.
Despite being just about the most lawless president ever.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency
Who knows maybe your crystal ball is better than mine.
Maybe doubling down on stupid over and over will eventually pay off.
Maybe they will find pictures of Trump on Lolita Island naked with a 13year old – though if pictures are found I would bet on Bill Clinton rather than Donald Trump.
As more and more people beleive Epstein was murdered, the conspiracists are near certain it was Hillary.
But Turmp goes into his last year with a higher approval rating that Obama, a stronger economy and the probability of growing successes as the election approaches.
Facing increasingly wounded opponents who look weaker by the day.
I want Santa Clause to testify – but that is not happening.
There are extremely serious problems getting Bolton to testify.
As even Derschowitz pointed out – exactly what you want Bolton to testify to – exchanges that he had over foreign policy with the president are precisely what is near absolutely covered by executive priviledge.
You will not get Bolton to testify without Trump’s permission or a long drawn out court fight you will likely loose.
That does not mean Bolton will not testify. It means that to get Bolton to testify, you are going to have to give Trump something he wants. You are going to have to agree to Trump’s slate of witnesses.
Do polls show the same level of interest in Trump’s witnesses ? I do not know.
It does not matter. Nearly all the people who want to hear from Bolton are not going to object to Trump’s witnesses.
What you do not have is any compelling case or argument to have ONLY the witnesses you want.
And frankly you have an incredibly weak argument for that.
Even today nothing prevents the house from going to court to get Bolton or anyone else they want to testify to do so – if they can get the courts permission.
Or from negotiating with Trump to waive privilege.
I would bet that Trump would give permission to have Bolton testify publicly, if the house also called the Whistlblower, Schiff, Hunter, and Joe and allowed republicans in the house and the presidents lawyers the same rights to question them as democrats have had of their witnesses.
Except for the fact that the Senate should not be bullied into cleaning up the mess the house made, it is not relevant WHERE these witnesses testify – though it is relevant HOW their testimony is conducted.
Neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden have to testify to anything that they have not already said publicly to completely tank impeachment.
All that is necescary is for people to see and hear Hunter and Joe and NOT walk away saying there is nothing here. You know that will not happen.
Anyone not suffering from TDS who listens to the Biden clip would naturally respond – “there should be an investigation”
And that is the actual burden Trump must meet.
You can rant about 10,000 possible illegitimate motives that Trump might have.
His actions are legitimate if there is ONE legitimate reason.
It is never abuse of power to do what the constitution permits you to do, just because you might politically benefit from doing so.
Bolton can testify to Trump blackmailing Zelensky to get an investigation.
While I do not expect that. If you think Bolton is going to be your John Dean you are likely to be highly disappointed. Bolton is likely to say unflattering things about Trump. Bolton is arrogant and he lost a battle of ego’s with Trump, Bolton will likely be out for revenge.
But do not confuse his desire to have possibly the brightest spotlight in modern history on him for a few mintutes to his either knowing something that – logic dictates is improbable or are you betting he dislikes Trump enough he will lie for you ?
Bolton is not going to lie, and he is not going to give you what you want. Though he will likely be critical of Trump’s foreign policy. Further if Trump’s attornies are not total idiots – and Sekelow has 16 victories in the Supreme Court, they are going to lead Bolton down the path to fry himself. Arogant people make lousy witnesses.
You are constantly deluded by an important thing that polls are poor at measuring.
How important something is.
Just about every progressive program that ever was has super majority popular support – often 80%.
And that changes to 80% opposition if the same policy has a cost to the voter of as little as $100/year.
Do people want to hear from Bolton ? Sure. The question is how will they vote over that.
If there are NO witnesses – it likely will not effect their vote.
The desire is trivial to address.
NO ONE (except possibly the courts) is stopping Bolton from testifying in the House.
It may not reach peoples consciousness, but the house botched this, and their expectation that the senate will fix it is proof of that.
My xtal ball says NO witnesses. Why ?
All the senators of BOTH parties want this out of the way FAST. Dragging this out is NOT good for senators – not republicans not democrats.
It is highly unlikely the House is getting witnesses without Trump also getting witnesses.
Trump holds all the aces. To get Bolton (or any of the other witrnesses the D’s want) Trump must waive privildge or the court has to resolve the question of Priviledge.
That will take alot of time – even highly expedited – and Senators do not want to be in the middle of and impeachment trial for months waiting for this to get kicked through the courts.
Where there are pretty good odds Trump will win, or Bolton’s testimony will be narrowed to the point of being useless.
You still do not seem to get that Trump wins in a protracted process. The impeachment is boosting his fund raising and energizing his base accross the county. And dragging this out is demoralizing Democrats.
Trump likely wants this to drag out.
In the alternate Trump wants his own witnesses. Trump has repeatedly demanded lots of witnesses. Trump may be holding up Bolton. but he is not the obstacle to witnesses.
You are confusing Bolton with John Dean. He is not. He is Trump’s leverage.
Neither McConnell nor any of the rest of the senate wants Trump to drag in 6 or 7 witnesses.
And I am sure that for every witness the House wants – Trump will demand two.
Trump is served by dragging this out. He is also served by lots of witnesses.
He is served if the trial is exciting – which it will not be.
He is served if it is dull and boring – which it will be.
He is served if people hang on Bolton’s every word – if they also listen to Hunter.
He is served if no one tunes in at all.
Just about the only winning scenario you have is magic happens, Bolton testifies, he does his best john Dean, and the Senate refuses to allow any Trump witnesses.
And arguably even that serves Trump if he is acquitted – which is near certain.
He would get a big boost from getting acquitted in a Senate Trial that appeared unfair to him.
You really have only two viable choices – No witnesses or lots of witnesses.
You lose both.
And despite the political gamesmanship – even democratic senators want short.
Pelosi caved for a reason – Senate democrats were getting angry.
I know that was a while ago – but Wasn;’t Clinton psychophant Sandy Berger convicted of mishandling classified documents – gee isn’t there a pattern here ? And Gen. Pertreaus for having classified documents in his home – kind of like on a bathroom mail server.
Except less dangerous.
I do not know if there are charges or an investigation going on – but we pretty much know that Rep. Omar committed immigration fraud.
We are all guessing at how the impeachment Trial goes.
Interesting Rand Paul just “threatened” the rest of republicans Senators.
He said that if there is a vote to allow the democrats to have witnesses, then he is going to require a vote to allow Trump to have witnesses.
If Collins and other moderates vote yes to hear from democrats witnesses – they will not alienate moderates who might vote for them. But if they vote no to witness for Trump – they are unlikely to get re-elected. You can not piss on your base.
Further if Both the house managers and Trump call witnesses, this will drag on forever.
I think that McConnell (and I) want a short swift Trial. The right thing to do is to kick this back to the House. To say NO! to witnesses, to say you have not brought an impeachable offense. Not to bother even looking at the house record. Just as the House gets to decide what an impeachable offense is so does the Senate. The best choice for the country is for the Senate to say, we are not impeaching without an actual crime. this is not about Trump it is about the future.
The house is free to continue their investigations. They are free to call more witnesses if the courts will allow them.
It is not the Senates job to fix a mess created by the house. This is also the easiest out for all the assorted Senators – both democrats and republicans. If this grows to involve witnesses it will drag on longer and it will be politically harmful for exveryone – but probably more so for democrats.
Ron, it would be nice if Trump would constrain his tweeting and hyperbole but it ain’t going to happen. Either he is re-elected and continues to keep and increase his China Tariffs or he is defeated and the Left goes back to Free Trade and China continues her Rise to World Hegemony unconstrained. Trump, you’re our only hope!
“It would be nice if”…
There is not a single president in my life time I have agreed with 100%. There is probably not a single person I have agreed with 100%.
I will never get the perfect president.
This is true not merely of politics but everything.
I have lots of choices in life.
The fact that I do not have exactly the choices I wish I had does not make me unfree.
I do not have the perfect home, job, dog, food, ….
But I chose each of these from those choices that are available to me – that is freedom.
And where my choices were not as I wished and that was important – I changed the choices.
Regardless, I do not get perfect choices.
In Nov. 2020 we will get to chose between Trump and some democrat – Biden, Warren, Sanders, …
We take into account the merits and flaws of each and vote.
Trump has lots of flaws. In Nov. 2020 you get to weigh his flaws and assets against those of the democrat and choose.
You will not get the perfect choice – ever.
But you will get to chose.
Hidden in the political nonsense of the moment, the department of Defense – starting years before Trump was elected has been shifting its focus away from Russia and the Mideast to Asia and specifically China.
Elements of this shift have surfaced in the current political mess and Trump gets some focus – as if the idea that the shift in focus to China and asia is drive purely by Trump – though it predates him significantly, even if it is still true that Trump has more publicly made that shift prominent.
Alot of the “deep state” gamesmenship has little to do with Trump and alot to do with long term shifts in priorities, and the atendant shifts in power in washington that result.
Our government is divided by more than left right, or neo-cons vs. doves.
Paraded in front of the house on impeachment was a bevy of the foreign policy establishment whose power is tied to the significance of Russia as a threat to the US. Or to the mideast as a threat, or both.
Russia has the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and ICBM’s so long as that is true they will remain a significant threat. But the cold war strategy of diminishing the USSR economically was extremely successful. Russia is a shadow of the former USSR, and economically inconsequential. Today Russian GDP is 1/10th that of China or the EU or the US. They are increasingly unable to maintain their military. There only remaining Aircraft carrier is a burnt out Hulk, While India and China have growing navies.
Russia does not have the economic might to maintain its preeminent position as the greatest US adversary.
But myriads within the US government – in state, in DoD etc have their lives, and their power tied to the importance of either Russia or the mideast as a threat.
Within State, Dod, CIA, NSA, and the FBI, almost all our resources, and almost all the power and money affilated with those are tied to Either Russia or the Mideast or both.
Not Asia, not China.
Apparently the political outrage of the moment is the tiff between Sanders and Warren because Warren Alleges that Sanders told her privately that a womand can not get elected president.
Sanders denies having said this.
But I ask “so what” ?
I do not think this ought to be true, and I do not think it is true.
But Sanders is not alleged to have said “women are inferior and will not make a good president”.
He is alleged to have said a woman can not get elected.
MAYBE that reflects some opinion on his part that a woman SHOULD not be elected.
More likely it reflects a view that there are just too many misogynists out there.
Despite the fact that the country elected Barack Obama twice, there are still plenty of people on the left claiming that we live in the most racist moment in US history.
How is the claim that the country is too mysoginst to elect a woman somehow a character flaw on Sanders part ?
I am not trying to take sides in this spat.
I am not a fan of either. I am just observing.
those on the left have no argument beyond “identity politics”.
I watched Dave Rubin interviewing a swedish libertarian and observing that this was inevitable – not specific to Warren, that the left ultimately has nowhere to go except to turn on itself.
I am constantly comparing the progressive left to that of the USSR and Communist China.
It is inherent that any ideology that raises equality rather than freedom to a principle, will ultimately devolve to slurring its own. Fxation over equality leads to elevating victimization to virtue, Dividing us all into victims and oppresors, If you are not a victim you must be an oppressor.
Prominant Sanders spokes people have asserted that if Sanders is not the democratic nominee they are sitting out the election.
The problem is not tha a woman can not get elected president, he misspoke. It is that the current women running for president can not get elected. but he can not say that because he would be attacking his own positions if he said Warren can not get elected since they are two peas in the same pod. So now he has to deny ever saying it.
But hell, what difference does it make if he lies about what he said or did not say. Trump lies multiple times a day and his followers don’t care, so why expect something different from the left.
Anyone who expects their politicians to tell the truth are living in a dream world anyway.
I do not know what he actually said. Nor do I care much.
One of my points is that no matter what he said unless it is quite different from anything alleged, it is NOT a reflection of personal mysoginism it is a judgement – that may or may not be accurate of societal mysogyny.
IT is also a very interesting example of the Crossed Signals of progressivism.
Sanders: Liz, you are a woman and you can not be president, because you are a victim of societal misogyny.
Warren: Bernie, your recognition of my victim status and societal mysogyny makes you a mysoginyst and victimizer.
Sanders is either right, or the nation is not so mysoginist as the left (and Warren) claim.
When of the problems with “identity politics” cult of victimhood, is that if broad societal mysognyny is real – Warren can not be president. and if it is not, she can not be the victim she claims to be.
I also found it very interesting that CNN particularly and much of the left presumes as fact that Bernie is lying and Liz is not. AND at the same time, Liz came away the loser and Bernie the winner.
I do not care so much that Bernie may being lying.
As to why it matters ?
The conclusion that a woman can not be president because of the misogyny of OTHERS, is not inherently misogyny on the part of the person making the statement.
This is just another example where the left conflates a conclusion about facts, with bad motives.
I think YOU are right – Warren can not get elected President.
If Bernie said this I think he is wrong – SOME women can get elected president.
But whether Bernie is right or wrong, the statement is NOT a moral failing. It is either factually correct, or incorrect,
There is no direct connection between being right or wrong about facts with moral error.
The beat goes on, Ron. Dishonest politicians everywhere.
“Former Rep Chris Collins, R-NY (the first House member to endorse Trump in 2016) has been sentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading charges. Judge Vernon Broderick fined Collins $200,000 and a year of supervised probation upon his release. Judge Broderick said, “you had a duty and you betrayed that duty.””
The second House member to endorse Trump was Duncan Hunter Jr., another admitted crook. Hmmmmm. Is there a pattern here? Why are so many Trump supporters (and lawyers) in jail, or facing jail? Do jail birds of a feather flock together?
Are you sure you’re in favor of re-electing him?
And yet maxine waters is still free ?
BTW there are plenty of cases against politicians of both parties.
And Somehow Sen. Menedez got off after taking bribes for years and years.
I also find it interesting that in this “insider trading Scheme”. Collins informed others of the insider information – that enabled them to avoid losses of almost 768,000.
But he did not sell his own shares – he was the largest single investor and he lost millions in his “insider trading scheme”.
Still a crime. But I have alot more sympathy for someone who breaks the rules to help others, but allows himself to be screwed.
Obama was relelected despite his connections to Ayers, Blogovitch, and Rezko.
Depends on who runs against him. There are a few red lines I will not cross. Right now I dont see any Democrat running that I will vote for. Dont even see a good Libertarian.
Alan Dershowitz, the little prick (I speak from personal knowledge) announced today “Abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense.”
Why doesn’t he just say outright, Trump can’t be impeached for any reason as long as GOP controls the Senate.
“Alan Dershowitz, the little prick (I speak from personal knowledge)”
Really ?
You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
I have no idea what Derschowitz said – and I do not trust you to represent anything accurately based on your past history of many misrepresentations.
Regardless, the constitution does not subject the house or senate to any review regarding impeachment.
Therefore what is impeachable is whatever the house and Senate decide.
Of course if they decide badly – the voters get the final say.
It is however correct that our founders explicitly argument AGAINST this kind of impeachment – and never has anything so baseless been attempted before.
I would however state this differently.
No action of a president that is constitutionally within his power is ever improper.
i.e it is not “illegal” – regardless of your guess or even actual knowledge of his motives.
Your guess as to bad motives does not make a constitutional use of power into an abuse.
We already know that congress has not in the past considered blackmailing foreign govenrments by witholding military aide unconstitutional.
We know that because Biden overtly did that, and we know he did because he publicly bragged about it.
So either the act you THINK Trump commited was constitutional, or you are hypocritical.
Interestingly what you most seem to fail to grasp is that there is no circumstance in which Biden;’s threat is legitimate, and Trump’s is not. But there are many instances in which Trump’s is legitimate and Biden is not.
Would be very interesting debate between Dershowitz and Judge Napoltano.
I like Napolitano but he is not even close to Derschowitz’s legal chops.
There are far too many lawyers in the country, and that has turned out to be a negative influence, not only on the rule of law, but on common sense.
It’s one thing to argue an alleged violation of law based on the words and intent of the law itself, it’s another to construct an argument, whether for the prosecution or the defense, that is specifically designed to skirt the law, in order to get a politically or socially driven outcome. We see this every day in the kinds of cases that make news. Procedural technicalities often determine outcomes that fly in the face of the wording and intent of the law, and, in the case of Napolitano, who did a 180 on Trump, after Trump refused to consider him for a Supreme Court seat, in the face of the wording and intent of the Constirution.
Lawyers and judges, as well as congressmen, should follow the law in order to determine where it leads, not pursue a predetermined outcome and search the law in order to find a way around existing law.
James Madison was clear in his belief that presidential impeachment was solely for the purpose of high crimes and misdemeanors, not the exercise of foreign policy or lawful executive privilege.
Dershowitz has been clear that the House failed to follow Constitutional law in this case, and recommends dismissal. Napolitano is looking for a predetermined outcome, based on his personal hatred of an individual president,and wants to see his removal.
There are too many lawyers – litterally. The internet has taken away the bread and butter of many firms large and small, the simple wills and contracts and lots and lots of basic work that people did not used to do for themselves, and lawyers were often able to charge significantly for.
That problem will eventually clear itself.
The fundimental problem with law started with progressives more that a century ago.
The law was developed – from the times of Hamurabi, and Moses, through Rome to England the Magna Carte and the development of common law as a means to protect the rights of individuals.
But starting toward the end of the 19th century it slowly became coopted as a means to advance the political goals of the earliest “class warriors”
There is no such thing as “social justice” all rights are individual. Classes are just individuals in association. There are no black rights, or gay rights, or women’s rights – there are just the rights of individuals.
Instead progressiveness has subordinated the individual to the class.
The entire legal construct of a “protected class” is nonsense that nor merely violates the fundimental premise of thousands of years of legal evolution, it is antithetical to what separates humans from other animals, as well as undermining the fundimental basis of human social relations.
To advance this class warfare nonsense, progressives have for over a century destroyed the logical foundations of law.
Law is about morality – negative morality ONLY – “Thou shalt not”,
Positive morality is near infinite and its judgement must be enforced outside the law.
The foundation of morality is freedom.
The law is understood narrowly – because everyone must know what they can and can not do clearly.
The law itself must not only be interpretted narrowly, it must be narrow – because we are all obligated to know the constraints on our behavior.
The law must rest on clear moral principles – universal concepts of right and wrong – which have their foundation in individual liberty – because again we are all obligated to know and follow the law – yet almost none of us have read it.
The law is not and can not be the written codification of what some of us, many of us, even the majority of us think is right or wrong, it must rest on what nearly all of us think is right or wrong. Again we are all obligated to know and follow the law, though almost none of us have read it.
We are judged and punished according to a written text that only a tiny portion of us are familiar with, that today even the judges and lawyers do not know all of.
None of us have the opportunity to reference our state, or US codes before we decide how we will act. We act based on our common shared understanding of morality.
It is the obligation of government and courts and judges and lawyers and legislators to conform our law to that near universally shared morality because that is what each of us know.
The basic standard we are subject to is “knowing right from wrong” .
That is what is universally understood as right and wrong,.
Not what Jay or I or Ron or Priscilla determine is right or wrong.
Kant’s catagorical imperative is the core of Law
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
Fundimentally, Derschowitz is wrong about what is and is not impeachable.
While Derschowitz is correct about the intentions of our founders – there is lots and lots of historical evidence that what is happening now is precisely what our founders wanted to avoid.
But there is a reason that originalism is often called “textualism”.
It is the words of the authors as understood by the people of the time that matter – that is something that we can usually establish with a high degree of accuracy, and it is always something we are free to change. To the extent that we can not divine the meaning of the law or constitution without going beyond those words, the next reference is natural law and natural rights – not the intent of the authors. Because the foundation of law and constitution is the protection of individual rights.
Our founders did not beleive they had constructed the perfect constitution. They expected us to change it as we found it flawed.
In the case of impeachment the critical flaw is there is no oversight, no appeal beyond the voters. We can argue what high crimes and misdemeanors means – and I think Derschowitz is absolutely right about both what it means and what our founders intended.
He is right about what “ought” to be the requirements for impeachment.
But there is no check on the house, except the Senate and the voters and no check on the Senate except the house and the voters.
Derschowitz is on the wrong side of Hume’s Guilotine, you can not reason from what “ought” to what “is” – this is an extremely common error of the left.
Our founders left no appeal to the supreme court or some other body to determine if by law and constitution the alleged acts constituted and impeachable offense.
I would further note that by fixating on the wrong thing Derschowitz misses the most fundimental flaw in this faux impeachment.
That is that the failure of due process, the star chamber approach is really what is wrong with it.
The Senate makes a huge mistake in actually holding a trial. What they should do is return this to the house.
Much is made of the fact that the Senators are jurors – but they are more than that – they are also the judges.
That means THEY function not only as a jury but as a judge.
That means they rule not merely on the facts, but also the law.
There is no appeal to the supreme court. There is no other party beyond the voters who will determine the law regarding impeachment.
The proper response of the senate is to rule on the LAW first.
That is where Derschowitz’s argument has weight.
The Senate is Free to tell the house:
You have not forwarded an impeachable offense and we will not consider it.
Or,
You have not established a prima fascia case – investigation is the duty of the house not the senate. If your case is insufficient and you need more witnesses – go back to the house and take their testimony. The Senate is the trial court and the law requires a prosecutor bring his case fully formed to trial. Investigations are conducted by prosecutors, and law enforcement and grand juries not judges and petit juries.
Or
You have not followed due process, and we are returning this mess to you and will not accept articles of impeachment that were produced from a star chamber.
One of the most fundimentally stupid portions of all the house arguments, such as that over witnesses, is that the issue is NOT witnesses. It is entirely about the house controlling the senate. Nothing precluded the house from getting any witnesses testimony that does not equally preclude the senate. The real argument is not about witnesses.
It is about getting the Senate to try to clean up a mess than the house made.
I like Derschowitz, I like Napalitano I do not like McConnell, ultimately I do not like Trump either.
But what is right and wrong is not determined by who I like or dislike.
In this instance McConnell is right.
It is very important for the Senate to throw this back at the House on essentially a legal basis not a factual basis.
If the Senate does not establish what is and is not impeachable, and what is and is not due process, then only the voters are left as a check and absent the anhilation of the democratic party in November we will see that become common in the future.
I agree with you on this, Dave. The House, and Pelosi in particular, is behaving in a rogue manner. My honest belief is that this will ultimately destroy constitutional order (if it’s not already destroyed). If voters continue to elect leftists who want to transform our republic into a socialist shithole, that’s what we’re going to end up with in a relatively short time, maybe a generation.
Priscilla, pelosi is a shrewd politician. She waited to allow the house to impeach. She looked at the calendar and decided at what date would it be wise to send the articles to the senate. She knows Sanders, Warren and the other senators running had little chance of defeating Trump. She knows that Biden is the “swamp democrats” best chance of defeating Trump. Even though he is a leftest, he is less so than the other major candidates.So after reviewing alk the calendar days congress is in session, she made her decision based on keeping Warren and Sanders in D.C during the Iowa caucus process and possibly New Hampshire, leaving the campaigning to Biden
The only thing she can’t control is the weather.
I do not think Pelosi is shrewd. I think she is stupid and is presiding over the destruction of the democratic party.
Sanders voters have announced that if he is not nominated they are sitting the election out.
Democrats are as angry with each other as they are with republicans – possibly more so.
The Sanders Warren feud is stupid political theater.
It appears to have hurt warren, but it does not help Biden.
Neither Warren nor Sanders can win – they will be obliterated by Trump.
And Biden can not lose ANY of their voters, and Sanders/Warren voters are highly unenthusiastic about Biden.
There is not a democratic candidate that can actually unite democrats – much less attract moderates.
Just to be clear, I think what is going on is very very very stupid on the part of the democrats.
It likely will bight them in the ass in the 2020 election, but even if it does not it will bite them in the ass in the future.
The senate through away the rules under Reid, beleiving somehow they would be in power forever.
McConnell has screwed them taking advantage of the changes they made.
Pelosi has run the most hyperpartisan lawless house ever.
I am increasingly expecting that democrats are losing the house in 2020.
There are purportedly 90 democratic seats that are in districts that are not out of reach for republicans in 2020. I beleive Republicans need to pick up 18 to win the house.
I would have said they would get close but fail in June. Today I think a red wave is possible in the house.
There are LOTS of qualified FEMALE republicans running in 2020.
Aside from an instinctual knee-jerk reaction to fault anyone who recognizes Trump for the asshole he is, what proof do you have Napolitano‘s opinion is based on scorned lover syndrome?
Dozens of former conservative Republicans of note have voiced opinions matching Napolitano’s – none have been denied or wanted Trump patronage. They are the ‘woke’ ones who quickly recognized the dangers a mentally morally unstable pompous moron as president presented to the nation. Why do you assume the Judge hasn’t come to his senses, like so many other savvy conservatives?
Back when Trump first started primary campaigning, from your own early Trump reservations, I thought you too would soon become a never-trumper. Alas, Trump Cult Fever consumed you, dizzying your judgement; alack, my sorrow seeing you dissolve in Trump befuddlement like the Wicked Witch puddling in Wizard of Oz is saddening. Thank goodness salving Irish Whiskey awaits…
No dozens of credible conservatives have NOT backed Napalitano.
Napolitano is a nice guy, he is a libertarian not a conservative.
But he is neither an intellectual. legal or constutional giant.
The wonderful descriptive adjectives you use are only appropriate in two places – fiction or defamation.
They are not a legitimate part of argument or legal discussion.
Insulting people and calling them names is not argument, it is just a reflection that you have no argument.
“Napolitano told friends in 2017 that President Donald Trump has told him he was considering Napolitano for a United States Supreme Court appointment should there be a second vacancy.[4] Ultimately, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was chosen instead.” from Wikipedia
“People familiar with the president’s thinking dismissed the idea that Napolitano is being considered for a Supreme Court nomination. “The president already has a list of highly qualified contenders for future SCOTUS openings, and Judge Napolitano is not on it,” said a person close to the White House.” from Politico
There is a belief that Napolitano turned on Trump, because he thought Trump lied to him about the SCOTUS appointment. I’m not sure if he did or not, but Napolitano’s transformation into a never-Trumper was very abrupt, and seemed to coincide with reports that he expected an appointment So, who knows?
Hope you enjoyed that Irish Whiskey.
I like Napolitano. He was a NJ Superior court judge.
I would consider him for a federal judge. I would NOT consider him for a federal appelate judge. I would never consider him for the supreme court.
He is NOT an impressive legal scholar or analyst.
While he has a strong libertarian bent, he does not have the intellectual foundations required for federal appelate work.
It is not necescary to aggree with someone entirely to like them.
Nor is it necescary to agree with someone 100% to strongly support them.
I have not been impressed by Kavanaugh. I have been highly impressed by Gorsuch.
But Gorsuch has been wrong on several major decisions where Kavanaugh is right.
I have the same relationship to Thomas. He is by far the most libertarian member of the court. Many of his dissents have been amazing. At the same time he has been absolutely completely totally and stupidly wrong about alot of things.
“ You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Have you no sense of attribution, sir?
I owe you nothing Joe.
This is the normal trreatment that Whistleblowers get in the Federal government.
They are retaliated against, fired or forced to resign, often blacklisted from future jobs,
publicly vilified, and what did Mr. Moyer do ?
Reported FIRST HAND waste and Fraud in the federal government – precisely what the WB statute protects.
Yet here an Obama appointed IG who is clearly a toady of the department she is supposed to be investigating, is actively involved in punishing rather than protecting the WB.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/17/a_tale_of_two_whistleblowers_one_protected_one_not_142183.html
Jay, this is the kind of garbage that results from your nonsense that we can presume right and wrong based on the who rather than the facts.
We end up with government that decides what is true based on who they are affiliated with, rather than the facts.
I do not know Moyer. It does appear the claim that his books leaked Classified information is a spurious effort at retaliation, given that it was published while he was an academic and did not have a clearance.
Moyer might well be a bad person – though I suspect that is not the case.
He may be a wife beater, a theif, ….
The fundimental question regards the facts of his allegations.
Turley excellent as nearly always.
The point – and an important one, is that if the Senate allows itself to be used to fix the shoddy job done by the House, it will find itself in the future constantly doing so.
Turley’s suggestion that The senate set a trial schedule sounds excellent. That is what normally occurs in an ordinary Trial. The court determines the time the trial will take and each side is given half that time.
The Senate could say – the Trial will take 3 or 4 weeks, House managers can present there evidence as they wish – witnesses, arguments, whatever, They have two weeks to make and rest their case – after which the President has two weeks for his.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/477818-how-the-house-destroyed-its-own-case-for-the-trump-impeachment
“ fix the shoddy job done by the House”
Fix your brain – the Senate/Trump refused to allow witnesses to testify and refused to turn over requested evidence. Why do you continue to ignore that? Because you don’t want more negative evidence to come out? If Bolton or others had information that would exonerate Trump, you think Trump/Senate would have suppressed it? What part of DUH don’t you understand?
And point to any impeachment that announced a fixed time in which it would be conducted.
Jay, again your TDS is getting in your way of clear and logical thinking.
1. The constitution says nothing about executive privilege.
2. Almost every president has claimed executive privilege, even though it was not identified as such until the Eisenhower administration.
3. Few decisions by the courts have come to conclusion on EP since most all cases are considered more of a political argument than constitutional or legal arguements.
4. Any president is going to receive information from the office of Attorney General and other legal experts to resist most any request from congress which contains communications between staff, advisors and the president.
5. Once the door is opened by any president to freely share executive communucations, it cant be closed. Just the mere fact that an advisor many communicate something that is found to be illegal and never acted on could become a noose around a future presidents reelection neck.
Getting back to your “complaint”. If witnesses are important, then congress should have subpoened those witnesses, let Trump claim EP, gone to court and obtained a ruling. They have not done that, so for me, the House prosecutors go to the senate with what they have developed in the house and let the chips fall where they may.
This is not like a civil trial where some information is taken to the grand jury that says there is enough evidence for a trial. Impeachment develops the info, the house creates articles based on that evidence and the house presents that evidence to the senate trial. The house had Nixon and Clinton by the gonads and no live witnesses ever appeared before the senate. Yes Nixon resigned, but no one was going to testify.
There is a lot of disagreement with your impeachment reasoning, Ron. Here’s one:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/senate-impeachment-trial-call-witnesses-or-concede-facts
That is the dang problem. Congress does not want the responsibility. All they want to do is bitch like 2 year olds when things don’t go their way and take credit for things that go good.
They need to take this crap to court, stay there for years if they have to to get a final ruling, SCOTUS if they have to and find out where their responsibility begins and their bitching ends.
Right now everyone has an opinion, none of them have legal standing and depending if your a democrat or republican, TDS or Trump supporter or any one of many political thinkers, everyone has a different opinion.
I will never change yours, you will never change mine. And that is where the political parties are. To hell with what is good for the country, just give the parties something to piss and moan about so they have something they can run on where they don;t have to commit to anything.
It took Obama over three years of fighting the fast and furious stuff and once he left office and Issa left office, any legislation Issa introduced based on fast and furious died in congress,
Pelosi and the Democrats have done a terrible job of this impeachment crap and now she is using every trick in the book to get Biden all the help she can give him by making sure his opponents are stuck in Washington during the opening primaries. Even a blind man can see her play book clearly. She had nothing in her hearings, so she is using this to support Biden and cover trump with as much negative press as possible, Had she wanted a true impeachment, they would have demanded witnesses in the house and gone to court to get them.
This is not helping Biden.
Though honestly Democrats are in deep shit.
Biden has only not died in the primary because the alternatives are worse.
The democratic debates thus far have pretty much made sure – no democrat will get elected.
Your citing lawfare ?
i.e. Warfare by legal means ?
These people are not credible. They have been trying to warp the law for years.
Regardless the argument is nonsenes – the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the moving party, not the defendent.
That is why, the defendent has a near absolute right to have relevant witnesses in civil and criminal cases.
You seem to think that McConnell is trying to protect Trump – that is a ludicrously stupid claim. If McConnell allows the house to call NEW witnesses, he is going to tie up the Senate forever. Almost no one – not republicans not democrats wants that.
If the house calls witnesses – Trump is going to call a raft of witnesses – and Trump has more of a right to witnesses than Schiff.
Trump is itching to call lots of witnesses.
What you are facing is McConnell telling Trump – if the house has no witnesses and you have no witnesses we can get to the inevitable outcome in a few days.
If there are lots of witnesses the senate is bogged down for weeks.
And just to be clear – that is not that strong an argument.
Trump wants this circus probably more than Schiff does.
Hell Trump wants to call Schiff.
And your “lawfare” buddies doe not seem to understand what a Trial is.
It is NOT an investigation.
In both civil and criminal trials all the witnesses have been interviewed, usually deposed BEFORE the trial. The moving party must be able to present evidence the day the trial starts sufficient to allow the court to proceed to the first witness.
Most every proceeding – criminal or civil faces a motion to dismiss as the first thing.
to survive a motion to dismiss the moving party must show, by the evidence it already has that it can establish all the elements required by the law to make its case.
In addition to surviving a motion to dismiss it must survive often multiple motions in liminee,
Motions to limit the evidence it is allowed to present. As an example evidence from an illegal search is barred.
Then as each witness is called either party must survive motions to bar or limit their testimony, Hearsay is not permitted. Statements of opinion are not allowed except from acknowledge experts who survive the dalbert test.
It is this kind of crap that irritates us about the left.
The fact that you can find someone to say that the sun will not rise tomorow does NOT mean it is an actual point of contention.
We do have an issue – because the left has so poluted the courts that way too many judges will listen to and even follow nonsense that never would have been allowed to get argued decades ago. Forcing the supreme court to bitch slap the lower courts for stupidity repeatedly.
regardless this article is IYI nonsense – intellectual yet idiot.
Are you blind to the fact that both Turley and Deschowitz are prominent DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS. They are among the best legal scholars on the LEFT.
And they are telling you this is all BS.
You are correct that executive priviledge is not found anywhere in the constitution.
But guess what else is not found anywhere in the constitution ?
The congresses oversight power.
There is no explicit constitutional authority for the president to refuse a congressional supbpeona.
There is no explicit constitutional authority for congress to subpeona anyone.
Both power exist essentially as part of the necescary and proper clause.
“The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a “sufficient showing” that the “presidential material” is “essential to the justice of the case”. Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch’s national security concerns.[3] ”
SCOTUS has never ruled on executive priviledge in the context of a congressional subpeona, but the presumption is that the court will give congress LESS power than a subpeona from a court in a criminal case.
Neither congress nor the president has in the past been willing to fight a congressional subpeona all the way to the supreme court.
The executive does not want to see a broad ruling against executive priviledge, and the congress does not want to see a broad ruling in favor of it.
Almost always something is worked out before getting to SCOTUS.
Congress gets less than it wants, and the president give more than he wants.
“Congress gets less than it wants, and the president give more than he wants.”
you also made my point!
But congress gets everything it wants. No responsibility and ability to bitch when they play the game and appear to be losing.
When I said Congress gets less than it wants – I meant from the courts.
Your comment is correct, but it has nothing to do with the law or constitution.
Dave, What I keep saying matches somewhat with your comments.
if anyone is unhappy with the way things are handled by congress, create a law to fix the problem.
Jay complains just like the democrats that say Trump is putting a road block in their dog and pony show.
Republicans complained they could not get info on Fast and Furious. That Obama was putting a road block in their efforts to deligitimize the administration. At least Darrell Issa introduced legislation that past the house, but died in the senate.
I do not want to appear glib about the difficulty in changing the law or worse the constitution,
That is difficult – it is supposed to be. Obama had to break all the rule to cram PPACA through and SCOTUS had to rewrite the rules, and after it was law, Obama had to act outside the law to continue to keep it propped up.
It is supposed to be hard to make law, to change law, to change the constitution.
And it should be hard to sustain new laws.
As much as change is incredibly important for the future – change in government should be excrutiatingly difficult.
This is also part of my opposition to this faux moderate compromise culture.
I am generally opposed to things that make changing the law or creating new law easier.
We do need to change the law at times. but it needs to be slow changes, and usually quite small changes. We really should never want radical change involving people with guns.
The actual rule of law means that government enforces all the laws, with the least discretion possible. purpotedly bad laws, purportedly good laws alike.
The enforcement of bad laws provokes the opposition that results in their change.
But we must enforce them to get there.
Bad laws that are enforced with discretion are dangerous – the excercise of discretion in government is power, it is the power to punish enemies and reward freinds.
Government should not have that power.
So all laws must be enforced even bad ones to have the rule of law.
Next laws must be understood narrowly.
IF a law is too narrow – it is always possible for the legislature to rewrite the law.
But if a law is understood too broadly – no one can know what is legal or what is not.
Law enforcement can not know, the people can not know, the courts can not be sure.
Laws must correspond to near universal constructs of morality – negative morality – thou shalt not.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
This is NOT some endorsement of specific religion. But it is fundimental.
We assert that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
That assertion rests on the foundation that all of us share a fundimental understanding of morality, or right and wrong.
There are two critical facets to that.
The first is that law outside those moral foundations is inherently lawless. People do not obey the law because it is law. Most people do not even know what the law is. But they know what is right and wrong.
The law must reflect our intrinsic understanding of right and wrong – it can not drive it.
The law can not be used to CHANGE morality, to encourage what one group thinks is good . It must reflect what nearly all of us intuitively think is good.
Conversely as our understanding of right and wrong change – the law must change – slowly.
In areas such as race, gender, sexual orientation, our understanding of right and wrong is changing – and the law is changing to reflect that.
But the change in our concepts of right and wrong must come first.
Further, Adam’s remarks point to the failure of arrangements without moral foundations.
There are many many reasons that socialism and communism do not work.
But one major one is that communism and socialism have little moral foundation – they are actively hostile to religion and sometimes morality.
If you undermine peoples moral foundations – if you undermine their intuitive understanding of right and wrong, you make them ungovernable.
While positive morality – duty has little place in government, because a government sufficiently powerful to enforce “thou shalt” is all encompassing, the proscription of negative morality – the enforcement of thou shalt not is as Adams notes a requirement to be able to govern.
Men do NOT abide by the law, they abide by their intuitive concepts of right and wrong.
Undermine those and men are ungovernable.
One of the real problems is we have too many laws that presidents can have staff dig up from years ago and then issue E.O’s . For instance, the fair labor act was passed in 1938. Based on Obama administration interpretations, he issued an E.O. that covered salaried employees in 2014.
Right now, presidents can ” make law” without congress because too many loop holes exist in existing kaws to allow this crap to happen.
You can bet the next democrat president will be Obama on steroids with EO’s, from environmental issues to wage issues.
There are no grand juries in civil trials.
In all court proceedings – civil or criminal the moving party – the prosecution of plantif, is going to face a motion to dismiss at the very start of the proceeding.
That motion would be perfectly approriate here.
A motion to dismiss is granted when the evidence provided to the court by the moving party does not ALREADY establish every element of the crime if that evidence is unrebutted in trial.
The plantiff or prosecutor must ALWAYS come to court able to provide evidence of every element of their case in cheif. If they can not there case is dismissed.
There are complexitites in trying to apply the criminal civil model to a senate trial.
At some point in criminal and civil cases jeophary applies, that means that if the plantif of prosecutor fails, they can not return to court later with the same claim.
But there is no such thing as jeophardy in impeachment.
It is perfectly proper for the Senate to say to the house managers – if your case needs more withnesses, then we are dismissing.
You are free to come back after you have had those witnesses testify.
The house can impeach on a daily basis, and the senate can dismiss until the house brings them something worth procedding on.
This entire fight is NOT about witnesses – if the courts allow Bolton to testify – he is going to testify somewhere sometime.
This is about controlling the Senate proceeding. McConnell is almost certainly NOT going to allow Pelosi to dictate how the Senate is run.
As to Exec privilege in an impeachment investigation, a federal judge ruled it didn’t apply to Clinton aides called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.
You probably remember Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr refuted exec privilege for Clinton, arguing “absolutely no one is above the law” and evidence “must be turned over” to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.
Now he’s going to argue the opposite as Trump’s lawyer to the same requests.
You just made my point! Not only are there people who argue on either side of the coin because no firm ruling has ever been made and especially ruled on by SCOTUS, we have people arguing out of both sides of their mouths based on who is paying them.
Do you not agree that some clarification is required?
There are plenty of times lower courts have found against executive priviledge and plenty they have found for it.
A claim of executive priviledge regarding Lewinsky would have failed because the courts standards to support executive priviledge are either a national security matter – communications between National Security Advisor Bolton and President Trump regarding military aide to the Ukraine meet all the requirements for priviledge.
Or critical to the functioning of the administration.
Communications between Clinton and aides regarding Lewinsky do not come close to meeting either.
Regardless, Starr went to COURT to get that testimony and prevailed.
The house did not.
The COURT decided, not Starr as IC, not the house.
House democrats have alleged NO violation of the law.
Trump is not above actual law.
Whether he is required to comply with the demands of the house is a question for the courts.
Who get to decide what the actual law is and whether it is the house or the president who must comply.
The final authority on the law is the courts – ultimately SCOTUS – not Pelosi or the house democrats.
BTW this is all like 6th grade civics.
What is disturbing is that our education is so poor that most of the country is completely clueless. That is a fault of our public education – not the people.
Arguments over executive priviledge will be made in the courts, not the senate.
The senate has no more right to call whatever witnesses it wishes than the house.
It will not be Trump’s legal team arguing in court – it will be the white house counsel.
Since the founding of the country disputes over what the executive must share with congress are settled by the courts.
And only the clueless beleive that congress always gets what they want.
Why did Trump not give the house what they wanted ? Why didn;t Rosenstein, Obama, Older ?….
I will support a broad oversight authority for congress. I will give them more than the courts currently allow, I will agree to change the law if necescary.
But I will not support this nonsense that ANY branch of government is free to do whatever it pleases.
We have courts specifically to determine what the executive must give the house.
The house refused to make use of the courts. In a recent case before the courts brought by an administration member seeking the courts permission to testify despite assertions of executive priviledge.
The DC courts found for Trump, They might have found for him regardless, but the court found quickly and easily for Trump and made it clear that the decision was quick and easy – because the house was not even present in court.
If you want something from the president and you do not even bother to show up in court
The problem is YOURS.
Yes, The house did a shoddy Job.
My Guess is that if the house had pressed its case – it would have gotten MOST of the documents it asked for and most of the witness.
I suspect that they would have been Denied Bolton and his aide, as well as Mulvaney or severly restructed in what they could ask – because there is a long history of the courts accepting claims of executive priviledge for white house staff and testimony of their conversations with the president.
If you do not like that – change the law, or the constitution. Maybe I will join you.
But it is NEVER illegal for the president to defy congress until the courts say it is.
The president does not rule congress, he directs the executive.
Congress does not rule the executive, they pass laws, allocate funds and conduct oversite.
And the courts – not Nancy Pelosi sort out the desputes.
If Trump or ANY PRESIDENT – refuses to follow a FINAL court order – of any kind.
I will join you in demanding the removal.
I will join you even if I beleive the courts decision was WRONG.
But the house did not go to court.
BTW why do you beleive that Trump is going to give the Senate witnesses or documents that he refused to give the house ?
The Senate has no more power to demand witnesses or documents than the house.
We have listend to this nonsense from you for 3 years – that whatever it is that is just outside your reach at the moment will prove to be the “bombshell” that will prove whatever idiotic thing you are fixated on.
First it is highly unlikely that Bolton will testify to anything except that Trump’s forien policy is not hawkish enough for him. Boulton is NOT going to be your “John Dean”
But lets presume that magically Bolton gives you something.
What is it that you think he is going to say ?
That but for the WB Trump would have held the money indefinitely ?
That he has first hand knowledge that Trump said – Open investigations into 2016 corruption or you do not get the money ?
The odds of your getting those are just about zero.
But EVEN IF YOU DID – you still do not have enough.
Numerous people – including Derschowitz have noted that GAO (an office of congress) is wrong. The house does NOT control foreign policy.
That any interpretation of the alw or constitution that makes Trump’s acts improper makes those of Biden and Obama and Clinton Criminal.
The so called “iran deal” is a treaty without the approval of congress.
It spent money that the house and senate did not authorize.
You are trying to push water up a hill with a seive.
Your own most egregious claim is that Trump did something that you do not like that presidents are constitutionally permitted to do.
If you got all the evidence you want – the best you will get is – Trump did something you do not like that he was allowed to do.
It is likely that the courts would treat the houses requests for witnesses and documents seriously in the context of impeachment. But absent an actual allegation of a crime, you are still likely to lose in court against Executive privilege.
Your are not only on the wrong side of this legally, but you are going to lose congress if you keep it up.
BTW it is likely Not Trump precluding witnesses in the Senate – it is McConnell (and many senators, and so long as they do not have to publicly vote that way likely many democrats.
Trump wants witnesses. Unlike The House – he is actually entitled to them.
The prosecution is required to bring its case to the court fully formed – or risk immediate dismissal.
You do not get into court with a sham case begging the courts to start the trial while you investigate in the court room.
You seem to think that following the law in a prosecution is optional.
If the house wants certain witnesses and documents – if it can persuade the courts – it will get those. If it can not – the Senate will not get them either.
The only obstacle between the house managers and the witnesses they want – is the house itself and the courts.
Go to court and see if you can get the witnesses and documents you want.
No one is stopping you.
What is being opposed is making the Senate into a circus, and impeachment into a joke.
You say that someone is afraid of what these witness will say.
But if you thought they were important – why didn’t the house go to court to get them ?
If the houses case is strong enough to impeach without them, then why are these witnesses needed now ?
Democrats in the house had the power to decide when they thought their case was strong enough to bring to the Senate. And they did so.
If the House is having second thoughts – ask the senate for a delay – they are going to give it to you – because the house can always impeach twice – and go to the courts and get your witnesses and documents if you can.
But quit wasting the nations and the senates time on political game playing.
“And point to any impeachment that announced a fixed time in which it would be conducted.”
All of them. In every prior impeachment the senate set the rules that the house managers had to follow.
The senate has NEVER given the house managers carte blanche to consume as much senate time as they wished.
The senate always controls its own time – just as the house does.
BTW it is the left that keeps insisting that the Impreachment trial is like a normal criminal or civil trial. It is pretty routine for the court to tell the parties how much time they have to make their case.
“Kenneth Starr refuted exec privilege for Clinton, arguing “absolutely no one is above the law” and evidence “must be turned over” to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.
Now he’s going to argue the opposite as Trump’s lawyer to the same requests.”
Yes, Jay, and the WH has said that his role is to define and differentiate the appropriate uses of executive privilege.
Clinton was trying to invoke it to protect his private personal behavior in the Oval Office, i.e. having a sexual relationship with an intern. This is not protected by executive privilege.
Trump is protecting private conversations with his advisors, involving classified information and foreign affairs. There is very ample precedent for him to do so, going back to George Washington.
So, Starr’s argument should be very relevant and not contradictory.
Trump has not been accused by the house of violating the law.
Starr is not making contradictory arguments.
Starr was engaged in an actual criminal investigation.
Further in the Clinton impeachment that Clinton committed crimes was absolutely beyond any doubt. He had perjured himself multiple times. He had successfully suborned perjury, and he had obstructed justice. Further he did all these things – not in the context of thwarting Starr’s IC investigation. but in the context of a civil case alleging sexual harrassment.
I think SCOTUS made a huge mistake allowing that case to proceed while Clinton was president. But they did.
Clinton fought Starr and congress tooth an nail over access to documents and witnesses.
Each of these contests went to court. Mostly the courts decided in Starr’s favor.
If there had been no underlying crime it is unlikely Starr would have prevailed as much.
Starr never alleged misconduct on the part of Clinton for fighting him every step of the way, for demanding that the court hear every objection and obstacle that Clinton could raise.
The house rejected every article of impeachment that was based on political conflicts with congress or excercising legal rights.
The giant problem with the Clinton impeachment was that no presidential actions were involved. All Clinton’s misconduct was that of Bill Clinton, not the president.
The impeachment was based on the expectation that one who is criminal in their personal conduct can not be expected to be trustworthy in their official conduct.
This was particularly true of perjury.
Conversely the entire impeachment of Trump is about politics. it is about the constitutional roles and powers of the president and the house.
There is no underlying crime alleged.
There are two core disputes in this impeachment – both are fundimentally constitutional disputes, not crimes.
The first is that the constitution delagate all foreign policy except declarations of war and treaties to the president, BUT it places control of the purse primarily with the house.
There is an obvious constitutional conflict there.
So the question is constitutionally how much independent control of funding in the area of foreign policy does the president and the house have.
That is the main question.
There are complications because the funds in question were delivered as required by congress and when required by congress. While they were delayed – relative to how quickly they could theoretically be delivered, they were still provided when they were required to be.
Further, the law regarding these funds REQUIRED that the president assure congress that Ukrainian corruption was addressed before delivering the funds.
One of the things John Solomon has reported on recently which is likely to come up in impeachment. is that while Zelensky ran on a strong anticorruption platform, ukraine is one of the most corrupt nations in the world – and Zelensky himself had ties to several corrupt oligarches and politicians some of whom are still in his administration.
There are myriads of queries in state, and intelligence questioning whether Zelensky was “the real deal” regarding thwarting ukrainian corruption.
There is legitimate reason for State, DoD OMB to question Zelensky’s committment to fighting corruption.
Solomon also noted one other factor – with two facets.
Ukrainian prosecutors re-opened the Burisma case in Febriary 2019 – before Zelensky was elected, and 6 months before the Trump phone call. That investigation has continued and expanded since and is ongoing at the moment.
Essentially Trump asked Zelensky for something Zelensky was already doing.
There can be no QPQ. It is not possible.
The other question that arises from this is why Trump was not told that the Burisma investigation was already taking place.
There is lots more on Ukraine that the press has failed to pay much attention to.
Solomon noted that Most of his reporting on Ukraine is actually confirmed by the testimony of the witnesses that appeared in the house impeachment investigation.
Solomon said that Ukraine is going the way of Trump Russia. The narative being sold is false. The evidence to establish that already exists, and that some of that is likely to reach public attention during the impeachment trial, but all of it will likely come out eventually.
Ukraine will prove to be another democrat/deep state witch hunt. With nearly all the same players.
Sorry I forget the 2nd article of impeachment – that is about a pure power struggle between the executive and the congress.
This nonsense that Trump’s refusal to provide witnesses and documents is meaningful is trying to elevate the normal relationship between congress and the executive to a high crime or misdemeanor.
Starr did not claim Clinton’s court battles were obstruction of abuse of power.
He claimed that Clinton’s efforts to suborn perjury were.
Starr’s arguments in court were NOT that Clinton;’s taking him to court constituted a crime.
His argument was that he was investigating a crime, and that took precidence over executive priviledge. MOSTLY the courts agreed.
But the mere act of opposing Starr in court was NOT abuse of power.
Nor would Starr allege that.
The 2nd article is a common leftist fallacy.
Jay prays it constantly here – it is pretty much universal to Jay’s comments.
You can not reason from “I beleive you are wrong about a fact, a law, or a choice” to “your disagreement with me is a crime or moral failure”
False moral accusations are a moral failure, and sometimes a crime. Disagrements over fact, law, of a decision, are not inherently moral failures or crimes – not even if you are wrong.
Trump is free to fight congress over documents and witnesses all the way to the supreme court. He violates no law, nor fails morally – until he loses in the supreme court AND still refuses to do as order.
This is exactly the same stupidity as Jay’s:
I disagree with Trump, you agree, therfore you are immoral.
Even if jay was right about the facts, the law or the decision – which is almost never the case.
factual error, legal error poor choices are not inherently moral failures.
This is frightening, but exactly the kind of thing that the left has done in the past. Governor Blackface Northam declared a state of emergency, in advance of a peaceful protest, and Antifa has announced that they will be there to “protect” against the protesters, just like they did in Charlottesville, and caused the death of a young woman. I thought it was odd that Northam declared an emergency….
In addition to this post, check out the Facebook page of Virginia state senator Amanda Chase, a Republican who has realized the set up. (You’ll need to follow her, in order to read all of her posts, but you can unfollow right after), but here is one:
“Sadly, I am posting this, knowing that the Governor of Virginia has declared a State of Emergency in our state.
I want you to be aware of how we are being set up.
Does the Patriot Act ring a bell?
Does the National Defense Authorization Act ring a bell?
If people show up wearing any kind of uniform, patch or other symbol on their clothing signifying they belong to a militia and something goes wrong, you could/will be held as a domestic terrorist.
If anyone steps out of line, all it takes is one person, it may even be a government plant….if that plant does anything to disrupt the rally, you could/will be arrested as a domestic terrorist.
The Governor, using the media has already set the stage for this to happen.
He has already laid the groundwork to make the entire movement look like insurrection.
It will be used to put the rest of the nation on notice of what will happen to you, if you resist.”
Look at the chain link fencing plan. If violence breaks out, there will be very little chance of escape. And if Antifa is there, violence will break out.
Just like Charlottesville.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/18/beware-virginia-a-remarkable-confluence-of-events/#more-181209
As I recall the protestors have nothing to do with the groups at Charollettesville.
These are people protesting the new VA Gun laws.
Aparently there are 5 counties in VA that want to change to being part of W Va as part of these new laws.
The protestors are all aware they are being set up.
You can say what you will about the demonstrators at Charlottesville, but they followed the law, they got a permit, while they came prepared to defend themselves, they did not initiate the violence. The Charlottesville Police and the State law enforcement “stood down” allowing the protestors to be attacked by Antifa and counter protestors who did not have a permit.
To be clear I am not opposed to counter protestors – but if you were in front of the barricades – you are a violent criminal not a counter protestor.
Then after making these groups run the guantlet of counter protestors, the goveronr canceled the event before it started – leaving all the marchers trapped in the square surrounded by voilent counter protestors, and having to run the guantlet again to get out – this time with even less police protection that before.
And somehow the media and the left fixated on the fact that some paranoid 20 something lost his cool in the midst of state sponsored chaos and got lost and ran his car through a gaggle of counter protestors who were throwing things at him, and some woman had a heart attack and so he was charged with murder.
This time – we have pro gun groups, not alt-right groups.
And they are not allowed to wear helmets or bring sheilds – like the right to self defense has been obliterated in this country.
At Charlottesville the only group that kept things from completely going to hell was the NY Militia – not an alt-right group, who MOSTLY kept the counter protestors from the protestors.
Otherwise there would have been far more injuries.
VA seems intend on assuring that if you protest their unconstitutional laws – you get the crap beat out of you.
But whats new – we see this in Seattle and California and Boston and Especially Oregon.
Andrew Ngo a reporter whose crime was publishing photo’s of Antifa doing bad things hospitalized with a severe concussion by several of these thugs – who were caught on multiple cameras and have long ago been identified.
Portland Police are “investigating” but no charges have been filed yet – and the attack is more than a year old, and like the whistleblower everyone knows who did it.
Our left leaders do not have any concept of law and order.
Constitutional rights, like freedom of assembly, free speech, or the right to bear arms only exist for those whose political views they like.
The writers of this new book want to thank Trump for his free recommendation, which just propelled it to Number One on NY Times Non Fiction: “A Very Stable Genius,” by the Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, is among the most closely observed accounts of Donald J. Trump’s time in office to date.
Are you recomending the book ? Have you read it ?
Or are you just engaged in another Trump bash where you know nothing about what you are commenting except that either Trump bashed someone or someone bashed Trump ?
If you have read the book – please tell us about it.
I have recomended a variety of things here. I have recomended books, web sites, editorials. movies.
I have read, watched, … every single one.
I do not play games with hear say.
How about you ?
Actually, I’m looking forward to the Peter Schweizer book that is #1 on Amazon, pre-release: “Profiles in Corruption ~ Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite”
Not one anonymous quote, and more than 80 pages of endnotes and source attributions.
Joe and baby boy Hunter Biden have starring roles. I don’t think Jay will like it. It’s real journalism, not bitchy gossip.
I do not know Schweitzer.
But one of the Things John Solomon noted recently is there is vast amounts of damning information out there – most of it gets reported briefly once by one outlet. While these lunatic conspiracy theories of the left get repeated over and over.
One of the things that Solomon noted was that almost everything he reported about assorted issues in Ukraine was confirmed by the house impeachment investigation. It is just not getting reported.
Someone has produced a list of about 20 possible Trump witnesses – that would be absolutely damning. Some of these are people who either testified – purportedly against Trump in the house, or people identified by the tesitmony in the house as having knowledge of Biden, Obama, DNC political corruption in Ukraine.
There were MULTIPLE investigations by the Ukrainians that VP Biden or the US Embassy in Ukraine shutdown. There is a dispute over whether Yavonovitch produced a list of people not to be investigated for the Ukrainians, or the Ukrainians brought a list to her for her approval.
There is no debate over whether numerous people were protected from investigation by the US Embassy – and this was one of the reason that Gulliani want Yovanovitch fired.
Aparently Biden’s Cheif of Staff has first hand knowledge that Biden was informed of the investigations into his Son BEFORE Shokin was fired. There are also numerous witnesses in the State Department and FBI who can confirm that the VP’s office was warned repeatedly BEFORE Shokin was fired of Hunters trading influence in the Ukraine.
We know that Hunter’s compatriot did NOT get into Burisma, and Warned Hunter not to – because Ukraine was just too corrupt.
This is one time that I have been impressed by Trump’s restrained response. In 2019 alone, Iran seized U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Then they shot down a U.S. drone which they claimed entered their airspace but all the data reinforced the U.S. claim that the drone was in international space. At that time the U.S. considered air strikes against Iranian facilities, but Trump rescinded the orders. I feel quite certain that Reagan would have bombed those facilities in retribution for the downing of the drone. I was very concerned that our failure to respond in that manner would lead to even greater transgressions by Iran. I thought Trump possibly derelict in his duties for not executing those bombings. But Trump despite his bellicose personality is a man who dreads war. Still he had to do something. Rather than choosing to kill several people with bombings, he chose to focus upon one man. Morally I am not opposed to Soleimani’s assassination. The man orchestrated a multitude of American deaths. I just don’t know that it served as a sufficient deterrent against Iran’s aggressions. To the world the assassination of Soleimani looked liked a very arbitrary action and one which violated international law (but it didn’t because the man was a terrorist). Perhaps if Trump had done a much better job explaining to the American people that Iran had committed a multitude of offenses against the U.S. and that Soleimani was the man who plotted these offenses, then it would have appeared to be a just and very restrained response rather than one unrelated to Iran’s attacks upon the U.S.but Trump rescinded the orders. I feel quite certain that Reagan would have bombed those facilities in retribution for the downing of the drone. I was very concerned that our failure to respond in that manner would lead to even greater transgressions by Iran. I thought Trump possibly derelict in his duties for not executing those bombings. But Trump despite his bellicose personality is a man who dreads war. Still he had to do something. Rather than choosing to kill several people with bombings, he chose to focus upon one man. Morally I am not opposed to Soleimani’s assassination. The man orchestrated a multitude of American deaths. I just don’t know that it served as a sufficient deterrent against Iran’s aggressions. To the world the assassination of Soleimani looked liked a very arbitrary action and one which violated international law (but it didn’t because the man was a terrorist). Perhaps if Trump had done a much better job explaining to the American people that Iran had committed a multitude of offenses against the U.S. and that Soleimani was the man who plotted these offenses, then it would have appeared to be a just and very restrained response rather than one unrelated to Iran’s attacks upon the U.S.
Reagan withdrew us forces from Lebanon after the Marine Baracks bombing.
The media is no more trustworthy in reporting on the rest of the world than the US.
There is little doubt that Trump frustrates many world leaders – Trump is prepared to throw his weight arround, and as a consequence usually gets what he wants from them without having to actually do so.
Most of the rest of the world has sufficient problems of their own, that Trump is NOT their focus.
Trump shifted US foreign policy from multilateralism to unilateral, and to focusing on the interests of the US That has thus far proven successful. It is far easier to negotiate separate one on one deals that one large deal with multiple participants.
In foreign policy – as with many many other things – look at the facts rather than paying attention tot he press.
The press tells us we are the most racist, mysoginist bitterly divided we have ever been in US history. They tell us this is the most dangerous time, that we are on the verge of recession. That the russians are all powerful and interfering with us in everything.
But reality is different. The economy – while not stellar is the best it has been in 20 years. There are no real signs of a US recession – though the global economy is weaker – and Trump is taking advantage of that.
I keep pushing watching Ken Burns Vietnam on Netflix.
Because it exposes the fact that we are not the most bitterly divided we have been, we were far more divided in the 60’s we were rioting and killing each other in the streets.
The world is not unified against us, other nations have far too many problems of their own – to the extent foreign leaders grumble about Trump it is because he has been open about the fact that they need us more than we need them. The Obama US apology tour is over. He is pushing other nations to help themselves. At the same time he is providing US assistance strategically. Backstoping European Natural gas supplies was brilliant. It disempowers russia politically and it makes it clear that mideastern oil is a European interest and problem more than an american one.
China is not the next great boogey monster, But she is our most serious political and military rival. The Russian economy is about 1/10 that of China, the Russian economy is about 1/10 that of Europe. The Chinese military is more significant that Russias – and growing. Russia’s military is rusting in place.
While we should be careful not to give Trump too much credit – the refocus of US policy towards China and Asia and away from Russian and the mideast has been more than a decade in the works, and alot of it was advanced quietly under Obama, Trump has made that shift publicly clear and been willing to more publicly confront china. Trump is more actively building alies and strengthening allies in Asia. Further he is not repeating the mistakes the US made int he mideast and Europe. Trump is expecting and empowering Asian nations to defend themselves.
If we could turn off the talking heads, and quit getting sidetrack by those in government who either hate Trump, are clinging to their power domain, or are opposed to Trump’s policy shifts or trying to hold back or slow inevitable policy shifts.
The shift of US focus from Eastern Europe and the mideast to Asia radically changes entrenched power within the US government.
It should not be surprising that all efforts to destroy Trump come from those parts of the US government focused on eastern europe or the mideast.
These people have had the most power in government – republican or democrat for 50+ years. They shift away from Eastern Europe and the mideast substantially diminish their influence.
Russia is portrayed as the great boogey man – not merely to take out Trump, but to stall the shift in political influence from the Russia desk to the China Desk.
Trump tanking the Iran deal and shifting back to Iran as an enemy rather than a friend – puts a significant faction in US mideast foreign policy against Trump.
We have all seen that from the moment of his election the US military and state department have agressively worked Trump to back away from diminishing the US role in the mideast.
Thus far they have been successful at that. HOWEVER Trump continues to talk about reducing our role in the mideast, so they have delayed, not stopped that action.
These conflicts are big deals. Gen. Flynn was in conflict with these people while serving in the Obama administration, and you are blind if you fail to grasp that Flynn was targeted possibly more so than Trump because he was seeking to end stupid policy decisions regarding the mideast. and US intelligence gathering, and particularly the use of US intelligence sources for political purposes.
it is not hard to “explain” to the american people that Iran is a threat. Ordinary americans have understood that since Khomeni’s followers took over the US embassy in Iran in the late 70’s.
“ Rather than choosing to kill several people with bombings, he chose to focus upon one man”
For accuracy, I believe 9 people were killed in the drone attack, including civilian limo drivers.
BOO HOO😭😭😭😭. I really am upset with the loss of 9 rag heads when it probably save many more American lives.
Jay, your priorities are totally screwed when you value someone driving a human butcher over an American mi!itary life!
I didn’t make any judgements about the deaths, Ron – I just corrected the posted incorrect statement one person was killed.
I agree those killed were mostly enemy terrorist personnel, and good riddance to them: but if two Bagdad citizen limo drivers were casualties as well, I wouldn’t gloat about that and call them ragheads. Have you stopped taking your Alzheimer’s meds? Angry outbursts are symptomatic.
You’re sounding more and more Trump-like each week, no wonder you’re thinking of voting for him.
I do not know one way or the other about the limo drivers.
I doubt you do other.
Were these the Baghdad equivalent of Uber drivers ?
Or were they the personal drivers for terrorsists ?
I do not know, Ron does not, I doubt you do.
I would prefer we keep civilian casualties down.
But the US fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo. and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki
So lets not pretend we do not often kill innocents in violent conflicts.
Jay, are you really going to believe the drivers in Soleimani’s caravan were just Bagdad citizens and had no other ties to Soleimani? There is no way someone this important to Iran would be using anyone other than fully vetted individuals that supported the Iranian government 100%.
I am not off my meds. Just identify the amount of hate you have for Trump and place that same amount in me toward middle east extreme Islamist that have that same amount of hate for America.
One does not have to suffer from Alzheimer’s or other mental disease to have extreme dislikes for some others. You should realize that!
Lets call them what they are – terrorists, NOT Rag heads.
Most of the others killed were also on the list of legitimate targets – they were terrorist militia leaders. Many were responsible for killing the US contractor that this drone strike was retaliation for
Regardless, are you finally to the point where you are prepared to accept maybe this was not a disasterous choice ?
We don’t yet know if it was a disastrous choice. We do know that short term Trump got really lucky when the Iranians shot down the airliner – until then anger and accusations of his inept war-like stupidity had suffused world media; that quickly changed with new cluck-bait of dead Canadians and anti government rioting in Iran.
We do know this- Iran has resumed their nuke programs. Trump accelerated the process. They’ll soon produce those weapons. Along with history tagging him with Impeachment, proliferating North Korean and Iranian nuclear armament will be part of his disreputable legacy.
In Jay world Trump is incredibly lucky – pretty much all the time.
In the real world no one is that lucky.
“We do know this- Iran has resumed their nuke programs.”
Yes, they did that While Obama was president. In fact they never stopped.
Why should you expect that they would have stopped when there was no requirement for verification ?
I do not know what will happen with either Iran or North Korea.
But what we do know, is that Clinton, Obama and Bush failed.
We do know that North Korea and Iran have proceeded MORE SLOWLY then they would otherwise – because they are once again under greater public (and private scrutiny)
I expect that there will likely be a deal with North Korea – but probably not until after the election. There will be a deal because Kim Un wants and needs one. Because particularly for North Korea Nuclear Weapons are a means to an end. NK can not ever hope to use them without being obliterated. Further they give NK very little leverage as they are isolated from the world.
Iran is more complicated. There is a powerful political incentive for Iran to seek Nuclear weapons. Iran is not nearly as isolated as NK and much more fanatical, in a region that is more fanatical.
Iran is unlikely to abandon Nukes until the regime changes.
Predicting when that will occur is difficult, predicting that it will occur is not.
Regardless Obama delayed the date at which the Iranian people retake their country, Trump has advanced it.
NK has had nuclear bombs since the Clinton administration. They likely have or are very close to having Hydrogen Bombs. They also have ICBM’s. Bombs require planes or missles to deliver them. Planes are ineffective without air superiority.
They are short in 3 major areas.
Range – they can probably get as far as quam today.
Accuracy. Absent a satelite guidance system they have great difficulty hitting a target long range.
Re-entry. This is the worst of their problems and we are fairly certain the North Koreans are not even close. It is one of the most difficult problems of ICBM’s and it is nearly impossible to solve without lots of testing. No ICBM with nuclear warheads has any value if it burns up on re-entry.
NK will solve all these problems in time, but they have been substantially delayed.
And delays pose a different problem. That is the advance of US ABM systems.
We first saw a primative ABM system in GWI with the use of the Patriot ABM’s.
Today Israel has Iron Dome, and is about to deploy a laser based system that is better and cheaper. The US has 6 systems – including AEGIS, THAAD, GMD, Patriot II, Air based systems and soon Satellite based systems.
The entire purpose of all the sabre rattling and negotiations with NK and Iran is to still or slow them down long enough for the ABM development curve to get significantly ahead.
ABM development was stalled under Obama. Possibly the worst mistake of his presidency.
That empowered Russia, and incentivized Iran and NK.
Iran is substantially behind NK. And they are moving much slower. It is unlikely they will ever be a threat to Israel, nor to the rest of the mideast so long as the US can maintain sufficient ABM advantage.
Birds of a feather grift together:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/17/lev-parnas-trump-ties-cuomo-closing-sot-cpt-vpx.cnn
More misrepresentation.
Parnas appeared in a picture with Trump ONCE – myriads of people appear in pictures with the president – ANY president.
Do we need to go through all the crooks who have been pictured with Hillary or Obama ?
Or how about Terrorists ?
How about this guy ?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/01/02/barack-obama-hosted-the-leader-of-the-baghdad-embassy-attack-at-the-white-house-n2558860
Parnas appears to be cooperating with the SDNY, accept that he does not have anything consequential to provide.
He is charged with a pretty much non-crime – the same one Rossie ODonnell “committed” and Trump Pardoned D’Souza of – the only person EVER before (or until Parnas, since) actually prosecuted for this. Parnas is BTW entitled to a presumption of innocence – especially for such a ludicrous charge. The FEC found that Clinton received $65M in donations exceeding the individual limit – NO ONE was prosecuted – NO ONE!
Parnas was used by an assortment of people to get introductions to others in Ukraine.
Whoopy Ding!! Crime of the century. He is a known associate of a number of Russian and Ukrainian Oligarches and a number of russian and ukrainian politicians.
If you think that is so bad that Attny Gulliani should not use him – then clearly the US AG SDNY should not either.
Rather than fixate on what some talking heads say – actually go listen to Parnas.
He goes from X absolutely Knew, to X had to know, to X probably knew to I never actually talked to X repeatedly – accross multiople subjects and multiple people.
So in the end you have a shady character – charged with a non-crime who has connected a few people to a few other people, who has nothing consequential to add to anything.
If you beleive Parnas has something of value to say – have the house managers call him as a witness – either in the house or the senate. No one is invoking executive priviledge.
Regardless at its core the entire Parnas thing is an effort to create a false narative that Rudy Gulliani’s actions as Trump’s personal lawyer somehow are official acts of the president.
EVERYONE KNOWS that Gulliani was and is investigating the misconduct of the Bidens and democrats in Ukraine. And unless you are a brain dead twit, you know that he is perfectly free to do so. He can do so on his own, he can do so as the presidents lawyer, he can do so at the direction of Donald Trump. He can claim to be acting at the direction of the president (he has been clear that he has explicitly told everyone he has talked to that he is acting as Donald Trumps lawyer, not as a representative of the president) He can ask for the assistance of the state department or foreign countries.
At the end of the day he is NOT the president, he is NOT part of government, he is an inedepent actor with no government authority. And presidents since Washington have used private parties and lawyers in exactly that capacity.
And they have done so because they are a very effective tool – they have great freedom, and at the same time anything they do can be repudiated.
President Clinton did EXACTLY this in using President Carter to negotiate with North Korea.
Carter struck a deal, and Clinton repudiated it.
It Former President Carter does not constitute an official representative of the US then there is no way in hell that Rudy Guilliani does.
And thus far you do not even have Lev Parnas on a real crime. You have a guy that is being played by politically motivated US attorney’s who has been flipped but has nothing useful to contribute.
Where have we heard that all before.
But if you want to bet the farm on Parnas – go for it.
Its not like you have any credibility left.
BTW you keep trying to tie Parnas to Trump etc.
But right now it is YOU who are vouching for him.
It is YOU that are trying to claim he is somehow credible.
Trump has never vouched for Parnas, Gulliani has not, No one you are after has.
Trump has never met him besides the photo.
Gulliani used him to get introductions. He did not vouch for him. More the other way arround.
But you are claiming that someone trying to save his own skin from a clearly political hatchet job prosecution who cant say three sentences without contradicting himself.
YOU are claiming that SOMETIMES he is credible.
Parnas is the posterboy for everything wrong with this impeachment.
Lots and lots of people testifying that they know exactly what was going on, who when pressed either have actual knowledge of NOTHING, or what knowledge they do have totally contradicts the “spin”.
As has been demonstrated by both Mueller and Horowitz – YOU have no capacity to evalutate facts. But that is unfortunately not so great an insult as it should be.
You have that in common with the media and almost the entire democratic party.
But hey – go ahead – bet your integrity on Parnas.
“ Parnas appeared in a picture with Trump ONCE“
If I can post multiple photos of Parnas in different settings with Trump will you agree to stop posting for a week?
If you can actually do something – do it.
Don’t talk about it.
Regardless, you were wrong about Trump/Russia, you were wrong about Mueller, you were wrong about horrowitz and the Trump/Russia investigation. You were wrong about Carter Page,
You owe us all atleast 10 years of silence.
Can’t admit you were wrong.
You and Donnie, two of a kind.
“Can’t admit you were wrong.
You and Donnie, two of a kind.”
About what ? You are the one who claims you can prove something.
Go ahead. I am not holding my breath.
As I noted, you have made many many claims that have proven false.
Why should now be different ?
No, I am unlikely to ever believe something that you say without proof.
That is the price you pay for throwing away your own integrity.
If I post several photos showing Trump and Parnas together in different locations, will you:
1. Say you were wrong to claim there’s only one photo of them.
2. Apologize for being an asshole about it?
I know you already know you were wrong. You did the same Google search I did and have seen the other photos. I know you don’t have the decency to admit it.
Talk about faux integrity …
Why are you trying to negotiate your own posts ?
This is as much nonsense as Pelosi trying to control the trial in the house.
No! I am not going to negotiate your posts with you.
You can either prove what you claim – or you can’t.
No I am not going to appologize to an asshole and a liar for questioning subsequent posts.
You burned your integrity, I didn’t.
You the one who has spent 3 years selling obviously false garbage and in many instances continuing to sell nonsense AFTER either Mueller and/or Horowitz has proved you wrong.
To the extent that you get a tiny pass for defaming public figures – both the courts and public discourse give more latitude to slandering public figures.
Trump is a public figure – but Carter Page is not. Nor are the other posters here, nor half the US population are “public figures”, yet you routinely slander them all.
And you think that anyone owes you an apology ?
What nonsense “Joe”. Have you no shame ?
obviously not.
As to your claims.
The burden of proof – even if you did not have an established reputation for defamation, error, and misrepresentation would be one you.
Further you are selling stuff from sources with the same horrible credibility as you.
Why am I to beleive you this time ? You have been wrong so often in the past.
Why am I to beleive Parnas ? On issue after issue he has been wrong. Further, he contradicts himself on most every issue within a few minutes usually without prompting.
Why should we beleive Rachel Maddow – though I am personal shocked at the hypocracy of other news shows that were only slightly less into improbable debunked tin foil hat conspiracy theories ragging on Maddow – pot meet kettle.
If you have actual evidence to support anything – provide it. It might buy back a tiny bit of the credibility and integrity you have squandered.
But no one on the planet owes you an apology.
And you have a long long way to go before I am not going to assume ANYTHING you claim is false. YOU did that to your self. Fixing it is your responsibility.
It is not being an “asshole” to doubt peoplke with a long track record not just of error, but misrepresentation, and defamaition.
Put up – or based on past experience the presumption is you are lying.
And just to be clear – you would have to be correct thousands of times – uninterrupted to regain much of your credibility and integrity.
I do not trust you on this. But even should you somehow be able to prove you are right about one thing – you are owed no apology.
Credibility requires being correct most of the time.
Integrity requires NEVER making false accusations.
You can’t fix either by proving correct ONCE.
You have a long way to go to credibility or integrity.
And you did that to yourself.
Don’t bitch at me for not trusting you. That is your fault.
“I know you already know you were wrong. You did the same Google search I did and have seen the other photos. I know you don’t have the decency to admit it.”
A few years ago – yes, I would have googled any challenge that I made to anything you post first. I still do, when I question Priscilla or Ron, or even most of the time Robby.
With respect to your posts post Horrowitz. Nope. I assume that whatever it is you claim, its false. I do not check it.
There is no reason to. YOU burned your reputation. No one else did.
Your the one still trying to claim Carter Page is a Russian asset.
While I lost any confidence in you long before that, that was a really big deal.
That is pretty much unforgivable.
And once again you are back professing Omniscience.
i have not bothered to google your claims about Parnas Pictures – no major news agregator has posted a story on this. But there have been plenty of stories about Crap that Schiff has been selling that proved false, that ultimately traced back to Parnas – such as the faux Vienna trip of Nunes. Or the faux whitehouse Hannakuh meeting.
So once again you are lying. Stupid lying – like Parnas. Making claims that you can not possibly prove. “You know what I have done ?” Really ?
How many fingers am I holding up ?
You said you could prove these things Parnas claims.
Parnas is the source of the Claim that Devin Nunes went to Viena to meet Shokin.
Yet the only house member who has met with potential witnesses prior to testimony has been Schiff – wbho has been caught on multiple occasions – which he lied about.
I am not sure what would be wrong With Nunes meeting with Shokin – though lying as Schiff did about it would be a problem.
But the bigger problem is that Parnas is lying. Nunes was not in Vienna, his passport does not have him ever entering Austria during the entire year much less December of 2018.
Nunes did go to Libya and Malta at those times and was extensively covered throughout the trip by the media.
I guess you are free to beleive that Devin Nunes is James Bond with multiple passports and capable of amazing spycraft. As you seemed to believe was true of numberous members of the Trump campaign.
But absent Nunes having a Daniel Craig alter ego capable of slipping the media spiriting to vienna interviewing Shokin, and getting back without being noticed – or shot down by the Austrian airforce, Except in the alternate reality of Devin Nunes super Spy – Parnas is lying.
“ You said you could prove these things Parnas claims”
Babbling faux claims again. Paste where I made that explicit statement.
Jay, fill me in. I have beeen turning off the news qhen “Trump”, ” inpeachment” or any buzz words about the political fight is mentioned.
1. Who is this guy?
2. Was he key to the impeachment articles?
3. How does he connect to Trump?
4. Why is what he has to say an issue now when the Democrats have the articles filed with the senate?
Ron. Google his name. You’ll find all the info you need.
As to impeachment – do you want to know the full story, or only the parts of the story Trump & GOP want you to know?
“As to impeachment – do you want to know the full story, or only the parts of the story Trump & GOP want you to know?”
Jay, I am not totally checked out. After reading about this guy, its like all the other crap being tossed around in D.C. A story in the Times says that the other two people at the meeting that Parnes is suggesting Quid Pro Quo— Fruman and the aide to Zelensky — say the conversation didn’t happen, as Parnas is alleging it happened.
So we have a liar that the democrats want to use as a witness against a liar in the liars impeachment trial.
Now do you still wonder why I’m checked out?
One is a non stop liar with policies I support almost 100%.
Democrats with candidates that hide their lies with policies I oppose almost 100%.
So how should I vote?
For a liar that supports government the way I do,
Or for a party that will stick this country with “Obamacare on Steroids” and every other program that will screw it up for years to come?
I know you cant really answer this because you live in the Socialist Commonwealth of California, so you are.immune to government controls and regulation. I just want that contained behind the state lines of the west coast.
Trump exagerates alot – but for the most part he is not a liar. Certainly not in comparison to say Schiff.
Trump has alot of character flaws and he tosses off insults way too easily, but that became commonplace on the left long before Trump.
I did not vote for him in 2016 and it is unlikely I would vote for him in 2020.
But I would have voted against this faux impeachment every single step of the way.
Even if I though Trump was a bad president, you do not impeachment over policy differences.
Jay,
It does not matter what “story” you want or find.
While much of the claims regarding Parnas have been proven false – we are repeating all the same nonsense of Trump/Russia – even with the same Players – Rachel Maddow, Adam Schiff, and Parnas playing Micheal Cohen.
As with the Russia nonsense – even if all these false claims were true – it is irrelevant.
Lets just say as Jay alleges – that Parnas was close to Trump and that he and Guilliani and Trump all conspired together to “get dirt” on the Biden’s in Ukraine.
That is the private acts of private parties. It is no different from Hillary having Mark Elias of Perkins Coi pay Steele to get Russians to provide bogus dirt about Trump.
It might smell fishy but it is not a crime.
We actually know for a fact that Guilliani was digging for dirt in the Ukraine – and he is BEGGING to testify about it.
We know that Gulliani had Parnas’s help.
All this is legal. Further it is not an act of the president. There is no use of federal power involved.
The only route to an impeachable offense is through the phone call to Zelensky.
And for that to be a problem requires that the request for investigations not be supported by reasonable suspicion – actually even that is not true, a request does not require reasonable suspicion even. But a demand, an effort to coerce would require reasonable suspicion.
And that exists.
Parnas is useful – to TRUMP, because once again it is a case of Democrats (and Jay) jumping the shark – and trying to cobble together something and failing.
Nunes did not go to Vienna – even though he quite legitimately could have.
There was no Hannakuh Whitehouse meeting – even though there would have been nothing wrong if there was.
And Jay still has only the one picture of Trump with Parnas that everyone knew about, and lots of other pictures – many of which do not have Parnas, and none of which have both Parnas and Trump do not change anything.
There are probably pictures of Parnas with Schiff and Durbin and ….
Go found out anything you want about Parnas. Even the super spun democrat version that is demonstrably false, amounts to nothing.
Lev Parnas is a “fixer” in the Ukraine.
He is a US Citizen born in Ukraine who has lots and lots of connections – many of them shady – but then pretty much everything in Ukraine is Shady – even Zelensky who was elected on a “drain the swamp” campaign has several shady characters in his administration.
Regardless, Parnas knows lots of people in the Ukraine.
And many people have used him to get introductions to a variety of sources.
Probably many democrats.
Joe DiGenova, Victoria Toenig, John Solomon, and Rudy Guilliani have used Parnas to arrange introductions to alot of different people in the Ukriane.
Parnas is NOT the source of any evidence, he is NOT like Steele’s contact in the GRU.
Parnas is the person who introduced various people investigating in the Ukraine to the actual sources.
Independently Parnas as a US citizen has been involved in connecting political donors to candidates.
In that context, it is alleged that he helped some donors exceed the FEC limits for individual donations. This is a violation of the law. It has occured on a fairly massive scale as part of every campaign since the law was passed. Hillary had according to FEC records more than 65M in donations that were from people who contributed more than they were legally allowed to. There is also a criminal statue – the sentence is usually a fine. In all of US history ONE PERSON has gone to jail for violating this law – Dinesh D’Souza – and Trump pardoned him.
D’Souza was jailed because he produced a movie that pissed off Obama.
Not because he exceeded the maximum donation.
Briefly Parnas had Dowd for a lawyer – Dowd almost certainly would have made this go away.
But someone persuaded Parnas to hire another lawyer – Parnas has gone through two lawyers since and is now represented by Bondy who seems to be trying to present a Micheal Cohen type of defense. Going public with lots and lots of salacious and heavily spun and often false allegations that are not crimes in the hope of god only knows what.
He and his lawyers are their own worst enemies.
How does Parnas fit in ?
To anyone Sane – he does not.
Parnas is to some extent part of what Gulliani was/is doing in Ukraine.
The democrats argument is that ALL of this is somehow illegitimate and criminal.
It is not. Neither Parnas, nor Guilliani are part of the federal government.
Parnas met Trump once and they did not talk.
But even if they had – Parnas is a private citizen – just like Guilliani.
While Guilliani claims he was careful to make sure that everyone he talked to know he was acting as Trump’s personal lawyer NOT a part of the federal government.
Even that is irrelevant to impeachment. You can not impeach the president for the legal actions of private citizens. Not even if they do so in suport of him.
There is zero difference between Guiliani and Mark Rich of Perkins Coi.
There is nothing illegal with private people seeking political dirt on others.
There is also nothing wrong with those in power seeking investigations where there is reasonable suspicion of a crime.
The narrow window where there is real abuse of power is using government power to investigate absent reasonable suspicion.
When nixon asked the FBI and the IRS to investigate those on his enemies list – he did not start with reasonable suspicion of a crime.
We have the same fundimental issue with CrossFire huricane.
Though because we went beyond a mere investigation into warrants subpeona’s and spying – and those activities require meeting a higher standard – probable cause.
Horowitz found that the Crossfire Huricane investigation met the low burden of “reasonable suspicion”.
That burden was initially (barely) met by George Papadoulis’s remarks to Andrew Downer.
However Horowitz found that the FBI investigation of that quickly lead nowhere and reasonable suspicion died, but the FBI managed to continue using the Steele Dossier as a foundation. But neither the Steele Dossier nor the Papadopolis remarks ever met probable cause. Further by mid January 2017 the FBI near that the primary source claimed the entire dossier was gossip.
The FBI had the basis to start an investigation. But by Jan 2017 they no longer had that.
YET, during that time they not only investigated – they spied and they sought and received multiple warrants and they did so by lying to the FISA court.
That is what an actual crime looks like
Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a long list of things including the Biden’s
Those request meet the reasonable suspicion standard.
That should have been the end of this.
Democrats keep saying Biden is irrelevant and Bolton is critical.
But if anything the opposite is true.
Demcrats do not want you to listen to VP Biden’s remarks regarding his extortion of Ukraine to fire Shokin and Hunter Biden’s remarks because it is crystal clear there is more than reasonable suspicion.
And so long as there is NOTHING Bolton or anyone else can testify to has any meaning.
Every single other allegation of House democrats can be true – so long as reasonable suspicion exists – and it clearly does, this impeachment is dead.
The Parnas nonsense is an effort to obfuscate. Parnas is a shady guy.
The US charges against him are inconsequential.
But that is irrelevant. Whether he is mother Therasa or Jack the Ripper,
He is being painted as dirty with the hope that the dirt will rub off on anyone who he has been photographed with.
I would note that one of the goals of this entire mess is to thwart Trump’s efforts to investigate the corrupt nonsense that was going on in the Ukraine.
So now you are saying that when you assert something or when you present evidence of a person who has a reputation for false statements, that you are not claiming it is true ?
All your posts are fictional ?
Either Parnas is credible or he is not.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
Applies to Parnas,
Applies to Jay
Parnas claims to have met Trump, Furman, Gulliani in the whitehouse on Hanukkah
OPf course the whitehouse keeps visitors records and this meeting did not take place, and Trump, Furman and Guiliani deny it.
Further if someone this meeting did take place and the records were destroyed and Guilliani, Trump and Furman were lying – is the entire whitehouse staff covering up too ?
You think that of the thousands of people in the whitehouse atleast several dozen would have seen Parnas and atleast one of them would have leaked that.
Hell with the leaks from deep state nut jobs in the whitehouse, you would figure such a leak even if it was not true.
You claimed that you could prove all this stuff.
So Far Parnas seems alot like Micheal Cohen. Somebody whose idea of a good defense is to make stupid stuff that is easily disproved up.
Regardless, Your actually following Rachel Maddow ? Really ?
You Go For it Joe!
https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-fixer-lev-parnas-photos-trump-family-2020-1
You promised multiple pictures of Lev Parnas with Trump.
You have one pretty standard picture of Trump with Parnas that has been public forever.
You have an article that shows that Picture twice.
You have only one other picture with Donald Trump in it – and that appears to be a standard political post card. My sister has one of those signed by Richard Nixon – she never met Nixon and it was written by a staffer and signed by a machine – in the 70’s. It is the 21st century now.
As to the other pictures – we all know Gulliani was dragging Parnas and Furman arround.
You have proven That Parnas was photographed once – sometimes twice, with lots of other people who are NOT Donald Trump, you have not actually established that he knows any of them.
My kids have a picture of themselves with Barack Obama – do you think he knows who they are ? Would he know if there were two pictures ?
Some of your pictures it does not appear to me even have Parnas in them. But i am not going to try to guess is parnas lost weight, gained weight, or grew hair between pictures.
Regardless, you said there were MANY pictures of Trump with Parnas.
I count ONE.
Finding 1000 pictures of Parnas with 1000 different politicians does not prove a relationship with ANY of them.
Trump’s lawyers filed a 6 pg answer yesterday to the Dems Impeachment brief.
Quick synopsis: “Abuse of power & obstruction of Congress are not crimes, let alone impeachable offenses.”
This is a defense of congressional jury nullification. You don’t dispute the charges happened; you play to the jury’s political prejudices that the offenses charged don’t mean a shit.
This explains hiring Dershowitz and Star – lawyers who in the past have specialized in representing guilty celebrities like OJ and Epstein. They’ll be in familiar slimeball territory with Prez Pussy Cruncher.
Jay,
Impeachment is political. This one more so than any other.
Look at the core of this ?
Biden did exactly what you allege trump did – even more egregiously – and bragged about it.
You say that Biden did not do so for “personal” reasons – clearly Biden has an insurmountable personal conflict – but lets ignore that, it is STILL for political reasons.
Hillary planted the Burisma Story in the NYT to keep Biden out of the 2016 race.
Biden tried to kill the Busima story – if not for personal – then for political reasons.
There is absolutely zero dispute anymore that Shokin was going after Burisma, and that Hunter was along that path. Maybe VP Biden did not know that – though that makes him pretty stupid since he had oversight of the joint FBI/Nabu task force.
There is this claim that Biden was fighting corruption by getting Shokin fired.
But theis is neither the first nor only instance where the US tanked a Ukrainian prosecution for highly suspicious reasons.
Even YOUR house witnesses have testified to that.
If Trump’s actions were impeachable – Bidens many times over.
Or what of Obama ? Congress allocated the same defense aide to Ukraine during Obama’s presidency. Obama repeatedly delayed it – why didn’t house republicans impeach ?
Obama unilaterally gutted the lethal portions of the aide and substituted humanitarian aide – which was not what congress authorized.
Are you saying that Trump can not be impeached if only he had sent blankets to Ukraine ?
Anyway – you chose to go forward with this circus.
Enjoy the fallout.
There is no crime alleged here. PERIOD.
Is this an effort at Jury Nullification ? Possibly. Though you do not seem to grasp what Jury nullification is.
It is not an admission of guilt. It is a challenge to the nature of the prosecution.
It is an assertion that what is alleged either is not a crime – as in this case, or should not be a crime.
Jury Nullification has a long proud tradition in the US there are inumeroable famous instances where colonial juries nullified Crown prosecutions.
The fundimental purpose of a jury is to take control of government – from the judges and courts and proseutors and put it back in the hands of the people.
Every Judge tells the jury they must follow the law no matter what – and yet there is absolutely nothing that the judge can do if they jury does not.
Even though on paper the juries decide facts and judges decide law.
No conclusion a jury reaches – even on the law, is within the reach of the judge or the government
I have no doubt Trump’s lawyers have responded
THIS IS NONSENSE
BECAUSE IT IS.
But keep betting on shooting the moon, on that hail mary pass.
‘ Biden did exactly what you allege trump did – even more egregiously – and bragged about it.“
You got the last part correct but as usual fucked up the first part.
Biden didn’t use his influence as VP to undermine a US political opponent, dumb dumb. He helped get rid of a corrupt prosecutor after the consensus of multiple US allies was that he should be removed.
And he didn’t undermine and remove the US Ambassador with the assistance of shady Russian operatives in the process.
And bragging about it shows he wasn’t lying about it, or covering it up with dumb denials.
It’s chilly outside today in most of the US. Don’t forget to wear your MAGA hat to keep your brain from numbing further.
This is the guy who started and owns half of Burisma.
This post notes the myriads of investigations of him and Burisma.
Does this sound like someone Hunter Biden should get into bed with ?
His Buddy, Kerry’s son did not think so.
Does this sound like someone that Biden should thwart being investigated ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Zlochevsky#Biography
So how is it that Biden getting a prosecutor who was investigating burisma as well as Biden – how exactly is it that, that STOPS Corruption ?
You keep telling me that Shokin was corrupt. Yet, the only evidence is that he was meticulously investigating Corruption.
Shokin has no Oligarch Friends, he has no golden parachute. He has been living on less per year since losing his job than Hunter Biden made in a month at Burisima.
The History of US corruption fighting in Ukraine is one where Biden and the US Embassy in Ukraine THWARTED investigation into corruption REPEATEDLY.
I am still trying to get a handle on how this makes the slightest sense as anti-corruption efforts to you ?
Look at the history of investigations into Burisma. Almost every step of the way all kinds of political and outside influence is used to sidetrack the investigations.
Usually outside influence by the US.
Grow up Jay. The US was part of the problem in the Ukraine.
Biden, the DNC, The Atlantic Council, Sorros
All the people participating in the effort to impeach Trump, are tied to the corruption in the Ukraine.
It is entirely possible that firing an actually corrupt prosecutor is fighting corruption.
But the pattern in the Ukraine is that prosecutors are fired constantly – not because they are corrupt, but because they are fighting corruption. And those claiming they are firing them to fight corruption are LYING, they are doing so to protect themselves, not to fight corruption.
“Biden didn’t use his influence as VP to undermine a US political opponent”
Pres. Thomas Jefferson ordered his AG to prosecute Aaron Burr a political rival for Treason, and supervised that Trial daily.
It is hard to think of a more politically motivated action of a president.
What is alleged regarding Trump does not come close to that.
Yet, there was no effort to impeach Jefferson and Burr was easily Acquitted.
It is inside the presidents power to demand investigations and even prosecutions where reasonable suspicion exists. Burr did not commit Treason as noted he was easily acquitted.
But though weak there was sufficient case that Jefferson was acting within his constitutional powers.
Motives that you do not like, do not change a legal act into an illegal one. That is ludicrous.
Burr was not immune from prosecution because he was a political rival. Nor is Joe Biden.
What is Dumb, is that you do not understand that.
The impeachment of Trump is a claim that no president can ever ask for an investigation of a political rival under any circumstances, and that political rivals of the president are immune from investigation and prosecution.
If that were true – The FBI could never have oppened the Crossfire Huricane Investigation.
You can not have it both ways.
That is called hypocracy
Biden did more than use his influence. He used the actual power of the US government.
He did not say “I would like you to cooperate with AG Barr” as Trump did.
He said YOU WILL DO AS I SAY OR YOU WILL NOT GET WHAT CONGRESS GAVE YOU – PERIOD.
That is the Act. Crimes are Acts.
What you are trying to argue about is motives. Most (but not all) Crimes have motives.
Most (but not all) acts have motives. Some motives are good, some are not.
But Acts are crimes not their motives.
We like to disscern motives because it makes it easier to beleive someone did the Act when we know they had motive.
In the Real World we KNOW Biden committed the ACT – there is no doubt at all.
There is lots of doubt that Trump committed the alleged act.
In fact it is more likely that not that he did not.
One of the reasons we need to be careful about motives, is we can almost never know them.
We do not know why Biden threatened Ukraine.
You say it was not for political gain. That is not even close to clear.
There was an obvious political game going on between Biden and Hillary at the time.
It is pretty easy to beleive that Bidens actions were motivated by Politics.
Further you completely duck the possibility of a personal motive.
We know that Biden Knew Shokin was investigating Burisma.
We know that Biden knew his son was involved in Burisma.
It is so trivial to argue that his motive was to protect his son that the rules of ethics REQUIRED Biden to recuse himself from any official involvement that could intersect with the actions of his son. That requirement exists REGARDLESS of whether there are proven crimes. The requirement that Biden remove himself from actions in countries were his son’s private acts MIGHT be an issue, does not require crimes or investigations.
The Fact that Biden violated rules of ethics ALONE creates reasonable suspicion of a Crime.
But His son is not the only issue here. We know that Biden interceded to stop investigations in Ukraine more than once. We know that the US State department did so repeatedly.
We do not know who created the “do not prosecute” list – the US embassy claims the Ukrainians created the list and reviewed it with the US, the Ukrainians claim the US ambassador created it. Regardless we KNOW from the testimony in the house that this list did exist, and that it names US persons, Businesses and organizations or people affiliated with those that Ukraine was not to investigate.
That is really really troubling to me. That is pretty much NOT what our government should be doing.
“He helped get rid of a corrupt prosecutor”
The only claims that Shokin was corrupt came from the US or US Affiliates and was based on claims made by the FBI Task force that Biden directed. To this day there remains no evidence that Shokin was corrupt.
Further even if Shokin actually was corrupt – Biden can not ask that he be removed.
Shokin was investigating Biden’s son – Biden is ethically and legally barred.
“after the consensus of multiple US allies”
Nope – only the IMF at the request of the US.
To this date there is no evidence of corruption of any kind involving Shokin.
He is affiliated with no oligarch. He is not wealthy. He is not living in oppulence.
He has no connections.
“And he didn’t undermine and remove the US Ambassador with the assistance of shady Russian operatives in the process.”
I am sure I can find instances of Biden or Obama removing ambassadors.
All ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.
Yavonovitch could be removed for no reason.
She testified that she was at odds with the foreign policy of the president and that she attempted to thwart it – that alone is sufficient reason.
There is lots and lots of evidence that she was heavily involved in preventing Ukraine from investigating Corruption.
Parnas BTW is an american born in Ukraine – he is not russian.
I am still trying to sort out this Ukraine is all about Russian disinformation, nonesense.
Almost all the players are Ukrainian. We are dealing with the most corrupt country in the western world.
Even Zelensky who was elected on a platform to fight corruption has LOTS of ties to corrupt oligarchs. One of the things that has been reported – but not very loudly, is that there is no good reason for Trump to have trusted that Even Zelensky was not corrupt.
There are some dubious members of his cabinet.
When Sonderland asked Trump what he wanted from Zelensky – Sonderland said Trump shouted back that he wanted him to keep his campaign promises.
Selensky promised to clean up corruption in Ukraine.
For all what you claim were Biden’s efforts to do so – and make no mistake Biden was the head of the US task force on Corruption in the Ukraine – things got WORSE as a consequence of Biden’s actions.
Maybe Biden is just really bad at fighting corruption. Maybe he is corrupt.
Looking at Joe Biden’s past history everywhere that Joe Biden went politically – his family profited from his public service. They MIGHT have done so legally – though we are justified in having questions, but it is crystal clear that Biden has been using his political influence for the benefit of his family for all of his public carreer.
‘”And bragging about it shows he wasn’t lying about it, or covering it up with dumb denials.”:
And yet thatr is not the standard you use with Trump.
“It’s chilly outside today in most of the US.”
It is, I will be wearing my Global Warming long underwear.
For the record. I do not have a MAGA hat.
I am just not so stupid as to make false allegations against others.
I will be happy to discuss the long list of Trump policies I disagree on.
I will even be happy to vote democrat – if you give me a candidate that is better rather than worse. Joe Biden is not it, and the rest are worse. Tulsi would be a very good choice – if foreign policy and the military was the only part of being president. Unfortunately too many of her demoestic policies (not all though) are too far left.
As to Joe – he promises to bring back the Obama Era – “No Thank you, Please”.
We do not need Obama 2.0.
I will put up with 4 more years of Trump’s flaws rather than 4 months of a return to Obama.
My wife is a defense attorney, The vast majority of her clients are guilty.
You are not personally worthy to like her or Dershowitz;s shoes.
Those who defend the people most scorned are the ones who deserve our greatest respect.
Dershowitz clerked for the supreme court. He was personally heavily involved in some of the most important civil liberties cases in US history.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then 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 out for me
Another very famous defense attorney – Gerry Spence, who successfully defended Randy Weaver, was asked to represent Terry Nichols and declined.
He later wrote that was the worst mistake of his life.
That justice does not exist unless the worst of us, the most hated still get the very best possible defense.
The most rights any of us have are the least rights we allow those we hate the most.
Your attacks on Derschowitz speak to your own poor character.
Derschowitz is NOT a Trump fan. He voted against him, he opposes most of his policies.
He is likely to lose most of his friends over defending Trump. He teaches at Harvard whose snowflake culture was driven out lawyers for far less serious offenses that defending Trump.
Derschowitz is a hero. For defending exactly the people you slime him for.
I pretty much loath Epstein – but I am proud of Derschowitz for defending him.
You are engaged in the very evil act of painting one of the best things that people do as bad.
“ My wife is a defense attorney, The vast majority of her clients are guilty.”
Is your wife a public defender, obligated to defend whatever clients are assigned to her, or does she seek to represent high profile criminals for money and publicity? That’s the Dersh, or Douche-a-witz as we called him in his teen age years. $$$$$ and publicity ( and possibly access to underage girls) appear to get his lawyerly juices flowing- as his friendship with billionaire statutory rapist of numerous underage girls Jeffrey Epstein suggests.
Unless an independent lawyer is forced to take a case, as often happens at a Judge’s whim in the US (or a matter of procedure in England), lawyers can tell prospective clients to go fuck themselves if they think them morally repugnant. Lawyers who are themselves morally repugnant often end up as mob lawyers, or representing shady business men and politicians (Michael Cohen ring a bell?).
Dersh – like a once-fresh veggie salad – has turned rancid with age. That’s been his progression. Offering legal theories with profound assurance of belief in one decade, then professing contradictory opinions in following decades. For instance his opinion on impeachment on a Larry King interview in 1998: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.”
He’s flip flopped from that 180 degrees. Someone whose legal opinions are that contrary to previous views expressed, without reasoned explanation for the change, can only be considered a bullshitter without credibility.
A perfect match for Trump.
You really are an idiot.
Do you think that my wife – or most any lawyer works as a public defender – because they can not get other work ?
They do it because it is a calling. The pay is crap, the work is hard, and because of idiots like you entirely thankless.
They do it because it is important work and someone must do it.
Try reading this. Or if reading is too hard for you – there is a movie staring Henry Fonda.
Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.
Bryan Stevenson
You should thank god that is true, and that there are people like my wife and Bryan Stevenson and F Lee Bailey and Alan Derschowitz, hope you never need them, and be thankful that you too are not the worst things you have ever done or said.
Oh shove it.
I didn’t disparage PDs – I just pointed out most of their clients ARE guilty; PDs have to defend those assigned to them – they don’t get to make the moral judgement of who to defend or when to decline.
Nor did I disparage PDs for defending those guilty as charged- that’s their duty in our legal system. The clients they represent guilty or not are those who can’t afford to hire legal representation. And if course they deserve representation.
But I DID point out there are lawyers who swarm around corrupt clients like bees to honey, whose duty isn’t to defend the innocent but to exonerate the guilty, for fortune and fame. By and large the lawyer profession produces more of those shysters than saints. We see this historical preconception from Shakespeare’s “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” to W.C. Fields’ “The only thing a lawyer won’t question is the legitimacy of his mother.” This tendency toward lawyerly moral corruption helps explain the parallel corruption of politicians – so many of them have law degrees.
And I wasn’t casting negative aspersions at your wife’s integrity or motivation – again you unreasonably jumped to a wrong assumption like you did with my dogs comment. You asserted she defended people who are mostly guilty; I ASKED if she might be a PD, as that would explain why. You knee-jerked that as derogatory. I’ve had past friends who were public defenders; over time they both became heavy drinker (stress reactions). It’s a tough line of work. And if that’s what yourwife does I applaud her conscientious dedication but keep track of the whiskey cabinet (no, I’m not calling her an alcoholic; that’s joking). I’ll also recommend the current Netflix film “A Fall From Grace” – a woman-centered legal courtroom melodrama about a public defender’s involvement with an accused murderer (kind of a rambling convoluted plot, but with many PD points of view).
BTW Just a guess, I may be wrong, but is your wife a Never Trumper?
You continue to be clueless.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about public defenders.
As with any job – especially government jobs, there are a few people who are there because they can’t get a better job. But the vast majority of Public defenders are their by CHOICE.
While some are better than others. These are still nearly all people who CHOOSE to defend the people at the very bottom.
They are not to be excused from defending the guilty because they are forced to.
They might not “choose” their clients – though my wife actually does. She is the head of the appellate unit and she gets to assign all the appeals among 6 other attorney’s. She gets the tough cases. Because she assigns them to herself.
Public Defenders CHOOSE to be Public Defenders.
Further, you can not get assigned to death penatly cases unless you voluntarily seek out additional education and certification. Every single attorney – public defender or private who represents a client facing death penalty charges MUST be death penalty certified – a voluntary process.
Inside the PD’s office the Cheif or a supervisor assigns cases. Among the most difficult cases are the sexual assaults – particularly those involving children or teens.
Many PD’s will not take “sex crimes”.
My wife who was herself violently Sexually assaulted in 1983, has just about all the sex crimes appeals in the PD’s office. it would be trivial for her to assign them to someone else.
Not only does she represent sex offenders, but she has a stellar record for a PD – on occasions she has won. That is really really rare.
As I have noted she has two clients on the national “exhonerated” list.
These are people who were ultimately – usually by DNA found to be actually innocent after they were convicted.
But the vast majority of her clients are guilty. They all still get the best defense she can provide.
Private Criminal defense lawyers are no different. Absolutely they like money. And celebrity clients – guilty or innocent can pay their legal bills.
But there is no private criminal defense attorney who would not be far richer had they gone into another area of law. No one who does criminal defense, do so for the money, even if SOMETIMES there is money in it.
You can make far more in mass torts than in criminal law, and far more still in corporate defense.
Jay,
Quit before you dig yourself in deeper.
You made a stupid claim. Let go, and move on.
You do not understand any of this at all.
Yes, you have disparaged PD’s as well as private criminal defense lawyers.
I have no idea about your netflix movie. but I know personally just about every criminal defense attorney in my county – both PDs and private attorney’s.
Many of them go back and forth between the PD’s office and private defense work,
Much of the private defense work is what is called “conflicts consel” – where the PD’s office can not represent a client because they in the past represented a person who is now a witness against the defendant. Or because they are representing a co-defendant.
I beleive about 1/4 of the “public defense” in my country is conflict work.
Conflicts counsels are private lawyers who agree to take the cases the courts assign them for fixed fees. They too like PD’s have a choice to be a Conflicts counsel or not. But once they agree to take the work, they do not get to choose their clients.
But no matter what EVERYONE in criminal defense has CHOOSEN to represent criminals.
Each of them have CHOSEN to represent guilty clients. often horribly guilty clients.
Beyond those defense attorney’s in my county I have lessor connections to their peers accross the state. Especially in appellate work.
I have met and in some cases am friends with some of the best criminal defense lawyers in my state. These are not people you have heard of. But inside the state criminal defense bar these are legends. Almost none of them are “public Defenders” Most are like Alan Derschowitz – they are law professors who also take criminal cases. They take high profile “celebrity” cases as well as others. Almost none of them are wealthy.
They typically take high profile cases to pay for all the other work they do – often pro bono.
Past the state I periodically meet some of the best lawyers in the nation – mostly in criminal defense.
I have met, talked to, and had long debates with Prof. Tribe – long before he suffered from TDS. I greatly respect much of his life’s work. Some of the work that Derschiwitz is citing in defense of Trump comes from Tribe’s tome on constitutional law – which I have read.
I have never met Derschowitz. But I have met Bryan Stevenson. And i am very familar with his work. Here is a man who has radically improved death penalty law in the US at a time where the court was so conservative no one beleived that was possible.
It is no longer possible to impose the death penalty on Jueveniles because of Stevenson.
It is no longer possible to sentence a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole because of stevenson.
These are victories that he obtained with Scalia, and Roberts and Alito, and Thomas, and Kennedy on the court
Stevenson is also responsible for deecisions that ultimately found numerous death row inmates INNOCENT.
If you want a good movie about the lawyers who represent criminals try “Just Mercy”
it is in theaters now.
“But I DID point out there are lawyers who swarm around corrupt clients like bees to honey, whose duty isn’t to defend the innocent but to exonerate the guilty, for fortune and fame. By and large the lawyer profession produces more of those shysters than saints.”
There are always a few crooks – Micheal Avannatti comes to kind.
But no, there are not more shysters than saints. At the top of the profession and the bottom there are some crooks. Derschowitz is not one of those. Even Tribe who has been totally consumed with TDS is still an incredibly decent person. Of the people pushing the left’s perspective on constitutional law he is about the very best – when he is not consumed by TDS.
Regardless, the pinnacle of criminal law – whether it is professors with private practices like Derschowitz and Tribe or purely criminal defense lawyers – the high profile people like F Lee Bailey, or Cochrane, or Gerry Spence – these are not “shysters”.
Actually bother to learn something about criminal law and the people who pracitce it.
There are many books about F Lee Bailley or Louis Nizer, or many of the other very high profile Criminal attorney;s of their era. Some are flamboyant. Some are well off – though not nearly so well off as mass torts or corporate defense attorney’s. Many like hob nobbing with celebrities. But few are “shysters”.
There are actually far more crooks and incompetents (as with most everything) in the lower tiers. No wealthy person – guilty or innocent is going to hire an attorney who is not both excellent and trustworthy.
In the criminal justice the more serious problem is the lawyers who barely passed the bar who are doing criminal defense because it is the only work they can get, who take money from the families of defendants and promise that they are better than the PD’s – which most of them are not, who do a crappy job of representing them, and often leave them penniless and without a good record for appeal. Worse still a disproportionate portion of the actually innocent flock to these lawyers.
But even these do not make up either the majority of lawyers or the majority of bad lawyers.
Regardless, I am not going to defend the entire profession – overall lawyers are no more nor less competent than any other profession. I would not hire most of those in my own professions – either in architecture or computer programming. But few are crooks.
And almost none of those at the pinnacle of any profession or field.
You have never seemed to get this – there are many skills needed to succeed. Being driven is one, Sometimes ruthlessness is another. But real corruption, lying misrepresentation, are very rare among the successful.
In a free market, no one MUST do business with someone else. We engage in exchange with those we trust the most. If you establish a track record of untrustworthyness, people quit doing business with you. Put simply you only need get caught in a few consequential lies and no one will do business with you.
And you are completely incognizant of that.
As a landlord, my tenants almost universally have bad credit. That is the part of the market I am in. I know that. I do not trust them. I have low expectations of them. I know that they do not take their leases seriously, that they will get behind on their rents, and they will leave in the middle of the night without notice when they think I am getting ready to evict them.
I know all of this. I do background checks and I try to filter out those who are dangerous and those who will fail quickest. I try to get the best of the worst so to speak. I am sort of in the 2nd (or 3rd) chance business. Some of my tenants get their act together and move on to better jobs, and apartments, and …
But my tenants also pay higher than normal rents – because the local apartment complexes will not rent to them. My business model is designed to assume my tenants will miss about one months rent per year.
This is how credit and trust work in the real world – when you do not keep your committments, you end up paying more and getting less from people who do not trust you and who structure their business to deal with those who have a poor record for trustwortnhyness.
A failure to keep committments lands you in one of my apartments – not Trump tower.
But you do not understand that.
My wife graduated from UofP law school Cum Laude. She clerked for a federal judge – about 1000 of the best law school graduates each year get federal clerkships. She very nearly got a clerkship with a Supreme court feeder judge – about 30 law school graduates a year manage that.
She made 80K/year as a 2nd year intern 20 years ago. As a top UofP graduate she could have made double that then. Had she taken any of the opportunities available to UofP graduates she could be making 500K/year by now easily.
She CHOSE to be a public defender. Most public defenders CHOOSE to represent those the rest of us leave behind.
Whether you are Alan Derschowitz of a first year public defender in podunk county, this is a calling not a job.
Teachers make more than public defenders. a police officer can make more than a public defender.
People do not become public defenders for the money.
UofP law School Grads do not ever have to take jobs like public defender.
The people who do criminal defense – whether public defenders or private criminal lawyers mostly do it because it is a calling, bot because they have to.
My wife is one of the top criminal appellate lawyers in my state.
If she wanted to do something else – she could easily.
No one Has to defend criminals, No one is obligated to do so. No one does it for money.
They do it because it is important and needs to be done.
F. Lee Bailley – one of the most famous and best defense attorney’s of all time also defended OJ. As did Johnny Cochrane.
Are you going to slime every defense attorney who has defended a high profile client of a client accused of a heinous crime ?
Is the attorney who defended Jeffrey Dauhmer unfit to be human ?
Or the Bundy’s – who BTW won ?
Or Timothy McVeigh ?
Or the lawyer who defended William Calley ?
Or …..
Hopefully you will never need a good defense attorney
You certainly do not deserve one.
But dhlii-say, asserting I don’t deserve a good lawyer contradicts your long winded defense of lawyers defending everyone.
You do see the dim witted contradiction of that remark, right?
“But dhlii-say, asserting I don’t deserve a good lawyer contradicts your long winded defense of lawyers defending everyone.
You do see the dim witted contradiction of that remark, right?”
What I see is your failure at reading comprehension and logic.
You do not get a defense lawyer because you deserve one.
Justice demands it.
Epstein does not deserve a lawyer, McVeigh did not deserve a lawyer. Dauhmer did not deserve a lawyer, You do not deserve a lawyer.
Justice requires that no matter how undeserving the defendant is we do not trust the prosecutor, the judge and the jury,
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”
JS Mill.
Justice requires that no matter how sure you are that you know the truth, what is right, that the best possible advocate for the alternative do everything in their ability to destroy your case. It is only when they are empowered to do so and fail that we can have some confidence that we know the truth.
That is also why the impeachment in the house was a farce.
It is easy to make any case you want – if no one is permitted to refute it.
“ That is also why the impeachment in the house was a farce.”
By that simpleminded perspective all grand jury hearings are farces.
As to the rest of your gobble-gook: ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
In fairness, Jay, that IS what Dave meant. You misunderstood his comment.
Our justice system is supposed to be for everyone, not just the elite, not just those who bow to the elite. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the bedrock of criminal justice in America and due process demands that legal representation be afforded to all.
Being “deserving” of that representation has nothing to do with it, and you wouldn’t want a system like that. At least, I hope you wouldn’t…
I am not going to talk about my wifes clients – beyond that few of them “deserve” the legal representation they get – though few “deserve” the sentences they get too.
Overcharging is endemic in our system.
Regardless, the presumption of innocense is an individual right, but the requirment to counsel is a requirement that our system imposes on itself. It is not an entitlement
It is a necescity if a system is to do justice. It is there as an obstacle to the corruption of the prosecution and the state, not as an entitlement of the defendant.
This is part of the reason that the defendants guilt – even if actually known to the defense counsel is irrelevant. While the duty of a criminal defence lawyer is to their client. The moral obligation is justice – and justice requires that the prosecutor prove their case facing the best opposition possible.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
Mills is writing about argument – but his remarks are applicable to criminal defendants.
No matter how good the prosecutions case or argument appears to be, you can not tell its actual strength until it is subject to the counter argument, scrutiny, cross examination of a fierce and determined opponent.
Truth is what we find in the forge after all the dross has burned away.
“That’s the Dersh, or Douche-a-witz as we called him in his teen age years. ”
By the way, Jay. Alan Dershowitz is 81 years old. You say you knew him as a teenager?
It is people like Alan Derschowitz, Johnathan Turley. David Rubin. Steve Pinker, Johnathan Haidt, … that are why the left is doomed.
I have been offended for a long time that liberal – a label than most accurately belongs to libertarians has been coopted by the left.
But things have gotten worse – even the left liberalism from my childhood or before is dead.
Alan Derschowitz and the others I mentioned and many more remain “liberals” or atleast civil libertarians.
But the modern left is progressive, it is ILLIBERAL, and that is what is wrong with it.
Jay is not particulalry “ideological”, but at the same time he is drowning in the illiberalism of modern progressives. He may not grasp it. but the only difference between the arguments he makes and those of marxists, communists, fascists, and other totalitarians is scope.
Priscilla,
it is just another lie Jay has sprayed out thoughtlessly.
I am sure that Jay was hanging arround Yeshiva High school in the early 50’s.
dhlii, you just called me a liar…
In an earlier post you called me an idiot…
What happened to your MANY MANY MANY sanctimonious assertions about inappropriate Ad hominem attacks? I predicted early on when Trump was campaigning he was lowering standards of discourse, and inevitably that would suffuse the nation at large. If it was acceptable for the President to replace civility with insult, pundits, politicians, the people at large would adopt the same behaviors. And here you are, devolving into Trump-like obnoxiousness as well, as I predicted.
BTW – you don’t know shit from shinola about the student population of Yeshiva High School in the 1950s. It wasn’t a public neighborhood high school. It was a private school for Orthodox Jewish boys. Few of them lived in the Washington Heights neighborhood where it was located – they came by bus or subway from all over Manhattan, and from the Bronx and Brooklyn too. What makes you think I’d have to hang around the school to cross paths Dershowitz?
“dhlii, you just called me a liar…:”
That is correct, that among other things is the name we give people who make false moral accusations of others.
“In an earlier post you called me an idiot…”
Normally I would ask for the quote and context as I am usually careful to insult ideas and/or the groups of people who hold those ideas rather than specific individuals.
But if I have slipped and directly insulted you – I do not care. You can not get through a sentence without insulting half the planet. You have absolutely zero credibility complaining that anyone has insulted you.
Regardless, what is it that you would call someone who claims as facts things that are at first highly improbable, and then sticks to them long after they have been proven false ?
“What happened to your MANY MANY MANY sanctimonious assertions about inappropriate Ad hominem attacks?”
So in Jay world the rest of us must be polite and respectful to liars and assholes ?
“I predicted early on when Trump was campaigning he was lowering standards of discourse”
At TNM YOU have lowered the standard of discourse.
Yes, I am sometimes responding to you in kind.
Just as Trump is responding the the left in kind.
While I may not be “proud” of that. i am not embarrassed by it.
You have zero interest in facts, logic reason.
Your discourse – though worse since Trump’s election has pretty much always been snark and insults.
So what – in Jay world everyone else is required to be polite but not you ?
I would normally rush to offer that I will be happy to cease insulting you if you would cease posting insults.
But we are far beyond that being possible. You have lied, not just about public figures, but about ordinary people you do not know, and about most of the other posters here.
You do not get a pass for that. There is no do-over.
You have lost integrity and credibility, You do not get to negotiate those back.
You have to earn them back, and it takes a really really long time.
” If it was acceptable for the President to replace civility with insult, pundits, politicians, ”
Long before Trump took the public stage – you, and the left had adopted the politics of insult.
While that is not exclusively the domain of the left.
It is no accident that Alinsky was on the left and the left has been following his “rules for radicals” for most of my lifetime – actually since before alinsky.
Pew’d data on the current political divide show that though it has moved arround over time, the recent polarization started in 2008 with Obama, not Trump.
Though the use of insult as politics substantially predates that.
Name a consequential person at odds with the left over anything that has not been called a nazi, a racist ?
Tulsi Gabbard – a democrat is being called a Russia Asset.
Warren is now calling Sanders a mysoginist, for a remark that he may not have made, that is at worst bad analysis and at best evidence of the sexism of the electorate not Sanders himself.
Denis Prager, David Rubin, both Jews are constantly called nazi’s and racists.
Rubin still considers himself a liberal.
You, the left, and unfortunately most democrats are calling more than half the country racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, hateful, hating haters.
Are you surprised that they are angry with you and are increasingly strongly supporting someone who is standing up and tossing insults Back ?
You can like or dislike Trump’s style – but he is not the cause – YOU are.
You are not entitled to slander half the planet and then scream “ad hominem” when you get back a small part of what you dish out.
“BTW – you don’t know shit from shinola about the student population of Yeshiva High School in the 1950s.”
Absolutely correct. There is the most miniscule of possibilities that you are both old enough and from the right place and culture to have known Derschowitz as a teen.
I am fully prepared to take my chances on that.
Just to be clear – I have not presumed that you attended Yashiva, or any of the other nonsense you seem to think I have assumed.
What I have assumed – with the odds heavily in my favor – but you can prove me wrong, is that “Jay” at an age sufficient to make such a judgement was old enough to have both encountered Teenage Dershowitz to sufficient extent to have formed your slanderous judgement.
Please enlighten us all – how and where is it that the young or not even born yet Jay, encountered the teenage Orthodox Jew Alan Dershowitz in the early 50’s in order form this slanderous judgement ?
You have claimed first hand experience.
Regardless, we are talking about more noxious comments from you.
Remember the part where you have burned your credibility and integrity ?
Why is it I am supposed to presume that you are truthful ?
When dealing with an outlandish claim by someone I do not know – I am likely to check it out before jumping to conclusions.
But you have made so many false accusations – the presumption is you are lying – again.
And they filed a 171 page brief today.
If the police arrest you and charge you for eating a donut, and you are drug before the court and asked to defend yourself, is it jury nullification to ask the Judge to end this farce because even though you did not eat a donut at the alleged time and place – eating a donut is not a crime ?
Carrying the metaphor further eating a donut for political advantage is not a crime either.
The house democrats impeachment attempts to make Trump’s actions into a crime – purportedly because they were motivated by seeking political advantage against an opposing political candidate.
I can ask you whether Trump could have legitimately investigated Joe Biden had Biden NOT run for president ?
But I do not need to ask house democrats – the alleged offense is NOT asking for an investigation where there is no reasonable suspicion. It is investigating a political opponent.
Not only is that absurd, but it would mean that anyone committing a crime could run for president to avoid being investigated.
Or that no one running for president can ever be investigated.
Yet, we know that Obama did just exactly that – investigated a candidate running for president.
It is not Trump or Biden’s candidacy that is relevant. That is just a reason for heightened scrutiny. it is the presence or absence of reasonable suspicion.
Grand Juries are not conducted as the house impeachment was. Further the house is not the equivalent to a grand jury.
But if you wish to actually follow that model – it is law enforcement, grand juries, and prosecutors who conduct investigations.
Petiti Juries – which by your model is what the senate is, do not conduct investigations.
They require that the results of the grand jury investigation is sufficiently strong a case to survive a motion for summary judgement – which this would not.
It is incredibly rare that a petit jury – a trial jury hears witnesses that have not previous either testified to the grand jury or been interviewed by the prosecutor. Further a failure of the prosecutor to provide the testimony they have received from witnesses as well as access to those witnesses for questioning by the defense, is grounds to throw out a case.
Judges do not allow prosecutors to present witnesses speculatively.
In the clinton impeachment the house managers wanted witnesses that had already been questioned by Starr or the house, who had testimony on the record and who they were able to tell the Senate what they were going to say.
The current house managers have no such thing. They do not even have the ability to establish that as a matter of law they will be permitted to subpeona the witnesses they want.
Prosecutors have broad freedom only to call rebutal witnesses and those only to rebut testimony presented by the defense, not to expand their case in cheif.
If you wish to use the grand jury model – this impeachment should be kicked back to the house as insufficient. The very demand for witnesses that have never testified demonstrates that. The house is seeking to waste the time of the senate as well as to make their own crappy process look good by polluting that of the Senate.
All that precludes the house from calling whatever witnesses they want – in the house, is securing the permission of the courts. That is it.
If the house is a grand jury – then by impeaching it is claiming its investigation is done and there is a case to bring to the senate that is sufficient to persuade the senate petit jury to convict.
The demand for NEW witnesses, unheard witnesses is an admission of failure and a plea for the Senate to fix the houses mistakes.
Dave, this is more for Jay, but want to keep it on the same tread.
Pelosi and house members know they have a weak case. So that is why they want witnesses, including new ones rhat were not part of the articles development.
If they get that, then Trump gets to provide his witnesses, including Hunter and Joe Biden. Pelosi does not want that because that would turn this into the cirus it already is, but more people would see that.
First – like the house the senate gets to make its own impeachment rules.
The constitution provides absolutely no oversight over either chamber beyond the other chamber and the voters.
So no matter what I say, or Lawrence Tribe says, or Alan Derschowitz says or Jay says, the only actual rules are those the senate chooses.
When we talk about the process, we are either talking about what WOULD occur in an actual criminal or civil trial or what we think SHOULD occur.
I absolutely agree with Alan Derschowitz that this is a farce that will cause serious harm in the future. This goes beyond Trump. The best possible resolution is to dismiss this as lacking a proper foundation without witnesses of any kind.
To return it to the house with the clear message:
Do not return without a crime, and do not ask for witnesses that you have not already had testify. The Senate is NOT there to fix the defects of the Houses case.
That is What SHOULD happen. That is what Derschowitz is arguing.
That is what the constitution says, that is what has been tradition.
But no matter what constraints the constitution placed on impeachment, it provided no mechanism to enforc them – aside from voters. Without enforment definitions and constraints are meaningless. This was a mistake by our founders, one we should but likely will not address. But our founders were not infalible and neither is the constitution.
It is not some sacred document. But it is the rules governing the powers of government.
It is the law that all other law is subordinate to.
If we do not like it, then we change it – or we live according to it.
In some areas I have advocated that we should change the constitution – this would be one.
But MOSTLY, I advocate that we follow the constitution as written. Not because it is biblically inerant dogma. Divinely inspired, but because it is our highest law, and we must obey it as written or CHANGE IT.
If we are going to follow the “due process” model that we do in all other such matters – the prosecutors do not have the right to any witnesses they wish. But the defense has the right to any witnesses relevant to its defense – even if there are no prosecution witnesses.
Due process – the norms in the courts. Requires that the defense has access to any witness the prosecution intends to call and that it is informed of their testimony BEFORE the trial, and that it can question or depose them under oath BEFORE TRIAL.
The defense also has the right to limit the prosecutions case in whatever ways the law allows. That includes precluding hearsay, and precluding priviledged witnesses.
Spouses can not be required to testify against each other, counselors and priests usually can not be required to testify, lawyers can not be required to testify against their clients, and the advisors to the president are not typically permitted to testify against the president (executive priviledge is much broader than that, but that will do, here).
Where there is questions about whether a privildge applies or whether the priviledge is defeated in the particular context – and generally priviledge does not apply when there is a crime involved and the conversation is about actions in furtherance of that crime or to coverup that crime – GENERALLY, not absolutely. The house has not alleged a crime, and absent an allegation of a crime they are unlikely to persuade the courts to override priviledge.
I would personally like to hear Bolton. As apparently would Don Trump Jr. who has said – bring on the witnesses ALL of the witnesses.
But if we are following due process – none of the house requested witnesses can testify.
They are all subject to priviledge, no crime has been alleged – much less one they are complicit in, and absent SCOTUS ruling to breach priviledge they can not testify.
Further due process generally bars prosecutors from calling witnesses without establishing BEFORE what they are going to contribute.
Nadler and others have claimed that Hunter Biden is not relevant. That is stupidly not true.
But he has one point – neither Bolton, nor any of these others are relevant without knowing what they are going to testify to – and the house does not. It is guessing, hoping.
It is betting that Not only is Trump hiding Something by asserting priviledge but that what he is hiding is relevant. Both are possible, neitehr is established. Neitehr tells us what these people will say. BTW this is the standard for a witness at trial. It is not the standard for a witness to a grand jury.
Prosecutors are free to waste the time of grand juries on fishing expeditions, they are not free to go on fishing expeditions at trial. In a normal trial the prosecutor would be asked for an offer of proof that the witness was relevant – basically the prosecutor telling the judge and the defense what the witness is going to say. But no one knows what these witnesses are going to say and therefore they would not make it to court. A prosecutor who failed to deliver on an offer of proof or whose witness failed to testify as expected could be held in contempt by the court. But we do not have that in this case.
No one is precluding the house from litigating the testimony of any of these witnesses, and if the win having them testify in the house and if they say something relevant impeaching again. In which instance the Senate could choose to hear them – or more likely just read their testimony in the house.
But subject to relevance the defence is generally entitled to whatever witnesses it wants.
Contra nadler Everyone Trump wishes to call is relevant. Hunter Biden need not testify to anything more than what he has said in public to the media – and that would be enough to dismiss. Biden’s admitted conduct in Ukraine is sufficiently suspicious to warrant investigation. And that is the ONLY standard Trump must meet to request one.
There is no law or standard that says you can not investigate political opponents. or act to your political advantage.
The actual standard is that you can not do for political or personal reasons what you can not do for legitimate reasons.
If you have 10,000 bad reasons for doing something and only one legally sufficient reason – you may do it.
The standard to initiate an investigation is reasonable suspicion – that is the only standard.
We are highly dubious when there are clearly political motives involved.
Further when there are personal interests – such as with Biden – that does not preclude the investigation, but it does preclude personal involvement. Obama could have issued the threat Biden did, But Biden could not.
There are no personal issues involving Trump – only political ones.
Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are not immune from investigation because they are running for president.
The above is how things SHOULD be – if we followed due process,
Of course if we did that – the process in the house would have been different, because among other things the house is not a grand jury and the senate is not a petite jury and trial court, and this is not a criminal trial.
But it is the precedent for the future. What the house has down – barring getting bitch slapped by the Senate and the public will become the norm – for future democrats and republicans.
What the senate does will become the future norm too.
I am all for reducing the power of the president – but this is not how to do that.
This is a left critique of Joe Biden’s corruption.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/joe-biden-corruption-donald-trump
Here is a pretty good critique of Trump’s Tarriffs from the right.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trade-policy-tariffs-peter-navarro-examining-claims-they-helped-economy/
A plurality now oppose Impeachment.
Contra Jay – that is a 4pt swing in Trumps favor among those opposes since early October, and a 2pt swing in Trump’s favor from those supporting impeachment since October for a 6 pt total swing.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html
Trump and his family got rich entirely before they entered politics. If anything becoming president has cost the Trump’s money.
The Biden’s conversely have all gotten rich because Joe Biden was in politics.
We here from Jay daily about political corruption and how Trump is profiting from the presidency – despite the fact that the data clearly show the opposite.
Whether Joe Biden has actually committed a crime is an open question. It is entirely possible that nothing he has done that has enriched his family and himself was illegal.
But it contrasts badly with the Trump’s who we are repeatedly told to villify because of their wealth – earned in free exchange not at the public trough.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/
What if they held a gun rally in Virginia, and every body panniced and 23,000 people showed up with guns – avoiding the Govenors designated Gun Free Zones, and few counter protestors should up. Would there be violence ?
Nope, Amazingly 23,000 people with guns and one arrest – of a counter protestor for wearing a mask in public.
Militia’s all over the place. AR-15’s all over – and not one fired.
What the Gun control Nazi’s do not seem to get is THEY are the danger, THEY are the source of violence.
What happened in Richmond today is what would have happened in Charlottesville had the police done their jobs, or had counter protestors not showed up and broken through police barriers to harras the legitimate protestors.
All of the people at Charlottesville were not “nice people”, but many of them were.
More importantly – whether they were KKK members or Nazi’s or Proud Boys, whatever they beleived, however reprehensible their values were, so long as they did so without violence they are free to speak as they wish – even speak hatefully.
Counter protestors too are free to speak as they please – even shouting obscentities and hate speach. What they are not free to do is initiate violence.
What is missed in Charlotesville is that regardless of the actions of a scared paranoid young adult off his meds – James Fielding. the violence was initiated by the left.
I do not care what who says. I do not care who has what values or motives.
What you are not free to do is initiare force against others.
Today we saw that the militias and gun nuts and even some “hate groups” are perfectly capable of being peaceful so long as they are not physically attacked.
https://apnews.com/2c997c92fa7acd394f7cbb89882d9b5b
You can not fix the world, if your own life is a mess.
Jay, your arguments about Trump’s character flaws would be far more compelling, if they were not coming from yourself and others whose character is so flawed and who in all honestly are so contemptuous of character – except when you can use it as a cudgel to pummel those you loath.
To address character further – Schiff has argued, Nadler has argued, and YOU have argued that Republicans including Trump have claimed that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
We can debate the extent of Russian interferance – it was small. We can debate whether Russia was involved in Wikileaks, We can debate whether what Russia did had any effect or should be of concern. But I am not aware of anyone who has claimed Russia did nothing.
When Schiff, Nadler and the Democratic impeachment brief claim otherwise they LIE.
If this were an actual court of law – there would be legal and ethical consequences. But it is not.
But the claim is still a lie.
No one has claimed Russians did nothing.
No one has claimed that what is attributed to Russia was actually been done by Ukraine.
The only place such nonsense appears is within the arguments of democrats.
I am not even aware of anyone who thinks that the Ukrianian actions were more significant than those of Russia.
What is relevant regarding Ukrianian interference is that unlike Russian interference – Americans did “collude” – atleast in some of it.
My concerns about Trump’s character prevented me from voting for him in 2016.
But greater character and other concerns precluded voting for clinton.
I have little interest in a claims of Trump’s impossibly bad character from people who voted for Clinton. I do not condemn their vote, But claiming that it was about character is the ultimate in hypocracy.
Donald Trump may lose a contest of character to a person picked a random from the phone book. But his character is still head and shoulders above either of the Clintons.
Donald Trump is not the best president we have ever had by a long shot, but he is the best in the 21st century, and possibly the best Since Reagan.
It would be nice if choices – like those resting on character were absolute – that we just did not elect someone who did not have impecable character.
But if that were the case no one currently running for president could get elected.
Regardless, if you want to make claims about the bad character of another – you had damn well better be prepared to defend your own.
You do not do that by lying and misrepresenting.
Especially not stupidly.
This nonsensical claim is not just that Donald Trump beleives the election interference by the russians was actually by the Ukrainians – Jay, the media, the Left and the house democrat impeachment managers are ascribing that position to pretty much all republicans.
In what world is it good character to lie about 1/3 of the country to their faces, and expect them to beleive you ?
Yet, you do that all the time.
The strategy of the left on most everything can be summed up by a stupid childhood taunt.
“Frack you and everyone who looks like you”.
Do you think that is a winning argument ?
This is the problem that occurs when you transform every difference of oppinion into an insult or a moral failure.
I beleive Jay has finally conceded that only time will tell if Killing Soliemani was a wise or bad choice.
We can debate the wisdom of the choice. We can present facts pro and con.
We can provide arguments that are better for one position than the other.
But we can not at this time and possibly ever establish with certainty that it was stupid, or fill in whatever moral or character flaw you wish.
When you jump from facts, logic, reason, to insults you have not merely condemned your target – but absolutely everyone who is not 100% convinced that your position is undeniably right.
What is most surprising is that it is taking so much time for everyone to turn on you, or for you to turn on yourselves. But that is slowly happening.
Blah blah blah.
Insults are not arguments.
JonathanTurley one of the Republican witnesses in the House impeachment hearing:
“The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution.”
Word parsing.
As has been noted many times – there is also an excellent article by Ilya Somin in Reason on this.
The house can impeach for any reason they want – the only check on house impeachment is the Senate. The Senate can accept, reject, remove or acquit for any reason it wishes.
The only check on the Senate is the voters.
There is no appeal to the supreme court of the validity of articles of impeachment.
The only legal authority with a final word on house articles of impeachment is the Senate.
And there is no appeal from the Senate.
The house can absolutely impeach for any reason at all.
The Senate can return the articles of impeachment to the house for any reason at all – including that they do not allege a crime.
The president is arguing that the Senate should either do that or should acquit because there is no crime.
There is nothing even slightly wrong with that argument.
Just as the house is free to argue they can impeach for spitballs.
But the final decision as to what constitutes grounds for trial – us the view of 51 Senators, and for removal is the view of 67 senators.
Oddly I beleive that one of the examples Dershowitz used exposes the flaw in his own argument. If Putin invaded Alaska and Trump did nothing – that would NOT be a crime.
But it likely would result in impeachment and the public would accept that.
But THIS garbage does not.
The fact that there is no crime alleged does NOT bar impeachment, it also does not require the Senate to proceed.
It is perfectly valid to argue the Senate should not proceed without a crime.
That is NOT absolute – there is nothing about impeachment that is absolute.
But that is an excelent rule of thumb.
The GOP is voting not to subpoena State Department documents relevant to impeachment.
If you subpoena documents, you might get them.
If you get documents, you might read them.
If you read documents, you might learn things.
If you learn things, you might have to do something, like impeach.
Oh… now I get it. Party over principal.
“If you subpoena documents, you might get them.”
A trial is not about what you MIGHT prove, it is about what you CAN prove.
If a prosecutor comes into court and says to the judge at the start of the Trial – I do not have the evidence I need to make my case, please let me do more investigation – the court will throw out the case – possibly with predjudice.
The Senate is holding a trial. Not an investigation, they are NOT like a grand jury.
I am not sure exactly how the Senate is handling this.
Frankly I think they should tell the house managers that either they are prepared to proceed with what they have, and that they can call the same witnesses they have already deposed – so long as they are not presenting hearsay. And they can use whatever documents they already have, or they can go home.
The house is free to continue the investigation as long as they want. They are free to get whatever documents and witnesses they want – before their own committees.
They are not free to come to the senate with a half baked case and beg to waste the senates time in the hope they can fix it.
What they MIGHT learn is irrelevant.
Courts require offers of proof to allow you to proceed.
That is what you CAN prove NOW.
“Oh… now I get it. Party over principal.”
That is right – democrats brought a weak partisan impeachment. they have no case and now they are begging the Senate to fix the mess they made.
That is their job.
Neither Pelosi nor the house managers control the Senate.
They did not follow their own rules. They do not get to make new rules for the Senate.
Nunes has been laying low all week.
Wonder if this has something to do with it:
“ An aide to Rep. Devin Nunes exchanged dozens of text messages with indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas about a search for information on former Vice President Joe Biden from Ukrainian prosecutors,” wrote Sophia Bollag of The Sacramento Bee. “The exchanges include repeated references by Nunes aide Derek Harvey and Parnas to Biden. Parnas allegedly helped carry out President Donald Trump’s campaign to pressure the Ukrainian government for investigations that would benefit Trump’s re-election.”
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article239465588.html#storylink=cpy
Given that so much of this reporting proves to be crap – I am not going to presume this to be true – though the information in the article itself is a bit different from your claim.
But lets assume it is true.
The Ukriane is corrupt – that is a given.
There is much more than reasonable suspicion regarding Hunter and Joe Biden’s actions in the Ukraine.
There are also many other suspicious things involving the Ukraine.
I am not even slightly surprised that many people might be investigating.
I absolutely WANT THEM TO.
What I do find extremely disturbing is that the very people who are claiming that investigating political rivals is improper – impeachable and can not be done under any circumstances are up to their necks in investigating political rivals.
How exactly is it that it is Wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine to Investigate Biden,
and yet OK for Schiff to investigate Nunes ?
Regardless, Democrats have absolutely Jumped the Shark here.
This is stupid and desparate.
Republicans control the Senate – Sen. Graham – who you hate, has asserted that the Senate is NOT going to subpeona Adam Schiff.
The more House democrats investigate republicans members of congress and their staff’s the more likely it is that Senate Republicans start investigating Democratic Senators and Congressmen.
This is a huge mistake.
And God forbid that come November republicans take the house back.
You really really should stop doing things you can not undo.
Thus far democrats have changed the rules repeatedly and it has ALWAYS bit them in the ass. This time is not likely to be different.
“It’s not the role of the House to do the Senate’s job. Under our Constitution, “[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” That means introducing documents, presenting evidence, and calling witnesses.”
Justin Amish
Those who don’t want to KNOW the truth are worse than those who want to HIDE the truth…
“Silence becomes a kind of crime when it operates as a cover or an encouragement to the guilty.”
—Thomas Paine
“Silence becomes a kind of crime when it operates as a cover or an encouragement to the guilty.”
—Thomas Paine
Go back to the house and finish your investigation.
Meanwhile quit your own dubious efforts to thwart every investigation you do not like.
Exactly how is it that you have the balls to impeach Trump for investigating a political rival when that is what you are doing ?
Exactly how is it that you have the balls to demand evidence while you are actively using every means at your disposal including impeachment to THWART investigation ?
Jay,
We already know the truth – if every thing that democrats allege is true – Trump should not be impeached.
I am actually annoyed at Rep. Jordan who keeps saying
There was no QPQ, the Ukrainins did not know that money was witheld, there was no investigation there was no announcement of an investigation and the money was released by teh end of the year.
All those things appear to be true.
But they are facts – and though the burden to establish the facts rests with the investigators, and contra Amash who should know better Trials are NOT places where investigators continue to investigate. They are where prosecutors present the results of their investigations. The purpose of witnesses is to introduce the evidence the prosecutors already have in the form that courts admit. Courts are NOT investigative bodies.
But this impeachment does not hinge on those facts – which is why they are irrelevant and why no documents or witnesses are necescary.
The CORE democratic allegation is that political opponents are immune from investigation.
You must accept that as being true to impeach. That is not a question of fact.
No one contests that Trump sought to have the Bidens investigated.
There are questions regarding the amount of effort Trump put into getting an investigation of the Biden’s. And What Jordan correctly points out is that Trump did not “pressure” the Ukrinians to investigate.
But he did ask.
If asking is legitimate – Trump can not be impeached, and there is no need for witnesses.
Whatever you think Bolton or whoever is going to testify to is unimportant.
We do not investigate non-crimes – no matter how much we might “want to know”.
But if the house managers do not like that – if they are desparate to know more – they have the oportunity to do as they please with only the courts – not the senate to impede them – in the house.
Just a side note on Amash: I never liked him, even when he was posing as a member of the “freedom caucus” and claiming that he was a libertarian. I do not believe that he is a true libertarian.
He’s basically nothing more than an attention seeker, and after Trump was elected, he became a victim of terminal TDS, so much so that the freedom caucus had to throw him out.
Now that he’s left the party, he’s still an attention seeker, a useful idiot for the Democrats.
I like Amash. I like him alot. On most things I fully agree with him.
But not this.
I think he is very libertarian.
Though I think he has difficulty distinguishing between how things are and how they should be.
We SHOULD have a far less powerful government – the president AND congress should be less powerful.
That is not what we have. When we shift from legislation to impeachment, what matters is the rules we HAVE not those we should.
I am not in favor of disempowering the presidency, by empowering congress.
I want a less powerful government – not a different branch in charge.
What Trump is it that is being hidden that is relevant ?
There is reasonable suspicion to investigate lots of things that occured in Ukraine – especially involving americans.
The harder democrats try to thwart those investigations – the more we should investigate – isn;t that your argument ?
While this claim the Senate must give the House what it wants is nonsense.
Graham has vowed to dig into Ukraine – why isn;t Schiff subpeoning his texts ?
What is wrong with Nunes looking into Ukraine ? I though investigations and document requests were required – what is it that democrats are hiding ?
Isn’t that your argument ?
The GOP President Bullshitter is at it again:
“ WASHINGTON (AP) — On a rarefied world stage in the Swiss Alps, President Donald Trump cited accomplishments on clean air that aren’t real, a level of economic progress he hasn’t achieved and a blue-collar boom yet to be seen.
His preening performance at the Davos economic conference was rife with distortion.”
https://apnews.com/66e93c782beccc4d3efbaaf7a4eb094a
Who said having witnesses testify amounted to “political theater.” on January 29, 1999 “It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses.” A few days later he said, “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”
Wow! And now this person writes to McConnell where he demands witnesses against Trump “We believe this proposal will allow for a trial in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly, and in which final votes can be taken within a reasonable period of time, without any unnecessary delay. Conducting the trial according to this plan will also allow the public to have confidence in the process and will demonstrate that the Senate can put aside partisan concerns and fulfill its constitutional duty.”
Answer for $200. Chuck Shumer.
Well since Americans are about as smart today as in 1999. He believed that Clintons impeachment was political theater, so now he should apply that same standard to the current impeachment. What’s goog for the goose is good for the gander!
The fundimental issue is NOT “witnesses” it is whether the Senate will allow the House Managers to use the Senate as a platform to continue investigating.
This is a Trial not an investigations – if the house has witnesses that it KNOWS will testify to make its case – within reason it should be free to call them.
I would have done the rules different from McConnell. I would have said – the Senate will sit 12 hours a day until this is complete. The House has the first 5 12 hour days.
It can present its case as it wishes – subject to the rules of evidence – i.e. witnesses will not be permitted to offer hearsay.
If you want Bolton and Trump is asserting executive priviledge and you have not gotten the courts to overrule that claim – oh, well, your problem. You have 5 days to make your case.
On day 6 the defense starts – same deal – 5 days. Witnesses, no witnesses, your choice.
But we are not delaying to allow you to litiate to compel the witnesses you want.
BTW this is often how ordinary trials go.
The house could have had its ducks lined up. It could have completed its investigation – the houses failures are its own problems.
As has been noted – nothing precludes the house from going to court to get witnesses and bringing this back in a month or three.
But the house should not be allowed to waste the Senates time because the house did not do its job.
This is not about Trump. it is about fundimental failure.
The House managers beleive they could better make their case with certain testimony – maybe that it True. Just as likely their case would get worse rather than better.
But no court in this country would allow a prosecutor to waste its time as the prosecutor called an assortment of people that it had not already interviewed or deposed in the HOPE they would make its case.
Real prosecutors get sanctioned if the try to do that.
There is plenty of clip trading that can be done over this. Graham was a house manager in 1999 and much of what he said then atleast appears to contradict what he is saying now.
But I would note the question was quite different in 1999.
The question then was – Should the senators read depositions of Clinton, Lewinsky, ….
Or should the be able to look them in the eye as they testify.
The question was NOT what will the witnesses say, but will the evidence be better judged by reading it or by listening to it.
Today the House managers have no idea what their requested witnesses will say.
They are not seeking to prove their case, they are not claiming that Bolton will be credible – they do not even know what Bolton will say.
The issue of witnesses was less charged in 1999 too. Because Monica Lewinsky was 20 and no one knew how she would come off in person. It was not what she would say – but how she would say it. Though the house managers wanted lewinsky it was NOT the hill they wanted to die on – because she could backfire.
Bolton could easily backfire on the House – He is a hail mary pass.
Of course there is clip trading. That is because both the Clinton impeachment and the Trump impeachment IS BULL SHIT and not a crime!
It is ALL POLITICAL THEATER TO GET THEIR CANDIDATE ELECTED!
Why can’t you get that through your head?
Ultimately the outcome of the Clinton impeachment is about right.
Though as a Senator I would have voted to remove.
MOSTLY Clinton’s actions that Starr was investigating – even if criminal and proveable would not have been impeachable. Prosecute after the end of his term. SCOTUS should have tolled the time on the Jones case and required it to go forward after the presidency.
But it did not.
But lying under oath subborning perjury and soliciting the destruction of evidence are “high Crimes” – the fact that they were not official presidential acts was Clinton’s defense.
It was a good one BUT those things are still “high crimes” they cur right at the foundation of the rule of law and of the presidents oath to enforce the law.
So you are saying the two articles against Clinton were from Paula Jones and not from the !ewinski affair?
“So you are saying the two articles against Clinton were from Paula Jones and not from the !ewinski affair?”
The lawyers from the Jones case in discovery and depositions asked Clinton about other women, and he lied under oath. I beleive he was specifically asked about Lewinsky – as well as many other women that there were rumours regarding.
As I recall, sometime long AFTER that deposition, Lewinsky confided in Linda Tripp.
And that is what brought the fact that Clinton had lied to the attention of the Independent Counsel. Clinton was then brought before a grandjury – and lied again.
Clitnon then told Lewisnky that she could make this all go away by getting rid of all gigtes from him and filing an affidavit that nothing happened – with the aide of Vernon Jordan she did.
At that point Starr grabbed lewinsky, Her apartment was searched, and the blue dress with Clinton DNA was found.
So Starr had Clinton for lying in the Paula Jones deposition, Lying to the Grand Jury, gettting Lewinsky to destroy evidence and getting Lewinsky to file a false deposition.
SCOTUS never should have allowed the Jones case to go forward.
I am sympathetic to Jones – and after he was out of office she should have taken Clinton to the cleaners.
But from the moment SCOTUS allowed this to go forward, Bill Clinton’s mistakes – his Crimes were his own. They were not forced. Nor are any excusable. He knew what he was doing and he knew how serious it was.
Just because Congressional Republicans were gunning for him, does not excuse his Crimes.
It is my understanding that Starr has said that all the other stuff he was investigating kept leading to Hillary, not Bill It is not that Whitewater etc did not lead to Crimes, it is not that there was nothing to find or investigate. it is that Starr felt that Hillary was not a legitimate target for his investigation. He was not going to try to send the First Lady to jail.
But Ron- witnesses WERE CALLED in the Clinton Senate impeachment trial, including Lewinsky. As were witnesses called to testify in all previous presidential impeachment’s, and dozens of other federal impeachment trials.
And why didn’t you mention in non-partisan fashion McConnell supported calling witnesses in the Clinton impeachment? Maybe you wouldn’t be as bored watching it on cable if Bolton and Parness were called to testify; I bet you’d be glued to the screen if Stormy testified – l know I would.
https://www.newsweek.com/resurfaced-video-shows-mitch-mcconnell-supporting-witnesses-bill-clinton-impeachment-trial-i-1483335
I dont give a flying F what is said or who is called to say it. This is no different than Newt Gingrich impeaching Clinton for a blow job in the white house and trying to cover it up.
There is no crime, there is no treason. There is no taking a bribe. There is no high crimes. nor are there misdemeanors The house failed to find that and now they want to continue investigating. The senate holds a trial based on house information in the articles, NOTHING MORE!!!!!!
Its all about weakening Trump for the election. Mueller was unable to do it, so Pelosi stepped in and called her lap dog from California that got elected because the GOP representative from that district supported impeaching Clinton. Schiff ran on not impeaching for political reasons and look at him now..
You and I will never ever agree on the rile of government and how government should act. You believer whatever government wants to do is fine because government is good and fair. I believe government for the most part is corrupt and those in leadership have only one thing in mind. Power.
Power brings attention. Power bring wealth. Power distroys!!!!!
As noted before – this fight is NOT over witnesses. Witnesses are normal in trials.
Continued INVESTIGATION is not.
Prosecutors are NOT pretty much ever allowed to call witnesses if they can not tell the court what evidence they are GOING to give.
That means they have already testified to a grand jury or been interviewed on the record.
I have zero problems with allowing the House to call any of the witnesses they deposed in the house – with the provisos that normal procedures are followed – the president’s lawyers are provided with unredacted transcripts of their full testimony and inadmissible assertions are not permitted – such as hearsay, and there is a right to full cross examination and rebutal.
But house democrats are not trying to call those – like lewinsky who had already been deposed and where the prosecutor can make an offer of proof as to what will be testified to.
If The house wants Bolton – go to court to enforce your subpeona.
depose him in the house and then if there is anything there – you can have him testify in the senate.
That is how trials operate.
Trials are NOT fishing expeditions. The house is throwing a hail mary, the senate should not allow themselves to be used.
US emmissions have been dropping precipitously as fracking has made natural gas cheaper and more readily available.
This started under Obama – no thanks to Obama who fought Fracking tooth and nail.
It continues to the present.
“[To embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers — and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ’70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
~ from Donald Trump’s speech at Davos.
While cable news fpcused obsessively on the bloviating Adam Schiff and his minions at the impeachment trilal, Trump gave one of the best speeches of his presidency, if not the best, at the World Economic Summit.
” We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom.
In America, we understand what the pessimists refuse to see: that a growing and vibrant market economy focused on the future lifts the human spirit and excites creativity strong enough to overcome any challenge — any challenge by far.”
Much of what passes for “news ” these days is simply distraction from the things that the media would prefer we not hear, because it might help Trump.
In any case, it was an excellent speech. It focused on every country focuing on the needs of its own people, instead of a global order. Probably went over like a lead balloon at Davos, which is primarily a globalist summit….
Priscilla, if the cable stations are wasting time on the impeachment, advertisers will ask for a refund. I tried watching part of it and lasted all of 15 minutes, part in the afternoon and part late night. This is worse than listening to congressional members standing in front of empty chairs, with one or two filled with staff members, acting as though they are addressing the chamber membership.
Only those like Jay that live to hear TDS will watch this circus. Its worse than watching crab grass grow!
I haven’t watched and won’t watch any of it: GOP announced before their show trialthey’re going to exonerate him; with that certain crappy ending already established, why waste the time.
This is YOU show trial, not theirs. All the republicans in the senate have better things to do and would do them but for your insistence on pushing garbage.
There is no immunity from investigation confered on a candidate for alleged past bad acts confered by running for office.
The ONLY question is whther there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct – and their clearly was. This should have died before it started.
This is a gigantic hail marry.
Hoping that just maybe it will damage Trump or some republicans senators and NOT damage biden or democrats,
It is an effort to thwart the investigation of democratic misconduct in Ukraine.
That is all. and it is a flop.
The GOP is not exonerating Trump – democrats had not at any time from start to this moment had a case.
There is no crime. Absolutely the house is free to say – impeachment does not require a crime.
Just as absolutely the Senate is free to say – and we will not bother to hold a trial unless you charge a crime.
Jay, the founding fathers were clear in their thinking about impeachment. They were not in favor of this to happen and made it clear that it was to be used for the worst of crimes. Treason, taking a bribe and other HIGH crimes and misdemeanors.
Clintons blow job and subsequents lies and manipulations never reached that level. Trumps issues that the democrats have caused to result in an impeachment does not come close to a high crime. In fact the IS NO CRIME!
Everyone says that the president can be impeached for whatever congress says so. That is total BULL SHIT!
They were clear. In the federalist papers they were clear. Someone can not be removed because you dont like them, you find them morally repugnant ,they are incompetent or any other host of reasons the opposing party doe not like them.
The level to achieve impeachment was made high by the founders. Our congresses since the 90’s have lowered that bar where it is now becoming a tool for reelection. Each and every president going forward will face impeachment criteria much lower than ever expected by the founders.
You say this country is screwed if Trump goes another 4 years. I say it is already screwed anytime the house happens to be of a different party than the president. If Joe Biden get elected and somehow the house flips during his term to the GOP, don’t you think the GOP is going to return the impeachment favor? I think he has as much to worry about as does Trump in that regard.
And yes, the GOP will not vote to remove, just as the democrats did not vote to remove Clinton. The senate at least is a little less political than the house, thank god!
Ron, do not conflate CAN with SHOULD.
Democrats CAN do this.
But it is stupid, and dangerous.
As you note this is NOT what they wanted.
The Senate dissmissing without hearing it is the BEST response – that makes clear that the House should not do something just because it can.
But the constitution provides no check on the house besides the senate and no check on both besides voters. The absences of a check – means that “High Crimes and msdemeanors” means whatever those in congress thinks it means.
I would have no problem changing the constitution.
It would be pretty simple to add an amendment that said Articles of impeachment can be reviewed by the Supreme court for constitutional compliance.
Something that simple would now mean that “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” would be subject to constitutional and legal review. It would no longer mean whatever the congress says it means.
If that were the case the arguments of Turley and Derschowitz would automatically be correct.
This is NOT what our founders intended. It is exactly the opposite of what they intended.
No one tried to impeach Jefferson – a founder when he actually did what democrats are claiming Trump is doing and ordered the US AG to prosecute a political rival (who was acquitted) of Treason. That was a blatantly political act.
I never said what they should do or what is smart to do. What I tried to point out was the founding fathers had their clear understanding what they thought should be impeachable offenses. The Clinton and Trump BS is political. Heck, I think even the Jackson impeachment was political. There were real crimes with Nixon. There were none with Clinton or Trump
Was Clinton Political – yup.
Did Clinton commit a “high crime” yup.
Regardless, whatever problems the Clinton impeachment had – this is completely different.
If Trump actually lied under oath, if Trump got others to lie under oath, if Trump asked others to destroy evidence – even under circumstances where he was being politically targeted and where there was no crime. I would support impeaching Trump.
Is this what our founders wanted “nope”.
But it is unfortunately what the constitution they created allows.
The constitutionally afforded remedy is for the Senate to treat this as unseriously as they possibly can – they should have dismissed out of hand.
The more seriously this is taken the more certain it will happen again – soon.
All trials start with a presumption of innocence.
If the house does not have evidence to overcome that – and we all know the evidence the house has – your observation that this is a waste of time is correct.
YOU are wasting everyone’s time.
The GOP Senators are not all in the chamber, listening to testimony? Isn’t full attendance required by the rules the Republicans instituted?
No According to Heritage Guide to the Constitution “The Constitution fastens the responsibility of trying impeachments upon the Senate. Yet some Senators have doubted whether they have the requisite competence to try impeachments. Rule XI was adopted as a response to poor attendance and preparation by Senators in impeachment trials in the early twentieth century. Yet even in the 1980s, some Senators claimed that they had not bothered to prepare before voting, and such proceedings diverted their energies away from legislative business of greater concern to their constituents. Others argued the proceedings restored their confidence in the Senate’s institutional competence to conduct them. In any event, the Framers of the Constitution vested that task in the Senate and nowhere else.
The last question is the continuing debate over how effective impeachment is as a remedy for executive or judicial misconduct. After the acquittal of President Clinton, some commentators have wondered whether impeachment is a meaningful option for dealing with a popular President’s misconduct. Some believe that Clinton’s acquittal strengthened the presidency because it makes it less likely future Presidents will face serious impeachment attempts for private misconduct. Others think Clinton’s acquittal reflects an appropriate compromise that was consistent with the structure: he had been impeached by the House and therefore disgraced for his misconduct but not removed from office. Validation of these competing views must await future impeachment trials.”
Rule XI is the requirement of 2/3rds majority. The GOP did not address this in the curent rule making as it was already there.
Almost no one is in the chamber – almost no one ever is. Senate proceedings are broadcast in the halls and to senators offices.
In attendance means – actually in the senate listening, not in the Senate Chamber.
None of this is new. Nor is it unique to the Senate – the house works the same.
From what I can find – no regular network showing normal programming has take a hit from the impeachment hearings, and of the channels covering impeachment – Fox is dominating the ratings.
This is NOT compelling. People do not care.
The clips sounded very good.
Great Davos peach: I wonder who wrote it for Trump? And who read it to him, explaining what it meant?
Did you hear his improvised speech to reporters later, when he admitted he had suppressed House impeachment evidence ?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-impeachment-evidence-we-have-all-the-material-they-dont-941140/
And Priscilla- at Davos today Trump, the man who knows more about everything than anyone, clarified something I had been mistaken about of my entire life: the inventor of the wheel.
Trump on copyright: “We have to protect Thomas Edison—we have to protect all of these people that came up with originally the light bulb, and the wheel, and all of these things…”
Good thing I nerves appeared on jeopardy and got a question about that!
Trump is wrong – not about the inventor of the wheel – you can not parse that sentence to get the conclusion you are reaching.
Trump is wrong because copyrights are not patents, and because intelectual property is a bad idea.
Ideas are not property.
Of Course Trump has everything – he is the president. The house is after his records.
Go to court and get them. Courts sort this out. Not the house, not the president.
But democrats have screwed themselves – by not alleging a crime – they have weakened their claims in court – it is unlikely you get Bolton especially or anyone where there is a national security issue without demonstrating to the court probable cause of a crime – that is what it takes to breach priviledge in a national security area.
Some of these other witnesses and documents – they would probably get.
In the context of impeachemnt it takes 3 months to get through to SCOTUS.
Oct, Nov. Dec.
It is january. This F’up is on the House.
Recently the courts said FU to the house subpeona of Bolton’s aide – not on the merits, but because the house dropped their claim and did not show up in court.
It is pretty hypocritical to demand a witness that you had an easy oportunity to get.
But the beat goes on:
“The Trump administration secretly approved the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia after the killing of Jamal Khashoggi without informing Congress.
One transfer was signed off 16 days after the journalist was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October and a second came in February.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-sold-nuclear-tech-to-saudis-in-secret-after-khashoggi-killing-9q39glhwc
Humm. Has Trump secretly transferred any nuke tech to Russia?
As commander in creepiness, can he do that without congressional approval?
If it’s not against the law, according to GOPers it wouldn’t be impeachable. Wonder what Trump’s quid-pro-quo would be on that ‘perfect’ call with Putin?
Why are you digging up shit from 2017 that congress has already investigated? There were 123 agreements that congress has already reviewed.
I hadn’t seen that ‘shit’ story until now.
And it was first in the news on 06/04/19
And Congress obviously didn’t review those two agreement in 2017 because one occurred in Oct 2018 and the other in Feb 2019 – and neither came to light for two months later.
So I don’t know what 123 agreements you’re talking about.
Google ” Trump sells nuclear arms tosaudi Arabia”. I think its the armcintrol.com or something like that article that references ov e r 120 investigations.
The largest most powerful nuclear weapon ever created is Russian.
They do not need US nuclear secrets.
Reagan gave the Russians the secrets to stealth – because it would bankrupt them trying to beat it.
And for laughs, some Rudy buffoonery:
Giuliani on Lev Parnas’s exclusive description, to Reuters, of a meeting with a Venezuelan under criminal investigation.
“Lev Parnas has no right to be talking about that meeting,” Giuliani said. “It was a confidential meeting – if it did happen.”
There is alot of missing information on this.
The story running – which we do not know whether is True is that Guilliani asked for leniency from the DOJ for a client who claims to have been providing assistance to Venezuellan opposition.
Lev Parnas is asking for Lieneicy for whatever it is he thinks he is doing.
Asking for leiniency in return for something that government values is not unusual.
It would be a lawyers job to do so.
But we do not know any of this for sure regardless.
But presuming that the Parnas claim is true – so what ?
I have zero problem with Guilliani asking for leiniency for one of his clients – for any reason.
It appears DOJ did not take Gulliani up. But lets say it did.
Lets say that Guilliani asked the Obama DOJ for leinecy for a client working to topple Maduro.
I would say “make the deal”
Though there are lots of questions here – including how Parnas became aware of information that is priviledged.
The big question is whether Guilliani’s client actually assisted in toppling Maduro.
OMG Guilliani did …. what lawyers do, and tried to get a deal for his client.
Jail him NOW!!!!!!!!
OMG Guilliani helped someone seeking to help topple Maduro.
Death Penalty!!!!!!
* more than one “!” is a heavy sarcasm warning.
Biden aparently snapped at a reporter today over questions about Sanders.
Biden is not holding up well to mostly softball questioning. That might get him the Democratic nomination, but he is not going to get to Nov. 2020 without having to answer lots of tough questions. And come off like Trump only angrier is not going to play well.
More twisted misinformation from Trumpville.
Social media commentary today was filled with positive Biden information about his character and “presidential’ temperament, including this rave review of his appearance on Morning Joe:
Many reporters – on the left, have noted that Biden is fumbling softballs, and doing really badly on tough questions.
You can beleive whatever you want, but eventually he is going to face tough questions.
One of the purposes of a primary is to vet candidates. Biden is being protected, by democrats and the media. They will not be able to do that forever.
Fumbling questions?
I bet he can answer the reason he’s visiting at the USS Arizona during a Pearl Harbor memorial tour … and doesn’t flummox assertions the Continental Army took over the airports from the British and got control of the air 125 years prior to airplanes… and doesn’t mispronounce General of the Army Douglas MacArthur‘s name three times when talking to US Army soldiers… or use quotes from Mussolini claiming they’re his own…
Interesting how you double-standard ignore Trump’s constant fumbling to criticize a few from Biden.
I am not talking about “fumbling” in the sense of
Is he mentally competent. Yes, there are questions regarding Biden as well as Sanders and Trump.
Every politician who handles lots of questions “fumbles’ some and if they are older – we get a spate of doubts about their competence.
I am talking about – getting angry about being asked tough questions – especially by constituents rather than reporters.
I am talking about not having good answers to tough questions that HE KNOWS are going to be asked.
Getting angry because he is asked about Hunter and Burisma played OK for a day or too.
We are passed that. If Biden wants to be president – he needs to answer those questions, and he needs answers that voters will buy.
He is not doing that.
This is not about his competence. This is about his unwillingness to answer hard questions.
I have no doubt that Biden is a very credible witness to the effects of loss and grief. He has experienced significant losses. Most people have great personal sympathy for him.
But that does not make him qualified to be president. He has always been considered a good politician and a “nice guy.”
But it is very clear from his campaign events, debates and interviews, that he is not mentally sharp, that he has some serious health concerns, and, most importantly, that he has allowed members of his family, not just Hunter, to trade on the family name, to get multimillion dollar deals from companies that otherwise would not have had anything to do with them. That is blatant corruption.
Jay has demanded here, day after day that Trump provide explanations for his entire families financial dealings – despite the fact that those are private.
He has further made claims of public corruption – because Trump businesses sometimes deliver service to the US government.
And he has made further claims of public corruption because Trump business sometimes deliver services to foreign governments or lobbyists.
The first demand is crap. None of us are entitled to know whatever we want about others.
Jay is wrong in any claim that the Trump familiy can not do business with the federal government or with foreign governments or with those lobbying government.
But he is correct that processes need to exist to protect us from corruption in those instances, and that whenever there is a nexus between public service and private action there needs to be scrutiny.
Those questions are proper – whether they involve Trump or Biden.
We can debate whether Trump inordinately profits from his business entanglements with government. But there is no debate that they are NOT the foundation of his success.
Conversely it appears that the success of the Biden familiy is inextricably linked to Joe Biden’s public services.
The Trumps do not appear to have profited ever by selling influence – they have sold goods and services.
The Bidens do not appear to have sold anything except influence.
There is no absolute proof that the Biden’s are corrupt. there is a great deal of reason to be asking tough questions and to require answers.
Joe Biden is failing miserably at that.
It is NOT going to get better between now and Nov. – if he makes it that far.
No one debates the sacrife the Biden family has made with their Son Beau
But Hunter and Brother Bill are not Beau
Dave, your summary on Jay’s positions are spot on. So relate that to my many comments about communication and how it impacts voters.
The left wing media bangs on those points daily. Those following the news talk with others and convince the listeners that those “facts” are correct. When they are not communicating this, Trump is because he is defending himself against incorrect facts, but he leads credence to them because that is in the fore front and not the positives.
I have a hard time not believing his approval ratings would not be 3-5 points higher inconsistently if all of his tweets and comments were on the positives and he ignored the negatives, or at least just said a couple times a week that he was not worried about the lack of action by the democrats and his attention was on all the good things taking place and expanding those as much as possible.
With his communication style, he is going to take his 60+ minutes of State of the Union speech time on fake news and impeachment hoax.
I am loath to address hypotheticals.
If fewer of Trump’s comments were negative – fewer would make the news period.
Trump has very few opportunities to speak uncorrelated or edited.
The state of the Union. and to attendees at Trump rallies.
In all other cases while he controls his words, He has no control over which portion of what he says is reported. If Trump speaks for 20 Minutes the media gets to decide which 30s of that is on the news.
This is not unique to Trump – it is true of everyone. It is why the political biases of the media are relevant, and why “gotcha” journalism is inherently evil. Asking tough questions is fine. But the objective is to get to THE truth – not YOUR truth. The story of Trump should not be what Trump wants us to hear. But it should also NOT be what one ideology wants us to hear.
You say Trump’s approval would be better if he was less negative – did that work of Romney or McCaine ?
I think Trump learned long before running for president that controversy would get him attention.
He has been attacked brutally, relentlessly his entire life.
He has learned to thrive in controversy.
Directly addressing your premise – in some hypothetical world that does not exist Trump’s approval ratings would likely be 20pts higher – if everyone eschewed defamation and focussed on actual argument and actual fact based criticism.
But that is not the real world.
The left and Trump adopted Alinsky’s tactics – BECAUSE THEY WORK.
It has been nearly impossible for republicans to get elected – because alinsky’s tactics work.
As I noted in another post – in what rational world who the best educated people, the elites beleive by super majorities that socialsim – the worst political/economic system was superior to free markets – the best one ?
In the real world today – well educated intelligent people beleive utter nonsense.
This is not “science”.
But it is the world as it is, it is how things work.
The radical left has moved from marxist class warfare on to identity politics – which is a permutation of the same thing – only now opressed and oppressor are not determined solely by wealth and class, but by a wide variety of victim statuses.
The rich oppress the poor, whites oppress blacks, Straights oppress gays, and everybody oppresses Trans people and on and on.
Combine this politics of oppression with Alinsky’s tactics and that is an effective recipe for defeating classical liberalism (or pretty much anything).
But it has several deep flaws. It is inherently unstable and unsustainable.
While you can build a majority by selling oppression to large collections of minorities – especially in an extremely diverse population.
The success of modern progressivism bears several flaws that destablize it.
The first is at the very same time as you are building a majority by cobbling together every single group that you can all oppressed. You are also concurrently building a majority of all the different “oppressors” that you are attacking. The easiest example is muslims.
While they are clearly an oppressed minority in the US, they are also enormous oppressors, they oppress women, they oppress gays, they oppress pretty much every minority that the progressive majority is made of.
The next related flaw is that you inherently end up with a hierachy of oppression. Status is not based on accomplishment but on the number and importance of victimhood boxes you can check. Truth and credibility is defined by oppression status – not any form of merit. Inherently the high status oppressed oppress the lower status oppressed.
Alinsky’s tactics are not inherently limited to one ideology. Republicans and moderate democrats have aschewed them for a long time as illegitimate. Alinsky’s rules for radicals tell you how to win political power. They do NOT tell you anything about the correct way to use political power. While Alinsky is from the 60’s many of his rules evolved over centuries.
Trump absolutely positively has adopted many of Alinsky’s tactics. It is a major part of why he was elected – and it is completely at odds with your wishes.
If Trump spoke like Romney – he would never have been elected.
Though I would note that Trump uses a twist on Alinsky.
The left has used Alinsky’s metthods successfuly – but in doing so it has created an actual majority of people who are the targets of the left.
Half the country is white.
A differnet half is male.
90% of the country is straight.
….
If you presume all or nearly all whites are evil racists,
all or nearly all males are evil sexists
all or nearly all straights are homophobic.
…
If you shout racist, sexist homophobic hateful, hating hater at everyone who disagrees with you you have alienated much more than half the country. And you have SILENCED most of them, and you have made them long for someone who will stand up for them and put you in your place – who will call you the hateful hating hater.
Those blue collar working class democrats are not voting for Trump because he is quiet presidential, ….
Further they do not identify with Trump – because he can claim as Biden can to share their background. Trump is about as far from a blue collar factory worker as you can get. He was born with a silver spoon and he has gold and platinum plated it. That is not how he connects with blue collar democrats.
To a small extent he connects because he talks like a longshoreman. Which is a bridge.
But the big reason Trump is “one of them” is because he SPEAKS FOR THEM.
He says FUCK YOU to the people who call him/them racist.
Ron there is absolutely no way he can appeal to those blue collar working class democrats that while not the core or his support are the difference between winning OH, PA, WI, MN and losing them and still be “presidential”. Their loyalty to him is based primarily on his speaking like and for them.
Every single time the press, the left, democrats call Trump “racist” for saying the very things these blue collar democrats have said or have been silenced for saying, they lock these voters to Trump.
Trump won the election by finding and appealing to a very large block of mostly democrat voters who felt they were being ingnored even abused by progressive democrats who controlled the party and speaking directly to them, and more importantly speaking FOR them and AS them.
Trump alienated many Neo-cons, moderates, libertarians, fiscal conservatives moderates and evangelicals – but he won this block.
Trump’s big trick was winning the primary – where all those other groups were more important and dangerous adversaries and Trump had to win SOME of them.
In the general election the vast majority of “republicans” were going to vote republican as always. Trump could afford to lose 15% of evangelicals in Alabama – because there was no way they voted for Clinton.
But he got about 2.5M voters who had previously voted democrat in the swing states and he got them at the expense of votes in states than any republican would win NO MATTER WHAT.
Trump is NEVER EVER going to turn on these voters – he is toast if he does.
That actually requires him to continue the same counter Alinsky insurgency that won him the election.
In the meantime he has GAINED large numbers of republicans who were tepid about him before.
Trump answers hard questions all the time. There is not a president EVER who takes so many questions as Trump.
The whitehouse has pretty much ended formal press briefings, and shifted almost entirely to press questtions of Trump at various events, speaches, etc.
Trump takes questions almost every time he gets onto Marine one. Almost every time he takes a podium to sign a bill or to announce something.
Everyday we get the stories of whatever Trump has said recently BECAUSE he is taking press questions all the time.
The press is at war with Trump, and Trump has decided to directly confront them and to use them, rather than as most presidents have done with hostile press to avoid them.
This is a part of the crap about Trump you complain about.
And Ron, I know you’re concerned about Dems taking the White House and bankrupting us with huge medical health care expenses (tho only the two progressives are in favor of that) but do you depend at all on your social security benefits? Because Trump is threatening to slash SS in his next term:
“Trump tells CNBC that he’s pondering taking the axe to Medicare and Social Security because it’s “the easiest of all things” for him to cut.”
No I am not dependent on SS and have not been since retirement. I planned well in advance. Built my own 3800 sq ft home for $60K from 1980 to 1986. Moved in in 86. Paid it off by 2000. Never bought a new car after 1978, always 2-3 year old models and drove them until they had 200-250K. Put 15%-20% of income into retirement funds while working and increased that after paying off the house. Since 1990 returns on investments have totaled around 15% (I avoided 2008 as I moved 1/2 into fixed income before the crash and then went back before the gains began again) Wife did not work as she was taking kids back and forth to private catholic schools until late 90’s.
But, I am looking at ways to protect the retirement funds I have because I believe we will have a 25%-35% decline in the markets should one of the current democrats running, including Bloomberg, gets elected. That still puts markets above where they were before Trump took office. If that happens, then I would be dependent on SS for some of my income. And I think protecting what I have now within the next 6 months is prudent investing given my thought on market conditions.
Now that does not mean I am not getting SS. Just not dependent on it for survival.
So he is going to do this all by himself. Congress will have nothing to say about it?
And you trust government?
Why?
You like E.O’s?
Why?
You support a congress that will not do its job?
Why?
But I have supported privatization of Social Security from the beginning when that was discussed. And that comes from my distrust of government because I know that government will not protect whatever small amount I have in there and they will not provide 15% returns like I have received in the last 30 years.
Glad you trust government.
Did you plan well or are you/ will you be dependent on S.S.
Sorry in advance for your plight if you did n’t
No I don’t depend on SS – But I like the big chunk of health insurance Part B subsidizes.
And I like my property tax federal write off that the GOP is threatening to eliminate. And I’d like to see prescription drug prices reduced, which doesn’t attract GOP backing.
If Bernie or Warren are the Nominee, I’d vote for a Moderate Republican if any were running on a sensible platform. . Too bad the GOP shut down the nominating process, stopping reasonable people from entering the race.
The 2018 Tax cut is a move towards eliminating all personal deductions except the standard deduction and lowering and flattening the tax rates.
I am 100% for that. State and local taxes of all kinds SHOULD NOT be deductable from personal taxes.
Conversely no business should be taxed until the income is trasnfered to a person, and then it should be taxed as income for that person.
Property tax deductions subsidize property taxes – that is a bad thing.
As to whatever medicare or other benefits you are fixated on – government never should have taken the money from you.
Lower Taxes and pay for your own choices.
I can almost write a book on why the government is responsible for high medical costs, high rug cost, ridiculous billing formats for docs and hospitals. And what is not due to government, suppliers are to blame.
But I dont have the time, and word press would freeze up indefinitely if I posted that.
Lets just say those entitlements were totally messed up until Medicare advantage came along. Please explain how “Medicare” would go broke in the early 2030’s before Advantage and now private payers are selling Advantage plans, offering the same Medicare benefits plus part d drugs, over the counter drugs and medical supplies, gym memberships, vision care and glasses and dental care all while making a profit on those plans? How can the private sector do it with no restrictions on who buys into the plans while the government is screwing up their part of the subscribers?
But let one politician say three words, “reduced Medicare costs” and all political hell breaks loose, even if the benefits are better.
No one is stopping anyone from Running for President as a republican – I think your buddy Joe Walsh is.
But it is rare for anyone of the party of the president to primary the president. I can not think of it happening in my lifetime.
As a practical matter – Trump IS a moderate. Much of what I do not like about him is because of that.
His positions on Trade – are Not Free Market, they are pretty much the same as what used to be blue dog or union democrat positions.
He is not as conservative as Cruz, he is not as libertarain as Paul.
He has talked about killing PPACA – but he wants to replace it with some Trump branded version – that is not conservative.
He is more non-interventionist than most republicans – and even than most democrats except Gabbard.
There are lots of ways he is rolling back the socialist lite policies of Obama – but that does not make him some extremist.
On most issues that are big for Social conservatives – he keeps his mouth shut.
He has an openly gay Ambassador he strongly supports, He may have pardoned more black people than Obama.
How Jay is Trump some kind of extremist ?
While he spends too much on defense – he is NOT a neo-con.
Can you actually provide the Trump quote, not what someone says someone says Trump said ?
Regardless, SS is getting cut one way or the other – it is unsustainable.
The longer we wait the worse it will be.
Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for defamation.
It is really really hard for a politician to win a defamation case and I doubt Gabbard will prevail.
But Clinton’s statements were repugnant. Far worse than anything ever attributed to Trump.
Clinton’s remarks – are just like those of all the left.
Everyone they do not like – which is almost everyone, is a hateful hating hater – and now apparently a russian asset.
Blah fucking blah.
Listen to the interview cited in Tulsi’s lawsuit.
Clinton never mentioned Gabbard during the remarks quoted.
She did explicitly say Jill Stein was a Russian asset… where’s Jill’s lawsuit? Nowhere. Because calling someone an asset of a foreign government isn’t defamation.
I do not think Gabbard is going to win her defamation suit, and I do not think that she should.
But lets cut the nonsense – If you really want to pretend that Clinton was no fingering Gabbard – she sure as hell defamed someone.
You bemoan Trump’s accusations – many of which are arguably correct or at worst exagerations.
Still one place I would join in criticizing Trump is DO NOT make accusations you can not prove.
But that admonition applies to Trump, Pelosi, Schiff Schumer, Nadler, … too.
And it applies to you.
Regardless oblique references to Russian assets with winks and nods is far worse than any remarks Trump is alleged to have made.
You seem to like defending people who defame others.
I can say that Clinton will likely win the lawsuit.
But I can not say with a straight face that Clinton was not lying about gabbard.
Everyone knew who she meant.
Just as everyone knbows who you mean in your attempts and disingenous obliquity
So here in the midst of the impeachment we have more LIES by Schiff.
Schiff Claimed that a Parnas Text to Gulliani was an effort to arrange a meeting between Guilliani and Zelensky.
But reporters at Politico obtained the unredacted text message – it is crystal clear that Mr. Z, is Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
I do not care if Gulliani was trying to talk to Zelensky or Zlochevsky.
But Schiff clearly lied about who Parnas was trying to setup a meeting with.
It also completely changes the perspective on Parnas.
It is far easier to understand Why Guilliani would associate with and Use Parnas to get introductions to Zlochevsky than to Zelensky.
Intorductions to shady characters are typically through shady characters.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832
So here we have the WhistleBlower and another Obama WH aide who subsequently moved to Schiff’s staff and is a key person on the impeachment plotting to remove Trump BEFORE he even took office.
Right, there is no conspiracy here, no coup attempt, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html
The whistleblower’s candor is also being called into question. It turns out that the CIA operative failed to report his contacts with Schiff’s office to the intelligence community’s inspector general who fielded his whistleblower complaint. He withheld the information both in interviews with the inspector general, Michael Atkinson, and in writing, according to impeachment committee investigators. The whistleblower form he filled out required him to disclose whether he had “contacted other entities” — including “members of Congress.” But he left that section blank on the disclosure form he signed.
ZZZZZZZZ.
SNORE.
YAWN!
Someone – probably many people, are lying about one of the most serious (according to you) things in the 21st century – and that you think is not worth looking into ?
As noted further in the article misrepresenations to the IG – and the WB absolutely misrepresented his contacts with members of congress and their staff, ar punishable by up to 10years in prison.
We are impeaching the president for a non-crime. While the WB committed an actual crime.
This is much worse than is alleged regarding Flynn.
Aparently lying is OK in Jay world as long as it is democrats doing the lying.
Or perhaps Schiff didn’t mislead Atkinson.
And perhaps the transcript is secret because it contains classified info.
And perhaps the investigator story is merely a rumor.
And perhaps the investigator is misleading the actual facts.
And perhaps there is no actual story, but a story about a story.
“Or perhaps Schiff didn’t mislead Atkinson.”
The claim is not that Schiff mislead Atkinson but that the Whistleblower LIED to Atkinson,
It is also claimed that was revealed in Atkinson’s testimony.
“And perhaps the transcript is secret because it contains classified info.”
The classification authority in the US government resides with the president and the executive NOT Congress. Though he has done so, Schiff does not get to decide what is and is not classified.
The SCIF in the capital is there so that when the executive branch testifies to classified information the execitive branch can request that the classified portions of the testimony are conducted in the SCIF. Non-classified testimony is not taken in the SCIF.
Even closed door testimony that is not classified is not taken in the SCIF.
This is the first time ever that a SCIF has been used this way.
If Atkinson’s testimony contains classified material – that is handled by the house submitting the testimony to the IC IG, CIA, FBI, DOJ for review and THEY decide what must be redacted. AGAIN the house has no independent authority to decide what is classified.
What they have is the authority to review for oversight purposes classified material.
The story that has been leaked here – which I beleive has been confirmed by atleast one congressmen who was in the SCIF – and before you start railing, The LAW is that anything that is made public can be commented on. When I received my classified document handling Training it was made clear to me I could never use a classified source in a public setting. But I was always free to talk about public information – even if it was the same information as I had read in a classified document.
If I read in a classified document about the AEGIS radar, and then read the same information in Defense weekly – I can say whatever I want using the information in defense weekly, even though I read exactly the same thing in a classified document.
“And perhaps the investigator story is merely a rumor.”
Perhaps – the entire Russia Collusion nonsense was a stupid rumor – including hundreds of stories and leaks.
But there are parts of this story that are KNOW True. Not all of it, but many parts.
And regardless of what you say the ENITE transcript of Atkinson’s testimony has not be released. Every other witnesses testimony has now been made public – some with redactions. NONE of Atkinson’s has been, are you saying every word of Atkinson’s testimony is classified ?
“And perhaps the investigator is misleading the actual facts.
And perhaps there is no actual story, but a story about a story.”
Perhaps, but it only requeires a few of your perhaps’s to be false and the entire mess crumbles.
Since Trump was elected experience teaches that leaks that are disparaging to Trump prove ultimately false or over stated substantially. While leaks that favor Trump have near universally proven True.
This MIGHT be one of the exceptions – are you prepared to bet on that ?
And as has been addressed before – credibility and integrity matter.
Wise people choose the sources they beleive based on their past track record,
Past accuracy is very important, but even more so is past integrity.
The media is all sometimes going to get the story wrong – how they deal with error matters.
Further it matters whether an outlet reports straight news – really, or whether its purported straight news is laced with political viewpoints or worse accusations that later prove false.
When you lie about a person – you lose not only credibility, but integrity.
Ultimately we will find out the truth.
The investigators say that details about how the whistleblower consulted with Schiff’s staff and perhaps misled Atkinson about those interactions are contained in the transcript of a closed-door briefing Atkinson gave to the House Intelligence Committee last October. However, Schiff has sealed the transcript from public view. It is the only impeachment witness transcript out of 18 that he has not released.
Schiff has classified the document “Secret,” preventing Republicans who attended the Atkinson briefing from quoting from it.
Is he legally permitted to do that? That is, to hold a ‘Star Chamber’ hearing, and then refuse to release the testimony to other members of Congress, the executive branch, and the public.
Not that the Democrats care what is legal or not.
“Is he legally permitted to do that? That is, to hold a ‘Star Chamber’ hearing, and then refuse to release the testimony to other members of Congress, the executive branch, and the public.
Not that the Democrats care what is legal or not.”
Is he permitted to do that ? – no.
It is a violation of the house rule – but democrats enforce their own rules, so that is going nowhere.
It is also not a crime – fundimentally the house “governs itself” – just as the senate does.
For matters that are purely internal there is no review, no appeal.
I do not think as an example that the GOP can “go to court” to get the transcripts released.
Technically a SCIF is run by and maintained by the Executive Branch.
The Executive could refuse to provide an FSO in the future.
But they are not going to remove the SCIF because the democrats are misusing it, because there will still be a need for the house to hear classified testimony and review classified documents.
The remedy for this is to drag Atkinson into another forum and question him their.
That would also possibly provide standing for an outsider to demand the transcripts, as they would be then relevant to whether Atkinson was telling the truth in a different hearing.
An awful lot of this is power stuggles and has nothing to do with the law.
The House subpeona’s lots of records including OMB records.
There was also an FOIA request for OMB Records.
At Trump’s orders OMB refused to comply with the House Subpeona, and the house did not go to court.
But the FOIA request did result in a court order and OMB is releasing the records pertaining to the FOIA request.
I am surprised this has not been sprayed on the news – because there is alot in those records about OMB putting a hold on the Ukraine Funds. I would think we would be hearing lots of democrats going “see, proof!” Not that they prove anything except that there was a temporary hold by OMB.
But more importantly OMB complied with a court order.
This completely undermines this “obstruction of congress” nonsense.
The house can have anything it demands of the executive – when the Courts decide that it can.
Neither the house nor the Senate have carte blanche.
But the courts DO usually grant the house and senate most or all of what they want.
Executive privilidge is not in the constitution, but neither is any house right to subpeona or congressional oversight. Both exist because they are “nscescary and proper” to the execution of other government powers.
So ALWAYS desputes between the congress and the executive must be sorted out by the courts.
I am strongly in favor of BROAD oversight of the executive by congress.
But NOT by bypassing the courts.
This faux impeachment is what we get when congressional powers are not subject to court review.
We get this nonsensical claim that Trump is a lawless authoritarian.
No President (except possibly Lincoln) has defied a court order.
Plenty of presidents have engaged in acts that are unconstitutional or “illegal”.
I think the recent GAO report was WRONG on the law – but even if it was right – it also noted numerous instances where Obama Bush Clinton did the same thing.
But everyone complied if they were challenged and the courts found against their actions.
It is when THAT stops happening that we have a very serious problem.
Before that we have differences of policy. We do not have real lawlessness of totalitarianism.
Absent an actual crime there is not “high crime or misdemeanor” without defiance of the courts as well as congress.
My paper made my day! They have the most hilarious headline this morning. Still laughing!😂😂
” DEMS APPEAL FOR GOP HELP”
😂😂😂😂😂😂
One again Jonah puts Trump in proper perspective.
History will confirm his assessments here:
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-presidents-failure-to-be-presidential-hurts-nation/
If the current conditions of americans is “paying” – “please sir, can i have more”
Absolutely this faux impeachment would not occur if Trump were more presidential.
It also would not occur if Democrats were not bat shit crazy and accusing everyone who disagrees with them over anything of being hateful hating haters.
Increasingly no one gives a shit about washington – that is a GOOD thing.
Congress is doing nothing, that is GOOD. About the only thing that Congress does at all for the past 3 years is the Senate confirms judges.
Wether the current economy is a “Trump economy” is easy to answer – the GOP house did ONE thing. It passed a good but not excellent Tax reform. The Senate has done ONE thing – it is flooding the courts with young well qualified federalist judges.
Everything else of consequences that has happened – bad or good in the past three years that has not been done privately or by markets has been done by Trump.
Good or bad – Trump.
Some of it is bad, most of it is good.
If the price we must pay for government to stay out of things is the partisan bitterness in washington – then bring on partisan bitterness.
The goal is NOT for all of us to “get along”. The Goal is NOT for the president to be presidential.
The goal is freedom and prosperity – and those thrive when government is gridlocked and bitterly partisan, and are harmed when it is not.
So bring on the WWE president. If that is what it takes to shutdown the governments infringement on our freedom and prosperity.
Biden is now claiming once again that he will not testify in this impeachment farce.
And he is right it is a farce, just wrong about why.
He is also delusional. Everytime the Democrats talk about thwarting Trump’s requested witnesses they destroy their own case for witnesses.
Should the D’s witnesses testify ? Probably – though not in the Senate. The house should have brought its case WITH those witnesses testimony. It should have gone to court, Whether Bolton etc, should testify should have been answered by the courts.
Conversely only someone clueless thinks the president does not get witnesses.
The Biden’s are obvious – and obviously relevant. The questioning should be limited to those questions relevant to Ukraine.
Did Joe Biden know that Shokin was investigating Burisma ?
That Shokin was scheduled to interview Hunter the day aftrer he was fired ?
Did Joe know of Hunter’s involvement with Burisma ?
What was Joe’s participation in firing other prosecutors ?
What was Joe’s participation in blocking other investigations by Ukraine ?
What was Joe’s involvement in the FBI/Nabu task force investigating Corruption in UKraine ?
What was the evidence that Biden had that Shokin was corrupt that he relied on to demand his firing ?
What Role did Joe play in getting Hunter his job with Burisma ?
Did Hunter ever talk to Joe about his work at Burisma ?
Did Hunter ever ask for anything from Joe with regard to Burisma ?
Questions like that are OBVIOUSLY Relevant.
As To Hunter:
How did he get the directorship at Burisma ?
Who told him there was an opertunity ?
What did he do to earn 83K/month ?
Did he talk to his father about Burisma ?
Did he talk to people at the state department ?
What was his involvement in the investigation of Burisma ?
Questions like these are relevant.
I think there are also lots of questions for Adam Schiff. But i am somewhat reluctant to have the Senate call representatives without their consent as witnesses (and visa versa)
Though I think there needs to be a DOJ investigation into tbhis and that Schiff should be interviewed in that.
But the WB is absolutely a witness.
It is increasingly evident that Eric Ciariemello is highly political and has been out to “get Trump” from before his inaugruation.
His participation and knowledge of early leaks fromt he whitehouse is definitely on the list of questions for him.
What did he means when before the inauguration he said he would “get Trump” ?
Who did he conspire with ?
What did they plan ?
It appears Ciariemello had no first hand knowledge related to the WB allegation. So who were his sources ? Why were those sources free to talk to him about whatis clearly a classified matter. What is Ciramiello’s “need to know”, who approved his request for classified information from these sources ? The fact is proper proceducres were not followed – a person who wants to know classified information and a person who has that information do not on their own get to decide to share. The determination of whether the two parties have the appropriate classifications and need to know are adjudicated by an FSO – so who was the FSO ?
Why did Ciariemello lie to the IC IG about his prior contacts with the house ?
Lying to a federal investigator is a crime.
What first hand knowledge does Ciariemello have of anything ?
What was Ciariemello’s involvement in the Ukraine ? What was his involvement in getting Shokin Fired ?
What was his knowledge of Hunter Biden’s involvement ?
Of Burisma ?
Of Shokin’s corruption ?
The core premise of Ciariemello’s WVB complaint is that Trump’s request to investigate Biden is improper – how does he know that ? How is it that Ciarmiello knows that there is not reasonable cause to investigate Biden ?
Why does Ciariemello beleive that he knows more then the president whether an investigation is warranted ?
“ As To Hunter:
How did he get the directorship at Burisma ?
Who told him there was an opertunity ?
What did he do to earn 83K/month ?
Did he talk to his father about Burisma ?
Did he talk to people at the state department ?
What was his involvement in the investigation of Burisma ?”
—————-
Everyone of those questions have been asked and answered in numerous news stories and media commentary. Take your partisan head out of your uniformed butt and search them out.
“Everyone of those questions have been asked and answered in numerous news stories and media commentary. Take your partisan head out of your uniformed butt and search them out.”
1). The media is not the courts,
2). After the past three years you are going to claim something in the media is credible ?
3). No court on the planet has ever ruled that a news story constitutes evidence or deprives a defendant the right to demand they answers in court under oath.
But finally and most damningly – No Jay – few if any of those questions have EVER been answered by the media.
With cites from these news stories you claim exist
Even Hunter Biden is unable to explain his own qualifications to be a director at Burisma.
Please show me in his CV how he is qualified ?
Please tell me how he got the job ?
Please tell me what it is that Hunter did for Burisma ?
Hunter has stated publicly that his father KNEW he was working for Burisma.
His father has PUBLICLY denied that.
That alone is a really good reason to question them both – what is the truth ?
What actual evidence exists that Shokin was corrupt ?
Independently – what is the Evidence that Biden knew of an relied on ?
These and MANY MANY other questions have rarely been asked and NEVER answered
Not in the press and most certainly NOT under oath in court.
What you have just done is demonstrate EXACTLY why an investigation is necescary.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain – there is no deep state conspiracy here.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html
Then why is Trump refusing to turn over relevant documents and threatening to evoke exec privilege to prevent witnesses from testifying?
When are you going to take off your dunce cap?
“Then why is Trump refusing to turn over relevant documents and threatening to evoke exec privilege to prevent witnesses from testifying?”
If you spend your life guessing why others act as they do – you will be wrong nearly all the time.
Why is not what matters. It is nearly always unknowable.
What matters is whether the actions are legitimate or not.
But as you want guesses as to why – my guess is that Trump is playing games wiuth house democrats. He gave them the opportunity to cooperate, to work together when they were elected, and in stead they choose to go to war with him.
Trump 100% cooperated with Mueller. You and I fought here over whether Mueller could get these records or that. Mueller went after lots of records that he had no right to.
Trump never fought a single effort of Mueller to get witnesses or documents – even when he had solid grounds to do so.
Clinton conversely fought Starr to the supreme court on everything.
But Trump had exactly the opposite stratgey with house democrats.
Everything for legitimate investigation, NOTHING for real partisan hacks.
Trump has made house democrats fight tooth and nail for bread crumbs.
And they have shit all over themselves doing so.
That is my guess as to “why”
As I noted before, Trump has complied with every court order. The recent OMB document dump was not even contested as I understand.
A court ordered FOIA request has been answered with information Trump refused to provide to the House democrats. trump did not take this to an apeals court.
Trump does nto appear to be hiding anything at all.
What he appears to be doing is making life as difficult as possible for house democrats – who betrayed their voters when they promised to work together not to work to impeach.
That a guess.
But any claim to know why anyone does anythign is ALWAYS a guess.
It is nonsense like this that makes us question the intelligence of those on the left and discount their claims that they are somehow the advocates of science and data.
Does capitalism and increased economic freedom CAUSE poverty reduction ?
To the extent that anything in social science or economics is provably causal – that is.
Even the left think tank brookings found that conclusion inescapable.
And yet 70% of democrats think capitalism is evil and socialism is good.
Free markets have done in 50 years what has never ever occured in human history – raised the majority of the worlds people from subsistance poverty to “middle class”.
Conversely Socialism has predominately driven nations from the middle class to poverty.
Often accompanied by massive amounts of bloodshed.
And yet the highly educated white progressive elites near universally denounce free markets and advocate for socialism ?
Why if they are so wrong on something so obvious, should they be beleived on ANYTHING ELSE ?
Why should smart people who beleive socialism is superior to free markets be considered credible when they talk about Climate ? Race ? Gender ? Immigration ?
Pretty much anything else ?
Why is it unsurprising that the same people who beleive Socialism is good and capitalism is bad, who beleive that the world is going to end as a consequence of global warming in a few years, who beleive that sex is not biologically binary, who beleive that you can have open borders and an entitlement state – that these same people beleive that Trump colluded with Russia and that the Russians significantly and successfully altered the outcome of the US election ?
Why is it not surprising that they people want to impeach Trump for asking for an investigation of a political rival – without any consideration of whether an investigation was warranted ?
These people are IYI – intellectual yet idiots.
We are all free to beleive whatever we wish. But we are judged on what we beleive.
You can beleive that capitalism is imperfect. But if you beleive that a system that has ALWAYS failed, is superior to one that has ALWAYS succeeded Phenomenally beeter than anything else ever tried – then you are an idiot, you are incapable of critical thinking and your views should not be trusted on anything.
There is room for capable thinkers to debate the extent to which Capitalism needs oversight, the precise degree of freedom optimal in trade.
But anyone that beleives that central planning is superior to free markets does not live in the real world.
If 73% of democrats favor socialism over capaitalism and college professors favor democrats 95:1 does that not strongly suggest that an incredible proprtion of college professors beleive in MULTIPE falacies.
Socialism is not merely inferior to captialism. it is inferior to pretty much every other scheme of governance – monarchy, theocracy, mercantilism. …..
Most other arrangement perform poorly compared to schemes with greater human freedom.
But no other system has consistently driven those under it TOWARDS greater poverty.
Capitalism’s imperfecations may be grounds for legitimate discussion, but no other system of any kind – not just socialism has come close to performing as well.
Not monarchy, not theocracy, not mercantilism, ….
So we have a environment – our ivory towers, with purpoertedly the best and the brightest of all of us, who very close to unviersally beleive in the superiority of the worst system ever conceived over the best system ever conceived.
Why are these people to be trusted about ANYTHING ?
Even on issues where I might agree with those on the left, it is legitimate to question my own agreement. The odds of those who are so wrong about so much also being wrong about the few areas you agree are extremely high.
More conservative sensible Americans speaking out:
The problem is that Mr. Mayo’s views are only “sensible” in your view because they agree with your own.
How supportive are you of the democrats who have said impeachment is a huge mistake and a distraction from what democrats need to do ?
How supportive have you been of Tulsi Gabbard ?
You appear to think it is ok to call anyone you disagree with a “russian asset”.
I do not know Mr. Mayo – though I am skeptical that his post means what you claim.
Like Mr. Mayo, I do not support many things Republicans have done under Trump – specifically tarrifs and spending increases – but there are a number of other areas.
But my disagreement with Trump over spending or taxes, or not getting out of the mideast fast enough, is not equivalent to support for impeachment.
Increasingly in elections from local through federal, I am voting the incumbents of either party our and where possible voting libertarian. My increasing reluctance to support republicans is not the same as supporting democrats.
You have paraded a number of people – Will, Goldberg, Amash, Sen. Lee and Paul and others who have criticised either specific policies or Trump – or Trump generally.
These are people I respect – I frequently agree with them.
Though I do not agree with anyone on everything – and neither do you.
Though you seem to think that if i respect, Lee or Paul or Goldberg or Will I must be lockstep with each – even thought they are not lockstep with each other.
You celebrate republican disent, but you smear any democrat disent
“the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present the defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts . . . Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.”
Washington V Texas 1967
Let’s be clear – the Trump defense team has an absolute right to any witnesses that bolster its defense.
Trump has repeatedly asserted that his call was “perfect” that there was nothing wrong with it.
Any judgement on the legitimacy of that call MUST be a judgement on the legitimacy of requesting an investigation of the Biden’s.
You can not claim it was improper for Trump to request an investigation of the Biden’s while depriving Trump of the defense of claiming that it was legitimate to investigate the Biden’s.
Trump has NEVER claimed he did not request an investigation of the Biden’s – he has been completely open from start to finish that though there were many elements to the Call – investigating the Biden’s absolutely was one of those.
Nor has Trump EVER backed down from the claim that the Biden’s ought to be investigated.
That is quite clearly the defense Trump has chosen. And it is his ABSOLUTE right to present it.
There is only one means the Senate can deny Trump the right to call the Biden’s – and that is to dismiss the impeachment FIRST.
We have listened repeatedly as democrats demand witnesses – but only their own.
There is no actual prosecution right to whatever witnesses they please.
Proscution witnesses must meet a much higher standard than defense witnesses.
Any defense witness that contributes to the defense that the defendent is making is permitted – that is our law. The prosecution is required to establish what the prosecutions witnesses will testify to before they are called and they will be barred if the prosecutors can not establish what will be testified to. The only burdern on the defense is that a witness will refute the prosecution or reinforce the affirmative defense.
Zzzzzzz. Blagggggg. Yuckkkkk.
Bloviating defines irrelevances.
“Zzzzzzz. Blagggggg. Yuckkkkk.
Bloviating defines irrelevances.”
So the Supreme Court is bloviating irrelevances ?
Let’s be clear: If anyone still believes Trump didn’t try to intimidate a foreign power to help with his re-election campaign, they’re either dumb as dirt, or dirty with complicity in the extortive ploy.
If anyone is dense enough to believe Trump hasn’t been engaged in covering that up with lies and obstruction of documentary evidence and witness testimony, they need a Scarlet T emblazoned on their forehead
Your oppinion is clear. But the facts are not.
However the law is clear – and you are on the wrong side of it.
There is no actual evidence that Trump even attempted to intmidate foreign leaders.
There is also no actual evidence this had anything to do with the election.
Both of those claims are unproven assertions.
But your more fundimental problem is that they are not merely lacking evidence,
They are lacking relevance.
It is legitimate to ask for investigations where there is reasonable suspicion.
The entirety of foreign relations is carrots and sticks. Anything we want from any foriegn country is accomplished by threats or inducements.
Even if you proved that Trump threatened or induced Ukraine – all you have proven is that he engaged in foreign policy. We have no other power over foreign governments. We can not get the courts to order Zelensky to do something. There is no enforceable taw we can invoke to compel.
Intimidation and inducement are the means of conducting foreign policy.
They are not crimes, they are not unusual.
Biden’s threat to withold money from Ukraine – which is PROVEN, is not inherently illegitimate.
The legitimacy of Biden’s actions rests on the same foundation as the legitimacy of Trump’s actions – whether there was a legitimate justification for the action that was within the legitimate powers of the executive.
Though with Biden there is a very real independent ethical problem.
The involvement of Biden’s son in Ukraine – and worse with what Shokin was investigating barred Biden from acting. It did not Bar the US from acting, but it explicitly barred Biden from acting. Biden’s threat was unethical – EVEN if Shokin’s purported corruption was a legitimate basis.
“ There is no actual evidence that Trump even attempted to intmidate foreign leaders”
This is perhaps the dumbest block-headed remark I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing from you.
https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/lk012320dapr.jpg?resize=807×807
And this is evidence?
It is almost as good of evidence as this.
Can you cite a single witness who has testified that either directly to Zelensky in their hearing or by directing them Trump made a demand of Zelensky ?
The house interviewed dozens of witnesses – and the very best you have is hearsay.
That is not evidence.
Hearsay has a different name for ordinary people – it is called Gossip.
Gossip is not evidence.
Cartoons are not evidence.
Cite actual evidence ?
You can’t. Even Sonderland who claimed there was pressure, when asked said – Trump never directed him to presure Zelensky and he never hear Trump tell Zelensky.
All that and even if you actually managed to get “intimidation” what you would have proven was “foreign policy”.
All foreign policy is threats and inducements.
It is not threats and inducement that are improper, it is whether what they are for is justified.
In this entire mess the ONLY question that matters is
Was there reasonable suspicion to justify asking for an investigation.
If there was not – then Trump abused his power.
If there was he did not.
Before Day one of the house hearings we already knew there was reasonable suspicion.
You have wasted another 6 months on a snipe hunt.
Biden did not threaten Ukraine with the loss of $1B in funds if they did not investigate Shokin – the person investigating his son. He threatened if they did not FIRE Shokin.
The standard for investigation is reasonable suspicion. What is the standard at which Biden’s demand to FIRE shokin is legitmate use of power rather than an abuse ?
Trump’s actions in Ukraine – whether those that are proven or those that are alleged without evidence are not inherently illegitimate.
They are legitimate or not based on sufficient justification.
The standard for justifation of an investigation request is reasonable suspicion.
What is the standard for a demand to fire someone ?
While we can establish that Trump had reasonable suspicion without Either Biden’s testimony, there is zero doubt that their testimony would make that required suspicion clear.
Conversely Biden would be required to support the claims that he was justified in firing Shokin. We hear constantly that Shokin was corrupt – that would be a plausable justificatiom. Yet there has not been any actual evidence that Shokin was corrupt ever provided.
When evidence is demanded – we are told there was some “consensus” Shokin was corrupt.
There is a consensus among democrats that Socialism is better than Free Markets – but as a matter of evidence that concensus is false. Assertions are not evidence.
We are not merely entitled to evidence that Shokin was corrupt, but also to evidence that Biden himself had EVIDENCE that Shokin was corrupt.
And that is why the Biden’s must testify.
There is zero debate that Trump is refusing – and has ordered the administration to refuse to cooperate in anyway with Congresses efforts to impeach him.
That is an overly broad assertion of executive power, It is near certain that the House would have prevailed in court over some demands to get documents and witnesses.
Though not likely all.
It is NOT evident in anyway that Trump is engaged in a coverup.
OMB released as required documents regarding their involvment in the hold on Ukraine as a result of a court order and an FOIA request.
Whether you like it or not – the EVIDENCE, is not of a “coverup” but of a political pissing contest between the house democrats and Trump.
One that whether you like it or Not Trump is winning.
No president (except possibly Lincoln) has EVER defied a court order.
Do you have some proof that if SCOTUS ordered Bolton to testify that Trump would (or could) prohibit that ?
When House democrats ran in 2018 – they ran on a moderate platform of cooperating with Trump, of being moderate of finding a middle ground.
None of the moderate democrats that delivered the house to democrats ran on a platform of investigation and impeachment.
I doubt Trump was happy with the Democratic house victory.
Regardless he offered to work with democrats on issues like infrastucture, Trade, Immigration, the dreamers.
Instead Pelosi shut the government down over Wall funding.
Schumer struck a deal with Trump trading wall funding for the Dreamers.
And then renigged.
House democrats then held absolutely disasterous hearing on immigration, the Mueller report, White Supremecy, …. where well prepared witnesses made clear the democrats were engaged in political buffoonery.
Cohen made it clear that as much as he desparately wanted to give Nadler the damning indictment of Trump Nadler begged for, that Cohen was not going to lie to congress AGAIN to do so, and that he could not testify to what Nadler wanted – because it would be lying.
Mueller inherently failed Nadler and democrats in the same way. There was no “there there” in any of this.
Though Mueller should have put the last nails in this mess, House democrats “persisted” – until Horowitz put the final nails in Trump/Russia collusion – not only did it never happen, but the investigation itself was corrupt and by Trump’s innauguration baseless.
House democrats have completely failed at their campaign promise to compromise with Trump.
Instead they have been openly hostile chasing sham claims.
While WB Ciarmiello’s bitter political hatred of Trump does not answer whether his complaint is valid. It does inform us that from Before the 2018 elections there was an organized effort – involving House democrats and many in the “deep state” to Get trump.
A coup attempt. And that the people pushing faux impeachment are the cop leaders.
The courts may ultimately rule that Trump must provide much of what the house has requested. Though that will never happen if the house does not ask the court to do so.
But that does not alter the fact that the spitball contest between house democrats and Trump is political not constitutional, it is absolutely “obstruction of the house”. It is not obstruction of justice.
As a matter of law – you can not obstruct injustice.
The American people by ever growing numbers WANT TO HEAR from witnesses at the GOP impeachment farce:
polls *this week* on support for calling new witnesses:
Monmouth –– 80%
Reuters –– 72%
CNN –– 69%
AP/NORC –– 68%
Jay, I also would like to hear witnesses, sworn in under penalty of law, and only if every individual subpoenaed by the parties agree to testify. Each party gets x number of witnesses that are limited to 4-6 hours for direct and then the same hours for cross examination.
If someone would not testify, what would be the penalry?
But a witness agreement wont happen.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/01/22/joe-biden-osage-iowa-says-he-would-not-entertain-swap-require-him-testify-trump-impeachment-trial/4547144002/
Witnesses do not get to decide if they testify.
I am not personally opposed to Bolton or any of the rest of the contested witnesses testifying.
But I am very much opposed to allowing the democrats the oportunity to corrupt the process further.
I think the Senate has a simple choice.
The house managers can call any witness they interviewed during the impeachment hearings. If there is a witness they want that was not previously heard the Senate will allow the House to withdraw the articles of impeachment go back to the house. litigate if needed to get those witnesses and if after they have testified in the house they wish to try again in the senate, they are free to do so.
Alternatively they can proceed – using their existing witnesses, and whatever witnesses Trump wishes to call.
Or an entirely different alternative – The house managers can have any witnesses they want – that the courts will allow, They will be give 4 days for witnesses starting monday. Trump’s team will be allowed to cross examine each withness, At the end of 4 days – Trump gets 4 days for his witnesses under the same terms.
The house is NOT entitled to any delay.
The house is NOT entitled to unlimited time or unlimited witnesses.
They are not entitled to hearsay
They are not entitled to try to get the Senate to leverage Trump into waiving privilidege.
The other thing I would note – that Graham has noted, is that The impeachment will be over soon. But investigations will not.
Hunter Biden and most of the witnesses Trump wants are with near certainty being called by Graham’s committee in the Senate.
Absolutely nothing prevents house democrats from going through the process to bring Bolton to testify in the house – if they can.
The actual truth of the vast majority of this will ultimately come out – and most of it fairly soon.
Democrats goal is not to get everything out to the light of day.
It is to prevent a narravtive sufficient to remove Trump BEFORE everything comes out.
Durham is plodding along.
I keep saying Republicans like Jordan to quit saying Trump got no investigation.
The Ukraine re-opened the Burisma investigation in Feb 2019 and are quietly and vigorously persuing it. Trump is likely to get the annoucements he purportedly wanted before the election – at a much more damaging time than August 2019.
Jay says there is nothing their regarding the WB – well there is more damaging information each week. And the IC IG wil be questioned in the Senate. Schiff can keep the house transcript secret forever. He can not keep the facts secret.
Slowly the Ukraine story is leaking out.
Biden still does nto have answers.
Of course Biden does nto want to testify – he can’t.
His testimony will destroy impeachment – and all he has to do is answer the same way he has done to the press to do that.
And for many of them – the witnesses they want to hear from are Eric Ciariemello, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden. …
These are all witnesses that not only can be called, but must be called unless this mess is dismissed.
House democrats were free to call any additional witnesses they wanted months ago.
Trump was not. This is the very first oportunity that Trump has received to put on a defense.
We all know that what you want is a star chamber show trial were defendants are gagged and unable to defend themselves.
Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have had 5 months to make their case with witnesses – and they have failed.
Do you really think that anything will change that ?
Trump has had NONE.
BTW Nadler has already conceded – If the only way that democrats get Bolton is to allow Trump Witnesses – then Nadler does not want witnesses.
This was a losing battle from the start.
None of those polled that desparately want Bolton to testify will actually be harmed if he does not – and they will know it.
They will be free to press democrats to subpeona him to the house and to go to court to enforce that subpeona.
I doubt that democrats will do that.
Regardless, the impediment to the witnesses democrats want – is democrats and the courts.
and the law.
The impeditment to the witnesses Trump wants is democrats.
In a fair trial in the Senate – democrats would be free to present in person the admissible testimony or anyone they had questioned in the investigation.
Trump would be free to call any witness relevant to his defense.
I will support you at this very moment to allow democrats to call as witnesses ANYONE who testified in the house.
You claimed their testimony was sufficient to make your case – well present it.
And now it will be subject to real cross examination, and it will be limited to admissible testimony not speculation and hearsay.
I will go further – you want Bolton or whoever.
Go to court. Do whatever it takes, get him into the house, have him testify in your kangaroo court where due process is non-existant.
Then – if he has had anything worthwhile to say – you can have him testify in the Senate.
You had 5 months to make that happen. The longest it has ever taken from request to SCOTUS decision on testimony or documents in an impeachment has been 3 months.
The fact that you have about 3 days left instead of 5 months is because YOU failed.
The bad news is you get all the do overs you want.
IN THE HOUSE.
The Senate should not let you waste their time with this garbage.
The never should have agreed to hear this.
Bring your case or stay home.
If you can not make your case with the evidence you have at hand – a trial is NOT the continuation of an investigation.
No court in the country would let you start a case if proceeding required witnesses that you have never interfiewed – and in this case had not even subpeonad.
This is a political game – and the law and the facts and the power are against you.
And no matter what you claim polls say – YOU are going to be blamed for failure.
Given that we have adopted political cartoons as evidence.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/E8ByUCO6s7DSGdVS6ReW7ksgXR1udcsW_XpycfRlI39tAQHKe-2-u9HWBnXcY577YlM6cdw1luqGQxr7t0adfZqLLtWK73ImMHirx_rOgrRBPDmffs4kRuQCIBlvlwWSKo0ctlUtjhpFRtv0HCI=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu
Speculation, what if’s. crystal balls, who knows.
But this does make me wonder when he has been overseas the last few days, he has China and USMCA trade get finalized and looking at his twitter page most is about anything but impeachment when paging down a couple pages, his polling numbers are going up.
Lets just say being more positive and less confrontational seems to have not been a detriment to him this past week..
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_brian_joondeph/potus_popping_in_the_polls?fbclid=IwAR1t43SD6Ro4hDJi0l0dvKuuNC6_gdrpqEXWL81h7oRfAjBtOk58ZfpE8rM
The article is interesting and I do not want to entirely discount polls.
Most of the time when I talk about polls it is to refute the claims of others.
I think polls are fundamentally flawed.
If you want to know what really matters to people what their true choices and values are you must get answers from an arrangement where the costs of those choices is factored in.
Support for many progressive programs is overwhelming – but it swings as much as 80% – if even a small personal cost is added to those programs.
If you want people to make good choices – they must have “skin in the game”.
This is a fundimental reason why government can not regulate markets.
Government regulators – outside experts have no “skin in the game”.
Global Warming is a beautiful example – assuming absolutely every claims of warmists scientists is true (there is alot of malthusian doom and gloom nonsense that makes the press that no science in the world supports), Factoring the real costs both of reversing CO2 emissions and of not doing so, and using discount rates in the normal ranges – i.e. the amount of time necescary to get a viable payback, No credible economist has ever found that the costs of allowing warming were higher than those of stopping it – it is not even close.
If global warming will kill people – so will radically cutting CO2.
But my point is not specifically about CO2, it is about making choices without personally being impacted by the cost of those decisions.
One of the reasons that universal healthcare and medicare fail – is that consumers are disconnected from costs. That NEVER works. Most European nations with Universal systems require consumers to pay about 1/3 of the cost of their routine healthcare.
IF they do not – demand spike and costs explode.
Most studies have found that medicare driven demand increases are the single most important factor in rising healthcare costs up since the advent of medicare.
Those areas of healthcare that are outside the domain of insurance have had DECLINES in costs. Sex re-assignment surgery – as ALL Cosmetic surgey has declined radically in price – in both real and nominal dollars, as has lasik.
Not only must human decision making be explicitly welded to costs to be good, but that link is also critical to driving costs down. The market knowledge that fewer people buy as the cost rises and more as it declines – is More important than competition in driving prices down.
The wealthiest people in the world – do not sell diamonds and rolls roices to the uber rich.
They sell toilet paper and mops to the working class.
Whatever product you make – even if you have a complete monopoly on it, you can still profit MORE if you can make it cheaper and sell it cheaper because the market increases exponentially with declining costs
This is also true of polls and voting. And it is what is wrong with much of what government does. Because it divorces the people who have to pay for the benefits government delivers from those making decisions about those benefits – choices are made with inadequate information.
Dave “Most studies have found that medicare driven demand increases are the single most important factor in rising healthcare costs up since the advent of medicare.”
That is true, but one must look at the underlying causes of that happening And these are not listed in any way based on impact.
1.In many states like North Carolina, the government has certificate of need laws. This requires each provider to prove there is additional demand in an area to warrant another million dollar + service and if they can not provide that data, they can not get that certificate. When that certificate is not authorized, medicare and Medicaid patients can not use that service, along with some private payers that may follow government ruies. So that limits competition and allows providers to charge whatever. In addition, when equipment manufacturers of machines like MRI’s and CT Scanners are limited to the number they can sell, they cost of those machines are higher, thus raising costs.
2. CMS requires providers to bill by line item. That means each drug, each supply, each procedure, room, operating room usage, etc has to be billed on the patients bill. So you go in for open heart and your doctor uses specific supplies and orders specific test, your bill comes out $50,000. Mine uses different procedures, different test, etc, mine comes out $60,000. So there is no way a provider can provide you and I an actual cost due to government billing requirements. When that happens, we can not pick a hospital with the lower costs because the hospitals can not assure us that they are the lowest cost. Government regulations for healthcare placed on the auto industry would result in 10 page invoices for cars since the steering wheel would be listed, engine, brakes, tires, etc would all be listed, No way a hospital can bill you “open Heart Surgery $50,000” and that your invoice.
3. Medicare and Medicaid for years paid “medicare/caid costs” Most hospitals had 40%-50% of their patients covered by those programs. So when doctors wanted the newest and greatest medical services, why not offer it. Medicare is going to cover 50% of all the new cast, and by golly we have expects in the healthcare filed that gives us “tips” on shifting that cost over to Medicare. We get that training once or twice a year in seminars. So from 1978 to the late 90’s there was no incentive to reduce costs.
4. Medicare paying costs for those patients shifted the “profit” part of the equation over to private payers, thus raising their costs.
5. And there are other issues, but the rising life expectancy, the new medical treatments available that cost a fortune that were not available 20-40 years ago that now prolong life, but you died back then, has significantly increased costs. My uncle died in the mid 90’s from heart attacks. The medical treatments today that would save his life were not widely available then. In fact JAMA reported in 2018 that 25% of medical spending is made in the last 12 months of individuals lives. That is a huge number, especially considering that most all of that is for Medicare and only growing.
The “underlying cause” is trivial – it is the laws of supply and demand.
If you reduce the cost to a consumer for a service without decreasing the actual cost, while leaving the decision to consume in the hands of the consumer – you will spike demand beyond supply and drive prices up.
This is basic economics dating back to Adam Smith.
It even has a name “moral hazzard”.
Though it appears in many markets, it is especially prevalent in insurance.
It is always a danger when the person who pays for a service and the person who consumes it are not the same.
The other items you cite such as Certificate of need laws are ADDITIONAL stupid actions by government that drive up prices.
Medicare simply by virtue of the fact that it has radically increased the consumption of healthcare has increased the cost of healthcare and that ALONE is the single largest factor in rising US healthcare prices.
I do not disagree with your other claims. They too drive costs up.
But you could elimiate every one of them and still get much of the cost increases we have seen.
There is no other known means of allocating resources separate from free markets that transforms scarcity into abundance and lowers prices. NONE,
They are plenty of schemes that increase costs – anything that constrains free markets increases costs.
?????, Nothing here
Heaven forbid. Jay will have a cow!😳
Censure her!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sen-dianne-feinstein-leaves-trump-impeachment-trial-early-wednesday-night/ar-BBZeQQA
Vitamin B1:
And this per Trump’s snide remark about injured troop headaches:
– 34 US troops diagnosed with concussions or TBIs;
– 8 sent to Germany now in the US for more treatment;
– 9 sent to Germany still being treated there;
– 1 sent to Kuwait and then back to Iraq;
– 16 diagnosed in Iraq, returned to duty there.
Your link has nothing to do with your claim.
If you are at the pentagon and in a meeting with Trump then I am hard pressed to call you a hero.
These are not people who have lead actual troops under fire. These are people who do the same thing as people playing war games on the internet – except with real people and real weapons. And thus far they have not done very well.
Before you lionize those like Mattis – you should actually know the policies they advocate.
Before you demand they should be listened to – you should know what they are saying – not about Trump, but about how the US should act militarily in the world.
When you endorse the Pentagon over Trump – you take personal ownership of THEIR policies – and you should know what those are first.
Please read Mattis’s book – he outlines his view of US power and the military and the future.
He is not nuts. He is articulate and his views are well thought out.
But his idea about the role of the US and our military in the rest of the world is radically different from that of not just Trump – but 90% of americans.
Mattis wants a strong military – and he wants to use it. He wants US troops deployed as they are in Afghanistan – but to conflicts throughout the world – for decades.
He quite litterally sees the US as the policmen of the world – he beleives that is a good thing and that it is the duty of this country, and that it is a wise route to prosperity.
I do not agree with Mattis, but that does not mean he does not have a credible and well argued position. It is likely that he is accurate on the benefits and costs of his policies.
But his polices will result in american soldiers by the thousands dying every year in foreign fights that are not our own.
That Trump and Mattis are not on the same page shoudl not surprise anyone.
I would further note that Trump is at odds with our military LEADERS, Not the military itself.
Not the soldiers Trump is favored 2:1 by ordinary soldiers – but disfavored almost 2:1 by officers.
I would further note that nearly all our current military leaders are NOT “heros”.
Please name a single member of the current top brass in the military that has WON a military conflict ? There is no doubt that our ordinary soldiers can defeat any force that goes toe-to-toe with them. We have even had some success at slightly higher operational levels.
Grenada was inconsequential – but still a victory. As was panama. Gulf War I was consequential and victorious. As was the actual initial military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. But neither – nor anything else since has resulted in “victory”
Nor has the Balkans, Somalia, Libya, Nigeria, …..
But if you are going to claim these are heros deserving of our tremendous respect that would also apply to Gen. Flynn and Gen. Petreus – who have strongly supported Trump’s military policies.
Regardless, the modern top military is only distinguishable from those during vietnam by using computers and powerpoints rather than slide rules.
Respect is due to those who succeed – our soldiers have succeeded – their commanders have failed.
Inarguably – we would be out of afghanistan 2 years ago had Trump not taken the advice of the people you are calling heros.
They made promises – and THEY failed to deliver – and Soldiers have died. And they want to continue the same disasterous policies – forever – that is litterally what Mattis’s book argues – that Afghanistan and Iraq are not failures, but are successes – that we should be prepared to do the same – staying for decades and spending trillions of dollars.
I do not have a problem with Trump going to DoD and tearing them a new asshole.
These are not Hero’s.
Vitamin B2:
When Biden was VP – the VA was a mess – it is still far from perfect, but after multiple presidents have promised improvements – Trump has actually delivered.
Primarily by allowing vets to get private healthcare if the VA could not meet their needs in a reasonable time frame.
Obama/Biden promised to bring vest home from these pointless foreign escapades.
Yet by the end of Obama’s term US forces were fighting in MORE pointless wars thant when he was inaugurated.
Trump’s popularity among grunts rather than officers is unmatched – 2:1
I think the actual soldiers – as opposed to desk jockies no who gives a shit about them.
Trump was not in the military – one of Few US presidents who was not.
Despite his bluster. Trump is the most reluctant president to put US soldiers in harms way of any president since Reagan. He seems to take seriously the interests of the actual soldiers.
Further unlike many of their own officers – who seem more interesed in their carreers, Trump seems to value the lives of US Servicemen and is not callously wasting them.
These are things that matter.
Oddly we have nearly seen a reversal of the parties on this issue.
While Republicans have and remain advocates of a strong military and though both parties seem content to buy our brass ever more toys, Inarguably Republicans spend more an the military than democrats.
But just about every 2016 GOP presidential candidate (Sen. Graham excepted) ran on a platform of getting us the hell out of conflicts that had no consequential US Interest.
Despite the fact that Obama ran on the same platform – promising to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq and to shutdown Gitmo in 90 days.
8 years latter we were in MORE conflicts – not less.
Trump is going FAR TO SLOW but he does appear to ge getting us the hell out
Given a choice betweeen Biden’s record and Trump’s record regarding our military – there is a very clear choice.
You can buy what Biden says – the same things he said in 2008, Or you can buy what he did.
You have the same choice with Trump.
Jay – If you want to tell me that Trump LIED with respect to ending our involvement in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan – I will agree!!! He promissed we would be out of all those places long ago. And we are not. The primary reason we are not is he actually gave “the generals” – the people you say he should be listening to, a chance. They failed, and Trump is angry. So am I. He should not have given them a chance – they had 16 years of chances, they did not need more. But he did, and he shouldn’t have and I am angry with him over that.
But there is good reason to beleive that Trump will get us out – if not as fast as he promissed.
Biden has a 8 year record of FAILURE to deliver on that same promise. Of ESCALATING our conflicts.
There is no reason at all to beleive Biden.
But we already know that in Jay world – you only look at words and not actions not facts. not reality
If our soldiers were the determinative issue – I would vote for Gabbard in a heart beat.
I beleive she is far less willing to waste the lives of US Soldiers in pointless conflicts.
I would take her on that over Trump.
But there is not another – republican or Democrat I would take over Trump on not wasting the lives of our soldiers.
And there is not a member of the top Brass I would trust more than the politicians – of either party, and that is bad.
Go read the Afghan papers. It is Vietnam all over again.
Our leaders in the defense department are not heros, they are liars.
‘
But again – you do not seem to know what a real lie is.
Question: if President ‘Truthful’ doesn’t know ‘this guy Parnes’ how does he show up in so many venues so close to Trump? Does Parnes have a Secret Service ‘Visit President’ pass?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437
How many other grifting lowlifes like Parnas were/are allowed to get this close to the president?
How many other lies from grifting lowlifes did Trump believe and then incorporate when making official decisions?
How many assholes continue to defend this kind of crap?
‘Reminder: this is a campaign finance story. Parnas and Fruman’s political contributions—including an illegally laundered $325,000 to a Trump super PAC—bought them their access, which they used to push for Yovanovitch’s removal. #NoSecretSpending #FixtheFEC’
The FEC can not be fixed.
Just abolish it.
All the FEC does is creat lots of fake crimes like this.
You continue to say money laundering when you wish to slur uses of money that you do not like. ‘
Contributing to a political campaign is not “money laundering”.
It is not your business of mine who contributes how much to who.
I get to choose what I do with my money. If I want to burn it, spend it on caviar, drugs, or presidentical candidates of my preference – that is entirely my business.
And you have absolutely no right to interfere.
Calling what I have done with my own money by some dirty sounding name does not change the fact that it is my money – not yours and you have no legitimate voice in what I do with it.
Whether I contribute it to Trump or Sanders – it is not your business.
After I have given my money to someone else – you have no business deciding what THEY can do with that money – how they spend it.
If I want to spend money to Remove Yavonovitch – that is my business.
Though I can not make any sense out of your nonsense claims.
Trump asked Yavonovitch to leave Ukraine – she was actually already beyond her normal term. Further she was an obama apointee.
Trump removing Yavonovitch required ZERO federal or private dollars.
It merely required Trump to say – you serve at the pleasure of the president and I want someone else.
So you are selling an obviously BUNK story.
If this is a story of campaign finance – then it is a story of the stupidity of government meddling in free speach and the political process.
The power of goernment comes from the people – not government. The legitimacy of the covernment comes from the people, not the government.
Government has incredibly little authority over the political process – almost entirely confined to voting itself and even there confined purely to enforcing the constitutional criteria for voting. NOTHING ELSE
Those in government has ZERO business at all making decisions of any kind regarding elections.
You do not put the fox in charge of the hen house. Government regulation of elections is absolutely the most dangerous thing that government does.
As the PV film of the Sanders surrogate talking about violent revolution if Sanders is not elected – when Government puts its thumb on the scales of elections – the only remedy is violent revolution.
It is governments job to assure that only those constitutionally allowed to vote can vote, and that votes are accurately counted.
THAT IS ALL. Anything beyond that is actually meddling in the political process.
Government is barred from deciding who will be the next government.
The impeachment of Nixon was specifically about Government trying to control who would be the next government.
The criminal aspect of Crossfire Huricane is the same. The illegitimacy of Mueller and the faux impeachment are Both about Government trying to put its fingers on the scales of the next election.
Even the bogus claims about Trump – are a claim that the power of Trump as President was used to influence an election.
All the things you want – are unconstitutional efforts to influence the outcome of an election.
What you keep trying to call law is lawless.
I beleive Donald Trump put 200M of his own money into 2016. That is prefectly legal.
I beleive Blumeberg and Steyer are seeking to put the same or even more into their own elections – also legal.
Bloomberg has just run a massive add blitz which you are touting – all paid for himself.
A big man with a massive amount of money clearly trying to influence the election.
Exactly what you claim shoudl be illegal – but it is not, and hypocrtically you are chearing him own.
Dumping millions into a campaign is OK – if and only if if favors those you like or harms those you do not.
That is EXACTLY what we do not want. The only control you have over an election – is that of your won actions – your own votes, your own political contributions.
You are NOT entitled to control over that of others. Not their vote, not their voice, not their contributions,
I would further ask you – Bloomberg is spending millions. You are touting the results of that spending.
Is Bloomberg buying manhole covers ? Is he buying Yacht’s ?
No. He is using money to SPEAK. but because he is saying things you like – your OK with that.
Only you do not get to decide who can speak or what they can say.
Thousands of people show up at assorted republican fund raisers.
We went through this same nonsense with Obama, and pictures of him with terrorists.
But there was a real difference – Obama actually worked together with these people.
There was no denying they :”knew each other”.
Regardless, as I noted My sister has lots of photos of Nixon – some of them signed. She has his autograph. She even has a real autograph – not machine signed. She has a note from Rose Mary Woods about getting that autograph.
But she never met Nixon or Woods.
I would imagine Trump is photgraphed witrh hundreds of people every day – as was Obama.
I do not actually give a damn if Trump knew Parnas.
I do not give a damn if Trump and Gulliani and Parnas and Furman ACTUALY ploted to “Make Up” Dirt on Biden.
Nothing that involved Guiliani, Parnas, Furman, etc. is at all relevant.
Because anything that Trump does through private actors is private – it is not a use of government power.
Trump can plot with Guiliani to spray completely bogus crap about Biden – just as Hillary used Elias to work with Simpson and Steele to manufacture dirt on Trump.
You are free to not like it and to vote against it, but it is not illegal. It is not even the business of government or law enforcement.
The problem with the “russia hoax” was not Clinton or Elias, or Simpson, or Steele, or Downer. So long as those actions did not intersect with the FBI, State or CIA those actions were legal. And even to the extent they intersected – out side of lhying to investigators and congress the malfeasance in the Trump/Russia Hoax was not the conduct of private actors.
The entire abuse of power under color of law and violation of rights took place inside of government.
There is no difference with respect to the law between the actions of Steele, Simpson, Nellie Ohr, Downer, Elias and Clinton than the actions of Trump, with respect to Guiliani, and Parnas and Furman.
To the extent that the government had a basis to investigate Clinton. Elias, Simpson and Steele, it is only in the context of determining the misconduct of GOVERNMENT officials in response.
Further government – FBI, DOJ, CIA, State ARE free to and even SHOULD accept allegations from private sources – even those that are politically biased – whether that is Guilliani or Steele.
But it is required to view those allegations skeptically and MORE IMPORT, to verify as much as possible before relying on them.
Gulliani can make whatever allegations he wishes regarding Biden or the Ukraine.
There is no constraint on that – he is a private actor. There is no crime involved.
To the extent that DOJ or FBI chose to investigate those allegations – they must verify them before using them.
The same is True of Clinton/Steele.
You keep trying to pretend that Trump has done something wrong – because he has done something you do not like.
While I am absolutely adamant that Clintons conduct regarding her bathtub email server is a crime.
I have also consistently from the beginning asserted that the conduct of Clinton, Elias, Simpson, and Steele (shor to lying to congress or the FBI) was LEGAL.
That does not change because we are not discussing Guiliani, Parnas, Furman.
Nadler’s Senate remarks regarding Guiliani etc are wrong, and they would be inadmissible in court.
The entire Ukraine vector From Trump through Guiliiani is not a matter for government, the FBI, DOJ, or the house. There actions can not be legitimately investigated, there is no allegation of an actual crime. And there is no abuse of power – Guiliani is not a member of the federal government and Trump can not by whatever directions he gives Guiliani abuse power as there is no excercise of executive power.
To find abuse of power – you must find an act by Trump AS PRESIDENT, directing action of the US government. You can not abuse power without USING government power.
There is a reason that House Democrats have wasted time slandering Guliiani, but are not calling him to testify.
Nothing Trump told Guillani can be an abuse of power.
If Parnas visited the president – there are logs recording that.
Those can be obtained via subpeona or FOIA request and whitehouse vistors logs are generally publicly available after the fact. The presidents future schedule is classified, But his past is not.
BTW, while the SS must vet visitors to the president. Records regarding visitors – beyond determining if they are a threat tot he president’s life, are kept by the whitehouse not the secret service.
The SS is for security, they are not the whitehouse secretaries.
Further SS will be classified. While WH vistors logs are not.
Isn’t witness tampering/threatening jurors in a trial illegal?
Listen to Nadler and Schiff – every word out of their mouths in this is a threat.
I doubt the story you are touting is true – I am highly dubious of all these stories that tell us what is being said – without quoting anyone.
Who is “team Trump” ? and what is it they actually said ?
Neither you nor the media are credible on this.
Not that it matters.
Witness or jury tampering requires a threat to do something you can not legitimately do.
If Trump is litterally going to put a senators head on a pike – that would be jury tampering.
If that is a political threat it is no different from Democrats claiming that the sky will fall or of voters – either supporting the president or opposing him claiming that they will vote FOR or against candidates based on their vote.
I would further note – that the moment you said Impeachment does not require a crime – you trashed all your jury nonsense.
When Impeachment and trial is purely a political process – criminal laws do not apply, even the concepts do not apply.
This is no different from any other vote. Pelosi whipped votes in the house. Schumer is whipping votes in the Senate – so are Republicans – none of this is new.
BTW during the clinton impeachment Senate Democratic leaders Actively coordinated with Clinton and also worked hard to twist the arms of democratic senators.
Lets not pretend that you suddenly discovered that politics is political.
That whoring goes on in the whore house.
That said = I do not actually beleive your story. If there was truth to it – we would have real verifiable quotes.
The concequence of getting caught in lots of big lies – for you and the media – is that no one beleives you.
A couple of years ago – I would have checked the assertions you (or NYT made). Actually I probably would have accepted factual representations from CBS, CNN, NYT, …
Today ? I assume they are false. I am not bothering to verify them.
When you have been caught lying constantly – no one listens to what you say anymore.
“I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration,” said Susan Collins of Maine, whose vote might be in play. Another, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said Schiff “lost me” with the comment.
So more lies from Schiff and the left.
Democrats attributing to Trump what they do themselves.
This claim originated with Schiff.
When he presented it TWICE there was audible shock from Senators – specifically by republican senators like Collins and other “moderates”.
It Trump is actually threatening GOP senators – it is near certain to drive them AWAY from him. Trump has very little to threaten a Republican Senator with. At best he can assure that a democrat wins their seat in the next election.
Within the house and senate those with the actual ability to threaten members are the minority and majority leaders. Who control committee asignments and other political largess.
No doubt McConnell works with Trump. But he has shown zero relictance to go his own way when he is at odds with Trump He just does nto go YOUR way.
I am not a fan of McConnell at all. But the claim that he is a mere Trump apartich is ludicrous.
McConnell has been strong arming Senators to get his way for as long as he has lead republicans – just as Pelosi, and Schumer and Reid and ….
BTW NYT – found Schiff’s head on a pike Claim to be fraudulent.
Lindsey Graham’s bizarre explanation for why Trump shouldn’t be removed from office: Trump didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.
“If he thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it,”
That’s an interesting twist on the mental incompetence defense: dysfunctional sociopaths take notice.
Go listen to the whole clip.
You are misrepresenting it.
I was actually going to post on Grahama remarks – because they were excellent.
He made several points that are often ignored and Graham is actually the perfect person to make them.
Graham stated the Aide was NOT released because of the WB complaint – that BTW is where Graham said Trump does not beleive he did anything wrong – I will get to that further.
But Trump did not give a crap about th WB complaint. It did not influence him.
What did influence Trump was getting a phone call from BOTH Sen. Graham and Sen Portman who told Trump they would be voting with democrats to order the funds released.
Trump realized that he did not have the votes to continue to hold the funds so the next day he released them.
The Timeline of events validates Graham’s claim NOT the House claim that the WB made him do it.
Graham asserted that Trump likely would have continued to hold Ukraine funds but for the fact that he would lose in the Senate and a fight over Ukraine funding that put him at odds with lots of republicans would weaken his ability to win on other issues like the Border wall – which he won hugely in the recent Budget fight.
But Graham went further. He noted that He and Trump are at odds over Foreign aide.
That Graham heavily supports aide to Ukraine, and many many other places.
Graham is a hawk and a neo-con. Graham openly stated that he and Trump DISAGREE on foreign aide. But that Trump won the GOP nomination and he did not. That as president Trump has cut foreign aide – military and otherwise all over the place.
Graham said read the transcript – Trump told Zelensky to get more aide from the EU – he neighbors. That Ukraine was half the world away from the US, but right on the doorstep of the EU.
That Trump has been actively trying to get out of Nigeria – and that Graham and other republicans (and democrats) have thwarted that.
That there is no evidence at all that Trump withheld Aide to the Ukraine to get an investigation of Biden. But that he had several reasons for doing so that are completely consistent with his actions elsewhere as president.
That he has been trying to cut foreign aide everywhere.
That Zelensky ran on a “drain the swamp” platform – but has several corrupt oligarchs in powerful positions in his government.
That Trump does not think that Ukraine is consequential. That he thinks spending money on Ukraine is sending it down a rathole.
Graham pointed out that in his and Portmans phone call with Trump – neither Biden nor the call to Zelensky came up. Trump argued for holding or cutting aide. He argued about getting the EU to chip in – no mention at all of Biden.
Of course Trump did not think he did anything wrong – because he didn’t.
You have manufactured entirely a narative about Trump’s actions.
Things go to hell when you try to mid read others.
You want to disagree with Graham’s conclusions about Trump’s motives – fine.
But there is more reason to beleive Graham is correct than to beleive you are.
And more importantly there is no reason in the world to beleive that ANYONE knows what Trumps ” reasons” were.
This is why – motives for legal acts are irrelevant.
You keep putting the carte before the horse.
You need to prove the act was bad, and you can not do that by guessing at motives.
And this is what happens when you talk out of both sides of your mouth:
“The House has filed a letter with the Appeals Court arguing that Trump’s impeachment lawyers have completely contradicted their arguments in the McGahn case.”
The DOJ continues to fight House subpoenas of witnesses saying it has no right to do so; but now Trump’s impeachment lawyers are criticizing the House for not taking people to court for fighting subpoenas.
Trump Admin to Congress: You need to litigate your subpoenas in court. That’s what courts are for.
Trump Admin to Courts: You can’t adjudicate these subpoenas. That’s not what courts are for.
You have the most bizzare deffintion of contradiction in the world.
The argument in the McGahn case and the Trump impeachment lawyers is THE SAME.
In the McGahn Case Trump expects THE COURTS to decide the house has no right to McGahns testimoney.
In the impeachment case Trump is saying not only does’nt the house have the right to this testimoney – but they have so little confidence in their own claims they are unwilling to take them to court.
The contradiction is of the houses position Not Trump’s.
Logic is clearly not your forte.
Who is the bigly-biggest dickhead?
Nixon tried to hide 18 minutes of evidence — Trump Is hiding ALL he can of it.
Tricky Dick had enough moral balance to resign.
Dicky Donald is too morally unbalanced to give a shit his conduct.
Nixon did not face impeachment for erasing 18min of tape.
He faced impeachment for directing aides to collect political funds to pay for the silence of the watergate burglars.
For actively engaging in the coverup of a crime after the fact.
The watergate burglary was a REAL crime. arranging to pay witnesses to keep silent about a REAL CRIME is also a crime.
There is BTW much more involved in Watergate if you ever bother to look into it – or if you are old enough to remember – the tape erasure was disturbing, but it was not dispositive.
You can beleive the tape was deliberately erased – though Rose Mary Wood testified that she did so accidentally – and I do not actually beleive Woods would lie for Nixon – but I know you have no problem accusing people of lying. Regardless, Woods had 35 years to recant and never did.
I do not think Nixon’s conduct was all that unusal – we know alot about LBJ and Nixon was a saint in comparison. By most any criteria for abuse of power – LBJ is top of the list.
The man stuffed ballot boxes.
That said – MOSTLY, Nixon’s actions were outside of government. Nixon wanted to use the FBI and IRS against political enemies – but he failed, and John Mitchell formed the Plumbers – an OUTSIDE group to do what Nixon could not get government agencies to do for him.
The problem with the Plumbers was they broke the law – they burglarized the DNC and Elsburg’s psychiatrist. And then they got caught.
Well The Obama administration actually DID what Nixon wanted.
While we do not have a link between Obama and Louis Lerner – LL’s actions were criminal. She litterally used the IRS against Obama’s enemies – aside from the use of the IRS to target Tea Party groups, we also KNOW that she arranged audits and harrassment of groups she deemed hostile to Obama and we know that a number of tax returns of Obama enemies were leaked to the press during his term and these all flowed through LL.
We know she forwarded them to DOJ and the WH. We do not know how they got to the press yet.
We know that Obama used the FBI to spy on journalists. The FBI has actually admitted this in court. We know that the CIA spied on Senators.
Admiral Rogers essentially confirmed that the Mass Surveilance that Snowden exposed was being used highly improperly by private NSA contractors.
There is an uncorroborated claim that the DNC hack had nothing to do with getting DNC emails. it was because the DNC was getting information from Private NSA contracotrs to use for political purposes and some foreign power found out about this and hacked the DNC to get this NSA data. This explains why the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at their servers.
We also know that afte rRogers shut down NSA access for private contractors, that Obama authorized significantly more people to access raw intelligence data AND to request unmasking – the number of people with access to raw intelligence and the number of unmasking requests increased exponentially until the end of the Obama administration.
No one has ever provided an explanation for these.
Powers claims that she did not make the thousands of requests attributed to her – and there is reason to beleive she is telling the truth – but someone did, and though very disturbing if powers it is inarguably criminal if it was not powers.
And then we have what Horowitz found.
Not since watergate has the power of government been used against political opponents on such flimsy grounds. Obama’s FBI did exactly what Nixon begged the FBI to do, but they refused. And while Horowitz found that – just barely they had sufficient basis to start – that the investigation RELENTLESSLY undercut itself from day one. That the day after the investigation started there was LESS reason to beleive that there was anything to investigate and that this worsened until just before the inauguration when there was nothing left to investigate and the investigation should have been shut down.
And shortly after that – with no new evidence – Rosenstien appointed Mueller to investigate something that all those in the investigation already knew was a fraud.
You really do not understand – Horrowitz proved that the Mueller investigation was an abuse of power.
You say Trump is hiding things ?
He gave Mueller everything he asked for. Trump never fought a single Mueller document request or Subpeona, he never asserted executive privildge with Mueller even though numerous instances he clearly had the power to do so. Trump never took Mueller to court over anything.
He pissed and moaned, he insulted Mueller – and we now know deservedly. He decried the partisan witch hunt.
But he gave him whatever he wanted.
In fact through the entire mess the only stonewalling was from Rosenstein and the FBI – who you would have thought would do what Trump asked. Trump ordered all of this declassiefied – and STILL it has not been.
More recently Trump has responded to FOIA requests for material that the House has subpeona’d.
Aparently it is beyond you, but this fight is not about hiding anything – it is about saying screw you to the house.
The 2nd article of impeachment is essentially a contempt of the house claim.
That one is absolutely completely true. Trump has enormous contempt for those in the house playing this nonsense impeachment game – deservedly so.
Absolutely Trump is refusing to cooperate with them. And I would even agree that he is asserting priviledge that he is mostly not going to win in court.
But it is not about hiding anything it is a political power game between Trump and the house.
Democrats won the house by promising bipartisanship and as a result of dozens of moderate dems who said they would work with Trump. That is what people wanted .
But the wingnuts in the democratic party took over. Increasingly I think it is likely that the house flips back in 2020. You can not measure how democrats will do in 2020 by looking at blue districts. Absolutely the deep blue seats are never flippling. Nadler, Schiff and Pelosi are unlikely to pay a price for their stupidity, and malfeasance – but democrats elected in pink districts are likely to pay.
This is not about hiding anything. This is about hard ball politics between Trump and house democrats.
“Trump Admin to Courts: You can’t adjudicate these subpoenas. That’s not what courts are for.”
That is not what Trump has argued. He has made a constituional claim of executive priviledge.
BTW though that is not what Trump argued – it is a legitimate argument – and one of the more famous early supreme court cases run pretty much like that.
You are literally dealing with one of the most significant supreme court cases ever Marbury Vs. Madison.
In marbury the supreme court decided that it was the final authority on the constitution (and that the constitution was the binding law of the land)
Even the decision that something is outside the scope of the courts – and SCOTUS has in many instances decided that something is constitutionally outside its scope, is still a supreme court decision.
If Trump is arguing what you claim – he is arguing that:
Congress does nto have the power to issue (or enforce) these supeona’s, and that the court must decide that it too has no role in adjudicating this conflict.
I suspect that argument will not be a winner. But there is atleast on landmark case prior to the civil war where SCOTUS decided exactly that.
Regardless, there is no contradiction.
If what you represent as being argued is correct – and you are not a trustworthy source.
Trump is arguing that in this instance neither the house nor the court has the power to enforce the subpeona’s.
That is not contradicted by saying the house must go to court.
It is just Trump’s expectation that the court will say the house can not enforce its subpeona, and we do not have the authority to order that.
I think that argument is unlikely to prevail. I also think it is unlikely that Trump’s legal team made that argument – but it is a bad argument not a self contradictory one.
But what the house is purportedly responding IS self contradictory.
Logic really is not your forte.
Nadler misrepresented the Johnson impeachment – but somehow that is appropriate.
The consensus of history is that Johnson was a poor president, but that his impeachment was purely political and a huge mistake.
My expectation is that the Trump impeachment will play worse in history.
Trump will be re-elected. The impeachment will be viewed as an attempt to thwart that.
In the Johnson impeachment there was a manufactured crime from an unconstitutional law.
In the Trump impeachment there is no crime at all.
Read the Johnson articles of impeachment – they sound exactly like what the house is offering. Johnson aparently talked much like Trump does and like trump he responded to verbal slings and arrows of his enemies with verbal slings and arrows of his own.
And was impeached for that.
Regardless, Johnson was far less popular than Trump he was not removed from office because a few senators broke ranks from their party and said – they could not in good conscience impeach Johnson no matter how much they disagreed or even hated him.
Here is Dinesh D’Souza demonstrating that there is little difference btween Fascism and modern progressivism. That not only are the roots of facsism socialist but that short of the fascination of 1930’s fascists with nationalism they are otherwise indistinguishable from modern progressives.
D’Souza is the only person ever convicted of the Crime Lev Parnas is being investigated for, and D’Souza was properly pardoned by Trump.
D’Souzas real crime was making movies about Obama that Obama did not like.
The prosecution of D’Souza for a crime no one has ever been prosecuted for is an abuse of power – for PERSONAL and political gain.
Yet no one was calling for Obama’s impeachment.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
CS Lewis
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
― Thomas Jefferson,
Obvious. Correct.
It is obvious that neither you nor Joe live in the real world.
The same people who were telling us it is obvious that Trump colluded with Russia are telling us all kinds of other things that are obvious.
In fact there is only one thing that is OBVIOUS – that is that there is good reason to investigate the Bidens.
I linked the clip to “the Hills” “The Rising” that is supposed to be one of those left right debate shows with millenial hosts. Except I have not been able to figure out for sure which is “the right” or more accurately BOTH are fairly left. Yet BOTH understood perfectly clearly that The Biden’s were fair game for investigation.
Anyone with a clue should grasp that is where this ends.
If Joe Biden decided not to run for President – would it have been legitimate for Trump to ask for an investigation ? Of Course it would.
If it was President Obama asking for an investigation of a drug addicted member of McCains or Romney’s family who had followed them arround during the bush administration and made millions everywhere they went with no skills. And McCain or Romney in some official capacity had demanded a prosecutor investigating their son be fired – would Obama asking for an investigation be justified ?
If you flipped the parties, not only would there be no impeachment, there would not even be complaints about the investigation.
Adam Schiff made an impassioned closing – it was emotionally appealling, it even plagferized John Adams.
His closing argument was essentially
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
The problem is that Adam Schiff is obviously NOT a moral person.
He peppered his close with appeals to “truth”. Yet, the problem is that Schiff, and Walsh and you OBVIOUSLY have no idea what Truth is.
We do not detemine facts by beleif. We determine them by evidence.
But it is clear that YOU do.
Schiff is the modern Joe McCarthy – seeing Russian Assets in all his political enemies.
He was right – but too dumb to heed his own words.
“If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed…….and we will deserve it.”
Lindsey Graham 5/3/16
By what measure are we not better off in 2020 than in 2016 ?
All that appears to be “destroyed” are the dreams of political domination and control of the left.
A decade ago, demographics was destiny, we were purportedly on the cusp of complete political dominance by the left. The Financial crisis gave democrats dominating control of the entire federal government. After eight years of progressive democratic rule republicans had retaken the entire federal government, including Trump defeating Hillary Clinton as president something that even today few of us can understand how that happened.
‘
President Mafioso Speaks:
“Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.”
Question: how did someone Trump says he doesn’t know get close enough to secretly record him?
You have a problem with firing Yavonovitch ?
Dignified Donnie at it again:
(Would his hidden taxes show income from Murdoch)?
“Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC!’
Your Perfect leader – destroying presidential decorum forevermore.
Trump is not the first politician to adopt Alinsky’s tactics.
BTW – you are likely aware that Cheif Justice Roberts admonished both sides for slandersous remarks during the impeachment trial a few days ago.
But you are likely not aware of the back story.
Sen. Collins was listening to Rep. Nadler slander the entire Republican Senate Caucus repeatedly and sent a note to Roberts saying that this had to stop.
You still do not understand that when you insult people – you lose them forever. Nadler’s attacks on the Senate made it crystal clear that the House Managers were not making any effort to persuade Republicans, They were just trying to use the Senate Trial as a political platform.
The ratings for this are in the tank. I know of almost no one who has watched it.
Purportedly both Collin’s and Romney are fed up and angry – with the house performance.
Today’s best observation: “How can any Republican’s head end up on a pike if it’s already stuck up Trump’s ass?”
Jay,
You continue to fail to grasp that you the left, democrats have lied so much – you are the boy who cried wolf.
Maybe the audio recording – is Parnas Recording Trump from a seat at Trump’s right elbow.
Maybe it proves that Trump conspired with Parnas to get rid of Yavonovitch.
Maybe Trump has threatened Republican Senators.
But SO MUCH of what has been reported has proved false – you have immunized Trump if you ever manage to find actual proof of something. Again YOU have done that.
You have beg and pleaded and demanded and frothed and foamed and threated to get us to beleive so many things that were lies.
That almost no one beleives you.
There is no pee tape, Cohen did not go to Prague, Page is not a Russian Asset, Trump was spied on, Biden did extort Ukraine. Trump did not start a nucler war with North Korea, or Iran, He did grudgingly provide lethal military aide to Ukraine – which Obama did not. He has cut US aide to many foreign countries. There has not been a recession, the economy is frowning faster than under Obama, unemployement has continued to decline, U/kraine is corrupt and did interfere in the 2016 election, and on and on and on.
You have either been flat out wrong about claims or where there was even a germ of truth – the actual truth was quite different than you claimed.
When you lie ONCE about another person – you does so at the cost of your own integrity.
When you do so over and over – you will not be beleived even if for once you are truthful about everything.
I do not know and do not care about this alleged recording.
There is an infinitely long list of things I do not know about it.
If you, and the media had been honest and truthful in the past, I would take it a bit more seriously.
But given the past 3 years – I am not even prepared to accept on faith that it is Trump or recorded by Parnas, not that those things being true would change much.
But the track record of the left, the press, democrats and you is so poor.
You took offense at Trump saying “lyin Adam Schiff” – Why ?
Schiff has been caught in so many lies. I can not say no one beleives him anymore – obviously many people do. But no one whose judgement I would respect believes schiff.
So no I am not offended that Trump called schiff a liar.
We know nothing about this recording – except that if we accept all the claims about it – it still poses no problem.
All we know for certain is that someone recorded someone else who appears to be Trump asking for what appears to be the ouster of Yavonovitch.
I do not care if this is Trump and Parnas was eating from Trump’s plate at the time.
It would change nothing.
But in terms of what YOU think ?
We do not know this is Trump,.
We do not know that Parnas recorded it.
We do not know where Parnas was at the time he recorded it.
As you asked we do not know if Parnas was close or not, or how he got close.
You are asking everyone else to disprove an assertion that has little meaning and is itself weak – more inuendo than fact. ‘
You continue to fail to grasp what is evidence and fact and truth.
Lastest WP poll has Impeachment underwater by 6pts.
The RCP average has it underwater by 1.1pts and dropping rapidly.
And the Whitehouse has not even started to present its case.
I doubt anyone will listen to Trump’s defense team. They do not need to.
The house managers failed.
As has been true for the past 3 years the Trump outrage is “all hat no cattle”.
As several Senators have noted – the purported evidence that the house has brought is a collection of oppinions not facts.
Wishing things to be true does not make it so.
Hating someone does not make them evil.
Calling someone a liar does not make them a liar – but without proof it does make you one.
Get a brain.
It was established with certainty weeks ago the GOP wouldn’t convict.
The purpose for Dems going forward with the Senate trial has already proved successful – to convince the public Trump is a shit-head underserving of the office. And rising poll numbers have verified that. Check out the 538 site. It shows both Democratic and Independent support for his removal solidifying since October at higher percents. GOP numbers have stayed the same: only 11% wanting him out. But Dems & Independent voters against Trump far outnumber those in favor of keeping him. That of course can change if either Warren or Sanders are his presidential opponent.
Of course it was – democrats have never made a case.
Schiff and Nadler and the house managers have near certain lost every single republican senator – including Romney and Collins.
Why ?
Because they have actually reviewed the evidence – and there i nothing but hearsay and oppinions.
Because they have spent the last week being insulted by you, the media and the house democrats.
And you still have not grasped that “holier than thou” coming from known liars really plays badly.
The burden of proof is always on those making the allegation.
If you allege a lie, if you allege a conspiracy – you must prove it.
The standard of proof is higher in some venues than others.
To start an investigation – the standard of proof is reasonable suspicion.
To get a warrant the standard is supposed to be probable cause.
To get a criminal conviction the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whatever the standard for impeachment – you have not met it.
This is Trump/Russia delusion II. Nadler and Schiff even tried to incorporate some of the Trump/Russia nonsense.
When is it you grasp doubling down on lies does not work.
“Voter opposition to the impeachment inquiry is at its highest point since Morning Consult and POLITICO began tracking the issue,” Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s vice president, said. “A key driver for this shift appears to be independents. Today, 47 percent of independents oppose the impeachment inquiry, compared to 37 percent who said the same one week ago.”
The shift has been entirely those independents you claim still favor impeachment.
BTW pay attention – if GOP support has been constant – and the polls have shifted 6pts towards Trump. Either independents shifted or Democrats shifted or both.
“But Dems & Independent voters against Trump far outnumber those in favor of keeping him.”
Just are GOP and independent voter in favor of Trump far outnumber those in favor of removing.
BTW you are blurring polls. There has consistently been a 3-4 % difference between the numbers favoring the house impeaching and the numbers favoring the senate removal.
I do not beleive there has ever been a majority favoring removal in any agregate of polls
Last – if your choice to remove varies based on who the democrat is – something is wrong with you.
Republicans have argued this is about democrats inability to win elections – if there really are polls that cite different results on impeachment depending on who Trump’s opponent is – that proves that claim.
That of course can change if either Warren or Sanders are his presidential opponent.
Typical Reactions to Whistleblowing:
(With thanks to Ron Hall)
An anonymous caller just reported a murder had been committed, described the killer and the car he was driving. (Later all confirmed)
Democrats: Find that car & the murderer!
Republicans: Yeah, but is the anonymous caller a Democrat?
dhlii: Define confirmed?
Priscilla: Was the murderer speeding in the getaway car?
Ron: Wasn’t the victim a confirmed progressive advocating expanding Obamacare?
Democrats: Whatever happened its Trumps fault – or Racists.
Jay: Everything is Trump’s fault.
How Seriously did democrats take the VA whislteblower ?
A week or two ago I gave you a list of the NAMES of over 50 “whistleblowers”.
These are people who actually risked their carreers and in some cases their lives to make corruption, and waste public.
Gen. Flynn is a bona-fide Whistleblower – and your heros framed him for a crime he did not commit to prevent him from enacting real reforms.
In a world where ethics mattered Andrew McCabe would have recused himself from anything involving Flynn after Flynn provided a work and character reference for an SAC alleging Sexual Harrasment by McCabe.
BTW what happened to her ?
People in the FBI who have lied about even manufacturer and tampered with evidence are still there. The agents who framed Ted Stevens are still there and were never disciplined.
But the agent who reported McCabe for sexual harrasment who Flynn says was exemplary when working for him – She was fired and can not get a job in law enforcement.
And for opposing Obama’s Iran policy and providing a reference for an agent filing sexual harrassment charges against Flynn – Flynn was entrapped by McCabe and then the evidence was altered to charge him with crimes he did not committ.
This is YOUR Idea how to treat a whistleblower ?
Your post is evidence you do not live in the real world.
It is also evidence that you do not know any of us 1/10 as well as you think you do.
I do not pretend to know you very well. I have no idea what goes on in your head – and I would not pretend to.
I have lost any conception of your positions on policies – because for the past three years the only thing that has mattered to you is Orange Man Bad.
But you do not know me, you do not know Ron, You do not know ordinary republicans.
I do not even think you know yourself.
‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain’
There is no reason to be suspicious of corruption in the Ukraine or the actions of the Bidens – there are no facts. Do not go looking into this. Beleive what we say without question. Do not investigate – that would serve Trump.
https://johnsolomonreports.com/joe-bidens-conspiracy-theory-memo-to-u-s-media-doesnt-match-the-facts/
Are the Biden’s corrupt ? i do not know. But if you doubt there is a reason to investigate, then I doubt your grasp of the real world.
But we have this increasingly.
The country is divided. we not merely disagree, we live in alternate universes with completely different facts.
But there is a real world, and real facts against which we can test what each of of beleives to be true.
None of us are correct always about everything – but some perspectives are much more prone to error than others.
It should be pretty self evident today that one perspective has been consistently wrong about nearly everything – whether it is “climate change” or “Trump/Russia Collusion” or that “Biden corruption in the Ukraine was Debunked”. Or that anyone had thoroughly investigated it and found nothing.
Trump Family Rectitude In Action:
Donald and Ivanka Trump Involved in Inauguration’s Inflated Payments to Family Business.
“Members of the Trump family were aware of and involved in the negotiation of this unconscionable contract,” the District of Columbia’s attorney general wrote in the suit.
“In the civil complaint, Attorney General Karl Racine charged the Trump inaugural committee and the Trump Organization with using around $1 million of charitable funds to improperly enrich the Trump family.”
I’m shocked, I tell you! Astounded! Could our honest truth-telling Prez be guilty of misusing charitable funds, subverting for the Trump family’s private benefit. Say it ain’t so Trumpanzees!
Not the DC AG’s business.
The inauguration is private. It is run by a private entity.
what it spends for what is not your business.
You continue to spray this nonsense that you are somehow entitled to decide what others can buy or sell and what they may pay.
I have no idea regarding any of what occurred in the inauguration – and I do not care.
I did not contribute, nor did I provide services.
I have no basis to challenge what was paid to who for what.
Nor do you. Nor does the DC AG.
It is not your business.
The fact that the DC AG is exploring this demonstrates the problem.
Do you understand that the problem in the Ukraine with Burisma is NOT that Hunter Biden was paid a fortune to do nothing ?
The problem is that he was likely hired to buy influence with Joe Biden,
and worse that there is atleast the APPEAREANCE that he succeeded.
You have spent 3 years trying to find some example where the Trump family business somehow altered US policy. You have not found a single instance yet.
But we may not KNOW that Biden acted because of his Son’s involvement in Burisima – yet.
But we have excellent reasons to be suspicious – and we know that Biden was required to recuse himself and did not.
We have the appearance of corruption. Which is the requirement to investigate.
What private parties chose to pay other private parties for goods or services is not even the appearance of corruption.
I do not care if the inaugual committee bought cocaine for participlants – so long as no force was involved and the exchange was volutnary.
Making free choices that you do not like – is still voluntary.
Republican Impeachment Defense;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPJJ5ASXkAUrJ7a?format=jpg&name=medium
I finally found out why the GOP under Trump has cancelled presidential primary elections in multiple states to prevent opponents from appearing on the ballot.
Trump’s tariff war has seriously reduced the number of steel pikes available for him to impale critical competitors.
“Orange man bad”
We got it.
Depending on the state mid dec was the deadline to file to run in a primary. The deadlines were the same regardless of party. The requirements to be on the ballot in a primary was the same regardless of party.
If you want to change the law to make it easier to get on the ballot – I am for that.
Most states have laws that require enormous numbers of signatures to get on the ballot if you are not endorsed by one of the two parites. I completely oppose that.
But the law is the same for democrats and republicans.
I have a problem with this editorial. I think it accurately describes the world as it is, but not as I want it to be.
In a why it explains why Trump won, and Romney and McCain lost, and why Trump is so hated by the left.
It echo’s some of what I have said here.
It also echo’s the differences between Jay and I.
Are we engaged in a contest of ideas ? Or are we engaged in a bitter conflict of people over power ?
I prefer Trump as president to Clinton or Biden or Warren or Sanders or …. because of ideas, values, principles. Trump does not even come close to reflecting my values or principles, but he is closer than the alternatives.
But Trump is not fighting a war of ideas. Jay constantly and correctly notes that Trump fights by spraying ad hominem. Exactly as Jay does, Exactly as the left, and the media does.
On issue after issue everything is about insult and slur – everything is about people not ideas.
Jay is fixated on the abc/parnas recording. Jay asserts Trump is close to Parnas, I assert but Trump can fire Yavonovith or whoever he wants and she clearly was trying to impliment her own foreign policy.
I am using Jay as a straw man for the left, democrats, the media. If Jay wants to take issue with that fine, though the shoe fits.
The fundimental point is that half this country makes all arguments about PEOPLE.
Climate changes is real – because lots of people agree. Those who disagree are bad people.
Our political battles are fights with people – racists, sexists, mysoginists. hateful, hating haters. The left attacks people – not just the far left but everyone from moderates through the democratic party to Jay
Trump attacks people.
Trump has very successfully made the conflict him vs. all the major people on the left.
They have made it personal, as they always do, and Trump has reveled in attacking them personally in return.
Ron laments the complete loss of dignity in the presidency. And in a utopian sense I agree.
Btu we have seen over and over again – that if you come to the conflict armed with ideas, and your opponent comes armed with insults – they are likely to win.
That is not pretty, but it is reality.
Schiff to pick an example has for years been attacking PERSONALLY. He picked a personal feud with Nunes, He has made himself the Joe McCarthy of the left. He has attacked Trump as a person relentlessly.
Had he been right – he would be a hero. But he has not been right about anything.
He showed up at the Senate and delivered an impassioned speach about Truth- with two glaring problems. He did not bring the truth, and his exhortation to republican senators to follower their better natures betray an unconscious presumption of their moral inferiority.
Schiff who as caught daily in new lies is presuming moral superiority over others, and begging them to aspire to be as moral as he is ?
The same argument that Jay makes here everyday.
In jay world we skip facts, logic reasons – even oppinions and ideas.
There are only good people and bad people. The good people – agree with him. The bad people disagree. Even agreement and disagreement are not about ideas – Jay does not care about imimgration, taxes, trade, war, it is not important what view is in debate – only whether you have been labeled one of the good people or the bad people.
4 years ago, I could probably guess at Jay’s positions on issues.
Today I know nothing of Jay’s values or principles – the only one discernable is that Trump is evil, anything he does is wrong, and anyone who does not join imediately in denouncing Trump is evil too.
Everything is ad hominem. Nothing else matters.
“ Climate changes is real – because lots of people agree.”
LOTS of scientific people, perhaps as many as 90% of those qualified to give an opinion agree. Yes, there are some qualified people who think otherwise. As there were some qualified people living in the past who insisted the earth was flat. They, and you, are qualified to have wrong opinions. Like your hair brained opinion regular medical visits don’t improve health and longevity.
BTW, once again you’ve misstated/ignored my positions on immigration taxes war etc which I have stated CLEARLY on this blog many times. Your brain must be clogged to make as inaccurate a statement as that. I suggest a scrubbing with the Amazon toilet cleaner shown below.
So you agree with the leftists in American that tells China, the #1 polluter, go ahead, increase your crap into the air until 2035 or there abouts, continue to make your cheap ass crap costing USA jobs, then reduce your output to current levels in 2050, all while America regulates industries now to the point of increasing our products costs to Americans, requires products that no one wants, like small cars resulting in trucks becoming a top selling vehicles and costing jobs in America?
How does that improve the global warming issue when we reduce 1 particle from going into the air, while China increases 2 for the next 20+ yrs?
My position in this is consistent with my trade policy. Fair agreement. Not free agreement! If the USA accounts for 20% of total global pollution and China accounts for 35%, then apply the reduction targets based on output. For every 1000 tons of output reduction, the USA reduces 200 tons, China reduces 350 tons, etc. No more of this Obama Paris agreement B.S where we reduce and they go on their merry way! And no output per capita crap because cheap shit from China increasing output is not a result of milluons out in the rural lands of China that dont even have plumbing.
I do not make my choices based on what leftists say.
While the odds are extraordinarily high that if those on the left say something – it is wrong, unfortunately leftism is not an inherently accurate lie detector.
Rising standard of living requires that those in jobs that can be done better or at lower costs by others lose them AND find other work.
I absolutely belive that what the Chinese produce at lower cost, comes at a tremendous loss of american jobs.
But a job is neither a right, nor irreplaceable. I have lost many jobs through my life.
I have had to start over at 45 from a job, a career that I thought would occupy my entire life.
Jobs are not merely replaceable, there is no limit to the productive uses of human labor.
In a strong economy – and moving less skilled work elsewhere makes the economy stronger there are always more jobs than people.
The chinese should be free to create energy as they wish. As they become more prosperous they will (and are) demanding a cleaner environment. But in all history EVERYWHERE we climb Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We do not improve hygene until we can provide food and shetler,. We do not improve our safety, our health, or environment until we have become prosperous enough to do so.
The worst polution in the world today – is that in the homes of countries with the highest poverty where food is cooked by burning dung, or wood.
The US need not regulate industries – they and consumers will do that for themselves – and have.
I do not give a shit about global warming – most of it is a larger fraud than Trump/Russia collusion. over any period longer than 40 years there has been no warming trend that is distinguishable from that of the prior 250 years.
Further on net a warmer world is a more prosperous one.
And no I do not want to inflict the same stupidity on China that we have been idiotic enough to inflict on ourselves.
I understand your positions, and again dont agree based on many different reasons.
I know you think other countries can screw over us without recourse. If we are stupid enough to put controls on ourselves and give others free access to our markets without cost, fine. That is much more Libertarian than I am willing to go.
I will not accept stupidity like the Paris accords when countries like China are much smarter than our leaders and take advantage of that stupidity. In these cases the stupidity is called politics of elections. They look long term (China reducing in 2050 maybe), we reduce to have a political win next election.
Yes, private industries will change with changing demand. But in cases like mileage standards that required smaller, lighter cars that proved to be less safe compared to larger ones, families shifted and created a huge market for four door pick up trucks. In this area, most all that is found in parking lots is pickup trucks and larger SUV’s, all which give much less gas mileage than the cars that were eliminated. Buick is basically a SUV GM line and Ford has eliminated all cars except the muscle car Mustang.
We can be stupid, or we can be smart.But in doing so,I want equality in anything we do with other nations. I am tired of Europe and others expecting us to defend every other free nation costing us American lives and dollars as well as countries like China taking advantage of our passed leaders stupidity
Foreign countries can not “screw us” in trade.
There is no right to buy a product or service and no right to sell one.
The US govenrment itself buys very little from foreign countries and sells very little.
All trade is between free individuals and companies – atleas tin the US.
If you wish to lobby Walmart customers to buy american – be my guest.
But anything you do through government is force, coercion a restriction on liberty.
It is no different than Bloomberg’s restrictions on big soda’s – it is government taking choices from americans.
That is wrong – if it is taking away the choice to buy Chinese goods, or to sell to china.
That is wrong if it is taking away the right to buy the soda you want.
that is wrong if it is taking away the right to buy or sell drugs,
That is wrong if it is taking away the right to buy or sell sex.
You want to persuade me not to buy from China – fine,. Not to drink sugary soda’s – fine, not to buy or sell drugs – fine, not to buy or sell sex – fine.
I am persuadable. But the choice is MINE not yours.
But beyond you and me – it is also the people who can not afford the american goods you want them to buy – or if they can and do, because they have had to pay more, there are other things they can not by.
You say that some american loses their job – because I buy a cheap light bulb from China.
Maybe, but because I paid less for the light bulb I can do something else. – like take my kids tot he movies.
Everytime you force me to make the choice you want me to – the one you think is more beneficial. You not merely take away the cheaper product from china, but the choice to spend the savings on something else I want that I could not otherwise afford.
No matter what – I always have LESS freedom and choices your way.
Who among us has never owned a Mustang ?
I wish I had own a 64 mustang. I did own two Mustang II’s.
Regardless, Ford is making Mustangs – I guess people want them.
Isnt that the point ?
Don;t we want Ford or other US companies to figure out how to make something people want ?
“I am tired of Europe and others expecting us to defend every other free nation costing us American lives and dollars”
Completely different problem.
The US should not be subsidizing the defense of the world.
You bitched about Trade with China – but the same stupid trade laws you love are what drives our drug prices up.
Allow americans to buy drugs from out of the country and watch drug prices drop.
Not because other nations produce drugs more cheaply – most drugs are produced in the US, But because of protectionist drug laws – both in the US or other countries.
If americans could buy imported drugs – we could buy the drugs made in the US but sold elsewhere cheaper. Our prices would go down, those of the rest of the world would go up.
Free markets work.
From what I wrote why did you defensively jump to conclude I’m not in favor of all the nations contributing to the problem pay a fair proportion of the money needed to TRY and correct it?
BTW, I thinks it’s too late to do anything now to stop what’s going to be a world wide disaster. What’s needed now is serious planning to deal with the consequences:
“ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard… And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall…’”
“From what I wrote why did you defensively jump to conclude I’m not in favor of all the nations contributing to the problem pay a fair proportion of the money needed to TRY and correct it?”
Jay, please! Where and when have you ever said we need to support getting out of the Paris Accords and renegotiate with the worlds largest polluters?
I can only ever recall your emotional responses to Trump withdrawing from this and never saying that is a good move ” but we now need to negotiate and require China to do its fair share of reduction”.
And this is not about money! It is about China doing things like conversion of coal powered plants to nat. gas. It is about doing some of the things California did years ago to clean up the air so it does not burn your eyes, burn your lungs and look like fog on smoggy days.
When one debates from facts and not emotions, then others respond much differently.
In the past 3+ years I can not think of a single instance ever where Jay’s immediate reaction to anything Trump did or said was not “Orange Man Bad”.
Jay is so consistent in this that all I have to do is know that Trump said or dis something and I will know there is a Jay post coming that will tell us it is stupid.
But it goes past that – We will almost never get and argument as to WHY it is stupid, and if we do it will be shallow, But we will almost always get a post with some other – usuually neocon telling us THAT Trump is stupid.
We get ad hominem and appeals to authority. Not arguments.
Even on issues I might agree Trump is wrong – no actual arguments.
Calling Trump and evil, Stupid racist liar in 10,000 ways is not an argument.
Calling anyone who agrees or supports him evil, stupid racist, …. is even more stupid.
“ Jay, please! Where and when have you ever said we need to support getting out of the Paris Accords and renegotiate with the worlds largest polluters?”
I never said we should GET OUT of the accord unless China does more.
I said I agree with you THEY SHOULD DO MORE.
And are you suggesting Trump got out to renegotiate China’s share of costs? If you think that you really have slipped into cult-swamp thinking. He doesn’t believe climate change is a real danger, and constantly belittles it, as he did at Davos, warning it’s a plot hatched by ‘radical socialists to destroy our economy, wreck our country, eradicate our liberty.”
The divisive dunce believes radical socialists are behind climate change worry, but the Russians weren’t behind the 2016 info hacks. If you’ve drifted into that mind-set my best wishes to you as you sail away into the Trumpanzee sunset
Jay, please read your response to me about Paris Accords, unequal requirements on countries and my position. You will see I was not addressing Trump and his views, but your extreme hatred for Trump resulted in an emotional response on how bad Trump and his thinking is.
I have been consistent in my thinking about agreements to reduce CO2output, well before Trump ever came on the scene. I do not remember you ever saying how unfair to America Obamas agreeing to this brain fart was. Because you have not. Not until Trump derailed it! And now it is a good start.
You can keep railing about Trump all you want. Trump is not the desease. Trump is the resulting impact of the disease. As long as the leftest keep screwing America and allowing China to run rough shod over us, the disease will only get worse.
Do you really think Trump would have EVER been elected had Obama not forced people to buy private company services ( PPACA) if they did not want or need it, forced people to buy pick up trucks because of his mileage standards eliminating larger cars, forced farmers to pay fines because farm land collected irrigation water and rain water because they plowed land that has been plowed for decades, but now are “wetlands” and basically opened the borders with little regard to sound immigration policies? And I could list many more extreme left government force that resulted in the Trump backlash.
Its your party that created the Trump phenomena. Had a centrist, true moderate run, not the chosen bitch nor Bernie “commie” Sanders, we would be talking about a democrat running for the 4th consecutive term, not Trump.
“He doesn’t believe climate change is a real danger, and constantly belittles it, as he did at Davos, warning it’s a plot hatched by ‘radical socialists to destroy our economy, wreck our country, eradicate our liberty.””
Amazing something actually true you have said about Trump,
Further proof he is not an IYI.
BTW the later claim that “it’s a plot hatched by ‘radical socialists to destroy our economy, wreck our country, eradicate our liberty.””
Is openly true. If you have read any of the significant figures and CAGW they make no secret of this.
Academia and certain areas of the sciences – including climate are completely taken over by socialists – and quite often Marxists or equally radical groups.
Many of the “scientist/Politicans” that are part of the UN leadership on Climate are extremely open on these things. I suspect you would have no problems finding precisely the hair brained things you think Trump falsely beleives being openly proclaimed at Davos.
When the leading figures – including scientists in CAGW are openly radical socialists and marxist – it is “divicve Dunces” that do not beleive them.
AOC is pretty tame for Climate Change advocates – still there is very little Climate in the “Green New Deal” and lots and lots of scoialism.
Here is another example – they are pretty trivial to find.
or
MICHAEL MANN: If humanity does act in time to substantially reduce emissions, it has to radically challenge and reform the three major institutions that have achieved such success over the last century. The first one is capitalism – though only because this is now the dominant mode of production in the world.
Holthaus declares: “If you are wondering what you can do about climate change: The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key require to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet. I mean, if you are looking for something to do.”
Senior IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer has openly said, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute … the world’s wealth.”
Are you actually going to argue that the leading lights of climate change are not socialist and often marxist ? that they are not quite open in their admissions that their lcimate objectives are inseparable from their socialist objectives ?
The socialism of warmists is not even a point of significant contention between warmists and skeptics.
It is impossible to separate climate change policies from the central planning they require.
Are there even a handful of scientists – is there One scientist advocating free markets as the means to fight climate change ?
Futher warmists have linked – either as intrinsic requirements or just as further adcvocacy socialist and marxist policies to their climate agenda.
Fighting climate change requires reducing CO2m, reducing fossil fuels, but it also requires reducing energy consumption, fracking, consumption – of pretty much everything – meat, plastics, milk, it requires population control and figthing income equality.
Whether there is a real scientific foundation or not, climate change policies are or rapidly become socialist – even marxist policies, and no excuses are made.
Trump is not claiming there is some secret socialist climate cabal.
Climate socialism is no secret. It is open and overt.
The only “secrets” are the extent to which the Russians are funding green groups and anti-fracking groups.
There will be no disaster, and there is no need for central planning to address that non-disaster.
Climate change and all this malthusian nonsense has NEVER had anything to do with science or climate or actual disaster – all this malthusian garbage is just an effort to scare us into central planning.
Population control has been debunked decades ago – yet now Greta and the climate Nazi’s have adopted that. Go watch “One Child Nation” on Amazon – you can see how well that has worked in China.
Global population will peak on its own at about 11B in a few decades – it is after that we are in trouble. Declining population cause serious problems already in Japan, and much of Europe.
Regardless the data is pretty conclusive – throughout human history through the present more people has always been BETTER, not worse.
BTW CAGW is not about “population control” it is about CONTROL.
But Government is incredibly bad at controlling anything. And those probles increase exponentially with scale and diversity.
Please identify a single future climate prediction by the IPCC – not some nonsense on the news. that:
Has come true.
Would have serious negative impacts.
The odds slightly favor the earth being slightly warmer in 2100, but it is very nearly as possible for it to be significantly colder – and that would actually be bad.
Thus far More CO2 has contributed to the higher growth rates of plant life accross the world – which has been a good thing.
“LOTS of scientific people, perhaps as many as 90% of those qualified to give an opinion agree. Yes, there are some qualified people who think otherwise.”
You make my point. Science – facts, truth, are not determined by concensus.
“As there were some qualified people living in the past who insisted the earth was flat. ”
The correctness or error of a scientific (or any other) claim is not determined by consensus.
In pretty much every single scientific discovery the majority was initially and often for a long time opposed.
See Gallelio – or myriads of historical examples.
Or dozens and dozens right now – Psychology is being turned on its head, because a successful attack on they accepted science of “priming” by a non-scientist using facts, utlimately resulted in questions about and the failure to reproduce of presumed psychological gospel that was 60 years old.
In Physic one physicist waged a 50 year effort to challenge the accepted science of crystalography. He now has a nobel for work he did 50 years ago. But the only reason that physics reversed – was because the established science would have thwarted any further advances in semiconductors a decade ago. Other phsyicists started looking at other approaches and past work – because they had no where else to go.
I would further note that there is not a single malthusian claim – science based or otherwise EVER that has ever proven true. There are some fundimental reasons for that. The over simplified version being if life were that fragile it would not exist.
90% of scientists are on the wrong side of science. That is not rare, and as with Galleleo – religion is at the core.
“They, and you, are qualified to have wrong opinions. Like your hair brained opinion regular medical visits don’t improve health and longevity.
Calling a fact and opinion does not make it so. There are numerous studies – I beleive it was Brooking who did the huge 50 years study, but more recently we have the Oregon study that was triggered by a fluke in Obama Care and resulted in a large scale RCT – the gold standard of science study.
The fact that you think something is hair brained does not alter whether it is true or no.
“BTW, once again you’ve misstated/ignored my positions on immigration taxes war etc ”
I have said next to nothing about any of YOU oppinions – beyond that you near universally oppose Trump.
“which I have stated CLEARLY on this blog many times.”
Years ago – maybe, though I doubt that.
I doubt there is a person on this blog who could say anything about your positiions – except – that whatever Trump says – you despise. That is what you have made CLEAR/
“Do you really think Trump would have EVER been elected had Obama not forced people to buy private company services ( PPACA) if they did not want or need it, forced people to buy pick up trucks because of his mileage standards eliminating larger cars, forced farmers to pay fines because farm land collected irrigation water and rain water because they plowed land that has been plowed for decades, but now are “wetlands” and basically opened the borders with little regard to sound immigration policies? And I could list many more extreme left government force that resulted in the Trump backlash.”
Yes, this is absolutely true. Obama spent 8 years “transforming” this country into something that the majority of Americans never wanted it to be. And Republicans, even after they gained control of the House and the Senate, did not stop him ~ they slowed him down a bit, kept him from making a SCOTUS pick as a lame duck, but that was about it.
Jay will insist that the majority wanted Obama’s changes because “Hillary won the popular vote.” But, as I have said in the past, her entire popular vote “victory” was based on the votes she received from California and four out of five of the boroughs of NYC (Staten Island being the outlier for Trump).
Populism rises when people believe that their leaders are ignoring them and their concerns. It’s very obvious that a plain-spoken charismatic candidate like Trump, as well as a supposed anti-establishment socialist like Bernie, have captured the support of the majority of Americans.
Jay does not accept the fact that Trump’s pro- America policies and anti-PC rhetoric are the reasons why he is so widely supported, and not that he is racist xenophobic white supremacist.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/democrats-bernie-sanders/index.html
This is another indication that support your comments and mine. Dave keeps harping on moderation being bad, that compromise is bad. Trump did not get elected because politicians worked for the American people. Sanders is not surging with the left because politicians are working for the American people.
When inaction on issues like immigration, healthcare reimbursement, debt, and other key issues continues, it creates voids that “populist” candidates can fill. Bernie would not be surging if moderates created a plan to help those that need help with paying healthcare bills. Trump would not have surged in 2015-16 had there been immigration reforms. And other key issues can be listed.
I do not believe in force by government, but I do support government intervention when needed. We have healthcare coverage issues in this country. We have people that do not have insurance due to some reason, but when they dont have coverage, they forgo buying drugs, seeking services and end up in Emergency Rooms. They creates hospital cost that go to bad debt, thus increasing bills for those patients that pay bills. There are reports that close to 25% of net patient revenues are written off and nationally this is almost $100 billion per year. That means each paying patient or their insurance will have 25% of each bill just to cover anothers bad debt.
That is why I support a Medicare buy -in for anyone, with premiums based on privately calculated actuarial costs, and subsidies based on income levels, no lifetime limits and deductibles and co-insurances based on current medicare rates. The way this is paid for is through “TRUE” taxes and not some bastardized penalty if you dont buy insurance.
But we both know this will never happen since congress will never pass any bill with “increased taxes”.
I have not said Moderation or compromise are bad.
I have said NEITHER is black and white.
Compromise is a value at best, not a principle, and moderation is the same.
Values are subordinate to principles and often even to other values.
Government is not there to persuade. It is not an alternate vendor in the free market.
EVERYTHING Government does is FORCE.
Absolutely I “beleive” in government force. That is the sole purpose to government.
But just because someone WANTS to use force, does not mean they are allowed to.
Government must be limited, because the use of force is rarely justified.
The fundimental question is NOT whether whatever you wish to do through govenrment is a good idea. It is whether you are permitted to accomplish it by force.
If you do not need force – then you do not need government and the debate is at an end.
Government may not intervene unless force is necescary.
If it is not – then you do not need government.
As to your healthcare examples – we have means of dealing with ‘moral hazzard” which is what you are really addressing without force.
You addressed ER’s.
Medicare only covers about 90% of the real costs of the services it requires provided.
Medicaid is closer to 70%. These too are huge subsidies to government from private healthcare.
If you think otherwise – then allow all hospitals, and doctors and the health care industry as a while to decide on their own whether they will take medicare or medicaid patients.
See how long medicare lasts.
As to your medicare proposal – all you are saying is I support allowing anyone to buy medicare – it and only iff medicare costs the same as private insurance.
” Medicare only covers about 90% of the real costs of the services it requires provided.
Medicaid is closer to 70%. These too are huge subsidies to government from private healthcare.”
Dave if you believe this, you have your head up your rear. When I left the healthcare system in 2008 Medicare paid less than 80% of actual cost of providing care and Medicaid paid about 70% of actual costs.
It doesnt look like much has changed.
https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/medicaid-medicare-reimbursement-57.8b-below-hospital-costs
And just to drive the point COSTS equals cost for staff, cost for supplies and other costs. Cost is not what it costs patients on their bill. In manufacturing, it is costs of goods sold.
I was citing medicare and medicaid off the top of my head and being generous.
If you say 80% rather than 90 – just makes my argument better.
Further if medicare does not pay 100% of its cost AND profit – it will continuously drive up healthcare costs – forever.
Frankly even if it did pay costs and profits just do to the way government payment systems work – it will drive up costs – forever.
No I do not support raising taxes of any kind anywhere at all.
Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending, then cut taxes some more.
I don’t think Trump is a racist xenophobic white supremacist, and never used those terms to express my revulsion for him. You’re mouthing Trump Cultist lingo like a good Donnie Zombie should.
I KNOW he is an unprincipled liar, an unstable narcissistic fool, an undereducated ignoramus, a destructive divisive liability to democratic governance. Those judgements of Trump are just a few expressed recently by known and respected Conservatives.
“I don’t think Trump is a racist xenophobic white supremacist, and never used those terms to express my revulsion for him.”
No, you just think he and anyone else who does not agree with you is fouled toilet paper.
I have played a drum beat over racist, sexist, homophbic slurs.
If you wish to claim that you have never pushed those specific slurs – I am not sure that is credible – but I do not care.
It is not important the specific slurs that you are using.
Two things are relevant – the first is slurrs are not arguments.
We can not settle a dispute over issues or facts by lobbing “liar, narcisist” grenades any more than using “raxist, xenophobe” grenades.
The second is while the burdern of proof is not inherently on someone asserting a fact, it is ALWAYS on those attacking another persons character – which you do all the time.
As to your specific claims:
“unprincipled liar” – the evidence is that Trump lies significantly less than the average politician. That should not be surprising. You do not survive in business if you are not trusted.
“unstable” – in terms of policy and personal shifts in policy, Trump is very stable. Based on his platform he is very predictable – obama (and Biden) were not.
” narcissistic” probably – all politicians are.
“fool” – you do not succeed privately (or politically) as he has if you are a fool.
“an undereducated” – If Trump had very nearly flunked out of Wharton, he would still be over educated not under educated.
“ignoramus,” Redundant with fool and still wrong.
“destructive” what has been destroyed ?
“divisive” – our divisions predate Trump – both as a nation and even here at TNM/
“liability to democratic governance.” – we are not a democracy. Specifically in governance we are not a democracy.
“Those judgements of Trump are just a few expressed recently by known and respected Conservatives.”
If conservative are parroting progressives – we are in deep shit.
“ unprincipled liar” – the evidence is that Trump lies significantly less than the average politician.”
Cultist Nincompoop fever at work.
You are a laugh a second.
You should try stand up comedy as a hobby.
Insults still are not arguments.
There is no measure of “lying” by politicians that will not rank Schiff, Clinton, Obama, far above Trump.
“ Insults still are not arguments.”
Tell it to Tweety-Trump.
An economy over 1.8% is an argument.
A mythical “majority” can “want” anything. They are not entitled to have whatever they want.
If the majority voted for human sacrifice – are those who oppose if compelled to sit back and watch, or to have our throats slit ?
I can hear Jay grousing – “that’s just stupid” – maybe it is. But where exactly is the boundry ?
Who would have bet that 8% of germans would have voted for Hitler ?
Or that well educated civilized Germans would either participate in or turn a blind eye to the extermination of millions ?
We do not get to depend on “that will never happen” as the bulwark against egregious violations of our rights.
We define the limits of government – that is the purpose of the constitution, and we impliment things like “due process” and “checks and balances” as the means of making it really hard for “the majority” to infringe on our rights.
The majority is not entitled to whatever it wants – just because it is the majority.
Dave, I am missing your point as it applies to Trump election. Knowing you dont speculate in what ifs, you might have a thought on Priscilla’s and my thinking that elections of populist candidates can be a result of government that moves way too far to the left or right, thus the popularity of Trump .
I am not on the “populism” band wagon.
Absolutely Trump is a “populist” but so is Sanders.
Pure populists do not often win elections.
I noted lots of reasons for Trump’s victory ALL mattered.
Yes, the populism mattered – they appeal to deplorables mattered, the appeal to working classes mattered, lots and lots and lots of things mattered.
No single thing – including populism was decisive.
Trumps specific policies were very important.
The PC backlash was important. If The left abandoned the PC culture Trump would have a harder time getting re-elected. I have said repeatedly if Democrats want to win, they need to figure out why they lost and Fix it.
Trump’s Alinskyite strategy will fail BADLY if Democrats abandoned it first.
You and Jay are right that Trump puts people off with it – especially in the middle.
But democrats have been doing it for decades and that lets Trump get away with it.
AND The democrats ad hominem creates Trump voters.
I think it may be too late for D’s to regain the voters Trump stole from them.
But republicans will have to continue some parts of Trumpism after Trump is goen – or those voters will sit on their hands.
This reads like a shotgun – but that is because there is no single critical factor.
Trump was elected for many reasons. High among those the policies he promised.
Also important as backlash against the left for shifting on half the country,
Whether it is Jay’s fouled toilet paper remark or clintons basket of deplorables. or the constant everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. mysoginist, hateful, hating hater.
Russian Social media adds had no effect.
The DNC emails probably had a significant effect – as did Comey’s letter to congress on the Wiener Laptop.
But so did the access Hollywood tape.
Whoever did it – the DNC emails were LIKELY obtained illegally – like the pentagon Papers, the Afghan papers and myriads of other leaked documents.
We do not seek to encourage illegal acts – but the damage that each of these did – the significant influence they had on the public – is nOT because of how they were obtained, but the truth they tell us.
No matter who purloined the DNC emails – Clinton, Podesta, Brazille and other democrats WROTE THEM.
The emails were damaging because they pulled democrats pants down in public and exposed them as hypocrites.
Contra to Jay’s beleif I am NOT opposed to Bolton etc. testifying.
I am opposed to ANYONE testifying against Trump in the Senate that has not testified first in the house – the same constraint DOES NOT apply to Trump.
I am opposed to the admission of hearsay.
I also beleive that if the house wants a witness they need to go to court to get that witness.
In fact I beleive Congress should ALWAYS have to go to court to get ANY witness that does not testify voluntarily. That does not mean I think congress should not be permitted witnesses – I think the court should grant most subpeona’s of the executive branch.
With caveats – without addressing all the details – due process needs guaranteed – neitehr the house or Senate are exempt from due process requirements of the constitution.
We did not see anything close to due process in the house. While the house gets to make its own rules – and though it is stupid for it to do so, it can screw the minority. It can not violate due process.
“Jay does not accept the fact that Trump’s pro- America policies and anti-PC rhetoric are the reasons why he is so widely supported, and not that he is racist xenophobic white supremacist.”
If Jay is free to “not accept” Trump as president – then we live an a different form of government – almost anarcho-capitalist, where each of us can choose to opt out of the current government. Personally I find that government apealing. But I doubt Jay really does.
Jay does not want voluntary government – he wants the government of his choice imposed on all by force – and he wants that even if he can not win the election by following the rules.
The house managers talked alot about we must remove Trump because otherwise he will cheat ?
How ? Will he put guns to the head of votes as they go into the ballot ?
We are told that voters might be lied to ? Doen’t that happen every day from the most prestigious news outlets in the country – Washington Post, New York times ?
The way we deal with lies – in politics and elsewhere is by exposing them.
I beleive it is beyond dispute that probably 90% of what is said by the left is a lie. Even if demonstrably true, that does not give me a right to censor or silence the left.
You can argue the other side is lying – you can not censor them.
Voters get to check the boxes on their ballots that the please – even if there is near universal agreement the politicians of the other side are liars.
So how is it that Trump is going to cheat ?
There is nothing that Trump is alleged to have done that is any different from this hyperpartisan impeachment.
If democrats can not persuade republicans that there is merit to their claims. Then democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of – using their power to harm an opposing candidate for political reasons.
That is a “crime” that gets judged at the ballot box – not the floor of the senate.
Jay, you clearly hate the president, and you have frequently posted tweets, cartoons, articles, etc. that you apparently believe to be persuasive in “proving” that your hate and revulsion for Trump are the correct and mainstream opinion, and that the only reason that anyone supports him is that they are Trump cultists. That is a weak and unsupportable opinion.
Trump won the presidency fair and square, and he has, for the most part, succeeded at rolling back many of the Obama era policies, and creating a booming economy, by cutting taxes and removing unnecessry regulations. He replaced NAFTA with a deal much more beneficial to the US, and is in the process of trying to do the same with China and Europe.
You are very good at swatting away any serious argument that Trump has been successful because he has been able to tap into the frustration and anger of the middle class, which was in the process of being gutted by both parties, over the last 30 years. Immigration and trade, in particular, are issues on which he drew a clear line between the establishment position of both parties and his position.
It’s easy to call him a “narcissistic fool” and assume that his success has been a lucky accident. Easy, but totally wrong.
“ Trump has very successfully made the conflict him vs. all the major people on the left.”
And once again you’ve conveniently and obtusely ignored the huge list of MAJOR Republican-Conservatives who have become Never-Trumpers during his divisive tenure – many of whom you’ve admitted you admired in the past.
It’s sad, really, that you’ve aligned yourself with someone as morally tainted as Trump. Do you not hear those scathing criticisms of Trump’s character from those same voices you once admired?
Trump is a corruptive presence. Your continuing defense of him as president has corroded your own judgmental equilibrium. That scarlet T is indelible.
And you ignore my entire point – the conflict is one of people, not ideas.
No conflict can have a side that is virtuous, and one that is evil – without ideas.
You entirely refuse to ever discuss issues, You presume that those you call immoral are so because you have called them that.
Adam Schiff’s words – atleast some of them were poigniant plagerism of John Adams. But they had no import coming from Schiff – because you can not meaningfully speak of truth or morality without defining it – and living it. Schiff does neither.
I have no idea what occurred today as Trump’s team made its case – I do not care.
Schiff, Nadler, etc, had their fair chance to make their case this week – and they failed.
I expect Trump’s defense will be good, but I would have hped that had demanded a directed verdict. Right and wrong are determined by facts and acts, not rhetorical flourish.
We all love the stories where some hero saves the day at a moment that things seem to be going to hell with some impassioned speach. Btu we forget that words without real truth grounded in facts have no power.
You keep making claims about morality – and yet you are entirely clueless about morality.
In what moral universe is someone who has incontrovertably violated ethics, absolutely violated exactly the laws the GAO claims Trump did – if congressionally allocated funding is sacred and can not be withheld – then how is Biden’s incontrovertable threat to withhold it legal ? Any hope that Biden’s actions are not both immoral and illegal depends on an understanding that specific facts determine whether an action is legal or ethical.
It is not ethical for anyone in government to participate in decision making that might benefit them of their family – that is actually law. Yet the same exact decisions are legal and ethical if made by another.
There is no absolute bar to asking for investigations of political rivals – otherwise XFH and the SC were a crime.
The legality and ethics of ALL investigations does not rest on the political status of the target,
There is no difference between this pretence that Biden is immune and a presumption that whites are immune or the rich are immune.
An investigation of ANYONE is legitimate if there is reasonable suspicion and illegitimate if there is not – or as Horrowitz exposed, when reasonable suspicion is lost.
You are the one selling moral nonsense.
The Trump/Russia collusion nonsense was implausible from the start. It is no more plausible than a claim that Hillary would collude with Russia for pantsuits. Almost no one takes unbeleiveable risks – particularly without the skills to get away with them for gains they can easily secure for themselves without risk.
But you, the left – and yes – some neocons, who the democrats can take back with my blessing have spent 3 years wasting time pushing stones uphill, and wondering why they roll back on you.
You do not know what morality it – that is self evident from your abysmal missuse of the words.
Trump is no paragon of morality – but he stands head and shoulders about you, the left, the media – and those neo cons you are fixated on.
“Trump is a corruptive presence. ”
Typical left nonsense.
Corruption comes from within, not without.
Trump did not make you lie about him, carter page or anything else.
You made those choices on your own.
Maybe at first they were honest – if stupid errors, but when they changed to accusations – they become moral failures. When you make a false moral claim about another – the immoral person is YOU.
Trump did not make you. You do those things yourself.
You are ALWAYS responsible fort the moral choices YOU make – not someone else.
Do you understand the significance of this product being sold on Amazon?
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Toilet-Brush-Cleaner-Commander/dp/B07KSQ1NLZ&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiD7fPB_J_nAhU8CTQIHVa6BeUQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2P4-YKEjGtER8WPn-3Z1hn
That’s my post
Yes, it demonstrates that a great deal of people have no grip on reality. that they have allowed personal hatred to overcome facts and reason.
The people who buy this are likely the same people who would inflict recession poverty, joblessness, despair on the nation rather than allow Trump to remain president a moment longer.
I beleive ferverntly as I do in the primacy of individual liberty. It is beyond debate that it delivers the highest standard of living to all. But if that we not so, if socialism actually worked I would not wish to inflict deprivation on people to punish them because my principles did not work.
The significance is that the wrong group of people are being called hateful, hating haters.
You’re still clueless.
“You’re still clueless.”
What have you been right about in the past few years ?
There must have been something ?
Regardless, if you have a doubt where the modern font of hate comes from – read your own posts.
But but but. Trump doesn’t know Parnes
Here’s a Synopsis of what is allegedly said
https://apnews.com/b8f3620a62c633658199f1fe85fe4647
Why do I need a synopsis ? I have ears.
What I hear is about 5-10 words by someone who MIGHT be Parnas, who seems to be pretty far from the conversation.
Almost everything being said is by Trump, most of the rest is by others.
I do not think there are more that 2 clauses by someone sounding like Parnas and both are clipped on either end so they are disjoint from the prior conversation.
Maybe Trump was at Dinner with Parnas – and several others. Maybe not, this does not prove much of anything.
But what is it you are trying to prove ?
If you had Trump asking Parnas to get dirt on the Bidens from Ukraine – you still would not have anything.
Instead you have a recording of Trump saying the Ukraines are great fighters, and some discussions about oil in the Ukraine and that Yavonovich was a lousy ambassador.
Where is your illegal conspiracy ?
You seem to be under the delusion that if you have a sureptitious recording of innocuous comments that it proves something.
In this instance it does not even prove a relationship between the parties.
Ukraine has oil?
Ha Ha Ha.
Oh, god! in April 2018 Trump did not know Ukraine had oil. Impeach now!
I would further note this is April of 2018 – that is almost 2 years ago.
You do not seem to understand that there is almost nothing you can get from Lev Parnas – he is a private actor.
If you had Trump asking him to get dirt on Biden – all you would have is Trump has his own Christopher Steele.
Impeach Now!!!
So you edit 42 minutes down to 2:20 and this means What ?
Your source is Bondy – who has thus far done a really bad job defending Parnas.
LEts assume that somehow this recording has value in Parnas defense.
It has none now. Now prosecutor will offer any deal based on evidence now in the public domain – if it is evidence.
You are asking us to assume that it is Trump on the tape – though that sounds likely.
As well as parnas – the first tape certainly did not sound like him.
We know nothing of how this was edited or recorded – Project Vertitas always provides the originals.
And what is it you think this proves ?
If your goals is to prove Trump knows Parnas:
This is not sufficient.
If true – so what ?
Even if you had Trump directing Parnas to take action in the Ukraine, that would not change anything.
More fizzle.
‘ If your goals is to prove Trump knows Parnas:
This is not sufficient.“
It’s sufficient enough to prove Trump repeatedly LIED saying he didn’t know him, giving the untruthful impression he didn’t know him at all.
More tapes are on the way, per Parnas lawyer. And videos.
Numerous photos of Trump & Parnas in different venues over years are on the web. To suggest they have only the casual relationship of a celebrity to an autograph seeker is pure bullshit.
And you’re pathetic for not admitting you were wrong INSISTING they only appeared together in a single photo.
“It’s sufficient enough to prove Trump repeatedly LIED saying he didn’t know him, giving the untruthful impression he didn’t know him at all.”
No it is not. It is POSSIBLE that with better evidence you MIGHT prove that Trump knew Parnas better than he claims.
What you have so far creates a “reasonable suspicion” that Trump knows Parnas better than he has claimed not proof.
I do not want to fixate on this – because I honestly do not care.
But all these clips are heavily edited – by their own admission and obviously.
They show someone that sounds like Trump saying non-controversial things that sound like what Trump would say.
You have not proven they actually are Trump – but I will take that as likely because they do sound like Trump, and though faking that is pretty trivial today, I do not think it is likely.
In something like 4min of total provided clips there is a few seconds – two utterances by someone who sounds like Parnas. I am not even prepared to accept that it IS parnas. Most of the speaking is by Trump, the remainder is almost entirely by people who are NOT Parnas.
The clips are heavily edited. The few remarks of someone who sounds like Parnas do not fit properly into the flow – i.e. they are edited before and after. The person who sounds like Parnas may or may not be part of the conversation. It sound a bit like someone at a different table or at a large table with Trump but far away.
Finally – I would not discount the possibility these are fake. We have had so much fake stuff about Trump. But I would bet they are not fake – they are just edited to make a minor figure appear more significant in a long exchange.
But everything is speculation – not proof.
you MIGHT be right.
But this is not PROOF.
If there was a crime – this would be sufficient to investigate – but there is no crime. so it means little or nothing.
“More tapes are on the way, per Parnas lawyer. And videos.”
We shall see for whatever it is worth.
“Numerous photos of Trump & Parnas in different venues over years are on the web.”
You keep saying that – you still have produced only one. Photos of Parnas with Sessions are not photo’s of Parnas with Trump.
What you have proved is Parnas got photographed with lots of famous people
“To suggest they have only the casual relationship of a celebrity to an autograph seeker is pure bullshit.”
I do not know what the truth is – but the “evidence” you have produced – is most consistent with what you discount – someone seeking a record of being in the presence of celebrities.
“And you’re pathetic for not admitting you were wrong INSISTING they only appeared together in a single photo.”
What i have said – is that thus far there is only one photo with Donald Trump and Parnas.
Thus far that remains the case. Lots of photo’s of Parnas with different people is not lots of photos of Parnas with Trump.
In point of fact there does not appear to be anyone he was photographed with more than once. That is pretty much exactly what you would except out of someone seeking to be photographed with celebrities. We will not likely get those – but I would gues Parnass has photos with people like Schumer and Pelosi too.
If you want to impeach – what you need is pretty close to exactly the fake Selensky Call Schiff did.
You need evidence of Trump saying – give me dirt on Biden or you do not get the aide – I do not care if it is true or not, make it up if you need to.
To overcome the fact that there is already reasonable suspicion regarding Biden and the Urkaine – you have to go beyond Trump asking for an investigation. you have to go beyond threats and quid pro quos, You need Trump to ask Zelensky to make things up (or to do something else that is actual obstruction – like fire a prosecutor or end an investigation)
Anything less is foreign policy.
I would suggest that the reasons that tapes like these fizzle – is because you are so intent on getting Trump you do not see them for the nothing burgers they are.
Yo, Trumpies – are you in favor of all satanic pregnancies being aborted?
You aparently have never listened to an evangelical.
You were selling Billy Graham’s grandaughter a while ago – have you even listend to Billy Graham ?
While the music of Elvis, and Johnny cash is slightly tamer – you should listen to some of that too.
There are parts of this that are nonsense – I am not a big fan of Televangelists.
But they are as rational is the “scientists” you cite selling the religion of Global Warming.
How is this woman doing anything different from Greta Thunberg ?
Religion is an absolutely inherent trait of humanity.
Try Viktor Franky’s “Man’s Search for meaning”.
Atheism in humans does not exist. If you eliminate other religions humans will make anything they can into religion – veganism. climate science, ….
And they will do so to the same degree of crazy.
Approximately 35% of the US identifies as evangelical – and THEY VOTE.
You didn’t answer the question.
Are you in favor of all satanic pregnancies being aborted by prayer?
If so, that assumes you believe many women are carrying satanic fetuses.
And you believe Christian prayer can kill them in the womb.
And if Evangelicals believe the majority of satanic fetuses are in Lefty bellies is that political slur violating the separation of church from state?
(That’s a snide slur, tho you’re probably deaf to ironic ridicule)
Are you serious ?
Absolutely – I am entirely in favor of prayer as a tool to end Satanic pregnancies, Global Warming. and any other mythical nonsense.
I am in favor of Prayer to prevent the Planet from turning into a giant mushroom with octopus tenticals.
I do not care what evangelicals what to pray for.
I do not care what Greta Thunberg wants to prayer for.
Pray for whatever you want. Maybe I will join you.
But I will oppose you when you start using force.
You want to smear another group of people ?
Your post is a beautiful example of much or what is wrong with your logical abilities.
First you seem to conclude because the remark about satanic pregnancies is irrational that it is relevant to anything.
I do not care what people beleive – even if it is ludicrously stupid.
I care what they do. Particularly when they use power – force.
Is this person using force ?
If not then I can ignore her or laugh at her.
In logic once you have a set of premises that are absurd but that you accept as true – you can prove anything.
You can reason from “all satanic pregnancies being aborted by prayer” to anything at all.
That does not reflect values – that is a reflection of the fact that once you have a false premise you can prove anything.
Everything that follows is just absurdity.
I understand that the rest of your remarks are ironic nonsense.
BTW there is no constitutional doctrine of “separation of church and state”.
That would be ludicrous and a violation of free speach.
What we have is the “establishment clause” – that precludes government from meddling in religion – NOT religion from meddling in government. There is separation of state from church, not separation of church from state.
Fox News Poll:
“Among independents, more say Trump should be removed by a 19-point margin (53-34 percent).”
If that is what they believe, then they will have their say in November to do just that.It will only take a handful of voters in the grand scheme of votes to make that happen.
Right now RCP polls (Sunday Jan 26) indicate that will happen come November. Fox News polling, anything but left wing liberal biased polling has Biden by 9, Sanders by 6, Warren by 5 and Buttigieg by 4.
If something that big happens with Biden or Sanders, you can bet money that the coattails will take down the GOP senators in Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado and maybe one or two others, shifting complete control back to the democrats so they can go on their government force crusade.
The only question I have is how accurate Fox polling is and where those voters are polled.
It is not how accurate Fox news polling is. It is how accurate the specific days poll is.
The RCP Trend line has never had a majority supporting impeachment and has not had impeach ahead of Retain since mid Dec.
The Trend favors Trump.
First – remember the point about credibility ?
I am really not interested in claims by you – provide links.
Beyond that – I do not know if there is such a fox poll or you are again disembling. but assuming there is it is one of many.
The trend is away for impeachment and away from removal.
That trend is almost excludively with independents – as neither Republicans nor democrats have moved much.
But I really do not care to fight over it.
If you want to beleive the sun will not rise tomorow – your mistaken beleif causes me no harm.
Breaking: NYT:
“WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton“
Now you know why Trump/GOP/and assholes in general don’t want to call him as a witness.
Trump is excretion. Those who back him are fouled toilet paper.
The NYT article says Bolton book was submitted to WH for prepublication review, and TeamTrump may have tried to delay its publication.
If so, that’s obstruction.
Ah! So all this is about a book.
You think political books are truth ?
People in the intelligence community must submit anything they want published about their government service for review, and they are constantly barred from publishing. It usually takes years to get something approved to publish.
that is just how things are – if you do not like that – change the rules.
Comey is the first FBI director ever to publish a book. Normally they wait years before speaking about there service.
I do not think a National Security advisor has ever written a book.
Clinton just released a movie about the 2016 campaign – it casts her as a super hero, and Sanders are Darth Vader.
Do you think Clinton’s movie is the truth ?
If Bolton is publishing a book – it is going to say whatever Bolton’s editors think will sell the most copies.
“ If Bolton is publishing a book – it is going to say whatever Bolton’s editors think will sell the most copies.”
So, Bolton is going to agree to lie if the editors tell him to?
Have you gone completely nuts?
Take a nap, you need a long one.
I have no idea about Bolton’s integrity.
But I do not have any doubt in the world that the way Bolton will spin things in a book that will make him far more money the more controversial it is and particularly the more appealing to democrats it is.
Outright lie ? Probably not. Spin heavily – so that both the large number of neo-con that are his natural audience as well as people like you who would otherwise never buy a book by John Bolton might buy it ? Absolutely.
Further We remain several levels removed From Bolton.
We have an NYT story – based on parts of a book manuscript leaked to them – probably by someone at the publisher.
We have Your spin on top of the Reporters Spin, on top of the leakers Spin, on top of the editors spin, on top of the possible ghost writers spin, on tope of Bolton’s spin.
We do not have an actual published book, and we do not have Bolton confirming that the words are his and accurately reflect events. It is not even likely that the reporter got Bolton’s actual words.
Even if Bolton was heavily involved in this – and either wrote the words leaked to the reporter or something resembling those words.
Do I think Bolton would lie in a published book – probably not ?
Do I think that Bolton would allow a misperception to be created as to what might eventually appear in a book ? Absolutely.
Regardless – if you want Bolton’s testimony – GO TO COURT AND GET IT.
You keep constantly trying to short circuit the process.
Personally – I do not care what Bolton says – if he actually testifies as that Ukraine Aide was conditioned on investigations into the Biden’s – I would not impeach over that.
There is way more than enough to strongly insist on Ukraine cooperation in a variety of investigations many of which involve the Biden’s.
And that is the only criteria that matters. The fact that Trump might have been motivated by political interests is a reason to make certain that there is the reasonable suspicion necescary to justify an investigation. But so long as the reasonable suspicion requirement is met – Trump’s motives do not matter.
https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukraine-scandal-timeline-democrats-and-their-media-allies-dont-want-america-to-see/
The Senate should essentially do the equivalent of a court dismissing without prejudice.
They should tell the House that the Senate has no problems with witnesses – but that the Senate is not in Impeachment an investigative body. That the responsibility for conducting an impeachment investigation is with the house.
That the house is free to continue this if it wishes. But it is not free to demand the Senate fix a botched investigation by the House.
The house would be free to continue this, to drop it, to go to court to get witnesses, to do …
I would personally like to hear from Bolton, though I strongly suspect the courts are not going to allow him to testify without a credible allegation of a crime.
The House has a better chance getting Mulvaney and some of the other requested witnesses testimony,.
Regardless the courts are going to have to resolve alot of competing claims – many of which on both sides have merit.
The houses oversight responsibility – is NOT enumerated in the constitution – it is am implied power.
Executive prividege is not in the constitution – it too is implied.
In this instance they are in conflict.
Though courts have not supported broad claims of executive priviledge – but they have routinely supported narrow ones.
Anything involving national security is going to skew heavily in the presidents favor.
Direct communications with immediate advisors is also going to skew heavily in his favor.
The further away from National Security and the further away from ranking administration members direct communications with the president the weaker claims of priviledge will be.
Credible allegations of a crime are very likely to overcome priviledge – Trump’s communications directly with Bolton are likely completely off limits – absent a credible allegation of a crime.
One of the most serious weaknesses of the faux impeachment is the absence of a crime.
You can scream to the heavens that you can impeach without a crime – and that is true.
But you probably can not get the courts to waive priviledge without a crime.
You keep spining and spining what has you beleive occurred.
But so long as reasonable suspicion exists to justify Trump’s request for an investigation you do not have anything close to a crime.
So long as reasonable suspicion regarding the assorted misconduct in the Ukraine in 2016 and before exists – you are engaging in exactly the same politically motivated use of government power as you are accusing Trump of. you are essentially saying that political candidates can not be investigated. And because you wish to deligitimize the work of Guiliani and Solomon and … you are claiming not merely that Trump and government can not investigate political candidates, but that no one can – not private citizens not reporters.
The article reports Trump told Bolton that frozen military aid to Ukraine was directly linked to his demand for the political investigations he wanted. That’s why GOP flunkies won’t call him as witness. It CONFIRMS the whistleblower, and other confirming evidence of Trump’s ‘do us a favor’ intention.
That’s why Trump stopped him from testifying at the House hearings.
These who are not demanding his testimony are bottom feeding slime suckers who don’t give a Skunk’s ass about about anything but their own partisan positions.
Once upon a time – we could Trust stories from the NYT.
Today – not so much.
Now that you have revealed this is based on a purported book deal, it makes more sense.
It is even plausible as part of a Bolton manuscript – that does not make it true.
Honestly – do you think St. James Comey’s book is “truth” ?
If this story is what you claim – it means nothing.
Regardless. I have never been opposed to Bolton testifying. I have told you repeatedly – GO TO COURT. nothing is stopping you.
BTW this also explains the Bolton teasers. he is building hype for a book.
Every leak regarding Bolton will drive the sales of that book. Whether Bolton testifies or not – the value of the book skyrockets the more the conflict over Bolton’s testimony rises.
If Bolton testifies – good for sales. If there is a legal fight – good for sales. The more Bolton is talked about – good for sales.
I do not think there is a chance in hell Bolton will be your John Dean.
But I have zero doubt that he will push to inflame controversey about him to raise sales of a book that does not require facts states as under oath.
When is the last time a national security advisor testified to congress without the express permission fo the president and terms negotiated with congress probably over months before hand ?
Most legal analyst have said that the one case Trump is most likely to win in the courts is blocking Boulton and his aide.
But you do what you want.
Drag this out another month or two or three.
Next – can we get to just plain hearsay – rather than quintuple hearsay with multiple spin cycles.
Do you have what Bolton says trump says ?
Not what you say, nyt says bolton’s manuscript says boulton says trump says ?
Not that any of this matters – Biden should be investigated.
Almost as much as sliming Trump, the purpose of impeachment is to obstruct any investigation of Biden.
You have spent days fawning over Parnas. I think Parnas is mostly inconsequential.
But if Parnas was a close freind of Trump coordinating an investigation of the Bidens with Guiliani and Trump – you still have nothing.
If Trump actually told Zelensky no investigation no aide – you have nothing.
The legitimacy of the request for investigation rests on reasonable suspicion regarding Biden – which exists. Not anything else.
I do not think that the Senate is going to call Bolton.
I do not think that will occur because the house failed to make a case and the senators are tired of this nonsense.
But there is no chance that the Senate calls Bolton without also calling Hunter and Joe and the WB and possibly Schiff.
You keep painting Trump as opposed to witnesses, but for Trump everything is a negotiation.
Trump has been pretty consistent – he wants witnesses – his witnesses.
Democrats – house and Senate have made it clear – there will be no trade of Biden for Bolton.
The one’s hiding are D’s.
And we can pretty much guess what the Biden’s testimoney will be. All they have to do is confirm what they have said publicly.
But go for it – have witnesses – tie up the Senate through super Tuesday.
Trump will be the big winner.
“Trump is excretion. Those who back him are fouled toilet paper.”
Tells the entire story. You do not care about the truth.
You are about nothing but hatred.
Trump won the election for a reason – he read a change that everyone else missed.
He tapped into a very large black of voters who felt they were being ignored, and he spoke for them He read growing political dissatisfaction with things as they, and he responded to it.
Even if you successfully get rid of Trump – those things remain true. It is possible that your immediate actions will amplify them. It is also possible that they stall things for a bit.
What is not possible is that the reverse the swing of the pendulum.
Trump rode a wave of anti-PC discontent to election – that discontent is still there – if anything it is larger, and if you destroy trump it will be larger still.
To those like Ron would would prefer a Kaisich or Romeny – they do not and can not speak for that, Trump is not going to be followed by a Kasich or a Romney.
If you want to get past Trump – you have to let it play out.
But you can not do that. There is a reason Trump’s core is so strong – because you hate them and they know it. Because they have known that you and those like you think they are fouled toilet paper. And they have known that for years before you wrote the words.
These are not people who are going to vote for a Kaisich or Romney.
But you just do not get it. You did not lose the elections because of Russian interference.
You fixate on the DNC hacking. I think the case it was the russians is weak.
But so what. The Hacking did not tank Clinton. The email investigation did not tank clinton so called russian interference did not tank clinton – the Truth tanked clinton.
But that seems to be a problem for you.
I do not know why you give a shit what Trump may or may not have said to Bolton, or whether he knows Parnas or not. Those things are not relevant.
Biden has nothing to worry about from an investigation into Ukraine – if there is nothing there as you say. If the claims of corruption are “debunked” they would die quickly and natturally
Nadler and Schiff claimed thagt we must impeach because otherwise Trump would cheat – How ? By exposing Biden’s corrption ? If the entire Biden family made millions off of Biden’s government power – even if that was done legally – that the american people are entitled to know – not Trump’s tax returns. If Hillary was engaged in all kinds of dirty tricks to fork over Sanders – that we are entitled to know – Whether Ukrainians or Russian’s or Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails – who knows maybe it was Tulsi Gabbard. Regardless, the emails only damaged Clinton because they told the truth about her.
If Trump tried to investigate Biden – without reasonable suspicion, I would have a major problem with that. But former US Vice Presidents are not immune from investigation for illegal conduct – and there are ethics laws requiring Biden to recuse himself from issues involving family – those are not criminal laws – but they are laws.
But in the end – it is not Clinton’s bathroom email server, it is not the DNC hack, it is the swing of the pendulum that doomed Clinton.
Ron is shocked that Trump won the GOP primary. And that was shocking.
Clinton was ecstatic – she thought Trump was the easist republican to beat.
Do you think Cruz or Rubio or Bush would have had trouble beating Clinton ?
Clinton lost – because we were weary of 16 straight years of socialism light, and low growth – except in government. Because alot of us were tired of being called “fouled toilet paper” by democrats and people like Jay.
The only thing of consequence that has changed since 2016 is that we now know that the prior 16 years were NOT the new normal, they were not the best we could do in the 21st century.
We now know that Bush and Obama were poor presidents who failed at delivering prosperity. that is beyond any doubt right now.
None of the reasons Trump was elected have gone away. But many reasons for voting against him have.
And give a choice between your nonsense about tax returns and emoluments and the clear political corruption of the Biden’s – whose only outstanding question is – was that legal corruption or was it actually illegal. Given a choice between a 1.8% economy and a 3% economy – you can pick as you please, but you do not get to tell the rest of us we can not pick as we please.
I would finally note – if asking Ukraine to investigate Biden was corrupt – then why isn’t the house investigated Trump corrupt ? How is it different ? In both cases there are strong political motives.
1). NYT How many of these breaking “leaks” have proven true in the past several years ?
2). Assuming this transcript actually exists – lets see it rather than some reporters spin on what it purportedly says. Thus far the actual words of anything real have been radically different from those reported.
3). So what – as I have said over and over – there is reasonable suspicion regarding the bidens.
I do not actually beleive this story – your credibility and that of NYT is that bad.
I do not beleive that if there is any truth at all to it – that anything that might have actually been said bears more than passing resemblance to what is reported will be small. We have seen that over and over.
Mostly this appears to be another bit of Fake news delivered at a time calculated to try to force Bolton and others to testify.
What are you going to do, if it succeeds and Bolton disowns the story ?
But lets assume for the sake of argument it is 100% true. Biden is not immune from investigation. There has never been anything here.
Mostly this sounds like a desparate leak by the deep state. We have seen lots of those.
I am not worried. Even if true – it is of no consequence.
But if it is not true – which is reasonably likely – we have you, the left, the media – once again selling desparate lies.
But who knows. Maybe this one is not a lie.
At this point anyone who doesn’t agree Trump was trying to solicit foreign interference to undermine Biden in an upcoming election has their head up their ass… Yo, Trump apologists, can you hear me with your ears buried in there?
You seem to think that spin is a substitute for truth.
And that your guesses regarding intentions constitute facts.
Forget Trump entirely – unless you are a complete dolt – it should be self evident to you that there is plenty of basis to investigate Biden and his family – going well beyond Ukraine.
It is entirely possible that such an investigation might never be able to PROVE criminal conduct, but it has already established corruption.
Ine of your CORE problems is that you are not merely pretending that Trump may not ask for an investigation of Ukraine. But that NO ONE may do so. That Ukraine is entirely off limits.
That Reporters like Vogel and Solomon. Schweizer are barred from digging into corruption in Ukraine (or elsewhere) if it involves Biden or if it involves democrats.
That Guiliani or any other private citizen is barred from digging into Biden, the Ukraine or democrats,
And that Trump as president may not ask that clearly suspicious activities get investigated.
As best as i can tell your argument really devolves to those you do not like – can not investigate those you do – because of a presumed political motive.
If political motives are a bar to investigation then pretty much every investigation of government of any kind over the history of this country is barred.
Grow up, get a clue. Politics – like Bolton’s book deal is a factor in weighing the credibility of what is being reported. But no one on the planet is immune from investigation because politics might be a part of the basis for doing so.
So to be clear – in Jay world – Biden and other democrats can not be investigated ?
Not by Vogel, or Solomon, or Schweizer – reporters – because if a reporter would investigate Biden they are a political hack ?
Not by Guiliani – with or without the aide of Parnas and Furman.
Not by any part of the US government.
No one is permitted to look into any possibly criminal or corrupt activities in the Ukraine ?
I will absolutely give you – Guiliani’s actions are politically motivated. The only distinction between what Guiliani did and what Mark Elias, Glenn Simpson, and Christopher Steele did is that Guilliani’s allegations might prove True.
Regardless, you can attache whatever significance or lack thereof you wish to Guiliani, he still poses a fundimental logical challenge to this entire faux impeachment.
Guiliani’s actions are clearly politically motivated and except to the looniest on the left clearly legal.
Political motivations are NOT CRIMES. They are not even immoral.
What is immoral is the use of government power without justification REGARDLESS of your motives.
It does not matter if your motives are pure by every possible standard – if your use of force is not justified – it is abuse of power, criminal and inherently immoral.
Conversely if your use of power is justified – you can be Hitler, you can have the most vile of motives – it is still not immoral, criminal or abuse of power.
Your guesses – even if correct about the motives of others do not alter whether an act is legitimate or not.
Speculation about motives is a legitimate basis for inquiry,, it is NOT a basis for conclusions.
If the Ukrainians decided to investigate the Biden’s entirely on their own – would that be legitimate in your view ?
Guess what ? Except for a few brief periods from 2010 through the present Burisma and the Biden’s have been under near constant investigation by Ukraine.
Here is a story covering a speach in Sept. 2015 by the US ambassador to Ukraine demanding that the Ukraine investigate Zlochevskiy and Burisima.
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ambassador-upbraids-ukraine-over-corruption-efforts/27271294.html
In June 2015 the UK Serious Fraud Office seized 23M in Burisma assets in the UK as part of a corruption investigation.
https://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/ukraine-money-laundering-investigation/
In 2015 the Ukraine Prosecutor Puts Zlochevshy on Ukraines most Wanted list.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/reform-watch/prosecutors-put-zlochevsky-multimillionaire-ex-ecology-minister-on-wanted-list-377719.html
March 2019 – Ukraine opens ANOTHER investigation into Burisma.
May 2019 Sgtatement by Ukraine Embassy that Chalupa of the DNC sought and received aide from the Ukrainian government in diggiing up dirt on Manafort.
May 2019 NABU confirms that Burisma remains under active investigation.
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/sytnyk-nabu-has-not-closed-cases-related-to-zlochevsky.html
In the links I just provided – I omitted atleast a dozen links of contacts between Hunter Biden and various US Government officials Mostly at the State Department, Actively lobbying FOR Burisima and against investigations.
In addition to that there are lots of links confirming the involvment and significant payment to inumerable prominent democrats, democratic lobbying groups, and law firms in lobbying for Burisma with the US Government.
There are also documented about 1/2 a dozen phone calls to Ukrainian President porschenko from VP Biden – particularly during late 2015 and early 2016.
But we do not have transcripts of any of those phone calls.
Jay – Grow up. There is plenty to investigate.
The lying liar can’t help but lie:
https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/status/1221785313372246026?s=21
And Bolton is another GOP lump of shit for refusing to truthfully testify at House request.
Or maybe it is the House Intelligence Committee that is lying ?
Or maybe you have just gone totally completely nuts and want to paint every disagreement as a lie ?
Did the house subpeona Bolton ?
I have no idea if they “asked” him to testify – nor do you. I do not know if they phoned him, or his lawyers.
What I do know is that the NSA or former NSA can not testify before congress without the permission of the president or an order of the court.
Trump had PUBLICLY asserted a broad claim of executive priviledge that Bolton and the entire House was aware of.
One of Bolton’s aides was also “asked” to testify. He WANTED to testify. He went to court on his own to get permission to testify. The house failed to show up for the hearing, and the court ruled that there was nothing for it to decide – he could not testify.
From the start of this to the end, the house has failed to issue subpeona’s for most witnesses. The majority appeared without the consent of the whitehouse which is improper and more than sufficient grounds to terminate them. They appeared without whitehouse counsel or from their own departments) – which is also completely improper.
But that should not surprise as pretty much no due process of any kind was followed by the house.
And you want to quible over the distinction between asked and subpeona’d in a tweet ?
“ What I do know is that the NSA or former NSA can not testify before congress without the permission of the president or an order of the court.”
More cookie-cutter nonsense
Tillerson the previous Sec of State willingly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee without presidential permission or court order.
The Secretary of State is not the NSA.
Regardless, you are wrong both in fact and law.
All exceutive power vests in the president. That includes the power to determine who can testify in congress absent a court order.
The possibility that Trump did not sign a permission slip for each person who has testified in congress does not mean they were unilaterally free to do so on their own.
Even in recent instances – where almost all the house witnessed defied an order by the president regarding cooperating with the house – the fact they did testify does NOT mean they were allowed to.
It may wait until after the election – but I expect disciplinary measures against every one of them.
Regardless the fact that something has happened does not make it legal.
I would note that the vast majority of the executive has fully complied with Trumps directive.
Even Bolton and his aide – both of whom are not currently part of government – because executive priviledge does not end when you leave government, you are no more free to violate priviledge after leaving government than to leak top secret material.
A lawyer who is fired, disbarred, or stops practicing still has a duty to protect the priviledged communications of his client for the rest of his life.
This is all the state of the law.
While I do not think that Bolton will prove a useful witness to the House – it is inarguable that he is not chomping to testify. But he is also not stupid. He knows – unlike you that it is illegal.
Even out of office – he would risk never getting a security clearance again or even the remote possibility of criminal sanctions.
Bolton’s assistent went to court and asked the court for permission to testify when the House asked him.
The house did not show up and the court said NO. Executive privildge belongs to the president. His advisors can not waive it on their own. It is actually presumed in a large number of instances. Courts can overrule it. But congress can not unilaterally.
Another NYT report in 2015 on the Biden’s Burisma and Corruption.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-democrats-burisma-bait-and-switch/
Jay.
This one is for you – because you are absolutely positively immersed in “cancel culture”.
https://spectator.us/been-canceled-fight-back/
Guarding the Flatulent Fat Ass
I https://twitter.com/anntelnaes/status/1221873430686879744?s=21
Here’s what lefty, commie, satan worshipper Andrew McCarthy says about Trump’s Impeachment defense:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/bolton-blows-up-trump-teams-foolhardy-quid-pro-quo-defense/
Jay, do you think they can get 67 senators to remove him from office, or will this end just like Clinton, who also broke the law. And lets not debate the level of who did worse. If its impeachable, then its impeachable.
My point is the American voters will decide in November. The best the democrats can do is get the 5 senators, of which only 4 are needed, from NC, AZ, CO, ME and IA that are in toss up races, to vote for witnesses.
If they do that, this will be wrapped up in February. 8 months later we will vote. Who remembers what was news last June, 8 months ago? Who expects impeachment to be important in November?
How many negative NYT stories derived from leaks have proved true ?
Bolton is being coy about what he has actually said – although from what I undetand NOW, the “leak” from the Bolton memoir is NOT about investigating Biden, but about investigating the DNC and Chalupa.
The DNC is not a rival candidate, and Chalupa is not a candidate at all. Further Chalupa’s interferance is already well documented.
The big problem with investigating the DNC and Chalupa is their actions might be reprehensible, but they are arguably not a crime – any more than Clinton’s involvement in the Steele Dossier.
Regardless, Bolton and his publisher are denying they leaked anything to anyone.
Though they are pissed about the WhiteHouse book review process.
Bolton’s anger at the whitehouse raises innumerable other possibilities.
That means that the Transcript has been provided to the Whitehouse – and there are likely copies running through the Intelligence Community.
That would be pretty normal expecially for a book by an NSA.
Lots of people in government would have the oportunity to review it and be able to require edits to protect classified information.
It normally takes 2 years to get a book through review.
Bolton and/or his publisher could have fed this to NYT – because Trump can kill the story easily – by allowing the book to be published.
Alternatively, this leak could be from more of the Eric Ciarmeillo types who are making up what is in the transcript for the purpose of generating a story at a convient time to try to force witnesses.
But once again – people do not seem to have learned from Trump Russia – these leaks are ALWAYS either false, or substantially in error.
Bolton and his team are not going to confirm or deny what is actually written.
Whether they generated the leak or not – they benefit greatly from the hype and keeping it alive serves them.
There is not a single GOP Senator that can vote for the house Democrats Witnesses and get re-elected if they do not ALSO vote for Trump’s witnesses.
The primary reason that Bolton is STILL unlikely to be called is that NO ONE Except Trump really wants lots of Witneses.
Jay keeps trying to claim that Trump is trying to stop Witnesses – that is False. McConnell does not want witnesses. He wants this carnival show to END.
Trump’s lawyers have opposed the democrat witnesses – but not forcefully.
The Trump position has been much closer to No Bolton without Schiff, Biden,. Biden and Cairmeillo.
This SLIGHTLY increases the possibility of a “deal” for witnesses.
Except that even house democrats have said they will not trade Bolton for Biden.
And again – no Republican can survive 2020 if they vote for Bolton and against Trump’s witnesses.
Numerous political analysts have noted that. But it does not take a brain surgeon to grasp that even if you risk losing re-election by pissing off moderates, you guarantee losing if you piss off the base. And Trump’s base is VERY strong. If 2% of Trump supporters in Maine decide not to vote for Collins – she is done.
I expect impeachment to be very important in November.
I expect that it will drive Republican voters to vote FOR Trump AND Senators, and Representatives – because they are angry that impeachment happened.
I expect that angry democrats will sit out the election – because THEIR representative failed.
You can blame partisanship all you want – but these was a really really weak impeachment effort and everyone knows it. Democrats are already angry that Mueller failed, they are anrgy that Horowitz torpedoed them.
The question is who are they angry with ?
Anger is but one democratic emotion – the others will be despondence and depression
these work against voting.
The great danger of Mueller, and impeachment is that failure is demoralizing.
Just to be clear – I am not talking about the effect on the MAJORITY of democrats (or independents)
What I am talking about is that to win in Nov. Democrats MUST get 100% of all their constitutencies AND supress many of Trump’s.
We already know that Democrats are having serious trouble with Black voters.
Trump is polling better among blacks than pretty much any republican presidential candidate in the past. if he only does as well with blacks as Romney – that is less than half his current polling among blacks – he is re-elected. Trump is doing better among hispancs.
Trump is down with Women – particularly suburban women. But he is way up with men – particularly blue collar men of all races.
Anyway small gaps in enthusiasm will radically alter the outcome of this race.
Trump is filling stadiums wherever he goes – Democrats are filling cafe’s.
The enthusiam of voters in November matters.
Trump will be a martyr to his supporters – they are likely coming out.
Some Democrats will be enraged and certain to vote. But mostly those who were anyway.
There is no democratic contender that is charasmatic, there is none that is inspiring. there is none that does not alienate parts of their own base.
Add to that despondence and anger over impeachment.
Yes, I think impeachment is baked in as an impact in Nov.
And I think it was ALWAYS a hail mary for democarts.
“ I expect that angry democrats will sit out the election – because THEIR representative failed.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Flailing on the floor, clutching belly, hurting from laughter..
Majority of Independent Voters Say Trump Should Be Removed.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/26/trump-impeachment-fox-news-poll/4581020002/
We can play dueling polls all you want – but simple reason demonstrates this one is wrong.
Both republics and democrats are wedged at massive super majorities in favor of their respective positions. Democrats more so that republicans And democrats are slightly more numerous that republicans.
So if everyone else split evenly – The result should be about +3 in favor of remove.
Instead The RCP average as of Today is +0.6 in favor of keep.
That means the center must favor keep, and it must do so strongly enough to overcome the about +3 democrat/republican advantage.
Regardless – in 9 months you will have the only poll that matters.
“ The primary reason that Bolton is STILL unlikely to be called is that NO ONE Except Trump really wants lots of Witneses.”
Laughing so hard spittle spraying on my iPad screen
Jay, you can laugh all you want – what I said remains true.
If Bolton is called and no Trump witnesses are called – every republican Senator who voted for Bolton but not Trump witnesses will lose in November.
Senators like Collins can get away with voting for Bolton but NOT if they vote against Trump witnesses.
If any witnesses are called – this is going to drag out forever, and that does not actually serve either party. But it likely serves Trump.
You have not only not listened to Trump, you have not listened to Trump’s lawyers who though they have argued against Schiff’s witnesses have argued FOR Trump’s witnesses – not as a trade,
Amendment VI
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
McCarthy jumps the gun on Bolton – a NYT article claiming to tell us what portions of Bolton’s memior says is not the same as evidence.
Given the number of leaks – especially by NYT that have proven false, I am suprised that MacCarthy would jump to assuming NYT was credible so quickly.
Beyond that he is correct – and I have been saying that here for several months.
QPQ is completely irrelevant.
You can go back and find a post of mine that is critical of Jim Jordan’s constant refrain “the following facts are true and will never change” among them QPQ.
There is one and only one thing necescary for Trump’s defense – Reasonable suspicion to justify the investigation – that is ALL.
Everything else – the entirety of the house managers case is IRRELEVANT.
I remain skeptical of the NYT story.
It is HIGHLY unlikely that Trump told Bolton something he did not tell Sonderland or any of the rest of the army paraded infront of the house.
Among Other things while Bolton is a potential advisor regarding Ukraine – he is NOT an actor. Nothing is served telling Bolton.
To beleive this Bolton story – you have to beleive either that all these witnesses who actually were directly involved int eh Ukraine were told nothing – and neither was Zelensky – or that dispite the fact that they have testified strongly against Trump – they are sill lying about QPQ, But that Trump told Bolton – but not Zelensky, or Williams or Sonderland or …..
BTW the same argument applies to pretty much everyone else ont he Democrats witness list.
Democrats have already had testimony from TWO people who were on the phone call to Zelensky – one of which is Vindeman. And even he ultimately says the transcript is accurate.
So to get you blackmail scheme – you need to have someone who is part of government who has not testified, who can testify that they were directed by Trump to Tell Zelensky that there would be no aide without an investigation.
It would not be Bolton’s job to communicate this with Zelensky. It would not be Mulvaney’s.
It would not be anyone in OMB or NSA. The best these people can tell you is that Trump told THEM to withold aide. None of them would have told Zelensky.
Extortion, blackmail, a QPQ requires ASKING. So who asked Zelensky ?
This mess also occured only days before Bolton got Fired/resigned depending on which one you ask. Bolton was in the dog house before the call took place.
So now you want me to beleive that Trump confided in someone who he was deeply at odds with and about to fire ?
But I agree with McCarthy that the no-QPQ defense was a mistake. It is irrelevant.
You do not defend against claims that you robbed someone by claiming “I did not swear at them”. It is not relevant.
“ a NYT article claiming to tell us what portions of Bolton’s memior says is not the same as evidence.”
Correct.
That’s why Bolton should be called as an under-oath Senate impeachment witness.
“That’s why Bolton should be called as an under-oath Senate impeachment witness.”
Honestly I do not care – though you should be careful what you wish for.
Regardless, to get Bolton’s testimony – you either need Trump’s permission, or that of the courts.
I am tired of discussing precident, the law, due process, the constitution with you,
because you have made it perfectly clear – you do not care.
You do not care with the truth is.
You do not care about rights.
Your objective is removal by any means necescary.
That is why you are dangerous – to yourself and everyone arround you.
There is no difference between Trial by physical combat, and trial by political combat.
When you do not like the law you change it. You do not ignore it, or seek to go arround it.
“ We already know that Democrats are having serious trouble with Black voters.
Trump is polling better among blacks than pretty much any republican presidential candidate in the past.“
More delusional dreck.
“ An overwhelming majority of black voters — 85 percent — said in a new Hill-HarrisX poll that they would choose any Democratic presidential candidate over President Trump.
The survey, which was released on Monday, found this sentiment to be particularly true among black voters along partisan lines.
Ninety-eight percent of black voters who identify as Democrat, and 72 percent of those who identify as independent said they would back whoever ultimately becomes the Democratic nominee over Trump. Just 12 percent of black voters who identify as Republican said the same. ”
Duh! And if Biden runs the number will be higher.
Slurring an argument is not refuting it.
BTW YOU Poll Confirms my statement.
Romney got 6% of Black votes, That was the highest portion of black voters of any republican for decades. McCaine got 4%
Trump got 8% in 2016. If he gets 15% as YOUR poll says in 2020 – Democrats are in deep do do.
The polls I am seeing have Trump at near 30% with black voters but Expectations are closer to 12-15% with black voters.
And the situation is the same with Hispanics.
Trump is not going to get a majority of blacks or hispanics or even come close.
But he is going to get a large majority of whites. And democrats must get an even larger majority of minorities to win.
The left has been arguing that demographics is destiny – that as the US slowly becomes a majority minority country that it was also become solid blue.
Forgetting this same argument was used with the Irish and Italians and other minority and immigrant groups before.
The actual fact is that prosperity, rising standards of living particularly at the bottom favor republicans not democrats irrespective of race.
Biden has a better connection with Black voters than Warren and Sanders.
No one is arguing that.
But he is NOT going to get Obama’s numbers with blacks and minorities – even your own poll shows that.
There were many factors that led to Trump’s victory in 2016
ONE of those was that Obama’s support among minorities could not be repeated by Clinton.
Trump does not have to win minority voters. He can be dominated by Biden among Blacks.
But if he gets 12-15% of Black voters – Biden will lose big.
And that is what YOUR poll is predicting.
While I do not beleive the numbers prediction 30% of Blacks supporting Trump, those are just the outliers in a trend that has Trump taking a much larger bite of minority voters.
“lefty, commie, satan worshipper Andrew McCarthy”?
Oh my lord, Jay, you have become seriously deranged.
You really are in Knee-jerk zombie world, Pricilla.
That was pure Irony, to show a certified conservative thinks Trumps impeachment defense a farce.
Ah, I get it. Usually, your insane-sounding comments are serious. This insane-sounding one was “ironic.”
Andrew McCarthy has been saying for some time, that the “no quid pro quo” defense was foolhardy. He does not believe it is a farce, rather he believes that there is nothing inherently impeachable in a quid pro quo, so why deny it, especially in the case of the rampantly corrupt behavior of the Bidens?
My apologies for thinking that your normally overheated rhetoric was only a joke this time.
I have been saying the QPQ defense is stupid = even longer than McCarthy has.
There is only one thing that matters:
Is there reasonable suspicion to justify investigations into Ukraine in 2016 ?
There clearly is.
I think McCarthy jumped the gun on Bolton by presuming the leak accurately reflects reality.
The track record of accuracy in NYT bombshell leaks over the past 3 years is so great that I can say with near certainty Bolton did NOT say what the article says.
I can not recall Priscilla ever slurring anyone.
I do not recall her ever chasing tin foil hat nonsense.
It is irrelevant whether your remarks are “pure irony”.
‘
YOU make yourself everything that you claim to hate.
You are why Trump will likely win big in 2020.
All the outrageous insults only play well inside your own kabal.
We all know that Trump is full of insults – but there is a fundimental difference between Trump’s and yours. Trump does not alienate attack or slur fence sitters
You do not grasp the subtle but huge difference between
Everyone who beleives X is stupid,
and
Everyone who does not beleive Y is stupid.
You can get away with attacking Trump
You might get away with attacking his supporters.
But when you jump to insulting everyone that does not share your exact position – and you and the left do that all the time – you have slurred a supermajority of people.
Cant say much about Chinese industrial products, but one should agree they produce some of the most potent and deadly viruses that make it would wide. And this one can be spread 3-4 days before symptoms ever present.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/accuses-hong-kong-government-coronavirus-lying/?fbclid=IwAR1kSGVgArhCeOMQHrd_-OBUpcF7MFJ082qnngGPSgw7pyixJ7xo1m3WQ_o
Most viruses are spread before symptoms.
China is a breeding ground for viruses because:
It has 1.3B people, and animals and birds and dirt all in close proximity.
The Flu almost always starts in China – because you have a subtropical environment, with high population density, a fair amount of filth, and chickens, pigs and humans living right on top of each other.
When the US had the same condictions – Flu’s formed here.
The so called “spanish flu” that killed millions durring WWI originated in the US – I beleive in Kansas.
Computer viruses too…
Trump think:
His GOP DEFENDERS are claiming Ukraine was too corrupt for Trump to give them military aid, but simultaneously he trusted them to investigate Joe Biden.
The DOP (Dunderhead Old Party) at work.
Do I need to list the ways this is a horrible argument ?
1). YOUR Argument justifies the QPQ you swear is real.
2). Are you saying that Biden can not be investigated because he acted corruptly in a corrupt country ?
3). Ceeding that Ukraine is corrupt, ends impeachment.
4). The #1 removal argument made by Dems is that the US can not conduct honest elections with Trump as president – ignoring the stupidity of that argument, If Trump’s conduct in Ukraine is indistinguishable from Biden’s – that argument does not exist. OR If Ukraine interfered in US elections that argument does not exist.
Which BTW brings us back to witnesses.
The arguments House democrats have made have consequences.
Any argument that House democrats make Trump is ENTITLED to rebut – with witnesses.
By arguing election meddling – Trump is entitled to call Chalupa, and anyone else to demostrate democrats meddled in the Ukraine in the US 2016 elections.
By Arguing that Biden is not corrupt Trump is entitled to call the bidens to demonstrate otherwise.
Every argument that House Democrats make entitles Trump to call witnesses to rebut that argument.
That is the constitution, it is hundreds of years of anglo law, it is due process.
The Senate is not a star chamber.
Ultimately The Senate has a choice and control over House witnesses. There is not a right of the prosecution to make their case however they please. And the Senate can and should decide that if they brought the case too the senate they were done investigating.
With respect to the Defense – they must either dismiss or allow Trump to call witness or they violate the constitution and due process.
“ Every argument that House Democrats make entitles Trump to call witnesses to rebut that argument.”
Correct. If Bolton says he heard Trump make the Quid-pro-quo statement, Trump can call witness to challenge his word.
And if Schiff and Nadler refer to Hunter and Joe Biden in their arguments – which they have, Trump can call them. That is not the only reason that Trump can call them. He has asserted that his request for investigations is justified – he MUST be allowed to call the witnesses that demonstrate their is reasonable suspicion.
BTW that also means he may call Chalupa.
Further as credibility and Bias are ALWAYS legitimate challenges – Trump can call the WB and Schiff because their credibility and Bias are at issue.
There is an army of witnesses Trump could call – Zelensky, He could recall and cross any of the House witnesses if he wanted. Democrats have called much of what Trump wanted investigated a Russian Hoax – so Trump could call people from Crowdstrike, or Burisma, or Shokin.
This is unlikely to happen – because McConnell does not want a circus in the Senate.
But Trump does. Democrats have constantly Claimed that Trump opposes witnesses.
That is FALSE. Trump opposes THEIR witnesses. Givern the oportunity to do so, he would call dozens fo his own. In a normal trial, the only way to stop him would be to drop the charges. Democrats have made all these people relevant witnesses.
Ok – let’s have both Biden’s testify, and Trump & Rudy too.
If you want a fair revelation of the facts you certainly won’t complain about that, right?
Clinton testified in the Lewinsky impeachment.
Why aren’t you demanding trump testify under oath?
I suspect that Trump’s impeachment managers will likely have to handcuff him to prevent him from testifying – regardless that is highly unlikely.
If Democrats have proved their case (if anyone can tell me what their case is) – Trump can not fix that by testifying, if they have not, he can get himself removed.
I am not opposed to Rudy testifying. But I do not think that is going to happen. Rudy is a private actor, and he committed no crimes, much less crimes at the direction of the president.
If Democrats allow either Biden to testify – no matter what they get in return, they can write off Biden as a candidate. The lawyers on Trumps team are the cream of the crop – far better than Schiff and nadler, and trial testimony is NOT like being questioned by a reporter.
The Biden’s MIGHT be able to tell the truth without confessing to a crime – but not without coming away stinking.
Just one simple area – we KNOW that the VP’s office was contacted REPEATEDLY about Hunter Biden. So ask Joe Biden if those messages were relayed to him peronally.
If he says yes – he is in violation of US law regarding personal conflicts of interest. Probably not a crime but it stinks like hell, and any claim that there was nothing to investigate is completely destroyed. If he says no – then everyone in the VP’s office becomes a legitimate witness, and if a single one says Biden was notified it is perjury – in the impeachment trial of a political opponent – he is F’d.
But neither of the bidens have to be questioned hard. All they have to do is say under oath things they has said publicly that have not gotten much attention.
Oh, another VP Biden line of inquiry – you wanted Shokin fired for corruption – what is the evidence of corruption ? Todate there has NEVER been an answer to that.
And Trump’s lawyers are NOT going to let Biden get away with – the IMF said there was a problem, or the “concensus” ….
And lets look at Bolton.
Lets postulate the most favorable likely testimony for democrats from Bolton:
Bolton: Trump came to me with this hare brained scheme to withold military aide to Ukraine to get an investigation of the Bidens in Ukraine, and I told him to F’off
Schiff: Did you tell the ukrainians that aide was being withheld unless they investigated Biden ?
Bolton: Hell no! I stayed 10,000 miles away from that cocaine addled scheme.
Schiff: Do you know of someone else who did tell the Ukrainians that they would not get money unless they investigated the Biden’s.
Bolton: What part of “hell no!” don’t you understand.
On Cross
Sekelow: So do you have any first hand knowledge of anyone telling the ukrainians that they would not receive aide if they did not investigate the Bidens ?
Bolton: No!
Sekelow: So based on your testimony, Trump discussed doing this with you but the Ukrainians were never told that they would not get aide unless they investigated Biden ?
Bolton: Correct.
Just to be clear – I do not think Bolton’s testimony will be even that helpful to democrats.
I would further note that Bolton can also be asked questions like:
Would it be proper for VP Biden to withold $1B in aide to get the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son fired ?
Clinton did not testify at his own impeachment.
Monica Lewinsky. Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal did.
They did so in videotaped non-public depositions.
That is likely what you will see in this.
I have said repeatedly here that SCOTUS never should have allowed the Jones case to proceed until after Clinton left office.
There are very few circumstances in which you can make someone accused testify, and they can always take the 5th.
I honestly have no idea how Starr managed to get Clinton in front of a grand jury – but Clinton VOLUNTEERED – and then lied.
You’re right, Clinton didn’t testify at impeachment hearings, my mistake…
Jay, I am not perfect, I make mistakes. I try to avoid them, but they sometimes happen. That is what it means to be human. I do not expect perfection from you or anyone else.
Details of who tesified – at Clinton’s impeachment or before the grand jury are not especially important.
But issues such as who can be compelled to testify matter – alot.
It is highly unlikely that Clinton would have been impeached had he not CHOSEN to testify before Starr’s grand jury.
Starr could NOT compel Clinton. No one can be compelled to testify in an investigation in which they are the target. That is the law, our constitution.
Following the constitution strictly, the law narrowly, and even trying to adhere to past traditions and conventions matters alot.
These things are not sacred – the inerrant words of god writ in stone. But they are tested by time and history, and are far more likely to produce the correct outcome
But more important they provide the criteria for reaching judgements and determinations that were crafted BEFORE whatever the current conflict. They are not as tainted by our assorted personal and political biases.
When we find the constitution, the law, our rules and traditions are wrong – outside the context of whatever the impassioned dispute of the moment – we can change them.
Though we should do so carefully – because often a broken law or rule works better than a new one hastily constructed to address some impassioned objection of the moment.
Our legal processes, the constitutional legal and policy that defines when we can investigate, how we conduct investigations, what investigators are permitted to do and what they are not, when they can move to prosecuting, what those procedures are, what are the powers of the prosecutor, the court, the jury, and what are the rights of the defendant. All of this and much more is called “due process”.
It has been crafted over thousands of years. It is not perfect, but it is the best we have at reaching truth and dispensing public punishment legitimately.
It is irrelevant whether the current target is Trump, Obama, some street drug dealer, or a dispute over a will. We follow rules – some of which are thousands of years old most of which are centuries old.
We follow rules to keep our passions and certainty that we know what is true from overwhelming our reason.
We follow them to avoid chaos and anarchy.
Just to be clear – I do not think the Senate should have accepted this impeachment.
I am perfectly content to allow the courts to adjudicate whether the assorted witnesses the House wants can testify BEFORE THE HOUSE.
If After having done so, their testimony in person is deemed relevant in a Senate hearing – they should testify there.
Both Trump and the minority in the house have the same rights to call witnesses – and if there is some debate over them – the courts should resolve it.
Put simply the investigation gets done by the house – not the senate.
Finally – though I would not interfere with the Houses choice to investigate – given that reasonable suspicion exists justifying Trump’s request for an investigate – the entirety of the house investigation as well as this circus, is a pointless political excercise.
There is nothing wrong with asking Zelensky to cooperate in investigating the Bidens.
As troubling as that might be to you – so long as there is reasonable suspicion – there is nothing wrong with BLACKMAILING Ukraine to get their cooperation.
“And if Schiff and Nadler refer to Hunter and Joe Biden in their arguments – which they have, Trump can call them.”
Referring to them is not enough, it has to be testimony relevant to the charges.
You are doubly in error.
First the Biden’s are absolutely relevant.
Trump did not ask for an investigation of peanut butter.
He asked for an investigation of the conduct of the biden’s in the Ukraine.
Just about the most fundimental quesiton in this entire mess is whether the Biden’s can be investigated or not. There is plenty of information that is publicly available regarding that.
But if we are following the rules of a trial Jurrors are only supposed to weigh evidence presented in court. The defense is has the right to present the evidence to support its argument – and one part of Trump’s defence is that the request was justified – that the criteria for asking for an investigation were met. Therefore Trump has the right to enter into evidence those things that exist to demonstrate that the request for an investigation was justified. That would include The New York Times article alleging Biden’s corrupt involvement in Ukraine. The emails and letters and phone calls to the VP’s office warning of Hunter Biden’s questionable involvement in the Ukraine.
Whether you like it or not – that is all relevant.
Further just as absolutely core to all of this the evidence that Trump relied on to conclude that an investigation was justified, so is the evidence that Schiff relied on to determine that an investigation of Trump was justifed.
None of this should be knew to any of use. The entire Horowitz investigation of the Clinton Email investigation and of the Trump/Russia collusion investigation was ENTIRELY about “due process” – was there a proper foundation for each investigation – was the legal burden to justify each step in the investigation met.
Trump – like every other defendent in any matter – civil or criminal, can by right challenge every single step in the process. Please go back and read the 6th amendment.
Sorry jay,
But anything a prosecutor says – not merely what is testified to is open to the defense to challenge.
There are lots of court cases on this. Not only is anything a prosecutor says subject to refutation by the defence, but in some instances a prosecutor saying the wrong thing results in dismissal.
More From John Bolton’s book draft:
“He says he voiced concerns to William Barr that President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to autocrats“
That’s your trump – a sleazy self interested greedy motherfucker curing favor for future business deals:
Trump: “ have a major, major building in Istanbul… It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”
Jay, I’m sure Bolton didn’t write about himself in the third person.
My point being no part of the draft has been made public. What is out there is from anonymous sources. I have no doubt that Bolton’s book will be very vengeful and disloyal, but how exactly he knows anything that is any different from what we know already, I don’t know. And, I guarantee whatever is in this book, t will be anticlimatic
I thought the president’s legal team mopped the floor with Schiff’s sham impeachment. If Bolton testifies, or if he doesn’t, won’t make any difference…
Vengeful and disloyal?
Like so many others Trump hired to work for him who soon learned close-up what an asshole he is, and have reported it?
Do you hear yourself, reflexively calling those who tell the truth about their experiences vengeful and DISLOYAL. You sound like a Stalinist purging Commie Party members.
The Bolton assertion corroborated a central piece of the impeachment case against Trump’s Quid-pro-quo phone call. Everyone with sense knows that was Trump’s intent. If you don’t think him doing that worthy of impeachment, say so directly, and stop the BS ‘perfect call’ fighting corruption deflections.
Again, I agree if Bolton testifies or not it won’t make any difference, GOP announced that verdict before the trial started.
Jay, this is an impeachment by butthurt Democrats, who have pursued impeachment since Day One of Trump’s election.
Everyone knows this, including you. The “walls have been closing in” over the hundred plus “bombshells” manufactured by the Washington Post, the New Your Times, CNN and others for 3 long years.
Yet, it has all been for naught, because “Democrat butthurt” is not a valid reason for removal of a president.
“Quid pro quo” is in NO WAY an impeachable offense.
The fact that Joe Biden decided to run for president does not immunize him from charges of illegal (or legal) corruption.
This whole impeachment is a sham, a taxpayer-funded campaign stunt by Democrats, who have nothing to offer the American people in the way of good government.
As McCarthy h\I have advised republicans NOT to build their argument arround QPQ.
I have said here over and over – credibility matters. This is not like a military battle, where you can fall back to successive lines of defense while grinding down the enemy.
If you lose credibility it does not matter if you are overall right.
All that said – as you point out.
We have had bombshell after bombshell.
There is not a single NYT (or other) Bombshell story that haws not ultimately proven significantly different from what was reported.
Anyone who expects that What Bolton actually wrote – or more important what Trump said to Bolton matches what NYT reports is an idiot.
It is unbeleivably likely this will get watered down.
My “guess” is this is another “deep state” leak.
The manuscript is being vetted by the intelligence community.
That is where the NYT leak probably came from.
And like past leaks – what is actually in the book and what they told the NYT probably have little to do with each other.
But Bolton and his publishers are going to capitalize on the publicity regardless.
I would too.
“ Quid pro quo” is in NO WAY an impeachable offense.”
But you kept on insisting Trump didn’t do that. There was no evidence of that you insisted. So now that the evidence is solid, you’re defaulting to the ‘so what’ defense. Shame on you.
And if Dems take over the presidency you’re not going to have a problem with them asking Russia for money-laundering proof to prosecute Trump in state court in exchange for quid-pro-quo better relations on trade or military relations, right?
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Further to this moment there remains no evidence there is or was a QPQ.
The NYT story is of no more or less legal significance than the NYT story in 2015 about Hunter Biden in the Ukraine.
It is “reasonable suspion”.
House dems have been game playing from the start
They are conflating a crime, with QPQ, with attempted QPQ with discussions of QPQ, with suspicions of QPQ.
The aide was delivered on time.
No public statements were made regarding an investigation.
There is to this moment – even if the NYT story is true in every detail, no evidence that an actual threat was ever made to the Ukrainians.
If absolutely every word of the NYT Story is true – which is highly unlikely.
All you have is that Trump discussed a QPQ with Bolton.
To have an actual – or even attempted QPQ, You either have to have the Ukrainians state they were threatened, or you have to have a record of a threat being delivered.
It is highly unlikely that Bolton had anything to do with delivering a threat to the Ukrainians.
Which also makes the NYT story dubious – there is no reasom for Trump to talk to Bolton about something Bolton is not involved in. This is also why Mulvaney’s testimony is irrelevant. Trump, Bolton, OMB, anyone in Trump’s circle can DISCUS witholding aide To Ukriane for whatever reasons they wish – licit or illicit.
Just like you and I can sit here and discuss in great detail how to rob a bank.
That discussion has no meaning at all until we ACT towards implementing it.
Thus far a quintiple hearsay story in the NYT is the only evidence Trump DISCUSSED the possibility of a QPQ with anyone. There is todate ZERO evidence of ACTING.
Regardless Bolton would not be a channel for acting, Multaney and OMB would not be a channel for acting. But Sonderaland and Williams would be. Both claim they heard rumors, but NEVER discussed a QPQ with Trump, and NEVER delivered a threat to the Ukrainians.
The most fundimental problem for Republicans is NOT Evidence or a QPQ, but that the NYT story attempts to undermine the credibility fo the claim there was no QPQ.
As I keep saying with respect to VP Biden’s publics statement – and the 2015 NYT article about Burisma and Hunter.
IT CREATES REASONABLE SUSPICION.
At this point House Dems have “reasonable Suspicion” or a QPQ – which is not a crime.
They also have “Reasonable Suspicion” that some people have lied (though not under oath).
Just to be clear – reasonable suspicion is NOT proof.
If a QPQ was a crime – which it is not. Then House Dems would now have sufficient basis to ask for and receive a Special Counsel. But it is not a crime – so they don’t.
“And if Dems take over the presidency you’re not going to have a problem with them asking Russia for ” – anything where reasonable suspicion exists.
Nope, If Dems are elected (or if they are not) Any president can ask any foreign leader to investigate or for evidence they might have regarding anyone republican democrat, …
WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS.
Are you actually trying to say that if Trump (or any other Republican) is engaged in money laundering with the Russians and democrats are elected that those republicans are immune from investigation if doing so requires the cooperation of a foreign power ?
The FBI asked for cooperation from the UK and AU – they “spied” on the Trump campaign.
Are you saying that was a crime ?
Horrowitz has confirmed what I have been telling you for years.
Reasonable suspicion gets you an investigation. It does NOT get you a warrant or a search or a subpeona, or spy. You can inquire based on Reasonable suspicion – not compell.
Regardless the standard is not “political opponent”. If it was the upper floor of the FBI would all be in jail. The standard is “reasonable syspicion” to start and investigation and “probable cause” to spy, or search.
My guess assesment of Bolton’s book has little or nothing to do with Trump.
It has everything to do with Bolton. He has been arround for a very long time.
His behavior is very well know.
John Bolton is not merely a neo-con – he is brilliant. arogant self-righteous and ascerbic.
Anytime he ends up on the losing side of anything – the other side is evil and stupid.
That is who John Bolton is. He would be that way whether he was fired by Trump or anyone else.
Let me emphasis AGAIN – that he is not stupid. He may be very wrong, but he is very smart.
He knows exactly what it will take to not merely profit off this book, but also to enhance his stature power and influence.
Think very very heard about that.
There is about zero way on the planet John Bolton is going willingly into the role of John Dean. Bolton is a neo-con hero and god. He is not trading that for being a mostly impotent left wing hero
There is not a chance in hell Bolton is lying under oath. But spinning in a book ? Absolutely.
Though even in the book, he is not going to write what he might have to repudiate later.
There is also another possibility regarding Bolton that is incredibly dangerous to democrats, but it is highly speculative and there is no evidence to support it (or contradict it).
All I will say is for myriads of reasons – including examining what we actually know to be fact – there is zero chance Bolton will deliver your hoped for Coupe De Grace and many possibilities whether varying odds that he will undercut of seriously harm your case.
And one unlikely possibility that he will destroy it.
A draft is not being made public.
At BEST an NYT reporters paraphrase of a leak of a draft is being reported.
I really really really do not like Bolton.
He is pretty much the uber neo-con.
If Bolton had his way Iran would have been nuked until it glows.
But there is a difference between Bolton is arrogant and wrong, and Bolton is a stupid liar.
Bolton was NSA breifly and inexplicably, he never made sense as part of Trump’s team.
Regardless, I would fully expect Bolton’s book to Trash Trump and Obama, and everyone but John Bolton especially regarding the mid east. I would fully expect John Bolton is right about everything and everyone else is wrong. Though I would expect Bolton would be much harder on Obama that Trump – much like Mattis. He is not going to be kind to Trump.
Bolton will spin everything, but I would be shocked if he would actually lie.
I would expect that the book will contain some serious red meat for Trump critics – Bolton’s natural audience does not include democrats and if he can spin enough on issues such as Ukraine to get Democrats to buy the book – that would really boost sales.
But again – he is not going to outright lie.
Next, I do not think there is a way in hell that Bolton is going to put himself into the role of John Dean. If Bolton were to be the “smoking gun” that resulted in Trump’s removal. Bolton will never be remembered for anything else. Except to a very few John Dean is not a hero.
John Dean is a bendict arnold. It does not matter than Nixon was crooked. Only those on the left see Dean as someone of integrity. Liddy and Colson came out as hero’s Dean did not.
Bolton is not going to do a John Dean. He does nto want to be remembered that way.
Further, at the Time of the Ukraine calls etc. Bolton was already on the way out. Further they are MOSTLY outside the NSA’s domain. Bolton was on the call, but it is highly unlikely that he would have carried messages to Zelensky or the Ukraine, or been asked too.
We have already heard the testimony of those who would have directly interacted with the Ukraine. Everyone of those did not like Trump, beleived something was going one. But had no first hand knowledge despite the fact that THEY would have had to deliver the message to Ukraine. If the conversation that allegedly occured with Bolton and Trump had actually occured – it would have been with Sonderland or Williams not Bolton.
BTW this is true of ALL the other democrat witnesses that have not testified.
You can successfully argue that Mulvaney, Omb, Bolton, NSA would have been consulted on withoulding Aide. But if the aide was being used as leverage – the message would have to be delivered – and that would not go through these people – it would go through State and ambassadors.
Which raises another issue that is absolutely relevant to executive priviledge and it came up in the Mueller report.
One of the reasons that executive privildge exists is that what Trump and advisors SAY to each other does not matter – we actually want Trump and advisors to discuss all options.
Ultimately it is what is DONE, not what is said.
We know as an example that Trump wanted Mueller Fired. That he said that constantly, but Mueller was never fired.
It is nearly impossible to convert words that did not result in any actions into a crime.
What Trump “told’ Bolton does not matter. What he DIRECTED Bolton to do that was done matters.
Thus far there is ZERO evidence of an actual QPQ.
There is lost of evidence that people other than Trump TALKED about a QPQ, even beleived there was a QPQ. But there was no actual threat delivered to the Ukrainians.
They deny that, and those who would have delivered it deny it.
Bolton is not going to add anything no matter what he might testify to or write.
I paid little attention.
I have no need to listen to Trump’s team.
Democrats do not have a case.
What little I heard of their remarks changed nothing.
Actual facts are what matter. The most critical facts – which are NOT those that the House GOP focused on are ACTUALLY impossible to change.
There exists reasonable suspicion of an assortment of misconduct in Ukraine that should be investigated.
And that should have been the end of this.
QPQ, who said what to who – they do not matter.
Nadler is correct – the Biden’s do not matter. BUT what they have already said and done DOES. We have never needed witnesses for that.
That is also why I beleive this faux impeachment has been as much an effort by democrats and the deep state to thwart investigations into their own misconduct as to get Trump.
“Yet, it has all been for naught, because “Democrat butthurt” is not a valid reason for removal of a president.”
Priscilla, I could go digging and find several comments by you in 2016 stating that you believed that either Clinton or Trump would be impeached if elected. So, perhaps your present feigned indignation is a sign of your own butthurt at having your stable genius hero trump impeached?
Yes, you constantly and totally reliably check all the required boxes for a blindly loyal republican. What a bore. But you are full of it. trump has richly earned his impeachment. I do not know the final verdict of history on all of trumps policies but I do know that history will accurately condemn trump for all his outrageous behaviors and understand the point of view of his detractors, while giving his blind supporters what they deserve as well.
Oh, please, tell me with a straight face that the party that ran the “throw her in jail” themed convention would not have impeached Clinton, or would not have impeached any Dem president who acted as trump has? Cry me a freakin river. The GOP is nothing but a lying whining sack of honorless crap.
Why don’t you all just stop the %^&%$ whining. Your current hero won’t be convicted and history will sort it all out, likely not in his favor. But the “I didn’t see nothin: routine is older than old and more boring than a meeting of accountants.
Why J hangs out here constantly feeding you guys opportunities to strut your pure BS is a mystery to me.
Bleh, just rotten.
But I will admit that 1968 and surrounding years was far worse than 2020. Not to mention 1939 and its era. So I guess we are relatively lucky that our focus is on having a rotten lying jackass as POTUS and his wretched party of toadies (not to mention our Dem party with its large faction that are in love with a trotsky channelling left wing throwback crackpot and his delusional ideas) and not the Vietnam war and assassinations and civil rights murders and riots.
All that perspective aside this is Not a proud moment in our history.
I’m not whining.
And I know he won’t be convicted.
This is not a proud moment in history. It’s a disgrace. We agree on that, although I’d imagine not for the same reasons.
It certainly hurts Biden at least as much as Trump, and helps Bernie. That we may agree on.
This hurts everyone – including Bernie. It hurts the country, it hurts the house and senate, it hurts pelosi. It hurts Trump, it hurts every single democrat and republican.
But it does not hurt them all equally.
With respect to candidates and elections – there is no certainty who it hurts the most.
But given long enough to mull things over, “the people” usually get it right.
Robby,
What is the logic that gets you from Priscilla noting that if either Clinton or Trump was elected they would be impeached to “Priscilla is a partisan hack” ?
Does observing that democrats are partisan hacks make you a partisan hack ?
If I said in 2016 that the sun will rise tomorow – can you reason from that to “I am a partisan hack”
I am just looking for the logic in your argument.
I think it is pretty clear that Priscilla is a conservative and republican.
But there is little that you can conclude with certainty from that observation alone.
Do all republicans have idenitical views on
Tarrifs
Immigration
Taxes
Deficits
Free markets
Regulation
Health Insurance
……
I am no more or less bored by Priscilla than you.
I do not agree with either of you 100%.
In my experience Priscilla has been more willing to back up her positions with arguments that you have.
She is also less likely than you to substitute naked assertions, and fallacies for arguments.
I often do not agree with her – but I can have a debate or discussion with her, without anyone hurling an insult.
Impeachment is inherently a political process.
Democrats have just made it far more political than ever before.
Even the Johnson impeachment was not this political. It was a setup crime, but atleast there was a crime.
You say this is “deserved” – i have no idea what that means.
What I do know, is that if we continue as you have with Trump, Impeachment will be commonplace.
There are two obvious consequences of this impeachment.
Any president holding up foreign aide for any reason in the future faces serious risk of impeachment if their party does not control the house.
It will no longer be possible for a president whose party does not hold the house to investigate possible crimes committed by the party that does.
Those are the obvious conclusions. But more broadly you can expect that any future president who does not also control the house will be impeached over any significant policy differences.
By the current standards, Obama should have been impeached:
For holding PPACA together with duct tape – outside the law.
For DACA
For the IRS investigating 501c(3)’s on a political basis.
That absolutely reaks compared to this.
These are a few examples – regardless we will see many many more with near certainty in the future.
Our best hope at ending this nonsense was for the Senate to reject for failure to state an impeachable offense. But that ship has sailed. The longer this farce continues the more frequently we will see impeachment weaponized in the future.
If you want to claim that Trump is not “presidential” – I doubt you will get an argument with anyone here. He is not.
I would greatly prefer a president who was much more presidential – and whatever his other problems mostly Obama and Bush were. I would even agree that we probably have never had a less presidential president that Trump.
But though there are many reasons Trump was elected – and you as well as the entire left – whether you include yourself or not have utterly failed to think about that at all, one of the core reasons that Trump was elected is that Democrats increasingly call absolutely everyone running against the hateful, hating haters, and racists, sexist, homophobes – as well as fascists and Nazi’s. Trump was the first republican to figure out how to weaponize the Democrats own tactics against them. That inherently results in being “non-presidential”.
If you actually look at the Trump presidency in terms of polices – it is to the left of Reagan.
For the first time Since Carter (thus far) a president has not started a new military conflict of any kind anywhere. We can fight over the military aspects of Trump’s foreign policy – none of us are likely to agree 100%, but aside from the constant media and democrat and left outrage Trump’s foreign policy is the tamest and most effective at the very least Since Bush I.
I am not asking you to agree on any aspect of it. I do not agree with every aspect of it. But pretending that we are approaching doom is just nonsense.
And we can move from foreign policy to any other area and find exactly the same thing.
Trump is strongly deregulatory – so was Reagan – but the most deregulatory preside of my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. Cater Deregulated the rails, trucking. and airlines completely closing government regulatory departments. Trump does not even come close – and Carter was a democrat.
If you have not long ago gathered, I am actually a really big Jimmy Carter Fan.
He botched Solar Energy, and He botched things in iran, and his Malaise speach was really really stupid, though the facts and arguments were correct.
Reagan is given credit for ending the stagflation of the 70’s and bringing about the prosperity of the 80’s, but the foundations were all laid by Carter. Cater put volker on the Fed, Carter allowed Volker to cause a recession that ended stagflation but also ended his presidency. Reagan was wise enough to stick to it. Carter started the deregulation.
Carter cut military spending. and tried to cut government spending overall.
Find me one area of Trump’s presidency outside of his confrontational relationship with the press that is outside the norms of past president.
This is not about whether I like Trump or not. There are policies of his I am at odds with.
This is about the venom and outrage directed at Trump.
We are NOT in the midst of anything equivalent to the Vietnam war. And to the extent our military is engaged in conflict outside the US the scale is small, and Trump is working to end them and most of us accept that.
A few weeks ago we were told Trump was wagging the dog with Iran – did that happen ?
Our relations to Iran and North Korea are dangerous. Innarguably they were less in the news during Obama. But they were not better. Paying the Iranian Mullah’s billions and dropping sanctions did not make them behave any better – they used the money to fund terrorism in the mideast. Meanwhile Kim Un made progress towards being about to put a nuke in Loas Angeles.
Are Iran and NK good neighbors today ? Nope. Trump has not fixed them. But he has tried. Obama did nothing. Trump may not have done better, but he has not done worse.
Is the economy great ? NO!!!! Is it substantially better than it has been since Clinton ?
Absolutely !!!!
Again we can debate details and policies. But to the extent Trump is outside the norms of the past 20 years – it is a substantial improvement.
If Obama had a 3% economy instead of a 1.8% one. If Obama had stood up for american workers for real, if Obama had actually contained Russia, China, Iran and NK – and done so without getting us into another conflict anywhere. If after 3 years of Obama things in the country were overall as improved as after 3 years of Trump – Obama would have done to Romeny what Nixon did to McGovern. What Reagon did to Mondale, what Bush did to Dukakis. What Clinton did to Dole.
Please cut this nonsense
Go back and figure out Why Clinton lost – and FIX IT.
Figure our Why Trump won – and replicate it.
And republican or democrat figure out what has and has not worked for the nation.
We can find republican and democratic example of exonomic success, and of economic failure. We have pretty good ideas as to what works and what does not.
We can find democratic and republican examples of what works and what does not in foriegn relations. We have a pretty good idea as to what works and what does not.
Gore, Kerry, Obama, (Hillary) Clinton – and the entire 2020 Democratic slate – are selling snake oil accross the board. Trump did not “make them” sell snake oil.
If you want to Add the Bushes to those failures – be my guest.
Democrats do not have a corner on either what fails or what works.
So please tell me – outside of your personal bitterness, and Trump’s highly successful but highly unpresidential demeanor – why is it that Trump deserves to be impeached ?
I do not think that democrats stand a snowballs chance in hell of wining in 2020.
But before you or Jay dump thousands of polls and pundits purportedly proving I am wrong.
Lets say that Democrats do win in 2020.
Do you honestly beleive they are going to contnue Trump’s policies ?
Do you think we are going to return to the Obama Doldrum’s – or worse ?
Biden is probably the least dangerous democratic candidate – and he is quite litterally promising a return to the Obama era.
Unless you beleive that the differences in policy between Obama and Trump have absolutely nothing to do with the differences in growth, standard of living, etc. then a return to Obama will be really really bad. – both in terms of peoples lives and politically.
You say Trump deserves to be impeached – how is it you actually think Trump will be judged if he is bracketed on either side by the economic deserts of the obama Era I & II ?
Obama’s policies resulted in Republicans taking almost 4000 federal and state offices from 2009-2016, Do you think that Pres. Biden will have either the house or the Senate in 2022 ?
All that has to happen in 2020 is for Democrats to repeat the same mistakes they made under obama and Trump will look like a hero.
After 20 years the ONLY reason that Bill Clinton is not as lionized as Ronald Reagan is that he STILL can not keep his zipper closed and is as #metoo creepy as ever.
If Bill Clinton had died of a Heart Attack in 2004 – he would be lionized today.
If we are trading books on pollitical corruption:”
Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite,
Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends,
BTW the DOJ says the NYT article “grossly mischaracterizes” the communications between Barr and Bolton.
You are trying to quote quintuple hearsay as precise.
We do not know what NYT actually has.
Bolton and his publisher deny they leaked anything.
I suspect that is actually true.
We know that the book is being reviewed by the administration – ANY book published by a member of the Intelligence community requires review and approval by the intelligence community – that is not new. The process typically takes 2 years. That is not new either.
Even works of fiction by people in the intelligence community get reviewed.
Probably copies of Bolton’s manuscript are all over the “deep state”
That is the most likely source for the NYT article.
Well we have had 3 years of “deep state” leaks.
How many of them have been accurate thus far ?
It is about 90% certain that whatever Bolton actually wrote is far tamer than what is reported.
The leaks have ALWAYS been Bombshells. reality has always been fizzle.
‘
But go on with the “hail mary”
“Trump towers” Istanbul was built in 2012 – that is 3 years before Trump announced.
Ivanka was there for the opening.
It is NOT a Trump property, it is owned by a Turk who pays the Trump’s a license fee for the name. Trump is not popular in Turkey and so that name is proving to be a liability not an asset, and the Turkish owner is trying to rename the buildings and get out of the contract.
I keep telling you that Trump getting elected president has been BAD for Trump enterprises – but you keep ignoring the evidence.
There are many who will say how hard hearted those that support this decision are, but welfare and entitlements were NEVER created for illegals and non productive immigrants to live off the teats of the American taxpayer!
Look at the vote and see why conservative judges are so important in this day of socialist democrats.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-deny-green-cards-for-immigrants-likely-to-abuse-welfare/
I support open borders.
I will allow almost anyone who wants to, to come here.
But you can not have open borders and an entitlement system that is available to anyone who crosses the border.
This is not about being hard hearted it is about turning a bad idea into a whirlpool that sucks the entire country in.
The rule allows customs and immigration officers to decide who they let in or exclude. That’s how it worked during the surge of European immigration during the 1880s and 90s, for better or worse:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/medical-examination-immigrants-ellis-island/2008-04
Jay, I am not the sharpest nail in the bag. What does medical exams yave to do with SCOTUS supporting illegals and nonproductive green card carriers from getting welfare type benefits?
,,Jay, I am not the sharpest nail in the bag. What does medical exams yave to do with SCOTUS supporting illegals and nonproductive green card carriers from getting welfare type benefits?
Impeachment witnesses:
House develops articles.
Articles sent to senate.
House presents case based on articles created by house investigation.
Nothing further unless….
….witnesses allowed
….Democrats get X number
….GOP gets same number
….Every called witness must agree to testify
….Dems call one, GOP cross exam
….GOP calls one, dems cross exam (alternating so one cant get all theirs and then those called by GOP back out)
Witnesses should not be allowed if house did not use them to create articles, but if they decide to call them, then the equal number are called and methods to insure the witnesses follow through are in place to insure that happens.
These are the actual rules.
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The senate is the rough equivalent of a trial court.
The defense must have full access tot he prosecutors case BEFORE Trial.
Prosecutors are not allowed “Surprise witnesses”
Being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation means knowing all the evidence against you BEFORE the start of the trial.
The defense must know the prosecutions case in order to be able to prepare a defense.
The house is free to go back and attempt to secure Bolton’s testimony – IN THE HOUSE.
The house is not free to waste the time of the Senate.
The burden of making their case is THEIRS.
Each side is allowed the number of witnesses that are nescary to make their case.
But each witness must be germaine and their evidence must be admissible.
And all prosecution witness must be available to the defense BEFORE trial.
That is how due process works. there are not fixed numbers of witnesses in a trial, Nor is either side free to call however many witnesses they please. What a witness MIGHT be able to testify to – does not get them into a court – the prosecution is supposed to question its witnesses BEFORE bringing them to trial. It must be able to say what the WILL testify to.
Conversely the prosecution does not typically get access to defense witnesses before a trial.
Defense witnesses must either rebut elements of the prosecutions case or support the defenses “theory”. Defendants are rarely allowed “multiple” defenses.
i.e. you can not argue – I did not do it, but if I did this is why.
You can however argue – it is not a crime, but if it was I did not do it.
Regardless any claim the prosecution made in their case in cheif is always grounds for a defense witness, and between Schiff and Nadler they have made pretty much Trump’s entire wishlist of witnesses a requirement.
The prosecutor decides what witnesses it wants.
Though each must survive a defence demand for proff that the witensses testimony will be relevant. At this moment Bolton can not survive that. No one knows what Bolton will say. That is why they had to question him during the investigation.
Witnesses do not get to choose whether they will testify. and we do not alternate witnesses.
The prosecution goes first. The defense rebuts the prosecution if they choose.
As a practical matter this should be returned to the house now.
It is clear they have done a half assed job preparing this.
They should not be allowed to waste the senates time.
It is likely they will get many of the documents and witnesses they want, but that could take 3 months. Further they will not get them all. and the courts have to work that out.
It is a coin toss whether the courts will require Bolton to testify.
If they do, they will likely limit his testimony.
After he testifies in the house, if the House still wants to move forward THEN they can come to the senate.
Further the Senate must push back on the house – or this kind of mess will happen again.
“ It is clear they have done a half assed job preparing this.”
Yeah, right.
Quinnipiac just now:
75% of voters say allow witnesses in Senate impeachment trial, Poll finds; 53% say #PresidentTrump is not telling truth about Ukraine.
Need I remind you of your asinine prediction the DEM delay would hurt them. What part of DUH do I need to explain?
You keep fixating on individual polls taken at the spikes of “bombshell” moments.
I can not predict whether Bolton will testify.
But I can predict this will continue to be boring as hell. And where the long term Trends go.
for the sake of Argument – lets say you manage to drag this out another two weeks.
You get Bolton and Mulvaney and a few other Aides to testify.
There testimony is incredibly boring and no one watches.
No matter what they testify to – you have to actually connect it to ACTION not words.
After you have your dull boring high point possibly with Bolton. Trump’s team follows probably with Hunter – after which anyone who is actually watching – which will probably be the same few people who watched Bolton, wonders why the hell the Biden’s were not investigated before.
There is a final vote – and you are STILL unlikely to get a single republican vote, but maybe you get one or two.
People have heard all these witness you think are absolutely critical.
NOTHING has changed – because what you need to change things is not possible.
You need the Bidens to be indisputeably angelically clean and you will never be able to get there.
And now we have 8 month’s left to the election.
I have no idea how the democratic primaries go – Biden got the advantage of a whole month on the campaign alone, At the price of having been pummeled over the corruption of him and his son – which is going to dog him all the way to the election.
Sanders and Warren have lost a whole month from their campaigns.
Who knows maybe more. McConnell might be so pissed that he shifts to impeachment in the morning and senate business all afternoon – or the other way arround – trapping Warren and Sanders in DC for a couple of months and giving Trump a dozen witnesses.
You say the polls matter and voters want more witnesses.
Do you think that witnesses stop with Bolton ?
i do not think Bolton actually wants to testify, and I do not think his testimony will be interesting – but you can keep hoping – how well has that worked for you so far ?
What Bolton wants is to the in the spotlight – but NOT in the witness stand.
But again beleive what you want.
As you have for 3 years – you continue to presume that some miracle is going to occur and you will get evidence of facts to magically come together to prove something – that logic will tell you is not going to ever be proven.
And in the end you fail.
You have republican voters pissed as hell at you for this mess.
You have far left voters pissed at you for failing.
You have those in the middle going – we gave you witnesses and everything else you wanted and you delivered a fizzle.
You have Durham indicting people.
Trump will NOT get ALL of a new deal with Iran, China, NK, UK, EU, Troops out of afghanistan and the mideast. but he will get some of that.
Democrats will have tied up the house and senate for a year accomplishing nothing.
You will have nothing to campaign on – except we failed at everything.
This is the environment you think you will win in 2020 ?
And lets say you do. Then you have to deliver.
Do you think that 3% growth occurs magically ?
Growth under Trump went from a tailspin and projected recession in 3Q 2016 to 3% growth in 1 year. There was no tax cut until later. that spike was do to one of two things.
Market confidence in Trump rather than Clinton, or Trump’s deregulation (or Both).
No matter what – short of magic – you are not getting it in 2021.
The best you get is a return to Obama growth. More likely a mild recession – unless you elect Sanders or Warren which will terrify the market and cause a serious recession.
You can win if you win.
I have told you REPEATEDLY that until you figure out why you lost in 2016 you can not succeed in the future.
Regardless 2 years of Democrats in 2020 would possibly be the best thing that could happen to republicans – voters would REALLY quickly figure out why they voted for Trump in the first place.
But keep up the wishful thinking.
RCP average TODAY Keep +0.4%
Rassussen Trump apporval TODAY 50% obama same day 46%.
I expect that in the next few days these will both spike down briefly, based on the NYT story.
And who knows if Witness are called – maybe Trump will get another 1-2pt spike down for a day or two. But you REMAIN on the wrong side of the trend line.
As occurred during the Mueller investigation – you get a “bombshell” now and then that spikes briefly – but each fizzles – predictably.
You betting long term on a miracle.
As to “witnesses” – so what ?
I think 100% of us want the govenrment to give us 10,000 dollars.
Do you think that will happen ?
Do you think people will vote based on that ?
Just a reminder: if Pelosi hadn’t delayed transmitting the impeachment articles, the trial would be over by now – and the Bolton revelations would not be in impeachment play.
Pelosi has consistently out-played Trump.
If she was his presidential opponent she’d kick him ass-backwards.
“Just a reminder: if Pelosi hadn’t delayed transmitting the impeachment articles, the trial would be over by now – and the Bolton revelations would not be in impeachment play.”
And you beleive this because ?
Bolton’s manuscript has been under review long enough for Bolton to be bitching because the process is not complete (even though it normally takes 2 years).
Regardless of where the leak came from – and it likely came from the US intelligence community, those who supplied the leak to NYT had control of its timing.
If Pelosi moved faster, the leak would have occured at the same point in the trial.
Slower – again the same.
Further I would guess that if we wait long enough – we will find out the leak seriously misrepresents Bolton’s actual writing.
Hell, this is a long shot, but i would not entirely rule out that Trump somehow arranged the leak himself.
You claim the public wants witnesses. Trump wants his witnesses. Democrats want theirs.
I am sure that after hearing Bolton and Hunter you will be loudly braying that Trump must be removed.
But the losers in this are the Future, the senate and democrats.
Your still looking for a miracle that is not coming. And you still do not grasp that it does not matter how many faux bombshells drop, they all fizzle in the end – and it is actually predictable.
A few days ago you said Trump was threatening to put republicans who voted against him’s head on a pike. Turns out that was another Fake threat made up by Schiff – twice.
Trump will be weakened by this – and probably from Bolton’s testimony – if it occurs.
A small amount, briefly. But Democrats are weakened too, if anything more.
Further Trump is an incumbent president with a relatively strong economy. There is very little he can not recover from.
Ron asserts that if Trump were more “presidential” he would be the 20 point favorite right now. That would only be true if Trump were more presidential AND the press and the left was not still spraying the same TDS all the time.
I would have thought that Obama was certain to lose to Romney at this point and then Benghazi happened and I thought Obama was toast.
But there is a tremendous benefit to being an incumbent president.
We have seen 3 incumbents lose in my lifetime. Ford who was never elected. Carter who spent the entire last year of his presidency with hundreds of americans held hostage in Iran and an economy in the crapper, And Bush I who had a recession just before the election.
Trump was not supposed to win in 2016. Clinton had lots of baggage – but she was far more of a heavy weight than Jo Biden and the seven dwarves.
Democrats do not have the ecoonomy, they do not have the candidates, they do not have a platform, all they have is TDS – and they hope that they can get Trump’s numbers lower than they are now.
Dave “Ron asserts that if Trump were more “presidential” he would be the 20 point favorite right now. That would only be true if Trump were more presidential AND the press and the left was not still spraying the same TDS all the time.”
Oh you exagerate!😊
I would never expect any politician to get 68-69% favorable, even FDR never got that high. But I do believe he would be 4-5 points higher, one main reason being the media would not be spreading the extreme TDS like it is.
Trumps un-presidential behaviors feeds the medias desire to spread discontent, which stokes Jay’s and others TDS and holds down his approval.
Sorry, but I can not believe anything but his approvals being somewhat higher and the medias ability to spread TDS lower if his public contacts were based on positives, like USMCA, China Trade, economic news, etc. and far less on energizing the red neck bubba’s in the country.
Clinton reached 67% after impeachment.
Eisenhower had an AVERAGE of 65%
Kennedy 70%.
Obama’s Peak was 69%
Clinton 73%
GWB 90%
GHWB 89%
Reagan 71%
Carter 74%
Ford 70%
Nixon 66%
But lows are also interesting.
Trump 35%
Obama 38
GWB 25
Clinton 37
GHWB 29
Trump’s highest approval is Far below most presidents.
But his Lowest is actually above most presidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
Trump’s approval would be much higher in a hypothetical world where he spoke more presidentially AND was not still subject to the same barrage of attacks.
Obama was the most attacked President – until Trump Trump gets 3 times more negative press every day than Obama. And the vast majority of it has nothing to do with his “unpresidential” remarks.
Every single thing he does – even things that are arguably good is spun in the most negative possible manner.
Regardless, I do not like this fact, But Trump got elected BECAUSE he fights back – not inspite of it.
The hypothetical world where Trump spoke more presidential can not exist – because in that world this more muted Trump would not have been elected.
One of the great difficulties with modeling – politics, climate, economics, … is that variables are rarely “independent”. You change one variable and all kinds of other things change too.
This applies not merely to Trump’s unresidential rhetoric – but other issues.
You and I are at odds over Trade policies. Trump would not have been elected had he advocated strongely for Laissez Faire
All of the things that I like about Trump would not have occurred but for all the things that Ido not like about him.
If I want to get more of what I like and less of what I do not – I need to persuade voters – not change the candidates.
Back in the 80’s studies were done on bias in the media.
And the media was far less biased then than today.
The results of those studies was that the political center of the country was shifted almost 20% to the left because of the biases in the media.
I beleive that conclusion is an exageration too.
But have no problem buying 5%.
And a 5% shift would have changed every single election in the past 100 years.
Pelosi is not even likely to be speaker in 2021 – no matter who wins the house.
When you don’t like the message attack the messenger
Its the internet – must be someone somewhere beating the crap out of Bolton.
But I haven’t seen it.
I heard – i have not even seen that there was one remark by Trump.
But I am not seeing the hordes descending on Bolton in my Twitter feed, or RCP eviscerating Bolton.
I found one Link on RCP that purported to be about the GOP turning on Bolton, but the actual article was breathless speculation about the nasty things in Bolton’s book about Trump.
I am not seeing the pitchforks for Bolton on Youtube or pretty much anywhere else.
Are Trump and Bolton at odds over foreign policy – sure. Bolton never made sense as a Trump appointment. Bolton is an uber neo-con. His book purportedly is at odds with Trump across the globe. According to Bolton we should have put more screws to iran and nk and Venseulla – or invaded.
We can debate those foreign policy differences – would you JAY really choose a bolton foreign policy over a Trump one ?
I think John Bolton is smart, brilliant even. But I also think he is wrong.
Looks like there is some small possibility you will get your wish – and Bolton will testify.
Who knows maybe you will be lucky, and Bolton will somehow reveal that Hunter Biden is actually a saint. Because there is nothing else he can say that makes asking for investigations of Ukraine a problem.
“ I am not seeing the pitchforks for Bolton on Youtube or pretty much anywhere else.”
Really? You must lead a sheltered life.
“Stop playing games” ‘: Hannity
“ If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,” Trump
“ He’s a backstabber.” Rudy
Those are pretty tame comments. It certainly does not compare to turd covered toilet paper.
More recently it has come out that just BEFORE the leak the NSC sent Bolton a letter that said that his book was full of classified information and that several portions are Top Secret.
And that the book could not be published as it is.
I know that you will jump to the conclusion that this is Trump toadies pre-screwing Bolton.
But as I noted before, it is rare that a book is cleared for publication by the IC in less than 2 years. One author I follow who worked in the IC at one time, could not get a book of FICTION approved in less than 2 years, and had to rewrite half of it.
So increasingly this looks like efforts by Bolton’s publishers to get his book fast tracked.
Though my money is still on a fake leak by those int he deep state who claim to have seen the manuscript, and are misrepresenting it.
Regardless, there is increasing chatter that republicans have the votes to block witnesses and end this and that several democrats may vote to acquit. There is increasing commentary – even from Trump loathing MSNBC that democrats did not make their case.
Oddly part of this might be because of the recent spat between Bernie and Biden which is aparently hitting Biden hard in his core demographic – older voters.
Sanders came after Biden on social security and Biden has been caught over and over lying about his own record.
Falus unum, falsus omnibus.
Feinstein was aparently preparing to vote for acquital – until the left beat the crap out of her.
Which party was it Schiff said would have its members heads on a pike if they voted wrong ?
Sherrod Brown essentially admitted that democrats failed to make their case – but he can not vote to acquit – because Trump will gloat.
Seems like sound legal reasoning to me.
Manchin has also confirmed what all but the blind grasp – Hunter Biden is a relevant witness.
Though honestly Joe is more relevant – Hunter is not a 2020 candidate. asking to investigate him is a non-issue – unless democrats are now extending immunity from investigation beyond politicians to anyone they know.
What Joe Biden knew and when he knew it is highly relevant.
Further Joe Biden needs to be able to make a compelling argument – and NO ONE has done that yet, that Shokin was corrupt.
Just saying it will not cut it.
Saying “others” – heavily influenced by Biden’s Ukraine task force agree – will not cut it either.
Guys, this is a wretched sad moment in our history, its not a fucking sporting event. Acting like the jeering confrontations drunken hecklers I have seen behind the batting cage at every minor league baseball game I ever attended is not becoming of intelligent people. There is nothing here to be proud of, no inspiring well led or directed party to passionately support. There is a devolving ugly stupid food reality TV show mess that solves none of our problems. I’ve been a part of this site for more than a decade and it does give me a window on the psychology of politics and partisans so I am drawn to look in at times, but its just sad, sad, sad. Why don’t you all sober up, put your clothes back on and go home and pray that this country can find its better side again in our lifetimes?
Y’all remind me of the people burning stuff down in Baltimore a few years back because they were pissed at the world and out of control.
That’s good advice, Roby, but I’m going to ignore it.
I’m not in passionate support of the Dems; I’m in passionate support of getting rid of Trump and severely punishing the GOP, hoping that usurps the subversive Trump-cult-mindset, replacing it with reasonable conservative representation.
And no, the country isn’t going to return to it’s better side with polite friendly persuasion until Trump is out of sight, out of mind, out of the national consciousness for decades. And when Trump isn’t convicted (a sure thing) it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
I expect to see you back in full-steam anti-trump mode when the Dems settle on their candidate and Trump-shit starts hitting the mass-media fan. Enjoy your vex-free vacation until then…
Nope. I will Enjoy my summer, family, dog, tennis, water sports, hiking and I will not participate in the American equivalent of the battle between the catholics and protestants in northern ireland.
If Biden or some other rational person like Bloomberg is the Dem candidate I will at least care about the outcome and pay some attention to the election, but cautiously so as not to get absorbed.
If its a progressive, especially if its sanders I will try to ignore everything as much as possible, since the POTUS side of the election will be over before it starts. In this case it would be guaranteed that someone I despise would lose, small consolation. If sanders is the dem candidate I think the Dem party would be better off in the long run if he gets destroyed and I will just hope that the Dems somehow take the Senate, which I would highly doubt with sanders as the head of the ticket.
I am trying to avoid even seeing the name sanders anywhere, it makes me too angry, he makes me as angry as trump, although in a different way. I am hoping that large throbbing vein on the side of his (sanders’) head bursts before the convention. Or that he falls off a stage and lands on AOC, ending both of them. I am not kidding.
lightning strikes. We agree.
I would note that for all Sanders Flaws his is less dangerous than AOC.
Sanders is an old school socialist. As dangerous as they are they are not half as dangerous as modern progressives.
Sanders contributed in small ways to the creation of Trump.
But more recent prograssives are more consequential in his creation.
I would further suggest more directed at Jay than you but really to all regarding Trump, that not only is Trump a consequence – but he is also a lesson to the GOP – and not the one you wanted them to learn.
Trump taught Republicans how to win. If you kill him anywhere but at the ballot box, the take away for republicans is not going to be Trump is wrong – but democrats can not be trusted to play by the rules – or to accept the outcome of elections. That is not the lesson you want republicans to learn.
We have been playing this game of stretching the rules, the law, the norms for decades. Absolutely republicans have threatened. But democrats have been the champions of power politics – but not usually the beneficiaries. Further, we have not once gone backwards.
Nothing democrats have done over the past two decades that MIGHT have proved a temporary advantage – has not ultimately harmed them.
Regardless, what you can expect Repbulicans to learn for the future – is to play the came more like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler.
Parts of that are major reasons for Trump’s success.
If you think that The next Republican candidate will be a Kaisich or Romney – that is delusional. The political philosophy that Trump concocted – Trumpism.
This quasi-populist, nationalist, appeal to blue collar, Unilateral foreign policy, limited immigration, …. With very minor tweaks is going to dominate the GOP for a long time.
About the only open question is whether Republicans will seek to bring Neo-Con’s back into the fold. And that wuestion is simply – does the political cost of a more John Bolton actually agressive foreign policy exceed the benefits – in terms of votes gained/lost ?
I do not know the answer, except that if the GOP can re-incorporate neo-cons without losing those opposed to american adventurism, democrats are toast.
Is that my idea of where we SHOULD go. No.
I would further note that bringing neocons back into the party would have gone a long way to protecting Trump from “the deep state”. Trump’s non-interventionsit foreign policy is a very serious threat to the defense and intelligence communities power.
And these people are about power not party.
“I’m in passionate support of getting rid of Trump”
And that is precisely what is wrong.
You do not and never have cared about how or why.
The results of the election were not to your liking.
Do whatever it takes to change them.
“and severely punishing the GOP”
Again – think about that ? I have told you over and over that one of the big reasons you lost was because you were pissing all over millions of americans.
Do you honestly think that “punishing them” is going to do the slightest bit of good ?
You have spent the past 3 years pretending every moment that right wing Violence is about to explode – even though all the political violence we have seen is from the left.
I can not tell you what the threshold is where that changes – but I can tell you that you are rushing blindly towards it at 90mph.
Do you think those “trumpanzees” you want to punish do not know you hate them ?
Do you think that any of this is going to make them want to hug and kiss you ?
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
As you stray farther and farther from the constitution, the bill of rights, the rule of law, and deeper into making things up as you go along. As you deviate from government protecting the rights of individuals to mob rule – you leave only violence.
It is the right of the people to abolish – by force if necescary, government that is destructive of rights.
If Trump was actually lawless – acting outside the law – not outside your political wishes, not outside your desires, and YOU proceeded lawfully, respecting the constitution, the bill of rights, due process, the law – then you would arrive at an impeachment and removal that had the support of nearly everyone and was lawful, and constitutional. But when you deviate – you are the problem, not the solution.
When you are acting to “punish” – not just Trump but millions of people for “wrong think”,
You are a huge problem.
Jay, your own words damn you.
“hopping that usurps the subversive Trump-cult-mindset, replacing it with reasonable conservative representation.”
When one gang beats up the other – does the losing gang replace its leaders with “reasonable ones” ? Or does it look for bigger meaner nastier thugs than the other gang ?
I have told you over and over YOU made trump.
Do you really want to make something worse ?
“And no, the country isn’t going to return to it’s better side with polite friendly persuasion until Trump is out of sight, out of mind, out of the national consciousness for decades. And when Trump isn’t convicted (a sure thing) it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
The only hope in hell that you have of peacefully getting rid of Trump is at the ballot box.
You have refused to follow the constituton, the law, civil rights and doe process.
You are intent on accomplishing your objective – getting rid of Trump by any means necescary. You have made it clear that the house and senate are areanas for political combat. That in Jay world – truth is determined by brute political force.
And you expect that the “trumpanzees” are just going to roll over ?
You see this future where Trump shit is going to hit the fan ?
You have spent 3 years making things up – and that did not work.
Bloomberg has been running adds like crazy – they are pretty much Trump tirades and they are flops. You expect things to go better in 6 months ?
What are you going to say about Trump that you have not said already ?
Roby, Well I try to change the subject. I try to get a conversation going on other things. And yes, I comment on things Dave and Jay post, but I try in a way that offers them an opening to discuss the issues.
But we cant do anything with 1000+ comments from one person and their Trump can do no wrong defense and the others Trump has done everything wrong charges.
It would be nice if there was someplace you, I and others could comment and discuss certain issues and then disappear until someone had a new item to discuss, but I have not found that. So to have someplace to discuss issues we have Ricks site dominated by two.
Ron,
On issues of policy you are closer to all in for trump than I am.
I can live with Trump despite his flaw. I do not pretend them away.
I am not sure what the courts should do about Bolton testifying.
There are lots of competing issues. But I am content to leave that to the courts.
But I am entirely opposed to this half asses political impeachment breaking every norm at every step of the way.
There were some serious problems with the GOP impeachment in 1998. but they did actually play by the rules. Republicans argued that a very serious crime (actually several) was all that was needed to impeach. Democrats argued that perjury unrelated to Clinton’s role as president was not impeachable. That was an absolutely legitimate question. There was politics in the debate and small amounts of power games – but ultimately the decision was based on the debate over that issue – not political power. Not breaking or bending the rules, not manipulating the institutions. Not the latest “bombshell” politicized leak.
Further despite the fact that I would impeach and remove – republican or democrat or libertarian in a heart beat for perjury, somehow the 1998 outcome was right. To this day I can not reconcile that in my head. I do not know how you can not impeach for perjury. I can not understand any democratic senator who voted not to remove. But the outcome was still correct, even if i do not understand why.
The outcome is near certain going to be correct this time too. But this impeachment has been FAR more destructive of politics and process. Democrats have torched the constitution, due process, civility, any concept of minority rights in the house, and norm after norm after norm.
and absent a radical bitch slap to bring them to their senses – we are not going back.
I am absolutely in favor of congress taking power back from the president – but they should take back the constitutional powers of the congress not kneecap the actual powers of the president.
” On issues of policy you are closer to all in for trump than I am.”
So lets debate issues and get off this 500-1000 impeachment comment train th at causes those like me to be almost unable to comment because it takes minutes to load insignificant arguments you and Jay are having. You and Jay have said the same thing over and over and have gotten no where. You and Jay are like little kids standing face to face calling each other booger heads, butt heads, doggy do-do, kitty poo and everything to Zebra poop multiple times.
And I know it takes two to get in pissing contests, so one stepping back would end this endless nonsensical argument.
I have probably provided more posts that are links to articles about a wide assortment of interesting issues that have nothing to do with impeachment than anyone else.
I intended those as conversation starters.
They almost never get responses.
I am not pointing fingers, except to say that the opportunity to discuss issues already exists.
You can post your own views or links on any issue you want, and you can be nearly assured of a disccusion from me – of THAT ISSUE.
The long vitriole filled TDS threads are not started by me.
It is extremely rare that I start a thread about Trump or impeachment.
Dave, sorry, Due to the number of comments in email, unless it has ” in response to Ron” that shows on my email for who the item is for, I just do mass delete. And anything with a video usually has some error message and no video if I open those. For some reason, videos on word press dont come through to my email messages.
I will try to screen better to ID new tpoics, but not going to open and read 20-30 emails 3-4 times a day just to find new discussion items when most will be Dave/Jay pissing sessions
You owe me no appologies for anything.
The way you interact with TNM is your choice.
I try to avoid video’s as I beleive they negatively impact WordPress, but once in a while I trip over a real good video. I have tried to find a way to have a link to a video where WP does not try to autoload the video – which I think is what negatively impacts performance.
But I have not found a convenient way to do that.
I do not care what you mass delete – and even if I did – it is still your business.
My only relevant point was that I make LOTS of posts on Issues that have little or nothing to do with the threads drowning in sputum. sometimes they are brief comments and links on something I found interesting. They are nearly always current issues.
But the only time I post pure political links is as part of a thread that already started on a political issue.
As an example – I might post a reply to some Claim by Jay that says Republicans say this or Trump says that, or this poll says this, that is a different pol, or a copy of what Trump actually said or a link to a video of what some republican actually said.
But as a rule I do not originate posts specifically about or politics and politicians.
I do not care much what Trump says or what McConnell says or what Pelosi says.
I do not even care much about what Polls say and if I am dealing with that material – it is pretty much always in exchanges with Others who started a thread on those issues.
I WILL post something like a Selena Zito peice about voters in Wisconsin, or a Stossel link to the top 10 most wasteful government spending in the past year, Or a Frazier Institute story about how the global standard of living is skyrocketing.
I would be much more interested in TNM if we discusses ISSUES rather than POLITICS
Obviously there are links.
There is good reason to debate Yang’s UBI. Or Warren’s paying down Student Loans.
One of DeVos’s staff who quit recently stated that the Federal loan process was so badly done and had driven up the cost of school so much that the government should just pay off all student loans under 50K and shut the program down.
There are lots of relevant issues there. Warren was recently accosted by an angry parent who had worked hard and saved to send his kids through college and was pissed because she was glib that he would get screwed if she made college free.
Many of our polices have huge “moral hazzards” in them like that.
We know that Social Security is an absymally bad idea. But how do we keep the promises we have made without stretching stupid into further generations and without creating a huge moral hazard or windfall or screw some group ?
These things are not easy, and they are a big reason we should resist further socialism, as getting rid of it later is incredibly difficult.
Please go though my posts. I very rarely call Jay (or anyone) names. I constantly call him out for name calling.
I have called arguments stupid or idioctic, but I try hard not to call specific people stupid or idiotic. I do not think I have EVER used any of the childish south park and scatalogical insults that Jay has.
I attack credibility – with evidence. If you can not address credibilty – debate is not possible.
All claims are not true.
The progressive left is WRONG when it claims that it is justified in silencing some views.
But it is correct that all viewpoints entitled to equal respect.
It is just often wrong about which views deserve more respect.
I have also grown tied over time of the torrent of “hate speach” – from the left from democrats from Jay.
When you make false moral accusations of others – YOU are immoral.
That is true whether you are Trump or Jay or Schiff.
While the mix varies – from Jay’s nothing but crude insult and accusations posts, through most of the left and the medias less crude but equally judgemental language, I have grown really tired of it.
I have made no secret of my intolerance for hypocritical moral preening.
Make your argument with facts, logic reasons.
Lace your argument with overt or implied arguments of moral superiority – and you had better expect that your morality is going to be challenged.
Make your arguments with claims of moral failure on the part of your opponents – and you had damn well better be prepared to defend those claims.
If you call someone a liar, a racist, a sexist, a … You had damn well better be right.
Factual error is forgiveable – even comonplace – for all of us.
There is no circumstance in which any argument ever requires that you make a false moral claim regarding another.
It is a choice – and one you shoudl expect to be held accountable for.
It is more than a simple error, it is a serious moral failure.
I do not use the same tactics or language as Trump.
I like to think I avoid the myriads of mistakes he makes.
But I have chosen not to ignore false moral accusations.
If you shift the plane of argument from facts, logic, reason to morality – which is exactly what you do when you shift to insult and accusation, then I am following you, and calling you out.
I am free to ignore Jay – I chose not to.
You are free to ignore Jay, or me or both of us.
You continuously assert that our posts cost you something.
They don’t.
On the NYT – any article generates 5000 comments in an hour.
Doesnt cost me anything except a minute or two scanning the emails for sender and “response too”, then high lighting the ones from you to jay and hay to you for deletion. Do that so I can see those from Roby and Priscilla.
But Jay knows he can rub your anus raw by just saying “trump is xxx” and you will send 10+ comments in response. Just like the media knows they can comment “Trump is x” and he will spend the next hour tweeting about fake news, loser reporters, etc. Why take the bait?
“But Jay knows he can rub your anus raw”
Jay doesn’t bother me.
If Jay thinks that actually behaving the way he accuses Trump of and being called on the carpet for it is some fun – I feel very sorry for him, and he is likley to have lots more fund.
“Why take the bait?”
Who trusts the media anymore ? Did Trump do that to them ? Or did they do it to themselves ?
Here is a clip from CNN recently. It starts with Lemon sticking up for a reporter that Pompeo took to take publicly for lying.
I do not honestly know which one is telling the truth. But given the credibility of the media I am far less inclinded to beleive the reporter than I would have been 10 years ago.
There was also a tiff over where Ukraine was. Presumably we are to expect that a reporter with a degree in european studies from Cambridge can find Ukraine on a map.
Again 3 decades ago – I would assume that. Today ? No. I would not assume that someone with a doctorate in eastern european studies could find Ukraine on a map.
Though I would bet they were intimately familiar with Ukraines gay rights policies.
But the reall problem starts after that when 3 reporters go completely off the deep end mimicing and insulting Trump supporters.
If you want to assure that Trump is re-elected in a landslide in 2020 – keep that up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYSLSvvY_64
“:Guys, this is a wretched sad moment in our history, its not a fucking sporting event.”
But the real problem is that you are exactly wrong – this is not a wretched sad moment in our history. I remember watergate – that was really really serious. I even remember the Clinton impeachment – for all its flaws it had more gravity than this.
This litterally is like a sporting contest – and honestly it is a pretty boring one. Almost no one is watching.
And this is not accidental. It is not just that Democrats have tried to impeach Trump since before he was inaugurated. It is that the media, the left, democrats, and many here have not taken any of this seriously You have not given a shit what the truth was. You have been hoping for the next body slam.
Whether it is Turley or others who keep warning that you have to quit trying to use law to do politics you are heedless.
Democrats, the left, the media, the PC crowd, the Cancel culture have conflated law with politics, morality with politics. religion with politics everything with politics.
And in doing so – you convert politics into a “sporting event” – just exactly as you noted.
Trump won in 2016 – because he understood how YOU play the game, and he beat you at your own game. And ever since you have doubled down.
The left started changing rules int he senate a decade ago. Bothsides threatened for decades – but no one went nuclear – now pretty much every pro-minority rule in the house and senate is gone – making everything less and less serious and more like a sporting event.
We have impeached over politics – because we can. And Derschowitz is completely wrong – the house can do this, the senate can do this,
But only those who have made governing into religion, blood sport would ever think we SHOULD do this.
Absolutely you should not do this to Trump – it is wrong.
But it is just politics.
And what is really wrong – is now it will be just politics next time.
You keep telling me Trump crosses all kinds of lines – and mostly that just seems to be he is unpresidential. But there has been constant line crossing for atleast a decade, and nearly all initiated on the left.
The odds that we will go backwards – even a little ? Near Zero.
It does not matter whether the next victim is a republican or a democrat.
If you do not think this is happening again, your a fool.
Robby, your complaining because everyone is treating this as a sporting event.
That is because that is what it is. Trump did not make it a game. He is just a better player.
In football, players get tackled, body slammed, pummeled, they fumble, they get intercepted.
but in the end only one side wins. Both go home with bruises – though for atleast a few days the winners can not feel theirs.
Do not confuse what is going on with anything serious – it is not. Nor one is treating it seriously. Just like an NFL game there might be an enormous amount at stake – huge amounts of money, and jobs and power, But it is still just a game – blood sport.
I was really surprised after Mueller – and espeically Nadler’s fiasco hearings with Mueller, and Cohen that democrats actually went for impeachment. This is a huge hail mary with 90 yards to go and all your receivers injured.
I want this ended as quickly as possible – specifically because this SHOULD not be just a game. But if you, the left, democrats want to keep it going – go ahead.
Please cut the crap trying to pretend this is actually serious.
I – and every single republican can easily think of 10 things Obama did much more serious than this. If we are going to impeach over politics – then pay very close attention – what you are seeing is our endless future.
I am all for reigning in the power of the presidency. But the way to do that is for congress to take back the powers that already belong to it. Not this.
“But the way to do that is for congress to take back the powers that already belong to it. Not this.”
This is an excellent point. Right now, the House, which is the only chamber of Congress that the Democrats control, has almost literally done nothing but impeachment. (They did pass the USMCA, only so vulnerable reps could point to something besides impeachment that they had accomplished).
And, the House is now clearly attempting to drag out impeachment, so that it overlaps with the presidential election campaign, rendering the Senate unable to get much done.
Jay, this is so transparent, I cannot believe that you can’t see it. The Congress of the United States has become a damn soap opera, starring Adam Schiff.
There is some irony in the fact that, while Congress has immersed itself in the impeachment trial, Trump has signed the first stage of a trade deal with China, dominated the Davos world economic forum with a speech on the importance of capitalism, and negotiated a Middle East peace plan, which actually has a chance of succeeding (of course, the Democrats oppose it ~ and so the Palestinians will oppose it, too. But Israel says it will abide by the agreement, even if the Palestinians don’t sign on…. so we will see what happens)
Do you figure that all of that has been for Trump’s personal benefit? I’d be very interested in your reasoning on that.
According to the constitution. all spending bills MUST originate in the House.
This proved a major problem when Ted Kennedy died and Brown won the special election in MA. Republicans did not cause these obstacles – god and the voters did. And not Red state voters, but voters in the bluest of States – one that already had the equivalent of ObamaCare.
Regardless to circumvent the legal and constitutional impediments that should have made the passage of PPACA impossible, The Senate took an existing house appropriations bill, amended out the entire bill, and amended in PPACA so that they could meet the constitutional requirement of a spending bill that originated in the house, Passed it, and returned it to the house – which had to pass it without any changes – because there was no longer enough votes in the senate.
The power to write laws and regulations belongs exclusively to the congress.
They can seek the advice of the executive branch or outside experts or whoever they please. But it is the constitutional role SOLELY of congress to make laws and regulations.
But nearly all of what is Federal “law” that each of us must obey has not even been read by congress much less passed by them. Congress long ago delegated the power to write laws and regulations to the executive branch.
This is a tremendous cede of power to the executive. Congress does not even review laws and regulations after they are enacted by the executive. There is very limited review by the courts – which today b y precedent defer to the opinion of the executive on whether the laws and regulations they wrote properly implement the titles passed by congress authorizing them.
Obama’s (and other presidents) ability to create a regulatory morras that strangled the economy, as well as Trump’s power to unilaterally ditch those regulates exists solely because congress abdicated responsibility.
Regardless, no person should face the loss of life, freedom or property for violating an edict that was not voted on by congress.
The moto of the american revolution was “no taxation without representation”.
Today all government power is excercised as directed by laws and regulations that no representative has voted on.
“You cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation,” said Jay Sekulow moments ago at the Senate impeachment hearing.
The nation agrees… they want to hear from Bolton…
(Is Sekulow really this stupid?)
we have had this same argument over and over.
You seem to think that what you or some majority of people want to know is an entitlement or right.
Whether you can have Bolton’s testimony or not – is or should be a question of law – not polls.
It should have been resolved by the courts months ago.
We do not as an example decide the guilt or innocence of an alleged rapist or murder by polls. We have trials properly conducted. Prosecutors investigate – they interview witnesses, they get their statements, WHEN they beleive they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt – THEN they go to court. They do not punt the investigation to the court.
You want Bolton – kick this back to the house and go to court.
That is not likely to be what happens – but if you get what you want, you will have erroded the rule of law one step further – and you will see this whole thing again.
It may be republicans doing it to democrats next time, or maybe democrats again.
But we will see this faux nonsense over and over – until there is a consequence severe enough to put a stop to it.
We will see half as unserious investigations, punted to the senate for cleanup.
By claiming you need to hear Bolton – you are proving the house failed to do its job.
In the last comment you claimed that Pelosi has gamed Trump.
I think you are blind – but if i am wrong – so what.
As Robby said this is SUPPOSED to be deadly serious – but it is OBVIOUSLY not.
You clearly think of this as blood sport between Pelosi and Trump.
Your team and mine, or Ron’s, or … It does not matter.
Robby is absolutely wrong in claiming this is not a game – it absolutely is, and it has been for some time.
But he is absolutely right, that it is not supposed to be.
I think the odds of your winning are very small – i certainly hope so. Because the only hope that we do not repeat this game over and over, is if you lose.
The constitution exists for a reason. Our rights, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th amendments exist for reasons, Due process exists for reasons. The rule of law exists for reasons.
Because if you toss all that, none of this is any different from Medevil Trial by combat – except for the weapons being used.
It is a game, and it has nothing to do with finding the truth.
Yesterday, The Babyon Bee reported that walrus-mustachioed John Bolton had agreed to testify for a large bucket of fresh fish.
Jay has made a big deal about Republicans turning on Bolton – I have seen little evidence of that. While there is always someone attacking any high profile person. And I think Trump sent on nasty tweet. Most have left Bolton alone.
Regardless, this is an NYT story
A reporter writing what the Reporter says
A source who has seen the manuscript says
The manuscript says
That Bolton and Trump said.
It would be extremely unwise – particularly with the history of the past 3 years of mangled leaks to presume that What the Reporter has written accurately reflects the transcript.
I think Bolton is formidable, arrogant and wrong about many things.
I do not think he is a liar or stupid,
I think if required to Bolton will give truthful testimony,
and I think that the likelyhood of that significantly damaging Trump – beyond giving Bolton the opportunity to sound off about their policy differences is near zero.
I think Bolton is enjoying the spotlight, and I think his book will benefit.
Though I do not think he or his publisher leaked this.
There are all kinds of possibilities for how this leak occurred – pretty much all of which lead to the conclusion that what is in the NYT article is heavily spun.
I would note that the Administration has Bolton’s manuscript.
that provides multiple explanations for the leak
But it also means that Trump has the ability to provide the Senate with a copy of the actual transcript.
McConnell anounced last night that he did not have the votes to stop witnesses.
Graham announced today that this will be over by Friday. There is no way it ends friday with Witnesses.
Jay keeps citing polls regarding witnesses.
But one of the problems with Poll questions is they always pose options without context or cost.
They do not ask – “should Bolton testify in the Senate if:
That risks Bernie and Warren losing the democratic nomination because they are trapped in the Senate for a month.
Bolton could testify in the house.
Bolton could be brought in to testify in either the house or the senate independent of the impeachment trial.
Trump would have to be allowed to have a dozen witnesses,
…
Choices in the real world are NEVER as simple as they are in polls.
Even adding small costs to poll questions often gets radically different results.
Further Polls rarely if ever measure the strength of a persons views.
i.e the poll does not ask – will you change your vote from Trump to Biden if Bolton does not testify ?
I do not place alot of faith in polls. But I do thump Jay over the head with them – because he likes to cherry pick. It is therefore always possible to find polls or argegates that run counter his narrative.
Confirmation bias is really difficult to overcome.
All of us are prone to value the sources that agree with us and devalue those who do not.
But as JS Mills says
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
Oh WOW, this would be too sweet.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/hillary-clinton-admits-she-feels-an-urge-to-run-against-trump-again/amp/?utm_campaign=iosapp&utm_source=twitter_app&__twitter_impression=true
She runs, she wins, GOP takes house in 22 and “paybacks are hell”. GOP begins impeachment and sends articles to senate for all those corrupt dealings with the Clinton foundation and all the other dealings
Dang, I sweet revenge! What a super movie plot!
The real irony in this is that Hillary is probably the best shot that the Democrats have to win back the White House. Unless Michelle O. decides to run!
Hopefully that links to joe manchin’s interview on Fox. Sometimes there are a few politicians that have good thinking.
A start if it passes
https://www.nextgov.com/policy/2020/01/bill-would-reform-nsa-surveillance-program/162681/
Yes a start, but does not go far enough and this article does not touch on FISA corruption by government agencies and detailed changes to those. I will spend some time researching that part.
But giving any politician any credit for introducing this bill is total crap. The real reason it was introduced was to save the NSA time and money so they can find ways to infringe on 4th amendment rights in other ways. The last sentence in the article states “. Last April, NSA officials reportedly asked the White House to abandon the program, citing logistical and legal challenges outweighed its potential benefits.” They could care less about the 4th amendment, they just dont want to defend their actions.
TDS’ers are having a cow over Trumps actions listed in the articles of impeachment. They ignore the true destruction of our country, that being the infringement by government on our 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rights.
Each day the temperature of the water the frogs are cooking in goes up just a tick. The fire is constitutional infringement and we are the frogs!
I am going to subtly disagree with this article.
Warrants MUST be issued by COURTS.
We can kill the FISA court, But then the Feds must go to ordinary courts to get warrants.
There are several things that need done.
The first which is not FISA specific but SCOTUS needs to reverse itself on a raft of 4th amendment decsions.
Law enforcement should be required to get a warrant in all but extraordinary circumstances. Further in those extraordinary circumstances there must be a risk to law enforcement that proceeding without a warrant will result in not being able to use the evidence obtained.
Honestly there is close to zero risk involved in requiring a warrant today.
The police are wired and networked and there is no reason they can not get a warrant issued in a few minutes directly to their patrol car.
Next law enforement must be held accountable for misrepresentations in warrant applications.
Warrants applications are under oath. False or misleading information in a warrant request is a crime.
I am generally prepared to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt in Criminal contexts – in all cases except where their conduct is really egreguious.
i.e. In the gray areas I am willing to assume that a police shooting or misrepresentation on a warrant is not a crime.
I am unlikely to be willing to jail a police officer for over zealous law enforcement – as distinct from corruption.
But on the flip side – they should lose their jobs.
Everyone who touched the Carter Page Warrant application should be fired from the FBI and barred from future law enforcement work.
Requiring warrants nearly always, and then holding officers accountable for misrepresenations are among the necescary tools.
Warrants are a non-adversarial ex-parte process – that can not be remedied.
Nor am I a fan of a court appointed lawyer to present the opposition case.
That does not really fix things.
However subjecting Warrants to after the fact scrutiny is viable.
Setup review processes to examine warrants that have been issued looking for misrepresentations on the part of law enforcement or judgement errors on the part of the judges.
These reviews should result in real push back – disciplinary measures for both magistrates and police officers that make “innocent” errors, and firing for misrepresentations.
And several Senators have asked Barr to declassify several footnotes in the Horowitz report because the contradict unredacted portions of the report and document even WORSE abuse.
Interesting results from the most recent Gallup Poll:
“As Trump enters his re-election year, Americans are more positive on eight key issues than they were just before he took office in January 2017.
Gallup records double-digit increases in public satisfaction with the nation’s economy, security from terrorism, military strength and the state of race relations.
Satisfaction is also up by between six and nine points on crime, the position of blacks and other racial minorities, the distribution of income and wealth, and the opportunity for a person to get ahead through hard work.
Over the same period, Americans have grown slightly less satisfied on three issues: abortion (down 7 points), the level of immigration (-6) and the environment (-6).”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284033/americans-improved-mixed.aspx
I might have to rethink my position that Trump will walk over his positives with his boorish personal behaviors given the positives in this poll. I just cant separate these results from all the polls showing Biden and Sanders defeating Trump and Trump’s disapprovals in the approve-disapprove polling. The last poll in N.C. has Biden up by 3.
My guess is that many people like Trump’s policies, but hate that it’s Trump who’s pursuing those policies. They can’t accept that the person they so despise is doing exactly what they have wanted their leaders to do.
I get that people don’t like Trump the person, but I don’t understand how so many people think that personality in a leader is far more important than policy.
I look at the kind of scrutiny and criticism that has been applied to Trump, compared to the total lack of scrutiny or criticism applied to Obama, and I’m amazed that people don’t see that it’s Obama who used crises (mass shootings, racial incidents such as Trayvon/Ferguson, terrorism) to further his political agenda, rather than trying to fix the problem. And as popular as Obama is personally, he bankrupted the Democrat Party, and allowed the extreme left to become the dominant faction in it.
It reminds me of how high school kids often dislike the “mean” teachers, who actually hold them accountable for learning subject matter, and love the “cool” teachers who joke around with them, but don’t teach them much.
I heard something this morning on the business news that I cant document, but it is reasonable.
” Anxiety leads to action, satisfaction leads to apathy.”
I can see how that can impact an election because those that are “sometime voters” that are worried about their own situations will get out and vote, while those that are satisfied will sit back “fat, dumb and happy” and ask “how the hell did that happen” when those they dont support get elected.
Maybe Dave is right. Trumps boorish behavior is designed to minimize “satifisfaction” to reduce apathetic voters.
“Anxiety leads to action”
Simplistic and wrong. Anxiety is closely coupled to depression.
Further anxiety tends to be indecisive.
Name a successful person who is deeply anxious – there are few.
Anxiety leads to INACTION.
There are mental states that are less effective at motivating people, but Anxiety is not a top motivator.
Both the left and the right are at heightened mental states now. One of the big questions in 2020 will be which will lead to action.
One of the reason to expect that Trump and republicans will do well in 2020 is that anti-trump voters are extremely anxious. Anxiety does not lead to directed action.
“Maybe Dave is right. Trumps boorish behavior is designed to minimize “satifisfaction” to reduce apathetic voters.”
I hope that is not what you think I said.
People vote for Trump for many many many reasons.
Some people vote for him for the same reasons that others vote against him.
Regardless, there is significant evidence that Trump voters are both happy, and motivated.
I do not know that the turnout in 2016 was particularly high – but I live in a community that Jerry Falwell called “the buckle on the bible belt” – and the polls on election day 2016 were crowded like I have never seen them. People here vote, but this was way beyond normal.
The polls were full of people who had never voted before.
I am expecting 2020 to be even more so – and there is lots of data to support that.
The left and right live in alternate universes right now – this is self evident from the impeachment hearings.
In left world Trump is an existential threat.
That is an assertion that ordinary people can reach their own conclusions on.
I will agree with the left – that if on election day the majority of people think Trump is an existential threat – the GOP will be decimated.
But the other choice is that the majority of people decide the sky is NOT falling.
Unless the sky does fall in the next 9 months, but I would not bet on that.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-trumps-des-moines-rally-should-make-democrats-nervous
Ron,
I think if the election were held today – Trump would win – and there are polls that say that – even if there are also polls that say otherwise.
Trump’s approval at the moment is higher than Obama’s at the same time and Romney was a better opponent to Obama than Biden and the Seven Dwarves are for Trump.
There is another poll out that is looking at what is driving republican and democratic voters.
Republicans are energized, many of them are angry.
Democrats are anxious and some of them are depressed.
Anger sometimes leads to victories – if it is sustainable.
Anxiety does not
We can spend lots of time drilling into polls and trying to read the political crystal ball.
I do not think any of us are good at that. I do not think the experts are good at that.
I would not have predicted a Trump victory at any time in the 2016 election right up to election day – and no one else was. And democrats STILL refuse to try to figure out why they lost. They have since doubled down over and over on the mistakes that lost them the election.
Today, none of the reasons to vote for Trump have gone away – in fact every one of them is larger. Almost all those ranting about Trump – voted against him in 2016.
Further we can debate election politics and polls if that is what you want.
But you said you were more into issues.
Something that has not been mentioned as of this e-mail hitting my box is the impeachment of Trump just might be beneficial to Trump in ways the dems overlooked. Sanders is “surging” at a time Biden should be since Sanders is limited in campaigning appearances, but the constant battering about Joe, Hunter and Ukraine may be having voters look elsewhere to avoid another candidate with “baggage”.
Sanders will be easier to defeat than Biden. Pelosi might have created the Dems “black swain” election debacle without realizing it.
I do not pretend to be some political expert.
But in my experience the political experts are usually wrong.
Purportedly Pelosi is the master manipulator – but my read of all this is a massive disaster.
There was talk that impeaching Trump and timing the trial to interfere with Iowa and NH was not just to “get Trump” but to weaken Warren and Sander’s forcing them to sit quietly in the Senate at a key moment. Yet Sanders is surging and Biden is flailing.
That was my humble prediction. Rather than screw Sanders they helped him.
With Sanders trapped in DC – all attention was on Biden.
All attention in the impeachment hearing, and all attention in the race.
And Biden is having huge problems when the focus is on him.
He flubs easy questions about anything. He is increasingly difficult and abrasive.
As questions about not just Hunter, but his extended family grow, it becomes less and less plausible that he is ignorant of decades of his relatives profiting from his public office.
Lots of the stuff involving Biden is LEGAL, but it still looks bad.
This week Biden nearly got into it with a Steyer voter who said he would vote for Biden in the general – if Biden won the primary.
Sanders is surging and that is the nighmare scenario for democrats.
McGovern was actually substantially to the right of Sanders, But McGovern was painted on the far left and his campaign encouraged that and he had the same groundswell of support from young voters. And the same energy of the Sanders campaign. And McGovern lost in one of the worst electoral blowouts in history. Which has happened everytime that a republican is able to paint his opponent as a lefty. And Sanders does not even pretend he is not a socialist.
The democrats convention is going to be very interesting to watch the night that voting begins. I dont know how each state distribute their delegates, but many do it proportional until one, two or more votes are taken. Bernie and Biden will be very close in delegates going into super Tuesday. California distributes some on statewide total vote and some on district vote the first count. After that,super delegates then can decide who to support
If Bernie goes in with the most and does not get nominated, his backers are going to be super pissed and I bet many will not vote in November. Good for Trump side. If Bernie is the nominee, many moderates in the democrat party may not vote. And some may vomit while pulling the lever for Trump. Also good for the Trump side.
My crystal Ball:
If democrats do not have a clear winner by the convention – they lose.
Biden is dead. He has been dead for some time. I know Jay says that is false. Yes, he has dropped and recovered, but that is mostly because Democrats understand that no other candidate can possibly beat Trump. that is why Bloomberg entered the race.
Despite the fact that this impeachment was supposed to clear IA and NH for Biden, it has tanked Biden. I do not understand how it is that Pelosi, Schiff, Democrats do not grasp that if you impeach Trump over investigating Biden then people ware going to be very interested in stories about Biden’s corruption.
The only reason Biden is not in single digits right now is that sane portions of the democratic party grasp not merely that Bernie (or Warren or …) can not win. but that LOTS of democrats will stay home or vote for Trump if any of the “socialists” is the candidate.
Take pretty much any “swing state” – even states that went blue in 2016, but by less than 7pct. Tell me which of those is voting for Sanders ? Outside of the NE and West Cost, what state is voting for sanders ? Colorado ? North Carolina ?
Biden may yet end up being the democrats nominee, But there is little possibility of him surviving a fight against Trump. Trump will dance all over Biden’s corruption.
It does not matter how high Trump’s unfavorables are in a 2 candidate election if only a few people will vote for the other person. See 2016.
Nor is Corruption Biden’s only problem. He is slowly becoming the Democrats Trump – but in a very bad way. Trump’s remarks are often nasty – but he does not attack voters of potential voters. Biden is short tempered with his own voters.
The election is not going to get easier. Trump is certainly not going to make it easier.
Biden already looks like someone that you are less likely to want on the nuclear trigger than Trump.
BTW that is a rally big difference from 2016. One of Trump’s big negatives in 2016 was he appeared sufficiently unstable that people could vote against him just over that.
In 2020, you need not agree with him, but we have seen over the past 4 years that he has not “blown up the world”
Frankly I think the election is already over. Many things may change between now and Nov. But I highly doubt anything that will radically help democrats.
There will be bad polls for Trump some times. There will be lots of stories to try to make this appear like a horse race but what is left in the democrats nuclear arsenal ?
Changes have already likely been made at the white house to preclude Impeachment Round II. The NSC is likely to be put in its own bubble until after the election – then I expect we will say mass housecleaning in the intelligence community.
If house democrats want – they can call Bolton as a witness. But I doubt they will, democrats will be too busy running for re-election.
Sen. Graham has made it clear he is going to use the Intel committee to conduct the investigations and to question the witnesses that Trump wanted. I fully expect those senate republicans not running for re-election to be doing whatever they can in the senate to expose democrats.
I keep warnign democrats that as they plow down the rules – that will bite them in the ass too.
I do not hink there is a chance in the world that Graham would have used the Senate to investigate the Biden’s especially during an election a couple of years ago. I think he will now. The more partisan democrats get the more partisan republicans will get.
There was a special election in Texas on Tuesday. This was to replace a suburban Republican who retired without completing his term.
So this was an open seat – no incumbent.
Democrats are hoping to Flip the texas House in 2020 so that they have a voice in post 2020 redistricting. They need 9 seats. This seat was purportedly one near the top of their list of flips.
The district was red by 8pts in 2018, At the very least Democratrs expected in the middle of impeachment in a suburban Texas district to do better than 2018.
Ted Cruz only won this district by 3pts.
Massive amounts of outside democratic money were dropped into the district. An army of democrats endoresed and campaigned for the democrat. Bloomberg dumped tons of money and paid volunteers into the district.
When the dust settled. The republican won by 16pts – in the middle of the impeachment, after the Bolton story broke.
Texas is unlikely to turn blue anytime soon. Nor is this a positive harbringer for Democrats in 2020.
Maybe polling companies need to change their procedures!
I think polling is a valuable tool.
But the predictive power of polls is weak.
The biggest problem with a poll is that they ask simplified costless versions of real world questions.
Would you vote to have government give you 10,000 ?
In a vacuum where there was no cost, and no other effects – of course.
But in the real world, probably not.
When voters go into a polling booth they think not only of the promises of the candidates but the costs. One of the major advantages of incumbents is they are the don’t rock the boat choice.
Regardless, we know that people make abysmal decisions when they do not have to pay the cost of those decisions – that is one of the problems with elites in government making decisions for others,
The Only released its loans to the Ukraine in jan. 2020. They have been holding the money since before the Ukrainian elections.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 31 that the International Monetary Fund, which has provided more than $20 billion in loans to Ukraine, “remains skeptical after a history of broken promises [from the Ukraine govt]. Kiev hasn’t successfully completed any of a series of IMF bailout packages over the past two decades, with systemic corruption at the heart of much of that failure.”
The IMF concluded that Ukraine continued to be vexed by “shortcomings in the legal framework, pervasive corruption, and large parts of the economy dominated by inefficient state-owned enterprises or by oligarchs.”
Link? Cant find anything about this.
The text I posted came from a WSJ article.
But I can not find the WSJ article only another article that excerped it.
I heard this as part of the impeachment nonsense, and googled it to find the clip I provided.
There is alot of stuff that is NOT making the news or very poorly covered.
While Zelensky ran on an anti-corruption platform – he is strongly tied to a couple of very corrupt oligarches. Lots of people have been wondering if Zelensky is really going to clean things up. Zelensky is not the first Ukrainian to run against corruption and be just as corrupt as predecessors.
The IMF funds are only 1/10 of those of the US – but they held them for a LONG time over concerns over Ukrainian corruption.
Ukraine re-re-opened the Burisma investigation in Feb. 2019 – BEFORE Zelensky was elected – it is still going on. There have actually been announcements about it in the news – but the press is mostly hiding them. While it bolsters the argument that Trump asked for anouncements, it is hard to cover without noting that it started in early 2019 – before all this.
Ukrainian courts actually found that Ukraine interfered in the US 2016 election – that is not some russian propoganda.
Further every time Biden is asked about Ukraine he either gives squirly answers or gets angry – though that is not limited to Ukraine.
The Hill’s “the rising” left/right duo has concluded Biden is toast, he is being proped up by the media who are protecting him(badly) from hard questions and he will crumble under scrutiny in a general election. Bernie is rising and has taken the gloves off and is not attacking Biden – and it is working.
The impeachment saga has been hard on Biden – because it keeps Biden and corruption in the news.
Almost everyday there is another appearance of corruption involving the Bidens story.
While many of them are ho-hum – what is 160K compared to the millions Hunter got in Ukraine, regardless they grind down. Further they go beyond Hunter to the entire family
Joe MIGHT get little slack protecting Hunter from Shokin. It was wrong, but few of us would not use what power we have to protect our children. But when this is over and over and involves many family members – it is no longer Joe Protecting his trouble child. it is corruption and it is impossible to say Joe is not part of it.
Orwellian Dictionary of modern Academia
https://quillette.com/2020/01/29/an-orwelexicon-for-bias-and-dysfunction-in-psychology-and-academia/
The democrats are going to do anything to stop Bernie. With Biden stumbling and Bernie rising, Mikie is their choice and they will find a way to insure Bernie is not their nominee.
https://www.ibtimes.com/2020-election-democrats-change-debate-rules-who-qualifies-now-2913571
Democrats fixate on WHO hacked the DNC emails in 2016.
Completely ignoring the fact that it would have been entirely irrelevant if those emails did not expose the DNC (and media) as thoroughly corrupt
We may not have the view into the personal emails of Podesta or Brazille that we had in 2016. But the public behavior of the DNC remains corrupt.
Of course the core problem is that Democrats are actually more fractured than republicans have ever been.
Aside from the departure of NeverTrump neo-con republicans for Clinton in 2016, Republicans fight – amonst numerous factions. They grapple with each other for power, but the winners and loser mostly come together for the election.
Democrats are fundimentally only divided in half – between progressive democrats and moderates – though there are degress of moderate and degress of progressive.
Obama placed himself essentially at the hinge between the two groups.
But since Obama the two groups are at odds. The Bidens and Clintons are in the moderate group, but campaign on progressive policies – in the hopes that Progressives will beleive then and Moderates will wink wink nod, nod not.
But that is hard to pull off. Sanders may well Beat Biden in the Primary – but if he does and even 10% of moderates sit the election out He will be crushed.
But the converse is also true. Whether it is Bloomberg or Biden or any of the other “moderates” none are convincing enough to the progresives to hold the entire progressive base. Many sanders voters have made it clear that without Bernie – they are not voting in 2020. Or very weirdly as happened in 2016 some of them may vote for Trump.
Regardless, Democrats are split and the halves of the party do not trust each other.
For good reason.
The 2016 DNC emails revealed the extent to which “moderate” democrats will go to screw progressives. And that has not changed.
But moderate D’s understand that only a moderate D can get elected, and even then only with the support of progressives.
Republicans have ended to end this schiff show and move to closing arguments.
If Democrats want to call Bolton and all these others – they control the house.
Follow the process, actually issue subpeona’s, get the courts to enforce them.
It is probably too much to ask that you handle most of the testimony in public, that you allow real cross examination, and that you allow Trump to call his own witnesses – things that were routine in the past.
But do not corrupt the senate with your nonsense.
I would notes that you do not have to be running an impeachment inquiry to subpeona witnesses and documents – but the court are more likely to overrule priviledge if you are.
It also helps is you credibly allege an actual crime
Regardless, nothing that has occurred in the senate precludes the house from doing anything – except taking control of the senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I_glE1X10w
Here is Joe Rogan and Matt Tailibi on Trump, Trump rallies and Trump supporters.
This does not quite perfectly capture the sense of the argument I have been trying to make here. The people with the Trump Punisher T-Shirts, the rally attendees, etc are the extreme end of Trump voters. Joe Rogan’s comment that Trump makes it OK to be an asshole is not quite right – but it is close.
The important point is that Trump speaks for alot of people who feel not only like no one is listening, but that the PC world is actively trying to shut them up and too slander and malign them.
Those at the rallies and with the T-Shirts and MAGA hats are at the extreme vocal end.
But millions of people feel that “asshole Trump” is their champion.
If Trump were more “presidential” he would lose these voters.
There are many many factors that went into Trump’s victory in 2016.
Some of those factors cost him the votes of some groups and gained the votes of others.
What has changed since 2016 ?
The press, the left, the democrats have doubled down on all the PC nonsense that make Trump a hero to millions of people.
Trump is actually president and outside the public verbal jousting has done well compared to his recent predecessors – and he has done well in an incredibly hostile environment.
For all her flaws Hillary was a more formidable candidate in 2016 than Jo Biden and the 7 dwarfs are today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9B5L-grCV0&list=TLPQMDEwMjIwMjDcyfU5ZGf9jg&index=7
Washington (CNN)The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to the President Donald Trump’s involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine — a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal.
Withholding info from an impeachment trial, the lowering of the DOJ BARR
As with everything you presume (hope) that the DOJ information is inculpatory rather than exculpatory, or even irrelevant.
I do not know – nor do you, nor does the media – though we will likely find out.
I greatly favor transparency in government.
I also absolutely favor due process.
If you beleive that the DOJ witheld inculpatory evidence – go to court and get it.
FOIA requests still work – OMB released many emails regarding the hold in the midst of the Senate Trial. I have heard no “bombshell” retorts from you or the media regarding those – my guess is they were inculpatory – if they had been in any possible way spinable against Trump you would have been here claiming over and over they were the coupe de grase.
My guess is that the DOJ docs are legal oppinions asked of assorted departments on a variety of Ukraine aide related issues.
If that is true, all that matters is that AFTER those opinions were issued – if the conclusion was certain that the agency requesting it subsequently followed it.
But that is a guess. DOJ has no other role in Ukraine Aide that I can think of.
Nothing precludes you from making your case. What you are precluded from doing is making up your case.
Our system of due process is what distingushes the rule of law from the rule of power.
Due process exists as the means of assuring to the extent possible that the use of government power is rooted in the facts and the law, not emotions, whim or ideology.
“ As with everything you presume (hope) that the DOJ information is inculpatory rather than exculpatory, or even irrelevant.”
As with everything else about the charges you didn’t want TO SEE the information because it has been and still IS inculpatory. Or are you cynical or dopey enough or both to think they wouldn’t have RELEASED exculpatory info in a timely manner?
You’re not interested in knowing what actually happened; you’re only invested in maintaining your own squinty false impressions of what transpired.
“As with everything else about the charges you didn’t want TO SEE the information because it has been and still IS inculpatory. Or are you cynical or dopey enough or both to think they wouldn’t have RELEASED exculpatory info in a timely manner?”
No something is not inculpatory just because you want it and have not been able to get it.
The vast majority of government information is not made public. We do not have routine and timely access to all of the emails of DoJ or OMB or any other branch of government.
You are likely correct that I would personally found almost all government emails “inculpatory”. But that is by a libertarain and constitutionalist construct of government power that neither you not republicans nor democrats accept.
Hillary hid 40,000 emails – we still do not have them all. The overwhelming majority are innocous. Though almost all should not have been accessible to the Chinese in real time and harmed foreign policy and possibly national security.
Regardless, I uniformly accept that the executive branch will fight against making most anything public. It is their default position. They do not cooperate with congress, with FOIA requests, even with court orders. Sometimes what comes out is pretty damning. Often we are left wondering why the government fought tooth and nail.
A number of OMB emails regarding the Ukraine hold were release in compliance with an FOIA court order about two weeks ago. The government fought against those, and lost, and is complying with the court order. I have not read these emails, but they were released in the midst of the impeachment trial – and yet neither Schiff, nor Nadler, nor the presidents lawyers nor the media said much of anything about them.
If those were “inculpatory” – then everyone is sleeping at the switch.
The fact is you can not presume to know that something is inculpatory or exculpatory or nothing, just because one party is resisting providing it.
You are not even allowed to conclude that as a matter of law in civil or criminal court.
Defendants are allowed to fight against discovery requests, and whether they succeed or fail the legal resistance of the defense to provide information can not be raised by the prosecutors as evidence – because it is not.
The only instance in which you are allowed to conclude that evidence that has been witheld inculpatory is when that evidence is illegally destroyed.
The entire western legal system rests on the presumption that guilt must be proven, it can not be presumed. That the legal efforts of any defendant to thwart prosecution are NOT evidence of guilt. That the burden of proof is ALWAYS with the prosecutor not the defendant.
That all arguments of the form – if he were not guilty he would cooperate are FALSE.
None of this is new. This is the core of hundreds of years of western law.
Am I interested in knowing what happened ?
Not especially, as the worst that democrats have alleged is not a crime.
Thus far the evidence – and contra your claim – the house has alot of evidence, more than enough that if their claims were true we would have proof in that evidence, and yet we do not, the evidence indicates that
Trump badly wanted alot of investigations and cooperation in US investigations from the Ukrainians, including but not limited to investigating the Bidens.
That there is reasonable suspicion to justify those investigations.
That money to Ukraine was being held up for a large number of reasons.
That this is not unusual – that Obama held up the same aide, that at the same time Trump was holding up Aide the IMF was holding up aide.
That among the reasons for holding up aide were:
That Ukraine is corrupt – and the law authorizing the aide required proof that the Ukrainians were working to thwart corruption.
That even though Zelensky ran on an anti-corruption platform Zelensky has strong ties to a number of powerful corrupt oligarchs.
That Trump really does not like foreign aide of any kind.
That Trump really does not give a shit about the Ukraine.
That Trump was deeply bothered that the EU had not provided any assistance to an ally that was in their backdoor.
Is the possiblity of gaining some political advantage over Biden in that list of reasons ?
I am sure it is. Just as I am certain that house democrats impeached Trump in the hopes of weakening him in the 2020 election.
The existance of a political motive is unimportant so long as the act was legal – and it was.
Do I want to know more ? Sure. But not enough to write my senator or congressmen, or to protest, or to change my vote.
Further as even Schiff said – ultimately all will be known.
But unlike you and Schiff I do not presume that knowing will implicate Trump.
Regardless, my wish to know something does not create a right or overcome the requirements to follow the law, the constitution and due process.
The worst that has been alleged to have transpired is neitehr a crime, nor an impeachable offense. it is more innocuos than the Mueller investigation of Crossfire Huricane
The house has alleged that Trump demanded an investigation of the Biden’s and used aide allocated to congress as a means to get those investigations.
So what ?
If you proved that True – which you have not, you still would not have anything.
If you further proved that the motive was political – you still would not have anything.
But thus far all the evidence that the house has gotten from 18 witnesses contradicts that narrative.
Not only is your allegation not an abuse of power, but you are not close to proving the allegation.
Jay, don’t you think that presidential emails, relating to foreign policy are privileged? You have no problem with the Bidens shaking down the Ukrainians. You had no problem with the Secretary of State in the previous administration, keeping her emails on a secret private server and then deleting 33,000 of them, in violation federal law. You had even less problem with the previous president signing a treaty which had not been ratified by the Senate, as required under the Constitution. You had no problem with him making secret side deals along with the JCPOA or sending pallets of cash, which assisted in the slaughter of Americans and Israelis, as well as ….the Kurds!
Stop being so dramatic.
“This trial is a travesty! It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham! ”
“ Jay, don’t you think that presidential emails, relating to foreign policy are privileged”
No, not in regard to an impeachment trial. SCOTUS already rejected the notion that executive privilege is an absolute privilege in United States v. Nixon, which was a criminal trial. The case for allowing it is even weaker in the impeachment context. The Executive branch doesn’t get to decide what’s privileged in an impeachment against the executive by congress.
AND there’s been no assertion the emails are privileged: and if they contain privileged info they wouldn’t have been released to Trump’s impeachment lawyers, who have been holding them; and if they contained privileged info, why wasn’t that disclosed earlier?
It’s a plain cover-up by your cult leaders, Priscilla; and worthy of an additional obstruction charge. But of course you won’t see it that way in your Manchuria Trump Candidate hypnotic daze.
The decision you cite rests on the credible allegation of a crime, and specifically that the information requested was part of the commission of the crime
There is no alleged crime.
It is not impeachment that breaches priviledge, it is not even that a criminal allegation breaches priviledge.
‘
The issue is not even unique to executive priviledge
EVERY recognized legal priviledge is defeated if the priviledge material is itself acts in furtherance of a crime.
A defendant can talk to his lawyer and confess to the most heinous of crimes.
That confession is still priviledged. The lawyers records of that confession, and all work product based on that confession is priviledged.
BUT if the lawyer agrees to pay off a witness to the crime – the priviledge is broken.
The rules are the same with respect to ALL privildges.
It is NEVER a violation of the law to object to the introduction of evidence, force the issue through the courts and lose.
Defense attorneys do that ALL THE TIME.
It is not even improper to do so over issues that have already been decided.
I know of atleast 20 major SCOTUS decisions of the past decade expanding the rights of criminal defendants that were challenges to “settled law”.
You have a very bizzarre idea of what priviledge means.
All legal priviledges belong to the DEFENDANT.
A spouse can not on their own decide to testify against the other spouse,
A lawyer can not decide to testify against their client.
Bolton can not decide to testify against the President.
But the defendant in ANY legal action can “waive privildge” and release some or all of the priviledge material.
The president is free to share material that he claims is covered by executive privilege with whoever he wants – including his lawyers …. OR NOT.
The privilege belongs to the president.
You can change the scope of the privilege by changing the law or the constitution.
And I will happily agree with you that executive privilege is currently applied far to broadly.
But whether a legal privilege is broad or narrow, it belongs to the defendant.
The executive branch does not get to decide what is privileged.
The president does, and absent a final order of the courts to the contrary on the specific issue of privilege that privilege applies.
Further the president is not even obligated to affirmatively raise the privilege.
We saw this in the house conflicts with Rosenstein – though it has occured in many other contexts.
Witnesses have refused to testify on some matters before congress because the president MIGHT claim privilege.
This is quite normal.
Again I think that executive privilege is used far too broadly today.
But if you do not like that – change the law or the constitution as required.
Trump is not unique.
Hell the president’s lawyers have defended claims of privilege made by Obama during the Trump administration for materials that Trump WANTS released.
One of the things Republicans have argued for is the release of all biden’s calls to the Ukraine. Trump has talked about that, but he has thus far NOT waived privilege on them.
Even though they almost certainly would help him.
“worthy of an additional obstruction charge.”
You wonder why you keep getting accused of stalinist tactics ?
Of course we know everyone accused is guilty and and if they do not cooperated in proving their own guilt – that is further evidence of guilt.
The purpose of the law is to assure that everyone plays by the same rules and to preclude the use of force as the means to personal ends.
That requires law that is understood by all – narrow law. We need not agree on what the law SHOULD be but we must agree on what it IS.
Arguing the law broadly weaponizes it for personal gain.
You are litterally arguing that what you claim Trump did is legitimate – if YOU do it.
Some of us exist in reality some of us do not.
One of the best tests of who is more closely tied to reality and who is floating in an ideological dream world, is how the facts have actually turned out.
No sane person could argue that Mueller did not uncover every grain of sand in his efforts to “get Trump” – and yet he failed. He found no collusion. The most he could come up with is hints that being angry at pitt bulls who will not let go of invisible bones is somehow obstruction.
Horowitz is an Obama appointee who was actually highly respected and apolitical,
And he found that the entire top floor of the FBI was corrupt, violated the law and policy and regulations, and the constitution and even committed crimes, and continued an investigation long past when they knew they had no foundation to continue.
In otherwords both Horowitz and Mueller ultimately if somewhat grudgingly agreed with Trump – NOT YOU!
It is pretty self evident at this point Jay that your grip on reality and the law as well as all those you fawn over is tenuous.
You are not to be trusted.
Partly because you self evidently have poor judgement and logical skills
and partly because you bandy insults and false accusastions like candy.
And having been caught – you double down.
Correction: An exec privilege claim is made for withholding the emails.
“OMB has redacted portions of 24 documents pursuant to the Presidential Communications Privilege,” Walsh wrote. “Specifically, the documents in this category are emails that reflect communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President’s immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine.”
I want to know what was said about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine by those people – don’t you?
Let’s get congress to subpoena those emails and hold off on impeachment vote until the contents are known. You’re in favor of knowing if what was said is relevant to the impeachment charges, right?
So they redacted the portions covered by executive privilege.
If you do not like that – persuade the court to overrule the claims of privilege.
“I want to know what was said about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine by those people – don’t you?”
Not really. I would not care if Trump completely and permanently witheld the aide.
I would not care if Trump refused to provide it because the Ukraine continues to be corrupt.
I would not care if Trump refused to provide it because the EU is not contributing.
I would not care if Trump refused to provide the aide until Ukraine demonstrated that they were looking into a wide variety of areas of corruption – especially those involving americans.
But clearly you care – Why ?
What is wrong with Trump demanding Ukraine look into its own corruption – especially corruption involving americans ?
Some of your questions have objective answers that we already have – we know the scope and duration.
Other questions have answers already from the House testimony.
After we cull the testimony about what various witnesses beleived – which is not even admissible. What we KNOW is that it was held for a variety of reasons, including just getting information from Ukraine.
But the primary reasons were:
lack of confidence in Zelensky to fight corruption – which is a condition of the aide that is actually written into the law.
Trump is obligated by the law authorizing the funds and passed by congress to withold the aide until the Ukrainians can demonstrate that they are acting to reduce corruption.
Zelensky ran on an anti=corruption platform – but that has occured in Ukraine before.
Zelensky himself has ties to powerful corrupt oligarches.
As Sonderland testified what Trump expected in order to release the aide was Zelensky to keep his campaign promises.
No one – not Taylor, not Vindeman, Not Sonderland, Not Kent no one who directly communicated to the Ukrainians has testified that the Ukrainians were told that the aide was being withheld – much less why. No one testified that they were DIRECTED by Trump or anyone else to withold the aide for any purpose other than to get Zelensky to keep his campaign promises.
Any additional memos you might get will not change that.
I have no idea what Trump and his close advisors discussed
I do not care so much what was discussed, I care what was done.
And what was done was lawful, Why it was done is a question of policy not law.
Jay, I give you credit for directly answering my question. But you’re wrong about this.
Of course the emails are privileged. Any communications between the POTUS and a foreign leader are considered sensitive and classified, as are any communications between the POTUS and his closest advisors. That has been so throughout American history, and the Supreme Court has ruled that executive privilege is essential to the separation of powers.
If the Congress believes that a phone call or an email is essential to their proving a high crime or misdemeanor, or even to an oversight investigation (certainly to a criminal one) it can issue a supoena and go to court to have it enforced. This has been done before, as you rightly point out. Trump himself declassified the phone calls that supposedly “proved” his guilt.
But, in an impeachment, it is the House of Representative’s job to do this, and then to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. They did not, because this was a political stunt, not a serious impeachment.
The Senate’s role is to hear the evidence and determine if the President is guilty or innocent of the charges. The House acts as prosecutor, the Senate as a jury. That’s not a perfect analogy, but it is close.
When was the last time you saw a jury call a witness that the prosecutor refused to call? Jurors are not permitted to do that.
This whole thing was a sham ~ on that we all agree, just for different reasons.
As a result of this impeachment, Joe Biden is done. Even if he does eventually get the nomination, which I seriously doubt, the Burisma scandal, and his involvement in other serious pay-to-play scandals will destroy his candidacy.
There has been massive amounts of misrepresentation from every regarding all of this from the start.
The house is not exactly like a grand jury.
The Senate is not exactly like a petit jury.
There are similiarities.
But they are not identical.
I do not want to go over all the similarities and differences.
There are useful comparisons, but this is a different process.
The house does get to determine its own rules – in impeachment, in hearings, in everything.
But this house has selected to follow the same rules as have been used for decades – but is not following the rules it selected.
Even in oversight hearings – the majority and minority are BOTH permitted to call witnesses – according to the rules all prior houses have followed and this congress voted to apply to itself.
In all prior impeachments – the defendant – whether the president, a judge or other federal officer was entitled to representation in the house, cross examination and witnesses.
House democrats can choose to change the rules – but they did not.
If they do not change them – integrity requires them to follow the rules they chose for themselves.
The house is free to define an impeachable offense however they please.
But whatever they choose they are answerable to the Senate and the voters.
It is perfectly proper for the Senate to say – “go back to the drawing board”.
It is perfectly fine for the Senate to say – “You want witnesses – call them yourself”.
I would further note contra the representation of democrats – Prosecutors are required to provide defense attorney’s they evidence, their witnesses lists, and what those witnesses have and will testify to, and access to those witnesses to question them – ALL before the trial.
Then the normal first step in a trial is for the defence to make a number of “motions in limine”.
These are legal claims to the court that some or all of the prosecutions case is inadmissible.
To make these motions – the defense must KNOW ahead of time what the prosecutions case will be.
In a context most of us are familiar with – the prosecution can not hide from everyone the details of a search, so that the defense can not challenge it as illegal.
Legally almost every failure in a case is “charged” to the defense attorney’s – this is because the prosecutions is required to be open and straightforward about their case from the start.
If evidence that gets in that should not get it – that is an error of the defence attorney
The prosecutor is permitted to do all kinds of improper things – the burden is on the defense to challenge them. But the reciprocal of this is the prosecution is not permitted to “surprise” anyone. No undisclosed witnesses, and no witnesses that the defense does not know ahead what their testimony will be.
There are other reasons that a normal prosecutor would never be allowed to called witnesses that it had not questioned and provided the defence with their statements ahead of time.
Because the defense gets to cross examine prosecution witnesses – to do that effectively takes substantial preparation. In major cases – the defense reviews the expected testimony of days looking for chinks and discrepancies. It hires investigators to look into the background of damaging witnesses to find if they have contradicted themselves in the past.
It is not possible to do this if you do not know WHO will testify and WHAT they will say ahead of time.
Witnesses where probably not really needed in the Clinton impeachment.
Regardless, every witness in the Clinton impeachment was known to Clinton well in advance.
Every one had been deposed before, and had testified to other courts and to grand juries. Clinton knew exactly what each would likely say and could prepare his defense.
All of this procedure that the house either violated or has tried to get the Senate to violate is part of what is called “due process”.
To those saying you can not have a trial without witnesses – that is correct, but no prosecutor is allowed witnesses that have not testified or made sworn statements that are provided to the defense well before the trial. If a prosecutor shows up on the courthouse steps with a new witness that has never made a sworn statement. that they are springing on the defense – that witness will not be allowed to testify. THAT is the norm. THAT is due process.
Very very rarely surprises happen in court in direct testimony. Most often when witnesses change their testimony. Courtroom surprises most typically occur on CROSS, when either the prosecution or the defense attorney pokes holes in a witnesses testimony – almost always based on noticing the problems in their prior testimony or sworn statements.
As we have seen over and over in this mess – for 3 years.
Some “bombshell” is reported in the news, and then it turns our either to not be true, or not be as consequential as originally thought.
Our courts are designed specifically to AVOID “rushing to judgement”.
The objective is NOT to let the prosecutor deal from the bottom of the deck, such that he can make a case that sounds compelling to the jury and judge at first blush, but falls apart, if the defense has sufficient time and investigation to take it apart.
The clear approach of the house in this entire mess has been to attempt to force impeachment – and every step through this process, to attempt to manage pressure public and otherwise to acheive their desired ends.
That is not justice – not in a civil court, not in a criminal one, not in impeachment.
This is not a tug of war where the objective is to get the rag to cross the line – even for an instant. Due process REQUIRES that we find guilt only when the burdens of proof all fall on the prosecutor and every advantage is given to the defense.
It is true that is not always the case today. But the fact that we often screw up in civil and criminal cases – usually of far less importance, does not mean we should dispense with due process in the house and senate
Under normal circumstances SCOTUS is not likely to allow congress to question the presidents advisors about conversations they had with the president – expscially the National Security advisor.
It is also near certain that SCOTUS will rule against the president where there is a credible crime being investigated, and a strong likelyhood that the requested testimony will provide evidence of that crime.
This is one of the reasons why the fact that the articles of impeachment do not contain a crime matters. SCOTUS is not perfectly predictable. but absent a crime they are likely to say no.
BTW this should not be fatal to the house case. We saw a version of this in the Russia collusion story.
There is ample evidence that Trump asked several people to fire Mueller.
But no one actually did it.
One of the Parnas recordings has trump saying “take her out” about Yavonovitch in 2018.
Had someone tied to Trump murdered Yavonovitch that would have been damning evidence against Trump. But no such murder occurred.
All of us say things that either can be interpretted many ways or that we do not mean.
Those remarks are not crimes. But when bad ACTS occur those remarks ARE evidence of crimes.
Without a nefarious act being take to murder Yavonovitch “Take her out” presumptively means exactly what happened – she was removed as ambassador more than a year later.
Mueller was never fired, therefore Trump’s direction to fire him tells us nothing beyond that he was angry in that moment. Trump either directed people without the authority to act, or changed his mind. Both are acceptable. Trump’s directions to others are not evidence until the act occurs. Trump and his advisors are free to talk about whatever they want.
They talk about actual murders all the time – Soleimani, Baghdadi.
The president and his advisors are permitted to discuss options that are criminal – without fear their words will be turned against them – BTW this is not unique to the president.
You are free to discuss with your friends any potential crime you want. Your discussions do not become criminal, until you ACT on them.
If Trump had sought a qpq – you would have more than speculation. You would have evidence. There is no threat, no blackmail, no extortion until the message is delivered to the victim. There is no one who says that the Ukrainians were told no investigation no money.
Not only do the Ukrainians deny having been told that – but no one has put forward a messanger who delivered the threat.
If Bolton is somehow Key – it would be because He Told Zelensky “no investigation, no money”
If you have trouble grasping this – go read Joe Biden’s remarks.
“Fire the prosecutor in the next 6 house or no money” Message delivered – no question at all,
And Ukraine fired Shokin immediately – so the message was received.
It is remotely possible Bolton or someone else’s testimony might embarrass Trump.
But there is not and can not be a coupe de grace.
BTW If Bolton delivered the message – that would NOT be priviledged.
“ The filing marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President’s thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June.”
Your quote is the words of the reporter – and you do not even cite the reporter or outlet.
I do not want to know what some unsourced talking head tells me that something they refuse to provide says.
I am capable of thinking on my own.
Beyond that the reporters editorializations make no sense.
If you want to know what Trump is thinking – that requires getting inside his head.
Or at the very least it requires either the written or oral remarks of Trump – not interagency emails.
Regardless, do not tell me what these emails purportedly say – SHOW ME the emails.
Last, I do not care what Trump was “thinking” – todate there is not anywhere in the US Code or the laws of any state a “thought crime”. Crimes are acts. Nearly every crime in existance is a crime regardless of WHY you did it.
If you embezzle from a bank, you have committed the same crime – whether you donated the money to charity or spent it on wine and loose women.
Get off your lazy butt and google the first sentence: you’ll find numerous sites with virtually the same factual info, including Fox News outlets.
You can repeat a spin, an oppinion, a viewpoint a narative 10,000 times.
It is still not a substitute for the actual underlying evidence.
I do not care about the groupthink of the media – not even Fox.
To the extent I care at all – which is actually quite little, because this entire mess is a “much ado about nothing” I want the words from the actual emails.
I am able to read and think for myself and reach my own conclusions.
I do not need Trevor Noah, or Don Lemon, or Chris Cuomo or Sean Hanity to tell me what to think.
I do not want the media to tell me what to think. I do not want them to tell me what others think. I want straight news.
The vote of the Senate to preclude themselves from being controlled by the House effectively ends “faux impeachment”.
Nothing stops the house from seeking whatever information or witnesses it wishes on anything related to the executive branch of government.
Adam Schiff correctly noted that ultimately all that is unknown will become known.
It is near certain that as a result of FOIA requests, House and senate requests, further testimony, that a different picture of what occurred regarding the Ukraine will emerge.
It is possible that picture will further damage Trump. If that proves to be the case – Trump can be voted out of office, or he can be removed in a future impeachment in which the house comes to the senate with a compelling and bi-partisan case for removal.
It is also possible that what develops will further damage democrats.
In fact it is probable that the results will be “a little bit of both”.
The only thing that changes as a result of the recent Senate vote, is that we are near the end of the house wasting the Senates time over nonsense they claim is irrefutably proven and impeachable, while concurrently demanding to be permitted to investigate further leveraging the power of the Senate.
As Jay Sekelow noted – The house introduced tens of thousands of pages of documents, 17 transcripts of “secret” testimony, The senate viewed 192 clips of house testimony. The house managers asserted from the begining that their case was open and shut, that they had proven it beyond any doubt. Yet at the end they were begging for more.
Any weakness in the house case – was a consequence of their own choices. The witnesses and documents they presented were determined by their own choices, they proceeded claiming their case was sufficient beyond any doubt. If that was not so – they were free to continue to investigate.
But Sekelow’s BIG point was that all the evidence the House presented in the senate – was unanswered. All that evidence presented by the house – that failed to make their case, was presented without due process, outside of adversarial proceedings, the president has not cross examined any witnesses, had no ability in the house to present documents.
17 transcripts were entered and 192 video clips of witnesses were viewed – not one of which was subjected to cross examination by the president.
That is pretty much the definition of a star chamber, a kangaroo court.
In app prior house impeachments (of presidents, of judges, or other public officials) there has never been a prior instance where the accused did not have representation in the house, and the ability to cross examine all testimony in the house.
Nadler, Schiff and democrats do not get to moan that they were unable to co-opt the senate to continue their kangaroo court.
The Senate SHOULD have dismissed this at the start – without hearing.
It should have told the house – go back and do your job correctly.
Conduct a proper investigation. A process in which all of the evidence is fully developped – including assuring that the accused has due process.
Unfortunately the Senate did not do that – and we will have to live with the consequences in the future.
Stages of Acceptance Of The Death of American Exceptionalism
We are entering the 3rd stage of ACCEPTANCE of the death of the American Nation, whose standards we once believed sane and just.
1. We DENIED the nation would elect Trump.
2. We expressed justified ANGER at his behaviors.
3. We BARGAINED with reason in vein with his supporters to impeach him.
4. Now DEPRESSION is settling in as we see Democratic disunion following GOP treachery.
5. Forlorn ACCEPTANCE of the deterioration of American exceptionalism will follow Trump’s re-election.
But not everyone will go into the night silently:
I do not agree with Mahr – but I admire him.
That said, any claim that the left has taken the “high road” is a pile of Schiff.
The entire Steele Dossier nonsense was legal – through to the point at which the FBI accepted it uncritically and lied to the Court about its credibility.
But the fact that the Steele crap was legal – does not make it any less dirty.
The examples of democrats engaging in dirty – and sometimes illegal politics are mountainous.
Fast & Furious was an effort to use the power of government to gain political advantage on gun control – that backfired.
IRSGate was a criminal and dirty effort to use the power of government to supress political expression.
Obama’s dishonesty on ObamaCare is not an example of democrats taking the “high road”.
Nor are the machinations that democrats had to go through to pass it.
Democrats pioneered the destruction of rules in the house and senate protecting minority rights to gain brief partisan advantages – that ultimately were used against them.
Is that how your side took the high road ?
Democrats dicked with the primary rules to F’over Sanders in 2016 and they are doing so once again – is that the “high road”
Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, nazi, sexist, homophobic, hateful hating hater – or a Russian Asset is that the high road you speak of ?
Everyone – not just republicans or conservatives or libertarians – but even democrats
You have personally called those who disagree with you turd stained toilet paper – is that the high road ?
Schiff – and several other prominent democrats not merely promissed they WOULD show the american people evidence of Trump/Russia collusion – but that the proof already existed and they had seen it. Was that True ? Was that the “high road” ?
There is plenty of dirt to cover both parties. But any pretense that the left has been “taking the high road” – is complete and total bullshit.
Not only that – but quite honestly – the dirty underhanded “schiff” coming from the left dwarfs that of the right.
How many democratic congressmen have been shot in the past 40 years for political(or any) reasons
How many Democratic Senators have been beaten up over politics ?
How many democrats have been refused service in a resturaunt because of their politics ? Or the hat or T-Shirt they were wearing ?
How many Democrat or left leaning reporters have had their doors broken down by angry political mobs ?
Political violence on the left has increased 250% since the end of the Obama administration.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
The left has not be “going high”.
It has attempted to get its way “by any means necescary” and it has been doing so for a long time. It does so when it is in power, and it does so out of power.
“The examples of democrats engaging in dirty – and sometimes illegal politics are mountainous.”
Mountainous – like comparing a Dem Ski resort summit with a GOP Everest.
Are republicans trustworthy – absolutely not.
Are democrats trustworthy – not even half that of republicans.
You provide a metaphor – not evidence.
I gave you a short list of actual examples of democratic corruption and violence.
I am hard pressed to think of a time ever when democrats have gone high on anything.
We have Mahr engouraging Dems to “fight dirty” – as if they needed any encouragement.
Please tell me when a single other person posting here has used the kinds of slurrs you use daily ?
Who else here has compared others to barnyard animals, or to turd stains on toilet paper ?
Or anything approximating that ?
Impeachment is a perfectly legal power the constitution gives to the house.
There is little doubt that it is an important check on government officers – including the president.
There should also be no doubt that it can be used as a political weapon.
In some instances it is both.
Politics has played a significant role in every prior presidential impeachment inquiry.
There is no instance ever where impeachment – regardless of its merits did not have a strong political motive.
That fact alone completely destroys the house democrats first article of impeachment.
It is inarguably constitutional, and legal to investigate, even prosecute political opponents based on political motives, or for political advantage.
Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are not going to impeach themselves because they were quite obviously driven by political motives.
The legitamacy of the use of government power by those in government does NOT rest on whether that use of power has political benefits or motives.
It rests on the legality or constitutionality of that use of power.
Impeachment and impeachment investigations are the legitimate constitutional powers of the house.
Foreign policy and the investigation of alleged crimes are the legitimate constitutional powers of the president.
If you want to impeach Trump – WHAT he did matters, Why is unimportant.
Trump has done many many many things as president that have pissed of the left – and sometimes even me.
But he has not done anything outside his constitutional powers as found with regard to the same behaviors in prior presidents.
Tyrany and abuse of power is not doing something you do not like.
It is doing something that is illegal or unconstitutional.
How do you bemoan the death of something that you do not even beleive in ?
In your post you say “we” – “we” who ?
We the left ? We Jay and the mouse in his pocket ? We the talking heads ? We the democrats ? We the elite ?
Who is we ?
In the real world “we” – the nation, the american people, through a process that was determined and has been followed for 250 years elected Trump.
“we” elected Trump – YOU some other group that is NOT “the nation” denied that would happen.
You expressed anger at that. Your free to do so, but your “we” is clearly NOT “we the nation”.
You can assert that you are angry – you own your anger.
You can not merely assert justification.
Regardless, you lost the election. the presumption – the core principle of representative government is that elections are self justifying. The constitution places few limits on WHO can be president – almost anyone who can get elected is the legitimate president of the nation. The contraints are on WHAT government – including the president can do.
Whether that president is Trump or Obama or Sanders they are constrained by the constitution, the law, and the requirement that the use of power to infringe on individual liberty much be justified by more than the will of the majority.
Whether your anger is “justified” – is something you must prove – using FACTS.
You are free to impeach any government officer for any reason – or none.
Regardless of your own personal justifications, to succeed you are obligated to prevail in a difficult process that is inherently both super majoritarian, difficult, bi-partisan, and requiring a high standard of proof.
In both the Clinton and Trump impeachment the president’s defenders argued that congress should not easily overturn the results of an election – especial with an election looming.
That is not an absolute barr to impeachment. But it is a high bar. Your unproven fears are not sufficient.
Of course you are depressed – that was inevitable.
The country is growing faster than in 20 years. Despite record low unemployment it continues to produce new jobs.
Trump touts these and many many other accomplishments – but almost none of these accomplishments are Trump’s accomplishments. They are the accomplishments of the american people – THEY are “Americian Exceptionalism”
That flower grows on its own – so long as government does not starve it of rain or sunshine.
Barney Frank once said that government is the things we do together.
That is BUNK. Government is the constraint on what we may do – either together or individually.
American exceptionalism is all that we accomplish – together or as individuals, and the less government does the more room there is for “american exceptionalism”
The election is approaching. Trump’s campaign cuts right at the heart of your post.
in Nov. 2020 we find out if “we” – not “you” feel that the country is going to hell.
Trump’s campaign is already echoing Reagan’s “Morning in America”
You are nakedly asserting that things have gone to hell.
In Nov. 2020 we get to find out what people beleive.
Jay, how do you define “we” in this.
.
I would replace it with ” left wing liberals and coastal elites”.
As for bargaining, the democrats needed just one more senator to vote with them. Lisa Murkowski was open to this until Warren had Roberts read “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?” Murkowski responded it has “become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice.” She went on to say she voted to not allow witnesses so SCOTUS was not degraded for political reasons.
So, your side will say she never intended to vote for witnesses. I say she would have, if Shiff had done a better job developing evidence in the house.
But just think, you have the next 9 months to argue and debate with Dave about Trump. That would have been taken away if Trump had been removed.
And it looks like I will have Bernie to criticize. And yes, if Bernie is the nominee, I will be voting for Trump. Its one thing to vote libertarian when both candidates are equally bad. But that is not the case if Bernie is the nominee. Anyone supporting government programs like he does is far far worse than Trump.
I define WE The same way Trump & the GOP define “us” – as in the American people support us.
WE – are PEOPLE who grieve for a nation bamboozled by a dip-shit con-artist and his followers and enablers.
WE are similarly minded persons who are grieving at the dirge of rationalizations and deceptions promoted by Trump enablers and sycophants and side-line 3rd Party procrastinators.
YOU obviously aren’t included in my WE. And you are well on the way of becoming THEM. You’ve been drifting into Trump convert mode for a while.
Soon you’ll be out of the closet in full, no matter who the Dems nominate. And unlike your last tepid symbolic non-vote for a 3rd party candidate, this time you’ll be goose-stepping along with the Pied Piper of Pussy Grabbing on his 2nd-term march, of trampling on long established Americans values.
Send a selfie photo when you put on your MAGA cap.
Your definition of “we” is both muddy and self contradictory.
Regardless, you are correct that I and most others here are not part of your “We”.
Nor is atleast half the rest of the country – a group that you are actively seeking to grow as fast as possible, until you “we” becomes miniscule.
According to Gallup the percent of the country satisfied with how things are going is at this moment the highest it has been since the Financial Crisis – it is higher than at any time during Obama’s presidency. Rassussen and the RCP average have the same trends and are all within 1pt.
Interestingly the rising impression of the country is entirely a republican and independent phenomena. Republicans as a whole have had their impression improved by 14pts, independents by 10, while democrats see the country as dismal as ever.
In fact democrats are the ONLY demographic group whose impression has not improved.
Young people as a whole have improved their view, as well as the old and those in the middle
Women have improved more than men.
I beleive Priscilla posted polling recently that not only do large majorities see improvement – but on 7 of 8 criteria, and in super majorities.
The majority of the country is not depressed, not anxious, not angry.
Based on the characteristics that you attribute to “We”, the only demographic group that fits those characteristics is democrats, not republicans, not moderates. Not all of us as a whole and not any subset of us except democrats.
You can try to define “we” however you please, but the only demographic group that has the attributes you attribute to We is the about 27% of the country that are democrats.
Great argument – in a country where most everything has improved significantly over the past 3 years, those who voted for someone who promised that improvement and delivered as well as those who see that things have improve – those people have been “bamboozled”
If that is bamboozled – “please sir can I have more ?”
USA Today/Suffolk Poll
“Overall, four out of five registered voters in the U.S. say their own lives will improve in the new year:
“Do you think things are going to get better or worse in your own life?”
· Better: 80%
· Worse: 11%
· Undecided: 9%
Fully 85% of Hispanics say their lives will improve in 2020, followed by 79% of Whites and 73% of Blacks.
Only 67% of Democrats say their lives will get better in the new year, compared to 90% of Republicans and 84% of Independents.
“
This has NEVER been about witnesses, it has ALWAYS been about due process.
Had the house done their job properly, the only question before the senate – as with the Clinton impeachment, would have been: “Do we read the dry transcripts of the prior testimony of witnesses, or do we allow the to be deposed in the basement of the senate on video ?”
In the senate trial todate – the house has been able to present the transcripts of any testimony they obtained in the house. Not a single bit of evidence that the house has gathered was blocked.
But the presidents lawyers have been denied the opportunity to cross examine any of those witnesses. They were denied that by the house, and they are likely to be denied that by the senate.
Prosecutors do not have a right to NEW witnesses at a trial. They can not even present NEW evidence, if they are unable to tell the court exactly what it is first.
The house is free to go through the process of obtaining Bolton or anyone else’s testimony should the courts allow.
Ross Douthat, a neverTrumper conservative columnist at the NYT wrote a recent column that cuts to the core of the Demcrats’ problem with Trump ~ they hate him, they despise him with a passion, but they have no idea how to beat him.
Everything that they have tried so far has failed: the Russia hoax, the Ukraine impeachement hoax, the various “bombshells” that turned out to bomb, etc.
He suggests that they nominate someone who can put forward an agenda that is moderate and unifying. But they don’t seem to be able to do this. So, instead they demonize Trump as a racist, a Nazi, a dictator, and a misogynist, and mock his supporters as brainwashed, deluded redneck morons.
It’s painfully obvious that this strategy is exactly why Hillary failed to defeat Trump, yet it looks like the Democrats are going to repeat their mistake. They are also saddled with the problem of their far left wing, socialist, anti-Semitic base, which has been slowly but surely taking over the party.
The “brilliant political strategist,” Queen Nancy Pelosi, should have listened to her own advice when she said that impeachments must be bipartisan. But she was too afraid of AOC and Bernie, so she let Schiff and Nadler loose, and they totally screwed things up.
Excellent post
I found this article extremely interesting. for several reasons:
It accurately describes the political hobbiests of the left that it attacks.
It also accurately describes the group that it endorses without sufficient self awareness to grasp that a politics of power where “oppressed minority groups” dictate to the rest of us is disasterous.
It accurately exposes the left and its author as openly fascist – without self awareness.
Anyone that doubts this should actually read Mussollini.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/
Joe – Amy – 2020
That wins.
Todate there has never been a vice presidential running mate who had any value beyond delivering their home state. This is one of the reasons that Sherrod Brown is high on the list of democratic Running mates. Brown could almost certainly deliver Ohio and that would be a serious blow to Trump’s rust belt strategy. Brown has lots of problems, but he is a democrat that is very popular in an increasingly red state.
Amy is completely uninteresting as a VP. She is potentially far more interesting as a democratic presidential candidate. I am not very familiar with her positions – but that is actually a good thing. All the democrats who dominate the news have totally insane positions on the issues.
When Andrew Yang’s UBI looks actually moderate compared to the democratic field – something is seriously wrong.
Regardless, in a few hours we will know how Iowa went.
Republicans actually delayed the final impeachment vote in the senate to allow democrats to campaign in the last days.
The democrats best friend in defeating Trump is Trump.
“So, instead they demonize Trump as a racist, a Nazi, a dictator, and a misogynist, and mock his supporters as brainwashed, deluded redneck morons.” And whose words can they pick from to use to support these positions? Just yesterday he was mocking Bloombergs height and talking about boxes at debates.
During the game, they had a wonderful ad about justice reform. I had no idea that was happening. Why? Because ( as Jay calls Trump) Doofus Donald is harping on others physical and mental issues while completely avoiding stressing the positives that have occurred the past 3 yrs.
I can not help but believe his approvals would be far above his negatives if nothing but positive messages came from him and the white house. Attacking your enemy only gives credence to their message. Trump does promote his accomplishments at his rallies, but only a handful of voters already Trumpers get into those.
Ron, how many Democrat politicians and media people have made fun of Trump’s hair, skin, weight, etc.?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and I know that there are people who might otherwise be open to voting for Trump, if he weren’t so childishly insulting to people. But, I just can’t get too worked up about that stuff, when I see so many worse things on Twitter every day. Such as today’s reaction by the left at the news that Rush Limbaugh has lung cancer.
I think I mentioned that one of my sons used to work for Michael Bloomberg. My son is not a tall guy ~ about 5’9″. He always laughs when Bloomberg is described as 5’8″, because he says that he towers over him, and that Bloomberg is 5’4″ max. So, I’m sure that Bloomberg would like to stand on a box, because he’s going to look small, even compared to Buttiggieg, when he’s on stage. I get it ~ winning presidential candidates tend to be tall.
I couldn’t care less about his height, but I guess he does.
Priscilla, here is a journal you may be interested in adding to your reading list come fall.
https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/governor-extreme-on-school-choice/
The article is about education, but the journal itself is reasonable moderate right to right articles concerning N.C.
Now for Trumps behavior. i am not communicating well because both you and Dave are responding in the same manner.
So I will try this. And this is based on mine and my family comments about Trump. There are 35% or so that are “Jay’s Trump Vomiters” that would never ever vote for Trump. They get sick just thinking of him. Then there are 35% or so that are ” Jay’s Trumpanzees”, those that Jay identifies as the crude red neck, neo-nazi, racist militants that would die before not voting for Trump. Then there are 20%-30% that like Trumps policies or some of his policies, but are offended by his constant bullying and obnoxious behaviors.
The latter group is the one I am addressing. You ask those people “Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove, strongly disapprove of President Trump” what percent is going to give him an approval or strong approval? I say that he could get most of them with different behaviors, but now I would bet money that he gets 50% or less.
In this day and age where parents, educators, physicians, mental health workers,law enforcement, pastors and others are working daily on eliminating bullying in schools, on the internet and other places, having a president that masters bullying of others has to have a negative impact on those that approve of him and wont vote for him due to that one issue.
I think are divisions are more complex.
“those that Jay identifies as the crude red neck, neo-nazi, racist militants that would die before not voting for Trump. Then there are 20%-30% that like Trumps policies or some of his policies, but are offended by his constant bullying and obnoxious behaviors.”
you are correct that Ja
About 1/3 of the country – probably more, are “die hard Trump voters”.
This is actually unusual – as there has never been a solid red voting block of that scale before. Further a significant portion of these voters were not republicans in the past.
These people are NOT racist, nazi, extremist, red necks. Most of them are not even from the south.
Most of these people share YOUR views more than mine. They are America Firster’s not free traders. They are the class of people that most of our soldiers come from. They are working class – some with college. They are typically blue collar.
They are not racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and as I said many were democrats.
But they are wondering why equal rights always seems to mean MORE rights for some minorities.
They are not transphobic – but they are not sure about their daughter showing with a teen with a penis who identifies as a girl.
They do not think that 4 year olds get to choose whether they will have hormone and sex reasignment.
They do not think that being white should make it nearly impossible to get into almost any college.
They do not think their jobs should be shipped off to china or taken by immigrants – many of whom do not even want to stay and become citizens.
They do not have a problem with women bosses,
They do have a problem with a world in which any compliment could get them accused of sexism, and where any interactions with women could result in sexual harrassment allegations.
They do NOT like being called sexist, racist, hateful hating haters any time they disagree with someone on the left.
And the majority of them take either secret or open pleasure when Trump bashes the same people who constantly bash them.
Though Jay seems to think otherwise – these are not MY PEOPLE.
But the fact that I do not share all of their views does not make it impossible for me to see that they exist, They are one of the most significant reasons that Trump won in 2016 and their numbers are growing not shrinking as a consequence of the democrats and the media actively continuing to piss on them.
The number of real nazi’s in this country is miniscule – less than the number of Antfa in portland.
I regularly watch Madam Secretary and Designated Survivor – and a few other hollywood shows – I like these shows. The protagonists are purportedly moderates.
Of course in Hollywood a moderate beleives we are past the point of no return on climate change and that there are large groups of politically powerful racist nationalist conservaitves in the US.
There are some countries in the world where right wing nationism and racism are on the rise.
The US is not one of those.
Real Facism and Nazism in the US have nearly disappeared.
The US “extreme” right is far less extreme than it has ever been.
About all that distinguishes these voters from your “moderates” is that most of them either do not care or are actively Cheering Trump on has he bear bates and triggers the left and the media.
One of the things I find most interesting is that those on the left are anxious because they woke up to Trump, and they do not know how this country suddenly became racist, sexist, hateful hating haters.
But these are not people who have EVER loved this country. MAGA to them is a threat – because this country in their view has never been great.
Trump bullies bullies – most of us do nto have a big problem with that.
The media and democrats are big boys. They have been dishing it out for decades with relish. If they can not take it few care.
Everytime jay actually succeeds in scoring a point – it is when he identifies the rare instances where Trump targets an actual little guy who did not thrust themselves on the public stage.
“ Trump bullies bullies“
Bullshit.
Not only is it true – but you know it.
Dave you’re still missing my point. Not everyone is as analytical as you. Not everyone has the facts you do. Not everyone bases decisions on documented positions and not emotions. Not everyone knew why they voted for the person they voted for.
Some voted on the lessor of two evils. Now they will have the same choice ( in my mind) and based on how they see Trump treating “people” he will be the mkre evil of the two.
Now if Bloomberg runs, then the campaign will be horrendously bad because two New York City assholes going at each other personally will be off the charts.
Ron,
When we try to make election predictions, When we look into the crystal ball to gauge the electorate – we are ALL making educated guesses.
I think Jay is living in a delusional world – but he nearly always has polls that support what he claims. I think those he cites are the outliers, he thinks those I cite are outliers. I think there is enough data to settle the issue. But in truth we find out in november.
Between now and then we are guessing.
I thought on election night on 2016 Trump’s chances were much better than predicted.
When he eaked out FL, I thought there was about a 30% chance he would squeek a win with NH and NV. I was certain Trump would do better in PA than predicted. But never in my wildest dreams did I think he would win almost the entire rust belt.
I do not think anyone else did either – certainly not Hillary.
We could all be wrong in November.
I do not pretend to be some great voter analyst. The only claim I make for myself – is that the “experts” SUCK, that gives all of us more credibility.
Anyway, my picture of the assorted voter data on the makeup of the country, and of Trump voters is quite different from yours.
I think your picture of the core Trump voter is wrong. You see them as more extremist than they are. I see them as very much like you – not identical – you are more depressed, you think you are more moderate, and you are more disturbed by Trump’s remarks, and more confident in to stand on your own and defend your views.
The core Trump voters I think mostly shares YOUR views – not mine. They differ from you in that more than you they feel bullied and they feel Trump is striking out against the bullies for them. That is most of what separates them from you.
BTW, I am not trying to insult you, this is just my guess/analysis.
Trump was NOT the choice of the far right. He was not the choice of neo-cons, or evangelicals, or free marketers. He got most of their votes in the general – less than enthusiastically – he will likely get more of their votes in 2020.
Jay is right that Trump’s support among a key group of women has taken a hit. But that is just about the only demographic that voted for him that has dropped. And Trump is working to get that vote back – just not in the way Jay thinks is required.
Trump is also doing the same thing he did in 2016. He has picked targets – in 2016 it was the rust belt and blue collar democrats. In 2020 it is minorities, and swing states he narrowly lost in 2020. Trump is not going to win minorities, But he will near certainly do better than 2016.
He probably will not win all the close swing states from 2016 – though democrats are trying really hard to put all the blue and purple states in play for Trump.
Regardless, 2020 is already shaping up to be a fight on democrats turf – and that means they already lost.
If as you claim – states like NC and GA are really in play – then Trump really has lost already.
But that is not what I am seeing.
Regardless this is a guessing game.
If I am proven wrong – that is life. I do not have “skin in the game” as voter analyst.
I do not think Bloomberg is consequential.
He spent a fortune in the past two months and barely moved the needle.
Fair enough, Ron, I agree with you on this. And, when you couple Trump’s own ill-advised comments with the amount of times he’s misquoted or partially quoted out of context, there are probably a lot of lost potential votes there.
Honestly, when it comes to the kind of nasty infighting that goes on in politics, it probably takes one to know one. Republicans have generally been more restrained and less likely to go for the jugular, but Trump is not a typical Republican.
I think Trump’s instinct to push back twice as hard is both an advantage and a flaw. It’s an advantage in that he gets things done, no matter how furious and intense his opposition is. It’s a flaw because it turns off a significant number of voters who might otherwise support what he’s doing.
Thanks for the link to the Carolina Journal. Some really interesting articles ~ I may have some questions for you.
Peace Plan Torn To Pieces
Arab League foreign ministers reject Trump peace plan
Abbas says Palestinians cutting all ties with Israel, US
30 former foreign policy and national security officials from three administrations published an “open letter” harshly criticizing the Trump Israeli-Palestinian peace plan –
Trump: if Jared Kushner can’t achieve peace in Middle East, ‘it can’t be done’
Maybe Donnie should have hired Hunter Biden for the job…
Oh, my God!!!! Trump has proposed a palestinian peace plan that appears doomed to Failure!!!!
Impeach NOW!!!!
Presidents since Truman have sought peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
72 years after the formation of the state of Israel n ot one has succeeded.
Trump is likely to fail to.
Does that mean he should not try ?
I think that Obama’s deal with Iran was a bad deal. But I do not blame Obama for trying.
I am not even disordinately angry for making a bad deal. Though I am angry that he sold out the green revolution to do so.
Several efforts have been made to deal with North Korea and mostly failed.
I have more problems with those presidents that did nothing than those who failed.
President Clinton tried to negotiate a deal between the Palestinians and Israel as one of his last efforts before leaving office. That is probably the closest moment we have ever had to the posibility of solving the Palestinian problem. Clinton failed because Yassar Arrafat did not know how to get from General Washington to President Washington. He did not know how to lead his people to peace. It was not that Arrafat turned down a deal he thought was bad. Arrafat was not even able to determine what he wanted.
Every effort to negotiate peace in the mideast is doomed to fail until the palestinians want peace.
Trump’s plan is more of a message than a plan. The message is if you do not come to the table prepared to make some concessions, you will ultimately lose everything.
Increasingly most of the world does not care that much about the palestinians.
That is not going to get better. That disempowers the palistinians.
Trump’s VP -Another GOP: Grand Old Prick
Wow! Pence listened patiently to a Doctor argue politely but incorrectly.
There is no right to medical care.
There is no evidence that access to medicaid improves health outcomes.
If you beleive the Doctors position is factually correct – then why not double medicaid funding rather than cut it ? Why not quadrupple it ? Increase it exponentially ?
Rather than trying to get the government to take more money from others without their consent to give to him and his patients, maybe the doctor should be trying to figure out how to deliver his services better and more cost effectively ?
Claiming that something is good and beneficial – does not make it either.
Nor if the claim is true, does that create a right, particularly one that comes at the expense of others.
it is immoral to demand that what belongs to one person be taken from them and given to another by force just because you think that the 2nd person might benefit.
Pence was far more polite to this doctor than I would have been
“ Pence listened patiently to a Doctor argue politely but incorrectly.”
Take your feet out of your ears.
The Dr. repeatedly asked him the same question.
Pence repeatedly avoided answering the direct question
As you have avoided his question with your usual side-step Samba.
Do you even know his question?
I’d suggest you listen CAREFULLY to the question, but you’re a tool of Artful Dodger circumvention.
“The Dr. repeatedly asked him the same question.”
Yes, a leading question with numerous false premises
Which is exactly what I responded.
“Pence repeatedly avoided answering the direct question”
Absolutely, Pence is a politician, He is not me.
I would have told the Dr. Medicaid is not a right.
It is money stolen from the rest of us.
It should be cut.
If I wish to give charity to others – and I give alot of both my time and my money,
I will do so directly myself.
I will give it to those that I CHOOSE – not that some elites in government choose for me.
That if he as a doctor is providing services to poor people for free – that I commend him.
That I admire him, and that I may personal contribute to his efforts.
But that if he is demanding that government force me to subsidize him in doing things that make him feel good – that he is a theif and he is immoral.
And finally that as a matter established by numerous studies over the past 50 years,
health insurance has no effect on health outcome.
But Pence is too much of a politician to speak the truth to an immoral idiot.
I am not particularly interested in playing games with you regarding “the question”.
The actual question was a fallacious leading question with numerous false premises of the form “Have you stopped beating your wife ?”
One of the core premises of the question was that Medicaid Spending is sacred.
It isn’t.
Pence is more of a politician than I am and therefore refused to let the Dr. trap him into speaking a truth that would result in a politically damaging sound bite.
We have the same nonsense going on in the democratic Field.
Sanders is blasting Biden for a long record in the past of trying to reign in entitlements.
Biden instead of proudly taking ownership of one of the few responsible things he has attempted in the past, lies about his own past.
Meanwhile ALL democratic candidates are falling all over themselves proposing to increase spending on failed programs like Medicaid.
The answer that No one, not Trump, not Biden, not Sanders, not Your Doctor, not Pence is going to speak regarding Medicaid is that it is a cancer and we need to KILL IT.
That is unfortunately not going to happen. But the least we can do is slow its spread.
A volunteer group of Trump supporters went to San Franciso to do trash cleanup,
and Antifa Protested them.
Of course the argument can be made their arrival brought far more trash to the city than they could remove. But that’s speculative.
Or to be generous, the visit interpreted as an apologetic gesture to remove the aura of garbage laid on the city from Trump’s steady stream of vomit.
“Of course the argument can be made their arrival brought far more trash to the city than they could remove. But that’s speculative.
Or to be generous, the visit interpreted as an apologetic gesture to remove the aura of garbage laid on the city from Trump’s steady stream of vomit.”
You can also argue that they were all rapid dogs, or possessed by demons.
The fact that you CAN make a ludicrous argument – does not mean that you SHOULD
Groups of Trump supporters have been doing this in cities throughout the country.
They went into Baltimore and cleaned up many city blocks – hauling away 57 dumpsters full of trash.
To a small extent the gestures are symbolic. Removing 57 dumpster loads of debris from several city blocks in Baltimore – made a couple of dozen blocks nicer for a couple of years.
It is a small start. But it is also more than Baltimore has ever done.
Were these Trump supporters going to successfully cure all the woes of SF ?
Absolutely not.
But they would have made SF a small amount better.
And even more importantly they would have shown that a problem that is purportedly so difficult that no one in SF has made any progress on it in decades, can have something done about it by people less fixated on power and money than on solving the problem.
Absolutely it was a “political stunt”.
But it was one of the best kinds.
It was one that exposed the fact that a problem government has been unable to solve is solveable.
Rather than engage in violence the members of Antifa, should have joined in the cleanup.
And done something useful for once in their lives.
Start by CLEANING YOUR ROOM.
You can not be trusted to fix the world if you can not clean up your own life – starting at the mundane – like your room.
This is about Brexiters/remainers, But I strongly suspect it would be true of all right/left or everyone else/left arrangements in much of the world.
Left means intolerant.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPrdRkrXUAACimX?format=jpg&name=900×900
I thought this was excellent. It goes well beyond the issue of transexuality and kids.
It goes beyond kids. As if often evidenced here. The country is full of an enormous number of todlers – some of which are far to old, who think that they should be able to control everything. And far to many snow flakes who think the toddlers should be allowed to control everything.
I got a message-that the video is unavailable when I tried to load it.
And I was all primed to agree with you, believing children should be locked in trunks until civilized.
Initially I though – Youtube must have pulled the video – because some snowflake was offended at being poked fun at.
But I went to youtube and Googled “We the Internet” and the video is still there top of the list.
My 3-Year-Old Son is a Girl Now | We The Internet TV
No one is looking to lock children in Trunks.
At the same time ANYONE who thinks that children should be free to make all their own choices – including choices about drugs, hormones and elective surgery should never be allowed to be a parent.
But this video is not really about children, It is about adults of all ages who are unable to realize that this as well as many other things are stupid bad ideas.
It is the rebutal to the Pence video you posted.
Someone else’s demand – whether a toddler, a poor person with health issues or a wealthy person seeking government subsidies – are NOT entitled to have others give them what they want, by virtue of making a demand – not even if they can couch that demand eloquently, or wrap it in “people will die” pleas.
You are not entitled to anyone’s charity.
Those of us who are actually generous – with either our time or our money or both may give you what you want – but we do so voluntarily – our Choice, not your right.
Anything else is THEFT.
“I want” is not an argument – even if what you want might actually be good.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/01/wisconsin-voters-are-warming-to-trump-despite-impeachment/
A HEX on Trump Cultists.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
— George Orwell
Perfect quote – that is EXACTLY what DEMOCRATS are doing.
The evidence – is there is nothing here. The evidence is no laws were broken.
The evidence is no investigations that were not justified by reasonable suspicion were asked for. The evidence is that the actions of the biden’s in Ukraine and elsewhere stinks to heaven and should be investigated.
But Schiff and democrats keep telling us – ignore the actual evidence. To convict because “Orange Man Bad”.
If you have evidence – present it.
Otherwise you are once again making false accusations.
Trumpinstein- driving away more GOPers than anyone since Nixon-Agnew
https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-why-i-left-the-gop
I can not stop you from beliving that Trump is losing ground with women (to a small extent he has), minorities, farmers, labor, ….
Just about all the data I have seen says the opposite.
In November we will know who is right.
As to your author:
As is typical of an argument from the left – she misrepresents Derschowitz.
Beleif is irrelevant.
Derschowitz’s argument – one I have mad here repeatedly, is that a legal act does not become illegal because of your guess as to the actors motives.
Asking for investigations where there is reasonable suspicion of a crime is within the powers of the president. We went through this same nonsense with the claim that firing Comey was obstruction, or even that Firing Mueller would have been. Or the ludicrous nonsense that Obama was permitted to issue executive orders limited imigration for some predominantly muslim countries – But Trump doing the same was unconstitutional.
These are all flawed arguments – and if this person made those arguments to SCOTUS the justices would eat her for breakfast.
And she should know better – SCOTUS roundly rejected the notion that Trump could not do what Obama could because “argh! Trump” in the travel ban decision.
Your author says that she was influenced By Jack Kemp.
Kudos to her for hearing a powerful voice for truth.
Trump is no Jack Kemp.
But even Jack Kemp was accused by the left of being a Nazi 30+ years ago.
Nothing has changed.
I would note that Betty DeVos – another of those you are accusing of being a Nazi – hateful hating hater, has devoted her life to Charter schools – that primarily serve as the only hope of a halfway decent education for minority children.
You told me a while ago Trump is not really going to get 30% of the minority vote, it is more likely to be 12%.
That is YOUR number, and it is DOUBLE what republicans have gotten before Trump.
In 2018 – purportedly a bad your for Republicans – the GOP SWEPT Florida.
And they did so as a consequence of democratic minority or minority fawning candidates losing to republicans – and specifically loosing the votes of 300,000 single black mothers because democrats promised to close their charter schools.
Blacks are disproportionately represented in Charter schools in the US – more than double their numbers in the population.
There are many many many other issues that Republicans have a real strong message for minorities – particularly blacks.
But Charter schools may be the most significant.
Public education of minorities in the US SUCKS.
The inner city democrat run public education is far WORSE that what Brown was supposed to correct.
Democrats have promised to fix education for 75 years or more.
As a consequence – democrat run public schools are by far the most expensive AND THE WORST in the country.
There are many areas where democrats have promised much and failed greatly – but there are few where it is so obvious.
In my state Charter schools BY LAW can not cost per student more than 75% of the cost of other public schools. The average performance of a student in a charter schools is just barely above the middle of all students in the state.
That would be good for 75% of the money – but these are NOT average students.
These are students from the worst school districts in the state.
Trump – women’s best pal
I am not altogether happy about trump’s relationship with women.
He has said some stupid things – and your Clip has some of those.
That said an awful lot of the clip is meaningless Crap.
What exactly is it that you think judges and producers of beauty contests do ?
Many of the women whose beauty Trump has criticised are in the modeling industry.
We do not expect art or movie critics to give trophies to every movie.
Further your clip is a mishmash.
As an example I have no problems with Trump criticism of Rosie ODonnel – she is “disgusting” – that is not an Aesthetic observation.
If you do not like the fact that Trump says that people will not vote for someone – for whatever reasons – go vote for them.
Much of this is little different from almost a generation ago Republicans trying to gain traction over the fact that Jimmy Carter admitted to “lusting in his heart” to Playboy.
So what ?
Trump has been on Howard Stern – and said the things that are said on Howard Stern.
If someone had video of your entire life – do you think we could not find clips of you saying similar things ?
We certainly have plenty of examples of You posting absolutely horrible things here.
I do not like how you speak. But if you ran for and were elected president – I would have to accept that. I do not like how Trump speaks. But he did run for an got elected president without my vote.
It appears you have run out of material.
Are you expecting to win the 2020 election by Rehashing the attacks from 2016 that failed ?
Do you think that voters with a fantastic job market, a significantly improved economy an improving country are going to say – “we could let Trump’s sexism slide in 2016, but not now”
I completely agree – Black Female Lawyers for Trump is NOT A THING.
Just as Old White male Socialists for Trump is not either.
Or Evanglical pro-choicers.
I do not agree with all of this. But there is alot of good analysis of the chaos within the democratic party.
The biggest note I would make is that – this article is about democrats – that is 27% of the country. It is no different from an article about the people who attend Trump rallies – it is a good picture of that group – but not of the country.
Democrats are absolutely full of fear and anger.
And Trump supporters are more quietly angry and energized.
But most of the country is NEITHER.
Most people are tuning out politics – and that is BAD for democrats.
Most people are do not like Trump’s rhetoric – but the do like Trump’s economy and presidency. They have already judged Trump as unpresidentical.
In November they get to decide whether they want decorum or the economy.
These voters – who are neither attending trump rallies nor marching at women’s marchers are NOT Angry and anxious. They have tuned out or politics. they are looking at their 401K’s or their wage increases or their improved job prospects.
And Trump only needs half of them.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-campaign-dnc-debate-rules-bloomberg-sanders-warren-biden-lessons-learned-946598/
While the article is correct about Why Trump will wipe the floor with Sanders.
To a lessor extent almost everything that is true about Sandards as a candidate is true of nearly every other democrat.
The entire DNC debates has been democratic candidates falling all over each other to fawn to the left.
The democratic debates will feature heavily in Trump adds.
Democrats have fried themselves.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-bernie-sanders-socialism.html
“The democratic debates will feature heavily in Trump adds“
The GOP 2016 anti-Trump statements from GOP candidates bad-mouthing Dopy-Don with insults will feature prominently in Dem ads. it will be a loooooooooong list. The Lindsay Graham statements will be prominent. And Ted Cruz won’t be far behind. And Colin Powell. And Ridge and Rucklehaus and we haven’t even started on the GOP governors like Romney and Swartzenneger, or respected conservative intellectuals and columnists. The Dem ad blitz will repeat the mantra: “The GOP Said Trump Was An ASSHOLE And They Were Right!”
I hope they spice up those commercials with snippets from Stormy and the Pusey -snatching tapes, and Trumps promise to release his taxes, and exaggeration of his inaugural crowd size (for nostalgia’s sake).
Luckily the Dems will have LOADS of Little Mike’s huge wealth to blitz the airways with those ads and newspapers – you can bet he’ll enjoy getting back at President Ignorant for the recent insults.
It’s going to be FUN- until Trump’s declares military power after he loses the election. Then you’ll have to work hard to vomit out justifiable rationalizations for that dictatorial action – but I’m sure you’ll rise to the occasion with cultist zeal.
It does not matter what is in Democratic adds.
There is nothing that can happen to Trump that has not happened already.
There is no new dirt. Hilary dumped all that and more on him in 2016, Since, you and the media have burried him in a ton of ludicrous excrement – and in the process destroyed your own credibility. Bloomberg dumped $200 million into adds in December and January – about half of which was anti-Trump.
Even soap operas are getting 3 times the eyeballs that Impeachment did.
No one is paying any attention to Trump smears anymore.
It is the little boy who cried wolf. It is chicken little and the sky is falling.
Voters know Trump, the good and the bad. They also know that you the press and the left have been lying about him.
Voters do not think he is the miracle worker he claims to be. But they do see that he is a better president than Obama and Bush. And no amount of attack adds will change that.
The only one watching the adds attacking Trump – will be you.
Some of this is the normal strengths of incumbents. It is very hard to redefine someone with a record – especially a president. the economy is what it is, unemployment is what it is, Trade foreign affairs all the same – none of us need to be informed about Trump.
We do not need talking heads to tell us what to think.
But you do not understand this – because you place more faith in a reporters spin on a leak about something the leaker heard someone else wrote.
The rest of us look to what was done – deed not words.
But The adds based on the copious DNC debate footage of whoever the winner is from the Democratic primary will be damning – because it will be the winning candidate in their own words.
It is normal for candidates to tack to their parties extreme to win their primary.
But Democrats royally screwed up – by having a huge field and decades of debate they have locked all of their candidates into far left positions that they will have to disown in the general election. Every candidate except Bernie will if they win enter the general election as inauthentic and a liar. If Bernie is the winner – democrats will atleast not have a candidate disowning everything they promised for a year. But they will have a another McGovern.
Bernie can not win – but should you disagree – if he actually managed to win – that would be far worse for the democratic party than Obama.
One of the things that you still do not grasp is that democrats not only can not win – meaning they can not actually win the presidency, But they can not win – meaning if they do actually win it will just replay the theme of the Arthurian legends – Man bears the seeds of his own destruction.
Obama was incredibly good for republicans – Bernie would be an order of magnitude better.
Bloomberg spent 200M in political adds since he announced.
About half of that on Trump attack adds – yet over that period Trump’s numbers have risen.
Bloomberg has already spent 1/8 of what Hillary spent in 2016 and a bit less than 1/3 of what Trump spent – and he has not moved any needles.
Further Bloomberg has disowned his greatest political asset – his record as an actual centrist.
As this article exposes.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/01/mike-bloomberg-unveils-5-trillion-tax-plan/
since you like Bill Maher
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/01/maher_warren_wanting_a_trans_kid_to_pick_education_secretary_is_crazy_stuff.html
President Ignorant at it again
So what is it that offends you about this ?
So there is a shooting and terrorism in paris and grime in Germany.
Sounds accurate too me – especially for a tweet.
Did Trump need paragraphs between the 3 items so that you could follow ?
I would suggest reading the article I linked elsewhere about Mr. Doran.
He started as Princeton Professor, He won a position in the Bush administration for the most insightful analysis of Why Bin Laden attacked the WTC that was completely at odds with all other claims and ultimately proved correct, He understood and predicted Obama better than anyone else and predicted why Obama would fail.
Before most anyone else he predicted both the actual causes of the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense and its failure – and ultimately the Ukraine nonsense, and that though they are the product of a conspiracy – it is NOT so much a political conspiracy but one of the washington elite against a force they can not control.
Despite the fact that he is NOT on Trump’s foreign policy team, His foreign policy recomendations substantially predate Trump, and include better relations with Turkey. Sauidi Arabia, and Israel, as a counter to Iran, Russia, It is a foreign policy that is about regional stability and US interests, not wishful thinking. It accepts that there are no good guys in the mideast, But there are forces further and closer to our interests.
All this on a strong intellectual foundation from a scholar with an unequalled track record.
And this is the foreign policy of Trump’s – that you, the left, the media call naive and ill informed.
I do not think that Trump is following or has read Doran – atleast not until recently.
But he is DOING What Doran would have done had he the power to do it.
Despite the fact that they have had no direct contact, Doran appears to be the Trump whisperer – Identifying the correct response to Iran’s attacks on Saudi Oil Fields – before Trump did what Trump recommened. Identifying the correct response to the Syrian kurds and Turkey – before Trump did as Doran recomended.
This is an excellent article – it starts weak – unless you care greatly about the personal history of some Pundit at a washington Think Tank.
But then it picks up as it hits modern issues – 9/11, Russiagate, Iran, Turkey, Obama, Syria
And Doran comes out as not merely right on everything – but also way ahead of the curve.
Trump’s mideastern foreign policy which often appears an incoherent amalgam of populist sentiniments is somehow perfectly aligned with the thinking of Doran – who has been right about pretty much everything in the mideast since 9/11 – even though he has frequently taken positions at odds with the norms of political winds of either the left or the right.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/293286/michael-doran
Yup, Trump is just going to be thoroughly obliterated by black voters!
The change in prospective black voters from 2016 to 2020 +2%
The change in prospective white non-collage voters from 2016 to 2020. -2%
That 4% swing is likely going to be larger in swing states as a larger percent of Trump’s base in those states are white non-college voters.
Plus the Hispanic vote is increasing, and historically 70% vote Dem.
Plus the younger voting size is increasing; they were at 58% vote for Dem in 2016.
And what about the sharp demographic swing of Suburban women to Dems in the recent House elections?
So, even if Trump takes the swing state electoral vote win, his popular vote loss will likely double, perhaps triple. A recipe for more divisive turmoil.
Jay, if the candidate is a moderate (‘for a democrat), I would be willing to bet money that this will happen. And if it does, then that person also gets congress. But, it it is Bernie, that throws a monkey wrench into the works. No bet either way on that one.
Agree 100%
Bernie is catastrophe.
Warren is disaster.
Joe-Amy 2020 wins.
Jay.
I am most interested in what those who got 2016 right are saying.
The JS Mills quote about knowing only your own side, is the same as knowing nothing – applies beyond arguments.
If the only polls you beleive are those that tell you what you want to hear – then you have no idea what is going on.
If I were to guess if an actual election were held tomorow, Trump would defeat ANY current democrat.
I am aware that is not what national polls say – though it appears to be what individual state polls are saying.
In almost ever demographic Trumps support has grown rather than shrunk.
There are indications that Trump may have problems with non-college women – though there is conflicting information regarding the scale of that problem and how it plays out regionally.
No one cares how any demographic is trending in NY or CA.
But MI, WI, OH, PA, NV, NH – those are places that matter.
If the outcome you predict occurs – that Trump loses the popular vote dramatically and wins the election dramatically – you are correct that indicates a huge problem
But the problem is that those on the left are angry because they can not impose their will by force on the rest of us. With few exceptions Trump’s policies UNDO the progressive polices of Obama. They UNDO infringement on our rights.
It does not matter is only 30% of us are being screwed.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPtJbuIWsAAZTbH?format=jpg&name=900×900
What the hell is going on in Iowa?
Who knows. Sounds like someone decided that smart phones would be the way to go, the software was tested and like all software, there was bugs in the live system, causing problems. Then it appears that they failed to man enough phones to handled the phone in information and at 11:30, they still had many people on hold, some up to 90 minutes and counting.
Every computer install or upgrade, no matter how small we had at the hospital always had bugs that were skipped in testing. Thatis just electronic life and anyone that says everything will be fine is either lying or incompetent when it comes to software.
It is almost 1:00 now ( I am a night owl) and still no results. Given the fact Joe left Iowa early, I would not be surprised if he ends up 4th or worse and due to the turnouts, Sanders, Warren and Butt in the top 3.
Might it also be Iowa democrat party trying to figure out how to screw over Bernie again?
Or maybe it’s obama, Clinton and the DNC trying to save Biden.
My job is embedded computer systems.
DO NOT USE COMPUTERS as the means of entering votes.
All the so called antique systems – paper ballots, punched cards, OCR,
have high error rates, but one saving grace – they can easily be verified manually.
The left has successfully persuaded a large number of people that the Russians hacked the 2016 election and gave it to trump.
that is a ludicrously stupid lie – but it would have far less beleivers if we have no computers entering votes.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/app-used-in-iowa-democratic-caucus-fiasco-linked-to-former-clinton-campaign
What a shocker.
“Shadow, a tech firm that describes itself as a group that creates “a permanent advantage for progressive campaigns and causes through technology,” is the company that created the Iowa Democratic Party’s app, according to The New York Times. At least the COO, CEO, CTO and a senior product manager at Shadow all worked for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to LinkedIn profiles.”
There are going to be thousands of reasons and excuses given for this fiasco. The more I hear I believe plan A failed and there were no viable plan B or C.
Who created the app doesnt matter. How Biden did was how he did.
The app was not stressed tested before live usage. The app crashed the same as Obamacare website failed because too many users at the same time.
The old phone in system was not manned properly to handle the hundreds of calls coming in. Also, a call taking 5 minutes under the old system took 15 minutes with the expanded reporting with 3+ numbers and verification.
And I bet they dont have the staffing to quickly enter all this data into a system that is being manually entered instead of electronically by app.
Dave continues to harp on using paper, cardboard, punch cards, etc, but even under those systems, if you dont have the staff to handle the data, it takes way to much time to gather and report data. Every system requires adequate staffing and back up systems!
Occam’s Razor would certainly point in that direction.
But I’m not sure I think that’s the reason for this debacle.
Although, if it is, the irony of the party that wants to run our lives and manage the nation’s government not being able to count a few thousand votes in an important primary is pretty staggering.
Corruption or total incompetence …maybe both?
As jordan peterson says – if you want to change the world, start by cleaning your room.
Or from the 60’s
You can’t even run your own life, I’ll be damned if you’ll run mine
It is not the amount of time it takes to do something that matters.
It is the perception that the method is not being gamed.
The weak link in all elections is the actual voting and the first tallies.
So long as that process open and verifiable by OBSERVATION – the rest does not matter.
If each Precint in IOWA posted their tallies – even on a peace of paper – the Press would have told us the outcome by 9pm.
There are ways to make computers work – every computer must product a paper record that the voter can personally verify, and then that paper must be stuffed into a sealed ballot box where it can be later verified if there is any question about the automated process.
Our voting system is relatively easy to secure – you just have to get passed the idea that you can make it “unhackable” and move to assuring that it is publicly verifiable.
And it is that “publicly” part that is critical.
I am BTW just as opposed to the old mechanical voting machines as I am computers.
And I have no problems with OCR systems.
In fact – vote on a computer, print out your ballot and take it to a scanner where the vote is actually recorded.
But there MUST be a disconnect – you can not have an end to end automated system.
You must have a step at the very begining with TWO key elements.
1) The voter can verify on paper that their votes are what they intended
2). It must be possible at a later date for reporters or interested citizens to go back and count those raw votes
So long as those 2 elements exist – you can computerize the rest of the voting system and the russians or north koreans can hack it to no consequential effect.
Improving on the above:
Post tallies PUBLICLY at the earliest stage in the process.
As an example if you OCR the ballot – have each OCR machine post PUBLICLY running tallies.
If you have raw subtotals at a very early level – the press will take everything from there and probably report the actual results accurately before the state.
The press will use technology and computers to speed the process up – and no one will care.
The point is not to avoid technology, but to assure that their are no “black boxes” near the start of the process where all we have is “trust”.
We do not have to – and at the same time will trust anything that is easily independently verifiable.
In this Iowa Fiasco – we are going to have days, weeks of finger pointing and conspiracy theories – that MIGHT even be true. Or it just might be incompetence. Or a compbination of malfeasance and incompetence.
But what we absolutely know is that – we WILL be asked to TRUST people, and we WILL have reasons NOT to. And that was easily avoidable.
My job as a computer programmer is to design systems.
One of the key aspects of systems design that separates the really good programmers fromt he rest is FULLY understanding the actual criteria.
In a voting system the key attributes are:
TRUST
anonymity.
Speed, convenience are NOT key attributes, – they are preferences, not requirements.
There are myriads of elements to trust – but a big one of those is minimizing the number of unverifiable “black boxes” – and computers and apps are a huge unverifiable black box.
Processes that take place out int he open – or that can be independently replicated are trustworthy. You want to avoid as much as possible processes that require trusting humans – whether those are the election officials, or the people who wrote the app, or software.
Anyway there are myriads of ways to design a voting system that will meet those criteria – and orders of magnitude more that will not.
If you look at my suggestions – the speed of the system is irrelevant.
What matters is making raw tallies public at the lowest possible level.
If it takes the state 3 days to certify “official” results that does not matter – the press will have added the tallies in minutes.
You already know from FL 2000 that “official” certified vote tallies do not occur until 30 days after the election.
In national elections just from exit polls the networks are projecting winners – usually accurately often in a few hours and usuallyt he moment the polls close.
These are not “official” but the press has tremendous incentives to be both fast and right.
Each network acts as a check against the other, and the “official” system as a check against the networks.
The methods that the networks and the official systems use to tally votes can be completely opaque – because we have multiple cross checks and because even if the state system of counting the vote is completely corrupt, if the results are too different fromt he press reporters will go back and litterally hand count the ballots themseles – that was actually done in 2000, and one of the reasons that FL conpiracy theories died is because the outcome of the press counts after the fact consistently increased Bushes victory.
The point is – so long as there are paper ballots that can be recounted – by the press or other members of the public, the intgrity of the system is ensured. It does not matter what cheating occurs – at the courts, by the election chairs, …. it will be found out eventually.
What matters is having a vote recorded on a physcial media that is kept secure and can be verified later.
Only positive to come out of Iowa chaos, an additional $100 million of anti-Trump ads will soon be broadcast. A week from now as always Iowa will fade from voter memory as media focuses elsewhere…
“Bloomberg’s campaign announced plans to double its national television advertising spending — which has already exceeded $100 million — as it expands its paid staff to more than 2,000 people.”
You fixate on money in politics.
You tell me that money is not speech – as you cheer because bloomberg is spending $100B in anti-trump adds. Are those adds not speech ?
There is very little that a political campaign does that is not speach – and even what is not is still a constitutional right -free association, petitioning government, free assembly.
But you want to limit money in politics
Except Bloomberg or anyone else who says things you like.
So you are not really opposed to money in politics. You are just looking to censor views you do not like.
As to Bloomberg and his adds – bring them on.
Bloomberg is likely to spend more than Hillary did in 2016
How well did that work ?
Regardless, if Bloomberg wants to give Billions to Facebook and Google – that is his business.
If you think that it will be effective – we get to find that out in November.
Personally I hope Bloomberg spends billions and it has no noticeable effect, so that we can get rid of this stupid money in politics argument forever.
“But you want to limit money in politics”
Blah fucking blah.
What are you babbling about now?
I think Bloomberg has the right to personally spend HIS MONEY on politics.
I don’t think Trump has the right to personally profit from MONEY supposed to be spent on politics.
What part of that has you dazed and confused and spouting nonsense?
“I think Bloomberg has the right to personally spend HIS MONEY on politics.”
Super PACs are people like Bloomberg spending THEIR money to make political adds of THEIR choice.
Are you saying that Bloomberg can buy political adds – but only so long as he remains a candidate ?
What if he took his name out of the ring but rant the same anti-trump adds – I am OK with that, what about you ? What if he runs adds opposing Guns ? Or supporting the NRA ?
I am OK with that either way. What if he runs adds supporting Butigieg ?
I am OK with that too.
BTW the Citizens united decisions was NOT about whether corporations are people.
That is a myth of the left. Corporate person hood is a 2 century old legal fiction used to save the courts from having examine the individual rights of shareholders.
All businesses are owned by people, and those people do not lose their rights by going into business.
Citizens united was about whether a movie attacking Killary could be made and then run in the 90 days before the election. McCain-Feingold said no. SCOTUS said yes.
Bloomberg can spend his own money to attack Trump.
He can do it now. He can do it on election day.
He can also pool his money with Sorros or Styer and buy political adds.
He can pool his money with 100 other people – and buy political adds.
“I don’t think Trump has the right to personally profit from MONEY supposed to be spent on politics.”
Trump put 200M into his campaign. If he wants to spend it on velvet paintings of dogs playing cards that is his business.
“What part of that has you dazed and confused and spouting nonsense?:
The part where you make naked assertions without proof and presume them to be true.
The part where the actual facts are nearly always quite different from anything you claim.
And the fact that you choose to make razor thin judgements over what other people can and can not do.
If I contribute to Trump or Johnson or Yang, I would prefer that they spent that money wisely.
But the moment I give my money to someone else – Trump, Yang, a homeless person, it is THEIR money and not mine. I no longer control it. The only voice I have is in whether I will give them more.
If you are worried about how a political candidate will spend political contributions – DONT give them money.
It is that simple.
Regardless, you are not entitled to control what other people do with what is theirs.
Not in politics, not in anything else.
If you want to retain control of your money – do not give it away.
If you want to make sure that the homeless person buys food not drugs – take them to McD’s.
If you want to make sure that Trump uses your donations the way you want – spend the money on Trump yourself.
Freedom works well and is simple – you control what is yours. Not what is others.
Do not give things away if you want to retain control.
And you certainly do not have the right to control what SOMEONE ELSE gave away.
Damn, do you think I can send Mikie a bill for my remote when I wear out the mute button. We have been bombarded with Mikie ads already. There is not much more ad time available in this area.
I can’t wait for two NY billionaires (or whatevers) to campaign for the heart of the American people. Talk about buying elections and knowing how the little guys live.
No one is watching.
The impact of money on politics is not linear.
You get more bang from your first million than your last Billion.
Politicians raise money – because it is something they have some control over – not because it works.
Dave, hard to not watch when every station has a Bloomberg ad televised multiple times each hour on local TV. According to ad buys, N.C. has 30% more Bloomberg ads active than Pennsyvania. Maybe you can not watch, but hard to avoid without a mute button in N.C.
Ron, surely you believe Mike is a lesser evil than Trump for governing the US… he’s a moderate Dem. didn’t you say you’d consider a non-progressive Dem over Trump?
“Ron, surely you believe Mike is a lesser evil than Trump for governing the US… he’s a moderate Dem. didn’t you say you’d consider a non-progressive Dem over Trump?”
Bloomberg is an easy choice over most of the Dem field.
But no, he is not the lessor evil compared to Trump.
He was a moderate (in NYC terms) Mayor of New York – Mostly.
But even as mayor he had an authoritarian streak – lest you remember his war on sugary drinks and the many many stupid things he said.
He is also one of the largest funders of anti-gun rights politics.
And finally, as a presdiential candidate he has disowned all of the good things he did as mayor. Leaving me to ask – if elected – do we get Mayor Bloomberg – or do we get the person he SAYS he is now. I am not sure but it is possible to vote for the former. The later is not a moderate, the later is just a slightly less offensive progressive.
I do not have a problem with Bloomberg running.
I do not have a problem with him buying billions in adds.
But the only way he gets my vote – is if I were voting in the democratic primary.
There is no way I pick him over Trump.
There is no way I pick him over whoever the libertarains nominate.
There is no way I pick him over not voting.
1. Your dumbest reasons for not voting for him: He has an authoritarian streak, and said many many stupid things.
A 1,000 HA-HAs wouldn’t cover the obvious comparison with Trump’s excessive examples.
2. He’s not anti-gun rights. He’s pro-safer-gun regulation.
https://www.mikebloomberg.com/policies/gun-safety
Knock yourself out arguing against the reasonableness of his positions.
Where is that authoritarian streak ?
You just impeached him – but could not find where he had actually violated a law or the constitution.
I can site dozens of instances where Obama violated the law or constitution.
An authoritiarian is NOT a person whose personality you do not like.
It is NOT the person who TALKS like a bully.
It is the person who ACTS like the bully.
It is the person who ACTS outside the law.
It is the person who assumes powers they do not have.
That is Obama, not Trump.
If you can not tell the difference between offensive words and offensive actions.
Between acting inside the law and outside – if you think that an authoritiarian is someone who hurt your feelings, rather than used force to take your liberty or property, why should you be trusted on anything.
Trump is ANTI-Authoritarian.
And though I do not fret the verbal jousting Trump does – I do pay attention.
I do not care if Trump verbally bitch slaps the press.
I do care if he goes beyond musing that “somebody should do something” about things with the press he does not like – and actually doing something.
You know like the IRS targeting 501c(3)’s with progressive sounding names.
That would be Trump behaving authoritarian.
Just as targeting Tea Party sounding 501c(3)s was ACTUALLY authoritarian during Obama.
“A 1,000 HA-HAs wouldn’t cover the obvious comparison with Trump’s excessive examples.”
You constantly claim insultingly to have actual arguments – obvious ones purportedly.
But you never make any.
a Gazzillion HA-HAs is not an argument.
An argument that you do not make is by definition NOT obvious.
Jay, you almost NEVER make arguments. All you do is bandy slurrs and insults.
Any teenager can do that.
Just as we rejected trial by combat or “might makes right”, we also rejected Trial by slur and insult.
I know you claim not to be a progressive – but your behavior is straight out of alinsky.
The difference between you and Trump is that Trump sometimes makes arguments and uses facts – often badly or incorrectly, but still real facts.
You ARE what you hate the most – Trump!! Or atleast the worst attributes of Trump.
You ARE pretty much everything that any of us – right or left hate about Trump.
Without the redeeming quality of having succeeded – at anything.
“2. He’s not anti-gun rights. He’s pro-safer-gun regulation.”
Distinction without a difference.
We have far more gun regulations ALREADY than we need.
The real world evidence is that no gun laws have ever made anyone safer.
I am not interested in anyone who wants to regulate anything more who can not PROVE that what they intend to do will actually work.
Restriction peoples freedom on false promises of improved safety – THAT is Authoritarian.
You claimed Trump was authoritarian – and you are selling Bloomberg ?
Bloomberg is an ACTUAL Authoritiarian.
I do not have to “knock myself out” over anything.
The burden of proof is on those who wish to restrict liberty – that is YOU and Bloomberg.
You have not met that burden.
The defintion of “reasonable” is not “sounds good to me” – things that have not shown demonstrable benefits in the real world when applied are by defintion NOT reasonable.
I am sure the person who crafted the law that criminalized (yes it is a crime and you can go to jail, and a few people do each year) having a pet on public lands on a leash longer than 6ft. thought they were “reasonable.”
Bloomberg argues eloquently about sugary drinks – that does not make him reasonable – or any less of a totalitarian.
Further “reasonable” is NOT the standard for infringing on liberty.
We are not barred from behavior that others think is not “reasonable”
Freedom means the freedom to be “unreasonable”.
We are barred from using force against others except in actual defense of self or others.
The standard for the use of force – law, is not “reasonable” it is NECESCARY
That is a far higher burden and you do not meet even reasonable.
I have not watched regular TV in years.
I trip over his adds on Youtube and after 5sec I can skip them.
But even if I watch them through – though reasonably well produced they do not connect.
Who need someone else to tell us about Trump ?
Regardless of where you stand on Trump – you already know. No add is going to tell you something new or change your mind.
Trump is a known commodity. 3 years of Trump every second means there are no secrets.
The most that could possibly happen is you might grasp that some of whats been said is lies.
Mike was asked that same question by a reporter today.
“Who is the other billionaire?” He asked with a smirk.
“Mike was asked that same question by a reporter today.
“Who is the other billionaire?” He asked with a smirk.”
That’s actually a good dig at Trump. Just as Bloomberg’s lies about his height are fair game for jokes.
If the left and TDSers would just acquire a sense of humor, we’d all be a whole lot better off….
The democratic party – either deliberately or through incompetence is saving Joe Biden’s bacon.
Sean Trend analysed that a 3rd of 4th place finish for Biden would mean he is toast.
What appeared to be happening before things went to hell was Biden in 4th or 5th.
AS numerous people have noted – absent a clear defeat monday Biden lives to fight another day – even if in the long run it turns out he did badly.
He will likely lose in NH to Sanders. Sanders will also likely pick up NV, But absent looking really weak by NC Biden will win NC.
CA is not until later – but Sanders will win it big.
Regardless, if you beleive that democrats staged the impeachment not just to dirty Trump but also to handicap Sanders and Warren and Klubachar, they have failed misserably.
We don’t need n stinkin’ Russkies to hack our elections! The Democrat Party is going to do it!
Because the problem involves a computer – it is difficult to be certain what happened.
And even if some “experts” actually know, it will be difficult to persuade people of whatever the truth is.
People will beleive what they want to beleive – and possibly with reason.
Caucus voting is not all that complex. The total number of votes is relatively small.
The entire process could be done with paper – and for a century has been done with paper.
Yesterday the GOP managed fine.
This failure virtually ensures the continuing narative that Democrats are tryinvg to steal the election from Sanders.
Of course Democrats could have kept Sanders out fo the election easily – Sanders is NOT a democrat. Confine the democratic primary to actual democrats. But democrats want everything – they want Bernie and his Bros but they do not want them to win.
And if we give this long enough – someone will blame it on Trump – or the Russians.
Democrats are a victim culture. They are unable to take responsibility for their own lives.
Maybe someone “hacked” them, maybe they were just incompetent.
But it was trivial to get this right.
It is trivial to construct an unhackable vote.
Start with paper ballots and then conduct all the counting and reporting in public.
Dave, a question.
It seems to me that an app that counts and sends votes to a central location should not be very complex (on the other hand, I know nothing about this, which is why I’m asking) .
And even if the app crashes (I’ve helped beta test an app, and it seems that they always crash in the beginning) wouldn’t it stand to reason that either 1) beta-testing had already been done to the satisfaction of the Party and/or 2) the results could be phoned in from the caucus locations, with backup papaer ballots sent by secure courier of some sort?
Although I am not one to underestimate the incompetence of the people who run elections, this seems to be a brazen attempt to invalidate the results of the Iowa primary. First the Des Moines register refuses to release its poll, based on ONE respondent’s complaint, and now we’re supposed to believe that it takes more than 24 hours to count less than 200,000 ballots?
Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence.
I am far more willing to attribute this to incompetence than malice.
That said when there is a failure – particularly of a system involving Trust – and that is the core of elections, then there will be with absolute certainty people looking for malice.
Further, one does not want to rule out malice too quickly – as there are literally billions of dollars at stake.
There are few things where trust is more critical than voting.
Rather than fixate on the specifics or how I would redesign voting – focus on the core principle – TRUST.
The first and best way to address trust is to design the system so that Trust is not necescary – do as much as possible in the open where it is verifiable by public observation.
That should tell you right off the bat that an APP is a really bad idea.
Look I can design an APP based approach that is trustworthy, but it is actually quite hard to do.
We trust computer based systems most of the time – because the incentives of those who develop them is to get them right. A dating app that does not maximize dating benefits is useless – no one will use it. But the incentives to get a voting app deliberately wrong could be enormous.
With voting the primary technique is NOT to make the system secure. It is to make certain that any malfeasance will be CAUGHT.
People do not cheat if it is certain they will be caught – especially the people with $1B in incentives to cheat.
I would note – this applies to big bussinesses and presidents. The incentives to cheat are often enormous. But the consequences of getting caught are enormous too.
Most walmart shoplifters have nothing to lose – getting caught is not a big deal.
A billionarie may have $1B to gain by cheating – but he also has $1B to lose.
No amount of wealth makes much of a difference from a prison cell.
“ Start with paper ballots and then conduct all the counting and reporting in public.”
Agree.
Same for the actual presidential election.
Paper ballots. Unhackable.
Pigs are flying, snow balls are forming in hell.
We agree on something.
I can pontificate that it is not literally about paper, it is about designing a system where there are very few points where we must TRUST people (trusting systems is just trusting the people who developed them).
Non partisan fact checking
Or maybe you can use your own brain.
If you are sufficiently disconnected from reality that you need a fact checker to help you understand the SOTU – YOU have a serious problem.
I do not need to hear the SOTU.
All of us already know the SOTU – the economy is 50% better than under Obama/Biden and that has broad consequences – in jobs, trade, wages, quality of life.
That is it – the entire SOTU in one sentence, and no need for a fact checker.
Is it of critical importantance whether Trump gets the exact number of jobs created correct ?
Does it matter if some fact checker tells us that some statistic Trump cites does not fully account for some detail ?
Each and everyone one of us knows the SOTU before Trump speaks – as we have for every other president.
It is just a speach. For more than a century it was a formality – it was not a speach, it was a letter – a report, provided by the president to congress on paper.
But just like with Ukraine – you are fixated on words – words that were said, words that might have been said. Not actions and reality.
Just like all leftist campaigns ever – if words were reality – marx would be god. The left consistently promises utopia, but delivers hell.
I would vote for Sanders in an instant if his words were magic and reality would conform to them. If all his promised benefits came without consequence.
“”This is simply a reporting issue. The app did not go down, and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results,” ~ Iowa Democrat Party communications director, Mandy McClure
Most are still saying that the app went down. So, I’m assuming that the Democrat Party is still “manufacturing” the results. There will no doubt be paper back-up ballots found in car trunks, corn fields, etc.
And, when the Democrat Party is done examining the “underlying data and paper trail”? I’ll bet Biden will have done much better than expectations, and Bernie much worse. Go figure!!
Trump’s Presidential Message; it’s wrong to kneel but ok to mock
It is Okay to do whatever you want – that is what free speech means.
It is also Okay for others to judge what you do.
You can judge Colin as respectful and Trump as fidgety.
Others can judge Collin as disrespectful and Trump as engaged and patriotic.
Team owners can fire Colin – or not.
Voters can vote Trump out or not.
You really seem to be clueless about freedom.
“It is also Okay for others to judge what you do.”
So, how DO YOU judge his action there, as president?
It doesn’t offend YOU?
YOU don’t JUDGE it as disrespectful? you won’t commit to saying he’s an asshole acting that way as president?
“So, how DO YOU judge his action there, as president?
It doesn’t offend YOU?
YOU don’t JUDGE it as disrespectful? you won’t commit to saying he’s an asshole acting that way as president?”
Just as it is OK for you and i to make our own judgements – I do not owe any explanation to you. Nor you to me.
I watched your video. I found nothing in it that bothered me.
I read your and the tweeters spin and felt that it was not an accurate description.
But then again I am quite different from you.
I personally have ZERO problem with Colin kneeling for the pledge.
I also have no problem with the fans getting upset and with the owners firing him over it.
Colin’s choices are his own. I think he was clearly trying to send a message – to protest, to engage in civil disobedience – and I support peoples right to engage in civil disobendiance and protest – or even just to be assholes, as long as they do not use force or invade my actual space – you want to shit in public or shit in your own home – fine.
You want to shit on the flag or the country – that is fine too.
It is a provocative act intended to draw attention.
Do you think Colin would kneel if no one noticed ?
It si specifically because it offends people that it is significant.
With respect to your clip – mostly Trump looked like he was having fun.
I think having fun during the national anthem is a GOOD Thing.
That is sort of the essence of MAGA.
Most of the rest of what was going on appeared to be some form of coordination with another person or several, and we only saw one side of it.
I am not going to try to layer significance onto the interactions of staff and the president during the national anthem.
I would as an example expect that some poor smuck on Trump’s staff would actually interrupt Trump in the middle of the SOTU if NK launched an ICBM at Hawaii.
But probably not if the house bathroom was clogged.
One of the differences between us is that unlike you i do not spend alot of time looking for bad motives in the actions of others.
I do not presume that because I do not know why Trump is doing what he is doing, that it must be for a bad reason.
Mostly I do not care about his reasons.
Just as I mostly do not care about your motives and reasons.
I am focussed on what you say and do, not why.
The Democrats just F’d up big time in Iowa.
There are all kinds of bad possible explanations.
But the odds favor incompetence over malfeasance.
We might find that it was deliberate – but unless and until we do we should not presume malice.
But go tot the web – lots of people are.
Isn’t government financial support of business socialism ?
“Government payment of $3.6 billion brings the total to $14.5 billion that is intended to support farmers for crops that were subject to retaliatory tariffs from China“
I am 100% opposed to ALL subsidies – farm subsidies, Welfare, ……
I have opposed them my entire life.
I oppose Trump subsidies.
I oppose Obama subsidies.
According to Stossel Trump’s assorted Campaign promisses add about to about 200B in new spending every year.
Too much, we need to CUT spending by even more.
But the lowest any major Dem is looking for is $700B/year, and Sanders is over 4T/year.
No, socialism is government owning, or at least controlling services provided citizens.
Providing support for citizens ir businesses is entitlement government.
Government providing medical coverage for 100% of the population is socialism.
The label does not matter – nearly all government spending is on net negative.
Give it whatever label you want. It is still bad.
I can not imagine what the Bernie supporters are going through right now. A nomination stolen from them by the democrat machine and now Iowa that report 62% of the vote showing Buttigeig the winner. ( yes, but many are viewing it as him winning.
They have to be wondering what the next step in the stop Bernie movement will be after allowing Bloomberg into the debates and now this. Even if Sanders ends up winning Iowa, he still loses.
The Iowa caucuses are a farce, always have been- because it’s the first, the media loves it for click bait.
Iowa is atypical of Dem voting demographics nationally. Few blacks or Hispanics in the mix. Hopefully this will convince the Dems to demote it to 3rd or 4th place for upcoming elections.
Like Trump Bernie is a dweeb with a cult following. His core cult voters are not increasing in number; dropping in percentage overall among likely Dem voters.
That’s right – when you are caught shoplifting – blame the store.
Whatever may be true of the people of Iowa, the debacle is one for the democratic party.
Democrats were unable to manage to count about 100K votes.
Further the entire process smells like and effort to deprive Bernie of a victory and momentum.
Whether a real conspiracy exists to do so – there is no doubt that the DNC has done most everything in their power to sink Sanders.
I agree with your assessment of Sanders – but I have only one vote and none at all in the democratic race. The choice of democratic presidentical candidate is supposed to belong to democratic voters. You can not wrap yourself in majoritarian democracy and then try to game the vote when you do not like the outcome. If you beleive in the vote – as democrats profess – you mustr live by that vote – or you will die by it.
Even ignoring conspiracies – you must also competently count that vote.
If you can not handle the most fundimental task that is at the core of government legitimacy – then how can you be trusted to govern ?
Democrats do not need to remind the country of the debacle of the ObamaCare web site roll out.
Whatever your political values – blundering incompetence is not one that sells.
Trump’s SOTU purportedly took on socialism square in the face. One of the historic failures of socialism is competence.
Democrats handed Trump a huge win in Iowa. They placed an exclamation point on his SOTU.
i do not personally care about the democratic primary.
I do not care which of Biden and the seven Dwarves wins the nomination.
My interest is purely as a bystander. None of these would make a good president.
For all my disagrement with Sanders – he would likely prove the best president – because he is so extreme he would be the least able to accomplish anything.
And I am a big fan of gridlock.
Nor do I care whether the democrats elect a candidate quickly or slowly.
But it appears that any hope that you or democrats had of a quick coronation of Biden are donefor. His establishment support is weakening. Whether Sanders is as you claim past his appogee does not matter – he will near certain be in this to the convention floor.
The odds of deciding this before the convention have decreased. Further the candidates have started to take off the gloves and are now going at each other.
Any candidate reaching the general election will be weakened.
Jay, for you.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/wild-michael-bloombergs-5-trillion-tax-hike-proposal-moderate-compared-to-bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren?utm_content=114898228&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-17642330&fbclid=IwAR3Cz5dc1z-TCuIk01s8oEVpE6HMEWFQQEVXfuWz0wwwqeoXvxnXrINmGek
Dave “There is no way I pick him over Trump.
There is no way I pick him over whoever the libertarains nominate.
There is no way I pick him over not voting.”
With you all they way.
But of someone like this was running, I would be voting for them.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/joe_manchin/412391
And I did vote for someone close. Senator Burr from N.C. is the red dot two up from the right.
If Manchin was an actual candidate, I would look at him seriously.
But short of being in a position to actually vote for him, I do not spend alot of time on hypothetical pairings.
I would NOT Pick Kaisich or many of the other Republican so called moderates over Trump.
Frankly I would be very hard pressed to pick anyone who thinks Government is a force for good, rather than a necescary evil.
All of my consequential problems with Trump are that while many of his policies are good – as a matter of principle, he still does not see government as a necescary evil.
There is a difference between compromise on assorted issues – and what your core principles are.
I disagree with you and Trump on Trade – but the Harm Trump has done on Trade is relatively small I doubt the good outweighs the bad, but the net is still small, and I am not going to go nuclear over falling short of utopia.
But principles are important. If you really beleive government is a force for good, rather than a necescary evil, you are dangerous. I need to beleive that on issues that have not emerged yet you will start from a position of skepticism of government action.
To be clear – there is a difference between understanding that government is a necescary evil, and beleiving that public service is a good thing.
I would radically limit the compensation for all government positions – elected or employed.
While I have fought with Jay over his stupid emoluments issues – I am STRONGLY supportive of government ethics laws with TEETH.
No one should profit from government service.
Personally I find the Biden family shenanigans more troubling than all the emoluments nonsense Jay raises.
Regardless, I am not opposed to serious restrictions on profiting from government service.
I would note though – if you want to fight political corruption – you have to focus on the right target.
A person or business paying anyone for better service is NOT corrupt – it is free markets.
You can go to Disney and pay extra and jump the lines. There is nothing wrong with that.
The problem is with those in government who PERSONALLY profit by providing people or business better service.
We need to be constraining and punishing the politicians.
I do not have problems with laws that dictate that as a member of government you may not participate in any government decision making that might effect you personally or members of your immediate family.
government service is supposed to be public service.
I would also flip things.
I do not want people going from government into the private sector.
I do not want people coming from college into government.
I want people coming from the private sector into government.
Government service is the last thing you do in your life. It is where you go when you retire to give back to society.
I want older wiser experienced people throughout government who are not looking to cash out to a private sector job.
I want that out of government employees, and politicians.
I would cut pay, cut benefits. A government job should not be a way of earning a living.
You should already have done that FIRST.
You should not be in government without having succeeded int eh real world first.
Government should never be a carreer, or a job.
Loved the SOTU at the end when Queen Nancy ripped up Trumps speech. That was something I would think Trump would do. And the TDS’ers have anal hemorrhages when he doe stuff like that.
Double standard!
But SOTU is supposed to be non-political, and during it, unprecedented in presidential history, he had conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
That was as unifying a moment as Trump giving a medal to David Duke at The annual Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Too bad Nancy didn’t tear the speech into pieces and throw it at Trump’s comb-over.
the SOTU is the State of the Union.
It is ALWAYS the president bragging about the great things he has done and will do.
That is about as political as you can get.
featuring people has been a standard through most of my life – nothing new.
A few of the featured people have been a political.
You might hate Limbaugh- but get over yourself, he is a dead man walking.
The SOTU is almost never a unifying moment – especially in a campaign year.
Can we quit the nonsense of having different expectations and standards for democrats and republicans ?
And don’t forget Trump snubbed Nancy’s offered handshake at the start of the speech.
Would you call it double-standard if she gave him the middle finger?
Good golly miss Molly. you liberals can find offensive actions by Trump even if he blinks his eyes.
I have been to hundreds of meetings where a presentation is presented to attendees. Those are handed to attendees and NO! handshake ever happens.
Give it a break Jay! You are worse than the whimpy kid running to mommy everytime another kid touches him during play.
Yes Trump is a bully, but this was made up crap by the liberals looking for something to throw at Trump to see if it would affect the vote by a handful of anti-bully voters.
Absent a war with Iran, or pulling down his pants and shitting on the white house lawn, Trump has already lost every offended voter he is ever going to lose.
This is also what is wrong with bloombergs 100M of anti-trump commercials. Those they would convince are already convinced.
But he will pick up voters between now and the election poossibly losing a few breifly with each new mean faux outrage. But the trend is slowly higher and there is a long way til the election, and lots of known events coming that will favor Trump
Good Golly, for you Ron…
I do not have a problem with Trump snubbing Pelosi.
I do not have a problem with Pelosi tearing up Trump’s speach.
Both of them will be judged by voters.
You can continue to beleive the Pelosi is a political genius nonsense.
I think it is obvious to most people that she is a failed political hack who is leading her party off a cliff.
Van Johnson – someone I am not normally inclined to find agreement with has been one of the most astute observers of Trump on the left – either that or he has on several occasions accidentally had visions of truth.
In 2016 on election night Jones called Trump’s election “white lash” I think back lash is more accurate. Jones fixated solely on the black white issue. Trump’s election was a huge segment of american voters saying if you keep calling us all racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful, hating haters we are voting you out of power.
After the SOTU Jones said “make no mistake Trump is going after black voters, and he is offering a message that will appeal to many of them, and democrats better take that seriously” Mostly I though Jones was correct. Though I think he got Trump’s appeal to hispanics incorrect.
You have argued with me that this is not so.
But you are wrong. Trump has double McCaine’s support from Blacks and 4pts more than Romney – and that was in 2016. His numbers – especially among black men have jumped since 2016. Some estimates have him doing double as well with black men in 2020 as 2016. That is probably wishful thinking.
But the demographics of Trump support is complex, Trump’s losses in non-college white women are mostly in states he did not win in 2016. A significant portion of his gains in black men are in states that he must win in 2020.
Trump can afford some losses more than others. And democrats can not afford some losses more than others. Republican inroads into minorities – particularly blacks threaten the long term future of the democratic party.
Whether you like it or not Trump’s stance on immigration appeals to blacks and is at worst neutral with hispanics – I recently listened to a millenia hispanc voter talk about the fact that her father crossed the southern border 30 years ago, and both she and her father support closing that border – because their jobs today are threatened by the people just like them 30 years ago crossing today. For hispanics that connection to the past is cuts both ways for Trump. but for Blacks Trump cutting the threat to their jobs from immigrants matters alot.
As does School Choice, as does criminal justice reform as does pardons like that of Alice Johnson, as does Trump’s increasing support for HBU’s
I may not personally agree with all these policies – but they are winning Trump votes AND they are changing the GOP.
Democrats have taken for granted large elements of their own base. And they have failed to deliver. Democrats have promised pie in the sky to the poor and working class of this country for decades and failed to deliver. Trump made much smaller but tangible promises to them, and is delivering on those promises and is slowly making a difference in their lives.
Meanwhile democrats have doubled down on pie in the sky.
Jay, cut the BS. Trump didn’t say a word about Nancy’s refusal to introduce him in the traditional way, by actually saying his name. And, as Ron pointed out, Nancy ripping up the speech was hilariously childish and idiotic, no different than some of the things that Trump has tweeted. The original signed copy of the SOTU that he gave her, goes into the National Archives, so her disrespectful little hissy fit will hopefully be memorialized as her legacy as Speaker. Or maybe they’ll just use Pence’s copy.
The Democrats are falling apart, and the only thing that unites them is their hatred of Trump. The DNC is now being bought lock,stock, and barrel by Michael Bloomberg, and the progressive anti-billionaire wing of the party is not likely to take it sitting down.
If I were a Dem, I would hope that they would call a temporary truce, in the name of winning in 2020, although it’s not looking likely at this point. Things could change however, since Bloomberg is willing to buy off whomever it takes, and he, himself has a strong leftist/authoritarian streak, so he may be successful at that.
On the other hand, if I were Bernie, I would go 3rd party (Democratic Socialist), and take AOC and the squad with me. He probably won’t because he has always been a hypocrite about capitalism ~ he’s a very wealthy crony capitalist himself, and I’ll bet Bloomberg buys him off.
Anyway, don’t rant about double standards ~ it’s a fact of political life, on both sides.
To be accurate, Nancy didn’t rip up the copy of the speech, she tore it in two. And she didn’t make a big show of it – Pence next to her didn’t even notice it. The reactions to it from both sides amplified by a broadcast media zoom magnified into a grander gesture then the one that actually occurred.
And if you think the torn speech copy more inappropriate then the unprecedented medal award to a hateful right-wing bigot at SOTU you won’t have a problem with the next Dem President giving it to Michael Moore at the same ceremony.
Well, I would call tearing something in two the same thing as ripping it up, but whatever…
Decorum and respect are clearly lost in our tribal politics. It provides entertainment for the haters on both sides.
Nancy has normalized Trump’s behavior. That wreaks havoc with the Argh! Trump strategy.
The less unusual Trump’s behavior is the more electable he is. The more people will ignore it.
This is true of every unusual thing we do. It is one of the great dangers of the moment
Political impeachment has been normallized. The biased behavior of the press has been normalized.
There has been a false perception that Trump’s behavior is unusual. It is just unusual for a republican. It is the norm for many on the left.
In the future it will be the norm for everyone – that makes our politics much uglier, but it destroy’s a potent weapon for democrats. Pretty much the only one in their arsenal.
Pence did not notice – he was practically deliberately not looking at Pelosi.
But lots in the media did.
It does not matter – if Pelosi wants to get angry and personal with Trump – that might solidify a tiny part of her base, but overall it undercuts this nonsense about when they go low we go high.
Trump and Pelosi in a political pissing contest – will leave Trump the winner.
The more petty Pelosi is the less people will care about all the behavior of Trump that outrages you.
Was this an act of consequence ? I doubt Pelosi intended to be a huge deal, to send a message.
But you are correct the media picked up on it and they have magnified it.
That is what the media does. They do it too Trump all the time.
Democrats are not immune.
If you put Trump under a microscope layering meaning onto every out of context word or gesture – ultimately the same will be done to you.
If you hold Trump to an impossible standard – you will be held to an impossible standard.
Further – your argument that Pelosi did not intend this to be a big dramatic thing – actually makes it more significant. It is actually worse if Pelosi forgot for a moment she was on camera and had a personal moment revealing who she really is.
But we can speculate about Pelosi’s intentions all we want – that is not my thing.
Guessing what is going on in other peoples heads – is your thing not mine.
And now Pelosi has everyone guessing what is going on in her mind.
And just as you read Trump’s mind and decided you knew exactly what he intended regarding Ukraine – people are doing the same to Pelosi.
it is not just Trump that we can wildly speculate about his intentions.
We can only hope the DNC is owned by Bloomberg.
While still pretty bad that is an order of magnitude improvement over being own by AOC and “the squad” – who I fear is still the real voice of the DNC.
Good point.
Morning Joe on Trump’s Sate of the Union:
Trump has given us:
1. Biggest deficits ever
2. Biggest national debt ever
3. Biggest & most bloated pork barreled budget ever
4. Biggest entitlement spending programs ever
5. Biggest Pentagon budget ever
6. Biggest domestic spending ever
7. Most reckless fiscal policy ever
I think that all of us here have made note of the fact that there are no real fiscal conservatives left in D.C.
Amen!
Jay, can you provide link to this data? I cant find where Joe provided documentation.
I do know that in the 2019 economy that grew around 2%, federal government revenues grew 2%. Seems logical, more economic activity = like increase in tax revenues.
However, government spending up 6%, 3 times economic growth. 3 times revenue growth.
Remember all money bills originate in the house. Queen Nancy controls the house. Therefore, Queen Nancy has major influence on spending.
Congress, not the president is responsible for the mess we are in. Ronald Reagan thought if they starved congress and cut revenues, congress would cut spending. Wrong!!!!
Congress since the 90’s have criminally handled the finances of this country and it will continue until the financial markets remove the cookie jar.
I copied Joe’s tweet. No links.
That 2% is the same average US growth for the past decade. Increases during Obama better.
Trump campaign promised 3% with his HUGH tax gift to corporations. Didn’t happen. Promised his tariffs would be GREAT for America. Didn’t happen.
Stop the nonsensical Nancy controls spending. The spending spike was in full force when Republicans controlled the House & the Senate.
Jay, please. You’re getting like Dave not reading or getting my points. Before letting your emotions respond, read my post twice.
I said, if I remember this one correctly i said that ” Ronald Reagan thought if he starved congress they would have to reduce spending . Wrong”. I went on to say congress since the 90’s has done nothing to cut spending. I did not say congresses during Clinton did the fiduciary responsible thing when we ended up with surplus, but the 107th congress totally messed that up and 43 blew it up with his ” finish daddy’s war” in Iraq.
I also went on to say that all congresses since the 90’s has contributed to this mess.
So if Pelosi and her liberal friends found deficits to be a problem, she would have cut spending. Government should never increase spending more than the growth in GDP except when war IS DECLARED against another nation.
So I will say again, money bills, budget, revenue and spending starts in the house. At some point, someone is going to have to tell the president at that time they can not get blood from a turnip. The budget has to be balanced. Right now there is not one person in congress that I know of that has America’s priority to make this happen. The founding fathers knew that one person should not have the purse strings. Problem is, congress is too worried about elections and buying votes, so they give presidents every piece of candy in the candy store, never to worry about the tooth decay years later.
It is way too easy to spend some elses money! Republicans and Democrats both!
Graham.Rudman worked until SCOTUS found it unconstitutional.
The sequester worked until republicans trade it with democrats for higher defense spending.
Neither were sufficient – but they were steps in the right direction.
Half our current debt is the mideast wars.
The cost of government should be directly proportionate to the population NOT growth.
Higher growth if anything REDUCES our need for government – the better off we are the more we can do for ourselves.
Even the relationship of government to population is not linear – a population of 300M does not need twice the government of a population of 150m
According to Trading Economics 2019 growth was 2.1-2.25% – that includes a first quarter of 1.1% and a 2nd quarter of 3.1%. The Trand and forecasts moving forward are 2.1%+
That is not nearly as good as Trump claims.
But contra your assertions it is Better than Obama how averaged 1.8% And that include 4 quarters of strong post recession growth. Trumps average so far is about 2.5%.
Absolutely positively no question Trump should be doing better than he is.
But lets quit pretending this is the same as Obama.
Even Bush beat Obama. This is actually closer to Bush’s numbers EXCEPT that Bush ended his presidency with a recession – that really ruins your numbers – though it was STILL overall .3pts higher than obama.
Responsibility for spending belongs to ALL.
While the house must initiate spending bills – they have to pass the senate and be signed by the president.
We spend the most – when democrats control everything.
In 2017-2018 house republicans did NOT do much to control spending – though they could have. Absolutely they deserve the blame for that.
But spending is rising with a democratic house – and Pelosi share the blame for that.
Trump too shares responsibility. Further he has promised not touch entitlements – and there is very little that can be done without bringing entitlements under control.
That is a bipartisan problem.
I would note that given the house just impeached the president for trying to save $300m.
I doubt Trump or future presidents will be inspired to try to control spending.
You could get impeached for trying to reign in congressional spending.
Joe also says this:
“Last week’s GDP data showed that for the first time since the Great Recession, investment has declined for 3 straight quarters. Given that boosting business investment was the primary goal of Trump’s tax cuts, this seems like an unambiguous policy failure for working people.”
And I also ask: isn’t job growth under Trump significantly under the growth in Obama’s last 3 years? Wouldn’t job growth continued under Hillary, or Jen Bush, or any of the other main Republican contenders?
I do not know what Joe is following – but again according to trading economics ALL measures of US PMI are RISING.
`OK… I’ll take your word over his.. without links backing up your word(after you complained I was making assessments without providing links) because I know (dripping sarcasm) you’d present objective evidence.
More exercise in futility.
Amazing, but true: we see the same evidence, but filter it differently.
I think there’s a streaming DRAMATIC video series out there on Netflix that shows this..I’ll try to find the LINK!!! Two simultaneous realities, with the exact same characters, on different frequencies of beliefs.
On my FREQUENCY – so many ex-conservative Republicans and non-lefty intellectuals (you know who; we’ve discussed them before. On your side: primarily Republican politicians and Fox far_right Trump Cuktists.
Oh well, maybe history will find your Trump-GOP alignment justified (can you guess-more dripping sarcasm).
I told you EXACTLY where I got my data – Trading economics.
Google them. Google “Trading economic XXXX” and you can get whatever you want.
GDP growth in Ukraine – if that floats your boat.
Probably 50% of my economic data comes from there.
TE gets there data from a wide variety fo sources throughout the wordl.
But they are independent of any government and people pay them for their data and analysis – and they will not pay them if they do not get it right.
Further for most any data item you look at – you can follow back into the past as far as there is data.
And you can graph it many ways, and you can look at the data sources they used as well as a number of sources for forecasts.
No, I am not going to give you a link to every statistic I provide.
But you can easily check out any claim I make. I pretty much always identify the source.
If I lie about what a source says – it will be trivial to prove that.
Nor am I stupid. I can get away with an occasional mistake – though not many.
You and I both know damn well that both I am everyone else here hold me to a much higher standard than you.
Getting it right matters – even when the data does not perfectly fit as you want it to.
Making mistakes undermines your credibility – though none of us are perfect.
Lying undermines your integrity – integrity is something that you CAN get perfect.
Do not lie about others.
I value my credibility, and my integrity.
If you do, it does not show.
And yes I demand sources even links from you – because you have been wrong so frequently in the past, and/or you keep using sources like Morning Joe – is that your idea of a source for economic data ?
After you have proven credible for a long time, I will start to trust you again and quit demanding sources and links.
But credibility is earned. You do not have my trust.
If I do not have your trust – it is because …. feelings, certainly not false claims with made up sources.
Honestly jay – I do not even think we see the same world.
And no the difference is not just “filtering”
It is logic failures on your part.
Humanity has spent 150,000 years learning critical thinking.
We do have means to “filter” as you call it information to get quality results with a high probability of being correct – even in areas of great uncertainty.
Courts as an example do not allow hearsay evidence. That was not an arbitrary choice.
It is based on thousands of years of experince, logic and legal evolution that ultimately concluded that with few exceptions hearsay does not help us reach the truth.
That is one example of one technique in one profession. But we have myriads of them.
There is even a whole branch of science – epistemology concerned with the theory of knowledge.
The fundimental differences in our world view is rooted in the methods we use to evaluate data as well as the data we expose ourselves too. I spend as much time on left and progressive sites as anywhere.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
JS Mill
If you have only heard one side – your own. You do not even know your own side well.
I want the very best arguments that the people I disagree with the most have to offer.
That is the only way to test my own conclusions and argument.
Further though all of us have inherent contradications in our lives, when I find one – sort it out. I am constantly sorting out and revising my values, my principles, my beleifs, mny understanding of the world to resolve contradictions.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Ayn Rand
I am not looking for answers that make me feel good. I am looking to find reality, the truth.
And I will follow that wherever it leads.
I have no idea about your Netflix show. But ultimately there is only one reality – Neither of us may perceive it perfectly accurately – but there is not Your Truth and my truth. There is only truth. Life is not about finding our own truth, our own reality it is about finding THE TRUTH,
Humans can not relate to one another outside a shared perception of reality.
And humans as individuals and groups will do far more poorly if their perception – individual or shared is at odds with that ONE REALITY.
I do not deny that you perceive reality differetnly than I, and your reality is probably real for you. But to the extent it is at odds with actual reality – your perception leads you astray.
To the exitent you are unwilling to find and correct the contradictions and errors in your own perception of reality, you make your own life and those of others more miserable.
I could care less who is “on my side” or “your side” – though I would point out that I do not quote or link to Alex Jones or Sean Hanity – I quote John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith or others of the greatest minds that have ever lived, whose work has passed through the crucible and endures. I do not really give a shit that some source of yours is a former republican or conservative or whatever. I am not interested in appeals to authority.
We have had versions of this stupid argument with CAGW – science, facts, reality are NOT determined by concensus. a hypothesis is tested against reality. It other reproducably conforms – or it does not. No CAGW model has aver come close to forecasting correctly something like 98% of them run hot. That is called error, in real science that means your hypothesis is falsified – no matter how large the numbers who beleive it.
In my entire life I have been used to standing alone, and learned to have confidence in myself and my own thinking – not Fox, not Hanity, not Rachel Maddow. I have learned how to be very careful in my thinking – not to draw conclusions based on my presumptive abilities to guess what was in the minds of others. I do not give a shit WHY you do what you do.
I am evaluating ACTs, not motives that I can never know or feelings.
You can weigh your feelings as highly as you want – in your own life and actions – SO LONG AS YOU ARE NOT USING FORCE AGAINST OTHERS.
Anyway – what you are calling your “frequency” argument – is a transparent fallacy. I am not interested in appeals to authority or to numbers.
I have separately told you were I think the GOP is going.
That is analysis based on data. I could be wrong.
Regardless, it is analysis that does not run afould of Hume’s guillotine
i told you where I think the GOP IS going – not where it SHOULD be going.
Some aspects of the shifts Trump has imposed on the GOP are good. Some are immoral.
But on net they leave the GOP more moral that the democrats and more viable as a winning party.
BTW my assessment is my own – I have not heard that on Fox or elsewhere.
Most of my thoughts and ideas and expressions are my own.
In the event that they parallel some Fox news host – that would be because those thoughts and ideas and facts are so obvious that even a fox news host can reach them. .
US long term job growth must average about 100K/month to deal with demographics.
The 50 year trend is a bit above that.
Job growth tanks – going negative during recessions – such as 2008.
Job growth absolutely recovered after the 2008 recession and has been very stable since – under Obama, under Trump.
That is actually unusual. We are now in the longest sustained period of stable job growth ever.
No Trump’s growth is not lower than Obama’s – except for the weak spike after the 2008 recession Trump’s job growth is pretty much identical to Obama’s.
Not only is this unusually – but the economy was headed towards a recession in 2016 that abruptly reversed Trend very shortly after the election.
It is near certain that had clinton been elected – we would have had atleast a mild recession nearly immediately.
I would further suggest that you think about your assertions.
There are significant differences between Trump’s policies and Obama’s.
Either you beleive those policies have no effect at all on the economy – that everything would have been magically the same under a president Clinton as a president Trump,
or you have to accept that policies do effect the economy.
We actually have plenty of economic data on this.
Trump’s reduced regulatory foot print is almost certainly a very strong positive factor.
The economy recovered from a pending recession right after Trump’s election and grew stron rapidly – part of that is undoing the market presumption that Clinton would win, and part of that is anticipation of Trump’s better policies. but ultimately the gains are a consequence of the difference. And for most of 2 years the differences were regulatory – nothing else, and that is when Trump’s biggest economic gains occurred.
The tax cuts were a positive factor – but less so than claimed – because tax cuts without spending cuts are discounted in the market.
Trump’s trade wars and tarrif’s also have had a negative impact – but not enough to overcome the positive impact of the reduced regulation.
Trump is also chaotic – and markets do not like that at all – it is likely the economy would be a half point stronger if we had Trump’s policies without Trump’s volatility.
It is also near certain that impeachment has had a negative economic impact, as well as the Mueller investigation
Anyway there are many factors – some positive some negative. That produce a final result.
That result is not going to be the same for each administration.
If you do not accept that – you probably should write off economics entirely.
Here is the penultimate set of “policies” for prosperity penned 250 years ago by Adam Smith
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Plus this, Ron – with a chart:
Obama created jobs after a recession – if you do nothing – jobs will happen in great numbers.
The lower unemployment goes the harder it is to create more jobs. Most economists have thought for over a century that 4.3% unemployment is the “natural” rate that lower unemployment is actually hard on the economy.
And yet unemployment is well below 4.3% – and it continues to drop.
And more importantly labor force participation continues to rise.
We all understand (except possibly you) that raising LFP and lowering UI get increasingly harder – the more you succeed they harder they get – and yet Trump has continued to do so.
What Obama did was easy. What Trump continues to do is sufficiently hard most economists thought it was impossible.
Trump with each year proves that the claims of Obama that we could do no better are false.
“Trump has given us:
1. Biggest deficits ever
2. Biggest national debt ever”
Agreed.
“3. Biggest & most bloated pork barreled budget ever”
debateable, democrats backed away from pork rules first.
“4. Biggest entitlement spending programs ever”
Probably
“5. Biggest Pentagon budget ever”
yup
“6. Biggest domestic spending ever”
yes
“7. Most reckless fiscal policy ever”
debatable.
Except for #5 every single other item would have been the same or worse under Clinton.
The only thing Trump has done that is uniquely Trump or Uniquely republican is increase defense spending.
Absolutely we need to cut spending.
It is not going to happen until BOTH parties are prepared to do so.
Aside from tiny tweaks at the firnges – entitlements can not be touched until BOTH parties are willing to accept the political fallout.
One is better than none.
Romney votes to impeach.
.@MittRomney: “the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”
I thought GOPers were incensed by head-on-a-pike accusations…
Donald Trump Jr., just now on Twitter:
“Mitt should be expelled from the @SenateGOP conference. #expelMitt“
The head on a pike remark was made by Adam Schiff – twice, not Trump.
Trump should have shut up about Romney.
But Romney can expect retribution – not from Trump, but from Utah.
And that is how it should be.
Romney will not face any lasting backlash. He will not have to face reelection until 2024, an eternity in political years.
“ The head on a pike remark was made by Adam Schiff – twice, not Trump”
The pike report was first made in a CBS story, attributing it to ‘a Trump confidant ‘ who said key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ It was quickly picked up by dozens of other media outlets, and surged on social media. That’s when Schaff mentioned it, saying he didn’t know if it was true, but if so his Senate colleagues should vote with “moral courage” rather than in their political self-interest.
Your cult pals went berserk when Schiff referred to the warning, but not at the blizzard of tweets and cartoons preceding Schiff’s remark. They were incensed at the suggestion trump or those close to him would EVER symbolically threaten Republican colleagues in that manner.
And DUH – it’s happening now. Did you miss all the leaked stories of Trump’s Get Even Enemy list, including John Bolton, and top House Democrats, and now Mitt?
Jay, Schiff actually said it – TWICE.
Just as with the Ukraine nonsense, and aspects of the Trump/Russia nonsense – we have many many many instances of reports that Trump said or did something that are double or tripple hearsay where we either know the event did not happen or we have absolutely no real evidence that it did.
I have absolutely ZERO interest in story from media outlets that have either been duped repeated or lied based on what some reporter says some unidentified source says that some unidentified party said to republican senators.
You have a long chain without a single verifiable fact in the entire chain. The probability fo such chains being correct is near zero – even factoring out political biases.
What are the odds that if 54 GOP Senators were threatened – that not a single one has confirmed this story ?
We do not know what spin the reporter put on this.
We do not know who their source is an how credible they are.
We do not know their knowledge is first hand.
We do not know who the purported messenger is.
We do not know who or whether this messenger was directed by if they even exist.
In a different era – one of real journalism, this kind of crap would never get printed.
But today – not only does it end up in print – but people like you believe it.
Trump has periodically insulted various republican senators when he has been at odds with them – even ones that on many issues support him – Trump has been highly critical of Rand Paul when they are on opposite sides of an issue.
But I am aware of no reliable evidence that Trump has ever threatened a republican senator.
Further the concept is at odds with the way senate politics works.
Trump has very little power in either the house or the senate.
Power in congress is weilded by the majority leader and their leutanants – not the president.
They control committee assignments, they control party fund raising resources.
They control an awful lot more than that.
Trump has very little leverage on a senator.
But it does not matter – because you have proved long ago you will beleive absolutely anything negative about Trump – regardless of how improbable and you will not let go even in the face of proof.
But you have plenty of company – most of the media. Most of the left.
“ Jay, Schiff actually said it – TWICE.”
And he was prescient – twice.
That’s the point.
Not prescient – but creating a false narrative.
I would further note that – Nixon had an enemies list.
Hillary Clinton is infamous for hers.
But there is zero evidence of Trump at any time during his life holding a grudge.
Trump is upfront and attacks those in his way. He is brutal to those who attack him, but when the issue is resolved he moves on – often befriending former enemies.
Trump has repeatedly offered to work with Pelosi, Schumer and democrats.
Only leftists who hold a grudge fail to grasp that he will be perfectly willing to do so now.
As I noted with Sen. Paul and other Republican senators who have been at odds with him,
he has chastized them when they disagree and been cordial otherwise.
Paul has developed a reputation as the “Trump whisperer” having outsized access and influence with Trump – even though they often disagree and have serious political and ideological differences.
Schiff’s “head on a pike” reference is – like most of what those on the left do, projection.
It is what Schiff would do.
One of your and the left’s great failures is that your assessment of others is driven by yourselves.
Trump must be an authoritarian – because you are an authoritiarian.
The fact that he is actually anti-authoritarian is outside of your grasp.
Trump is dangerous and would cheat in the election – because YOU cheated in the election.
IRSGATE was a democrat issue.
Lying about Benghazi was democrats.
Failing to properly investigate and prosecute Clinton’s email fiasco was a democrats.
The Trump/Russia collusion hoax was democrats.
The Mueller witchhunt was democrats.
The faux impeachment was democrats.
The 2016 mess in ukraine was democrats.
Each of these and many others is real.
If Trump had an actual enemies list – it would be incrediibly long.
And there would be plenty of evidence of his actually putting peoples heads on pikes.
There is not.
Trump is not just like you.
I actually listened to Video of Schiff saying that Republican Senators were threatened.
In both of the instances that I watched schiff stated it as a fact – without any qualifiers.
If Schiff ever said “I do not know if this is true” – which I doubt – then he said this atleast three times – because he did not qualify it in either of the two I listened to.
““REPEAT ‘’’’’
So what?
It turned out to be a correct assessment.
No Jay – it has not turned out to be correct – and that is the point.
You and your ilk can flood the news with anonymous sourced triple hearsay leaks to biased reporters – that is an easy game so long as the press will print garbage.
It does not make it true.
Pretty much every Trump leak from the moment he started running has either been completely false or at very best a deliberately distorted spin on reality.
Yet, you do not learn. We have seen hundreds of “bombshell” “The walls are closing in” leaks and allegations. None of them have proved substanitive.
This is no different.
Trump publicly attacked Bolton briefly. I wish he had not done that – because there is good reason to suspect that despite the disagreement between Trump and Bolton and their differences on policy – that Trump did have the interactions with Bolton that have been reported and that Bolton did not make any up.
The leak regarding Bolton near certainly came from the Intelligence Community – not Bolton or his publisher. And like nearly all Trump leaks it is likely either completely false or mostly false.
While I can not prove that – you can not prove the contrary – though with near certainty we will eventually find out.
Regardless, it would have been stupid for Trump to have had the converstation that was alleged with Bolton – as his relationship with Bolton was already on the rocks and because Bolton would have had nothing to do with implimenting the alleged quid pro quo.
You have already had as witensses all the people who had direct contact with Zelensky. None of those were given a message to communicate to Zelenesky. Sonderland despite beleiving that a QPQ was intended – has testified that when he asked Trump directly what he expected from Zelensky – he responded that he wanted Zelensky to keep his campaign promises and when he asked about investigating the Biden’s Trump said “No Quid Pro Quo”
So if Trump did not ask Sonderland or Taylor or any of the others who talkd with Zelensky, or his administration – why would Trump be far more expansive with Bolton – who did not ?
Why would he be more open with Bolton – with whom he was always a bad fit, and with whom friction was increasing ?
Obviously anything is possible. But it is nearly always true that when the left alleges Trump did something that is obviously stupid – that he did not.
I have made arguments of this form before – many many many times.
So far they have been universally right.
Trump does nto do stupid things that make no sense.
But most of the leaks require that he does.
Fact: there was NO REASON for Trump to stop military aid to Ukraine. Except to pressure Ukraine to reopen an investigation to smear the Biden’s. None! Our military was STUNNED at the blockage. Top DOD officials were STUNNED. Our top diplomats were STUNNED. THERE ARE NUMEROUS emails and sworn statements under oath confirming there was no military, political or US security reasons provided for him doing that. If your head is buried so deep in your butt not to know that it was a self-serving improper use of presidential power the fault is your own reasoning bias.
In the last weeks MANY Republicans who voted to acquit Trump conceded his ‘perfect’ phone-call ‘perfectly’ confirmed he was GUILTY of that improper behavior, but nevertheless they decided he didn’t deserve removal. For you to assert any other conclusion is pure BULLSHIT.
“Fact: there was NO REASON for Trump to stop military aid to Ukraine.”
Actually not a fact, and completely irrelevant.
Inside the phone call itself and well documented by nuerous others are several other reasons.
The failure of the EU to provide aide to Ukraine.
Trump’s overall opposition to foreign aide military or otherwise.
Trump’s general regard for the Ukraine as inconsequential to US interests.
Trump’s concern and the Laws requirement that Ukraine take meaningful steps to reduce corruption.
You have told all of us repeatedly that was justified by Ukrainian corruption in witholding aide in order to get a purportedly corrupt prosecutor fired – despite the fact that to this day no evidence of Shokin’s corruption exists.
If firing a prosecutor is justifiable – than demanding an investigation is also justifiable.
“Except to pressure Ukraine to reopen an investigation to smear the Biden’s.”
Ukraine had reopened the Investigation in Febriary 2019.
It remains open right now.
“Our military was STUNNED at the blockage. Top DOD officials were STUNNED. Our top diplomats were STUNNED.”
False – there were some people who opposed – there always are.
Also irrelevant. US Policy is set constitutionally by the PRESIDENT – not the DOD, not diplomats – not congress.
We have had numerous incidents during Trump’s presidency where – you and those in parts of government were STUNNED.
This as well as all of those are acts by Trump fully consistent with Trump’s campaign promises.
You should not be STUNNED that a president keeps their promises.
Regardless, it is not a crime. It is precisely what the constitution expects a president to do.
And there will ALWAYS be those opposed to what the president chooses to do.
The existance of opposition does not by itself constitute a crime.
“THERE ARE NUMEROUS emails and sworn statements under oath confirming there was no military, political or US security reasons provided for him doing that.”
False – there is plenty of discussion of the aide – DoD actually had a hold long before the whitehouse became involved – such holds are NORMAL.
DoD ultimately released its hold – but that is not the same as concluding there was universal agreement.
There is almost never universal agreement on any policy matter – and this is no different.
When you claim Trump acted over the universal objections of everyone you are LYING.
And it is STUPID lying.
There are many republicans who think the phone call was less than perfect.
I am not among those.
Absolutely If Trump had omitted some things from that call – there would have been no impeachment. Life would have been more pleasant for congressmen and Senators.
But I WANT the conduct of democrats in Ukraine to be investigated. In fact I demand it.
Trump requesting these investigations by Ukraine is not merely legitimate – it is the presidents DUTY to seek foreign assistance in investigating corruption in foreign countries involving americans. It is his duty to seek investigations into the interference of foreign countries in our elections.
It Trump’s requests of Zelensky are improper – then CrossFire Huricane was from the start improper.
In fact ALL investigations that have political tinge would be improper – Clinton’s email server could not have been investigated. Nor could house republicans investigate Benghazi, not could house democrats investigate Trump’s actions in Ukraine.
This farcical claim that the existance of politics precludes investigation is just ludicrous nonsense.
Much of what you claim to be fact – is not.
But even if it was – it changes nothing.
There was reasonable suspicion to ask for an investigation in Ukraine.
THE END.
If you eliminate hearsay – and particularly leaked hearsay – you not only have nothing here.
You have nothing regarding Trump EVER.
When will you learn that gossip is not evidence – even now that WaPo and NYT have become gossip rags ?
The onlything that I found surprising about the aquital vote was that every democrat did not vote to aquit.
The house case was garbage. Eliminate all the hearsay, wishful thinking, and clairvoyance and no evidence of anything exists.
There is not even actual evidence of the non-crime that Trump purportedly committed.
There is not a single person who voted to remove who should ever be allowed on any jury anywhere ever.
there is not a person who voted to remove who is capable of critical thinking, of evaluating facts and evidence.
Inuendo is not evidence. Peoples oppinions are not evidence, the house managers waxed eloquently – but provided no evidence.
Those voting to remove would have fit well on juries in Stalin’s show trials.
“ The onlything that I found surprising about the aquital vote was that every democrat did not vote to aquit.”
Color me surprised.
If you were falsely accused of a crime – would you want any of them on your jury ?
I would not.
This decision was so trivial they should have dismissed at the very start for lack of a trialable claim.
“ If you were falsely accused of a crime – would you want any of them on your jury ?”
Falsely accused? You’re in false-denial mode. He was/is guilty.
He stopped already approved funds to Ukraine for purely self-beneficial political reasons. Only dazed morons and cult adulators believe otherwise.
Guitly of what – the house alleged no crime ?
Gulty of what – the house provided no evidence that what they alleged actually occurred ?
Regardless – your answer makes my point.
You were ready to remove him BEFORE the house started investigating.
There has never been a point in this process where you have been capable of objectively weighing facts.
Nor is Trump the only matter that you prejudge.
Here everyday you post assertions without evidence.
Claims of enemies lists, Trips to Prague, or that X or Y is obviously a russian agent.
credible evidence to support these – and pretty much every other claim you have made does not exist. But you judged each and every issue without sufficient evidence – often without evidence at all, and incorrectly concluded on each – based on personal prejudices and universally reached the wrong conclusion.
You are why the legal system has rules about due process, admissibility of evidence.
Foreign policy is consitutionally the near exclusive domain of the president.
Even the law you think was violated Required Trump to assure congress that Ukraine was taking successfull steps to decrease corruption as a requirement for providing the funding.
Further Trump is not even close to the first president to delay or deny congressionally allocated foreign aide. Even military aide.
Trump is not even the first person to delay or deny aide to ukraine.
Todate there is no credible proof that Trump threatened Ukraine – that he conditioned that Aide on anything.
But if such proof actually existed – Trump is not the first to have done that either.
The democrats case is the emporers new cloths – it is naked.
Glaring right in front of you is
“I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. ”
VP Joe Biden
Every element of your purportedly impeachable offense is right there claringly infront of you.
Yet a republican congress did nothing. Did not blink. Biden’s actions barely made the press.
Biden’s action is nearly identical to what you allege regarding Trump.
The only differences are:
There is no ultimatum of any kind issued by Trump or anyone in the US government to the Ukraine as was clearly present in the instance of Biden.
Biden had a recognized legal conflict of that barred him not only from making the threat – but from even being involved in matters of any kind related to the Ukraine. Trump had no such conflict.
If you could prove every allegation regarding Trump that you have made – and none of those allegations have evidence beyond your beleif that they occured,
You would still have an act that is less of a problem than Bidens.
If Trump had actually said – “no investigations, no money” to Zelensky, which todate there is no evidence that he did,
You would still be arguing that a political motive makes an otherwise legitimate act improper,
while a personal conflict of interest does not.
Biden’s actions were illegitimate – illegal, even if Shokin was corrupt, and even if Biden did not know Shokin was investigating his son.
Biden’s Son’s involvement in Ukraine required Biden to recuse himself from decisions involving Ukraine – BY LAW.
Political benefit does NOT EVER preclude ANYONE from taking action within government – so long as that actions is legitimately within their power and otherwise sufficiently justified.
Biden’s violation of the law in ukraine is alone sufficient justification fro Trump’s actions.
If as you claim – Trump’s actions were not within his legitimate powers – then Biden’s were not either.
“for purely self-beneficial political reasons.”
Ah, so you are again arguing that your guess as to someone else’s motives converts and otherwise legal act into a crime.
That nonsense was rejected by SCOTUS in the Immigration EO case.
Any act that is legitimate for one person is legitimate for another – regardless of motives.
This was also confirmed by Mueller – who find Trump’s firing of Comey legitimate.
It was within Trump’s power to fire comey. Trump did not need justification, but he had plenty.
If Trump had additional motives for an otherwise legal act – your speculation about those motives does not make an otherwise legal act a crime.
“Thous shalt not steal”
Not you may steal – except when your motives are bad.
A political purpose even if proven does not make a crime out of a legitimate act.
I have told you 10,000 times there is but a single easily determined relevant fact.
Was there reasonable suspicion sufficient to ask for an investigation fo the Biden’s.
And Horowitz answered that in the CrossFire Huricane mess.
The standard to open an investigation is extremely low and easily met.
Even implausible allegations are sufficient to justify opening an investigation.
But that justification ends – when implausibility changes from unlikely to false.
Jay, no Republican voted to impeach. Mitt voted to convict on one of the articles of impeachment. It may not be an important distinction to you, but as a former history and civics teacher, it’s one of those things that irritates me. This was a partisan impeachment.
Had Trump been convicted, it would have been a bipartisan conviction. Exactly the reason why everyone said that this was all a waste of time and money.
Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that Mitt had made up his mind to do this long before the end of the trial. He kept saying that he needed to hear from more witnesses, but he obviously didn’t, because he was already convinced of Trump’s guilt. To be fair, maybe he thought needed to be convinced of Trump’s guilt on the 2nd article, although I don’t know what John Bolton was going to say that would have proven obstruction of Congress. Several senators (Collins, Murkowski, Rubio, Alexander, etc) said that they thought the President’s words to Zelensky were inappropriate, but not impeachable, which many conservative pundits had also said.
A vote to censure Trump would certainly have been bipartisan, but Queen Nancy had other political motives, so impeachment it was.
I’ll give Romney the benefit of the doubt, and say that he acted on principle. Exactly, what principle, I don’t know.
I’m just glad this whole sham is over.
By the way, I feel kind of sorry for Mitt. He believes he should have been president, not Trump. And he may believe that Trump humiliated him by interviewing him for Sec State and then picking someone else. Who knows? but Trump endorsed him for president and senator, and probably thought he might make a good SecState, but realized that their worlview was different.
I have no doubt that Romney would have been a better president than Obama. But, as many have said, it was Obama who set the stage for a populist brawler like Trump. Romney would never have been able to reverse course the way Trump has.
Romney is a good persion – unlike how the left painted him in 2012.
But good people do not always make good presidents.
I doubt he would have been a better president than Obama.
Romney would have been a good addition to Trump’s cabinet – but I am not sure where – not as Sec. State that is for sure.
Romney is very progressive for a republican. I am not sure where you fit that into a Trump presidency.
Further Trump needed the Romney from Bain Capital – not the govenor of Massachusetts or the current senator.
Trumps words to Zelensky were NOT inappropriate.
Not only do we have the transcript – but even Vindman has confirmed it is accurate.
None of Trump’s proven remarks or conduct was inapproriate.
Lots of conduct that Trump is speculated to have done is inappropirate – though none of it illegal or in my view impeachable.
I expect the president of the united states to ask foriegn contries to cooperate in investigating corruption when they can.
Obama should have sent Putin a clear message NOT to interfere in our elections AND to provide him with information on any americans who attempted to enlist Russian aide in doing so.
Obama did not do that.
Obama also should have asked for Putins cooperation in investigating U1 and assorted other misdeeds involving americans and Russia.
Putin may not have cooperated – but asking would have been approriate.
Investigations of american misconduct in foreign countries is probably ALWAYS going to be partisan and political.
There is no way Obama was asking Putin to investigate the Clinton’s or U1.
I can not imagine Trump asking Putin to investigate his own conduct or that of his family in Russia.
I would like a better way to handle political corruption. But I think constitutionally that would require amending the constitution and creating a 4th branch with executive, congressional, and judicial oversite, responsible for all investigations of government itself.
The odds of ever getting that are zero.
Jay, I could care mess about “new” jobs created. What is the total number of jobs, what is the percent of employable individuals employed, what is the number of under employed and what is the unemployment rate. We can create 10 million jobs and if we only have 1 million workers to fill those, then 9 million jobs are unfilled.
Figures dont lie, but liars can figure. Partial statistical data without 100% of the details are no better than a lie when presented by politicians or media.
Now for the Pelosi distruction of the House copy of SOTU that normally ends up in the national archives.
18 U.S. Code § 2071.Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Jay does not provide actual statistics.
He provides “someone said” statistics – hearsay.
No,, I do not take my statistics from Morning Joe or any other talking head.
Near the top of my list is trading economics.
They are no partisan.
They are not even political.
There data is primarily for use by businesses
They make money off their data and tools.
They have strong incentifes to get it right.
They track 20m different data points covering every country in the world going back as far as we have data.
They are not perfect, but they do not spin their data.
TE is not matching Jay’s claims on jobs or investment.
I trust TE – not Jay’s hearsay.
Trump is absolutely lying about the strenght of the current economy.
But he is NOT lying that it is stronger than Obama’s.
Jay can postulate that if would have been the same under Clinton.
If you beleive that then you do not accept any of the principles of economics.
We do not know everything – but we know alot.
Free markets work. Nothing in human history comes close.
The freer the better they work – the data is indisputable. Over all countries over 50 years over 100 years, the same story. Economic freedom and limited government mean stronger rise in standard of living.
“He provides “someone said” statistics – hearsay.”
Triple HA-HA.
I just posted example of you doing the same, with you saying something without providing reference
Jay.
I told you my sources. You have everything you need to know to be able to check them.
BTW I am not obligated to do so – nor are you.
But I would ask you for evidence that any factual assertion I have ever made here has proven false ? In the real world – that is called credibility.
I trust people who have a long unbroken history of being correct, or not misrepresenting facts. You can trust them – or not your choice.
But you do NOT have a long history of being correct and are constantly misrepresenting.
You have no credibility – certainly not with me.
I do not demand sources from you because there is some rule that sources are required – they are not. But if you want your assertion to be accepted – either you must be credible – have a long track record of accuracy, or you must provide a credible source.
I have both most of the time.
You have neither – not unless you think Morning Joe is a source.
Just to be clear, I am talking about factual claims – not analysis, oppinions or speculation.
My speculation regarding the future GOP is based on my weighing of probability – it is a forecast, not a fact. It it proves wrong that would undermine confidence in my political forecasting. It would have no impact at all on my credibility regarding facts, or my integrity.
It is not a lie to forecast in error.
Conversely if I prove right that will enhance my credibilty as a political forecaster.
But it still says nothing about my credibility regardin facts. or my integrity.
So, it’s Queen Nancy who committed a crime, haha.
Impeach her!!!
Jay, I have looked at Bloomberg as an alternative and even though I disagree with many of his positions, ie higher taxes, supporting Paris accord, he does support my position on health insurance and letting those who want it to buy into Medicare. He has not, as far as I can find, said what would be the plan for those needing subsidies.
So given a choice between Sanders and Bloomberg, B is the lessor of two evils. I dont support entering into any agreements , trade or climate, that puts America at a disadvantage. But given past history, we will survive any brain farts the politicians like Obama created.
And, at some point, congress will be forced to correct long ago created messes by former members, like not following accepted fiduciary practices for long term growth in retirement funds for social security, resulting in the mess that is in
I could not find much on his energy policies, especially oil and gas, but trying to close down something that has made us almost free from middle east oil and has millions employed would be like politicians telling West Virginia they will close coal mines for good.
Ron, Bloomberg was a good mayor of NYC, largely because he kept in place most of the important reforms that Rudy Guiliani instituted. One of those things was stop-and-frisk, which Bloomberg expanded beyond what was constitutional, by allowing police to frisk without probable cause, in high crime neighborhoods. As a result, the black and Latino populations do not like or trust him, which is why he has apologized for it.
When Guiliani was mayor, his constitutional approach to stop and frisk was responsible for what seemed like a miraculous change in NYC’s crime rate. Times Square, in particular, changed from a sleazy, porn shop/movie section of town, where you were very likely to be mugged and had to step over drunks and drug adddicts on the sidewalk, into a vibrant area of shops and theaters.
I consider Bloomberg to be an authoritarian nanny-stater who believes that he knows better what you and I and all the “little people” should be allowed to say and do, His “Big Gulp” soda ban, which was eventually ruled unconstitutional, is an example of the kind of thing that he feels the government should be allowed to regulate. Gun control is his signature issue, and he is passionate about disarming private citizens.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that he is the lesser of the evils, when it comes to Sanders v him. And, I think that he would be far more competent than Biden, who I believe is not mentally “all there” anymore…
Keep in mind, by the way, that when Bloomberg was first elected mayor, he ran as a Republican. Over time, he switched to independent, and then Democrat. He is not beholden to any party, only himself ~ which could be a good thing, but a bit dangerous with someone who is as authoritarian as Bloomberg…..
Priscilla, interesting election if MB gets nomination. M.B., republican turned independent turn democrat v D.T., democrat turned independent turned republican.
I do not care what his party affiliation is.
He is authoritarian – that is a huge problem.
Oh, that’s right! I didn’t think about that.
Two opportunistic billionaires from New York, who do things their way or the highway. And, they used to be friendly business associates, but split over politics.
Go figure.
Crime started to rise in the US starting in the 60s and peaking in the late 80’s then it declined.
We do not know for sure why it spiked – possibly the war on drugs.
We also had a spike with prihibition.
We do not know for sure why it declined either. There are money hypothesis – the Gulliani/Braxton “broken windows” policing is one theory, mass incarceration is another.
The rise in low income abortions is another.
None of the explanations correctly fits the data.
It is likely some combination.
This is less unusual than we might think.
We had a spike in heart disease starting in the 50’s that had subsequently declined.
We thought we knew why and we thought it was diet related.
But the decline occured without changes in diet.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481598-nancy-pelosi-should-resign
Some data on the Iowa failure.
The good news is that reverse engineering indicates evidence of multiple instances of poor design. But no evidence of malfeasance.
The critcial failure – beyond numerous instance of poor human interfacing. Was some data formating error that caused the backend system to reject all or most of the records submitted.
I would suggest reading the article as all the security experts echo my advice regarding computers, security and elections:
1). DO NOT DO THIS – it is just a bad idea to mix computers and elections. It is especially bad if the computer is part of an opaque link that has no independent means of verifying.
2). If you are going to be stupid and do this anyway – then absolutely positively make the entire app OpenSource and subject to public scrutiny. The development environment for this app WAS open source, but the app itself was not. Making computer code used in something like an election open source means it will be scrutinized by thousands of highly capable people looking for flaws.
This is important – not just to find the flaws, but possibly even more importantly to provide voters with some assurance that no malfeasance is involved.
The biggest reason that computers should never be used as an link in an election that is not independently verifiable is that even if everything is done perfectly – Voters are required to trust on blind faith that there is no malfeasance.
While there does not appear to be actual malfeasance regarding the app – just incompetance, Krystal Ball of the Rising has properly chastized the DNC for its handling AFTER the failure. The reports we are now seeing are the results of tabulations of paper records – the App was not used for voting, it was used to transmit results. The raw votes were available or this would have been a real disaster.
But as Ball noted – in an environment with little Trust the DNC appears to have slow walked providing results – there is no sane reason that it should have taken two days even to count the votes by hand. Worse by releasing results incrementally – and this is NOT the same as an election night situation. There are reasonable explanations for some precints reporting at different times than others. There is no explanation for the multiple interim results of the DNC with substantial delays. Further this created a false narative that Buttigieg rather than Sanders won. Ultimately while Butigieg had a surprisingly strong run, Sanders solidly won.
The DNC deprived Sanders of that narrative, pissing off Sanders supporters. and further playing into the narative that the DNC is openly hostile to Sanders.
I am perfectly OK with the democrats saying Sanders is NOT a democrat, he can not run for president in our primaries. But they have chosen not to do so. Once they let any candidate run, the process must not play favorites – particularly in secret.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8ajj/an-off-the-shelf-skeleton-project-experts-analyze-the-app-that-broke-iowa
Dave, one thing you left out, or I missed was not only incompetence, but outright ignorance as to how to use systems the first time. And I lay that one the Iowa DNC because they failed to contact qualified individuals not associated with the vendor that wrote the code.
All of this would have been identified with multiple stress tests of the computer system and the backup phone system. Test data based on expected precinct turnout should have been supplied to each precinct. At a given time, precincts would then begin entering data, transmitting data and the system accumulating data.
This would have identified any issues with training, with data entry, with the order that candidates data was entered compared to the output, with the ability of the system to handle 1600+ records being transferred at the same time and the output, which would have data verification totals. Any variance could then be tracked back to the precinct level. The second stress test would be conducted using the above, but then the system deactivated and everyone notified to use the backup system. That would provide the information where they would know they need x number of operators to record data and enter into whatever computer or manual system in place for plan B.
It seems clear to me that little to none of this took place and that is the failings of leadership. Anyone with a smart phone or home computer should know how often something can go wrong. If they dont, they are living in a cocoon.
The program was not friendly to use. It required entering multiple magic security keys of the same length.
It also was not designed for its target audience.
But none of this is actual political malfeasance, it is all bad design and incompetence.
OK Dave, lets see if I can communicate my point using questions
1 Did they run a test using simulated live data?
2. Did they require all individuals involved to enter data?
3. Did they require all data to be transmitted at a predetermined time for the test?
If any of these are answered no, then that is why the system was not user friendly, the system was “not designed for the user audience” all caused by the lack of knowledge by the Iowa DNC leadership in new computer system usage.
I bet Nevada, which is reported to be using this same system is either scraping its use or going through multiple layers of testing to avoid this mess.
So just remember, if its a new computer system. 1, try to not be the alpha user for the live system and 2, if you are, test, test, test and then retest!
Ron,
Your debating me over something where to the extent we disagree – if we disagree at all, it is just in that the entire Idea of doing this with an App is a bad one.
Did they fail in the ways you identified ?
Yes – and other ways too.
ONE of the reasons why – is that had they done all of those things the cost of the app would have skyrocketed, and the more expensive the app is the more obvious it is a bad idea.
I work making computers do new jobs all the time.
I love my work. I love making tiny computers make human left better, easier.
But the most common issue I bump into in my work is – people chosing to do things that either do not need to be done – or really really really should NOT be done.
Sometimes that means spending alot of money and effort to use a computer to a job that a human can do better, or cheaper. It is hard for us to beleive that is so – but it quite often is.
I think we have to be very careful how we use computers in voting – even if they are more efficient. But we certainly should not do so when they are not.
This most definitely appears to be a case where it was not just a poorly desined and tested app that failed. it was the entire idea that a computer was a better way.
PPACA does not pivot arround computers – but it is an example of spending enormous amounts of money to solve a problem that if it even needed solved at all was no where near as big as the solution.
Government does this all the time.
I am fascinated by the military. I love examining our weapons of war.
But we spend FAR too much on our military – more than double what we need to.
There are about 20 aircraft carriers in the entire world – we have 13.
Actually there are far more than 20, because we have lots of smaller carriers that could go head to head with any of the 7 other carriers in the rest of the world and defeat them easily.
There is not another nation in the world with a nuclear carrier.
There is not another nation in the world with a carrier that can handle half the aircraft of a US carrier.
There is not another nation in the world that has a carrier born airplane that could survive against a US carrier born aircraft for more than a few minutes.
All of this is wonderful – but it is also incredibly expensive.
There is a debate about returning the first nuclear aircraft carrier enterprise back to active service.
Why ? Because it will cost more to scrap than a new carrier.
Just because we CAN do something does not mean we should.
I am a proponent of a strong US military. If we spent 1/3 what we spend today we would STILL have the strongest most powerful most advanced military int he world by far.
I am not specifically attacking the military.
My point is that there are many many many things that we CAN do, that we should not do.
That doing nothing or doing things as they are is a better choice.
This is also why markets are so important.
If Amazon or IBM spends a fortune on a bad idea – IBM or Amazon experiences the consequences. It they succeed they get the benefits.
Those forces tend to self regulate what happens and what does not.
A wise balance tends to exist in the market – with most effort going to incremental improvement that will obviously cost justify itself.
And much less effort going into the high risk but potentially high reward ventures.
Government has no such discipline. Not only does it spend massive amounts – it frequently does so on small problems that just can not justify the spending invovlved.
Technically the Iowa failure was one of the DNC not government – but the principles are the same. The people who want to be our government demonstrated very effectively why they should NOT be our government. They are unable to make wise choices.
The shiny new app was dangled in front of their eyes and they bit, without thinking whether the value was their to justify the cost.
My points are:
Do not use computers to “fix” something that works – unless you are sure that you can do better for most everyone AND at reduced cost in the long run.
And anything computer related must have lots of testing and that is part of the cost.
Systems requiring public trust – such as voting
have special requirements.
Sometimes those requirements either preclude the use of computers or require the computer systems to be design in a way that we do not need to trust them.
We do not need to trust systems that can be independently verified.
We have used computers for most of mu life to COUNT votes.
We do not need to trust counting processes – because so long as we have the real ballots anyone gaming the count will be caught.
Aside from the unfriendly nature of the app which lead to support demands on the night of the caucus that there were insufficent resources to meet,
The fundimental problem was that the data – after being saved to the cloud could not be imported into the backend application to gather tally and report results because the data was saved with some security measure – like a CRC that was derived incorrectly causing the data from the app to be rejected on import.
The purpose of computers is to make things easier.
Voting is an example that sometimes a computer DOES NOT solve a problem better.
An enormous of amount of money, and human resources were consumed by this failure.
But getting this right ahead of time – also would have cost money, time and resources.
If – as is near certain – it would have taken less resources to do this as it had been done for years – the addition of a computer was a huge mistake on many levels.
Always when looking to change things, one of the first questions you should ask is
Is this really better ?
This applies not just to the Iowa Caucus App – but to things like PPACA.
PPACA has a massive cost in both time and money – about 1.6T$/decade.
In addition it forced changes throughout the medical industry – massive amounts of consdation. There are far far fewer small doctors offices and far more huge practices owned big medical corporations.
The problems PPACA purportedly solved – which it did not really solve,
Did not have a value of 1/6T/decade.
Well now I have heard the ultimate of liberal elitist government programs. Run a state with uncontrolled spending, raise taxes to cover cost, raise cost of living due to spending and taxes, drive people out of housing due to increasing cost, then ship those people to well run states with conservative politicians that control costs, pay their rent and let that state cover all the other support expenses like food stamps, medicaid etc😠. They sure cant ship them to other liberal states!
https://nypost.com/2019/12/06/bill-de-blasio-ships-nyc-homeless-to-north-carolina-despite-ban-against-state/
DeBlasio has solved the homeless problem – ship them all to North Carolina.
San Franciso and Los Angeles should do the same.
Or maybe we should do a version of what the English did two centuries ago and send them to Austrailia.
Puerto Rico has a massive demographic problem – much Like Japan – it is experiencing negative population growth and the economic impact is devestating.
So lets ship all the homeless to Puerto Rico ?
Or maybe we should just let the homeless alone.
Other reports also have homeless going to Georgia, so liberal NY gets NC and GA.
Illinois can claim and use Tennessee and one of the Dakotas
California, due to its size and huge problems can claim three instead of two, TX, UT and ID.
Guess paybacks are hell. We stopped funding their spending when SALT was removed from deductions, so Deblasio found other means.
This is a stupid game. NC and GA can pick them up and put them on a bus back to NYC
The homeless can spend the rest of their lives living on busses.
More and more is coming out about Ciaramello.
First he hosted a meeting Jan 19, 2016 with Ukraine prosecutors where they were first told to drop prosecuting Burisma and Hunter Biden.
Ciaramello is no longer a whistleblower seeking to thwart what he claims is an improper politically motivated investigation of Biden – Trump’s political rival.
He is now a government employee trying to thwart an investigation into activities that he was himself part of.
Further this undermines the claim that the request to fire Shokin was because he was Corrupt. It also undermines the claims that the Burisma investigation had died – if it was dead, they there was no reason for Ciarmaello to be asking the Ukrainian prosecutors to drop it in Jan. 2016 – a few months before Biden’s blackmail.
There is also lots of communications between Ciaramello and Vitoria Nuland in the State Department and George Sorros’s Open Society group regarding the Ukraine and Burisma that are ebing made available through FOIAA requests.
We also now have a 2018 Meeting between Ciaramello and Ukrainian Prosecutors regarding Burisma in the White House while Ciaramello was on the NSC.
It remains to be established the extent to which these constitute malfeasance ont he part of Ciaramello. But if thoroughly discredits any claim that he is an unbiased whistleblower.
It is increasingly clear that any thorough investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma would also be an investigation of Eric Ciaramello.
More contrived bullshit from Trump grovelers.
Much of this is solidly established fact at this time.
Maybe like the assorted Trump leaks – some claims such as those of emails and WH logs of Ciaramello meeting with Ukraine Prosecutors regarding Burisma in 2018 may fizzle.
Or maybe when we get the full details – this will prove more innocent than it currently appears ?
Though the opposite is also possible.
What we KNOW now is that Ciaramello was involved on the US end with stopping the investigation of Burisma in 2016.
That alone means he is NOT a whistleblower. He is a potential target of an investigation that he is trying to stop.
It is still possible for his actions to be “innocent”, meaning that just because you are a potential target of an investigation does nto mean you are guilty fo something.
But all this makes it pretty clear why DOJ told Atkinson to drop this.
It also likely explains why the Atkinson testimony is the only house testimony that has not been released.
Further it means that the house did an even crappier investigation that we previously knew.
There is a reason that Due process – and JUSTICE requires that witnesses be cross examined and that defendants are entitled to call their own witnesses. Because we do not trust prosecutors to provide us with the WHOLE TRUTH. The difference between a show trial, a start chamber, and a true system of justice – is not the powers of the prosecutors – it is the rights of the defense. It is only because the defence is allowed to do everything possible to shred the prosecutions case, or to provide a case of its own, that we can have confidence that what we arrived at was the truth.
So far in the Ukraine Saga – none of the house Witnesses were properly cross examined. No defense witnesses of any kind have been allowed.
No rebutal witnesses,
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
I told you before that justice required 100 senators to vote for aquital.
Schiff and democrats spent 2 weeks harping on the need for witnesses.
Begging the question of why they brought this to the senate without the witnesses they needed in the first place.
But several requirement of justice were absolutely missing from the entire process:
House republicans had limited ability to cross examine witnesses.
Trump had NONE.
Neither House republicans nor Trump had any ability to call witnesses.
Todate we have not heard from a single witness for Trump.
In the senate – both sides had fair opportunites to ARGUE their cases.
The defense had the oportunity to criticize the prosecutions case.
But uncrossexamined transcripts taken in the house were presented as testimony – without any ability for Trump’s lawyers to cross examine.
You can not cross examine a transcript.
In a real trial – those transcripts are the basis by which the court ALLOWS the prosecutor to call those people as witnesses. The transcripts are NOT admissible. The merely constitute an offer of proof that the witness will provide testimony of value. The jury does nto get to read the transcripts.
They are only presented with the trial testimony, including the cross examination.
Nor are prosecutors allow to call witnesses that they can not provide an offer of proof as to what they will testify to – that is why the police take statements – that witnesses swear to, and why we have grand juries. Grand Jury testimony is not admissible in court. Statements are only admissible as a means to impeach a witness, or to demonstrate the need for a witness to testify. There is no right for the prosecution to call witnesses.
What we are slowly seeing – as more is learned about Cairamello is that the House Democrats case was much weaker than it appeared – and it already was damn weak.
Increasingly what we have is a self serving conspiracy – maybe with Ciaramello and house democrats – but almost certainly a conspiracy to derail an investigation in which Ciaramello and others were likely subjects – if not targets.
Ciaramello was always free to report his allegations of malfeasance regarding Trump. But given that he was likely a subject or target of the investigations he was reporting – that substantially diminishes the credibility – he is not a whistleblower, he is someone looking to protect his own ass. He has a clear personal stake in the outcome.
More cowardly behavior from the slime ball draft dodger:
Vindman’s brother was fired & walked out alongside him. Understand, Trump can now come for anyone who gets in his way, he can retaliate against family.
Trump is president – he is “the boss”, he can fire whoever he pleases in the executive branch – though I doubt that Vindman or his brother were “fired”, they were re-assigned.
They have been removed from the NSC – which should have been gutted by Trump in 2017.
Maybe Trump asked for even demanded that. Maybe not. It would have happened regardless.
You seem to think that Trump is obligated to be forceably surrounded by people who hate him and refuse to institute the policies Trump was elected to enact.
If you want different policies and different people – elect the person who will implement them.
regardless, the legitimate justification is trivial – the president is entitled to advisors of his own chosing. Vindeman testified against the policies of the president he served.
He is free to work against the president – but not while working in the executive branch.
A war criminal is pardoned and paraded around as a hero by a draft-dodging psychopathic liar. A war hero is perp walked out of the White House for testifying an uncomfortable truthAbout that draft-dodging psychopathic liar.
Trump cultists cheer.
Oh, come off it, Jay. Vindman conspired with other members of “The Resistance,” to take down his commander in chief. He’ll be very lucky if losing his position on the President’s national security council is the worst thing that happens to him.
It was clear from the start that this whole impeachment was based on a planned conspiracy, from the start. Now that the trial is over, the conspirators should face a lot worse than reassignment. Enough is enough with these seditious asswipes. The chubby little colonel will still work at the Pentagon, hopefully as an unimportant pencil pusher.
If he had a policy disagreement with the president, he should have gone through the chain of command to resolve it, or resigned in protest. That’s what an honorable man would have done.
But that wasn’t part of the plan. And Vindman is a dishonorable man.
I agree with you that Vindman is likely part of a conspiracy.
But that is not yet proven – though that will likely come soon.
But by his own testimony he Stopped Amb Sonderland in the midst of an exchange with a Ukrainian representative. By Vindeman’s own testimony did so because he felt Sonderland was acting outside the interagency consensus on policy – the “interagency” whatever the hell that is ADVISES, it does nto set policy. Further he TESTIFIED that he did so because Sonderland’s actions might interfere with the bipartisan support for aide for Ukraine.
It is possible that might be true. But that is a POLITICAL determination. I do not wish to pretend the military never engages in politics – bujt they are not supposed to – and certainly Lt. Col’s should not be substituting their political judgement for that of Ambassadors.
Lt. Col. Vindman – like most on the left are incapable of understanding that beleiving you are right about something does not give you more power to act than that of your position.
Lt. Col. Vindman is an officer in the military he is sworn to obey civilian authority – even when he thinks it is wrong.
Vindman is to be commended for his service. But that does not make him any more a hero than any other soldier – and much less than many others. He was injured by an IED.
By his own testimony he interfered in the foreign policy of the US on several occasions.
It is not his job to make foreign policy – at best it is his job to advise. His claim that he was thwarting the interference in the “interagency consenus” – is an admission of insubordination.
It is clear that Lt. Col. Vindman can not distinguish between the power to advise and the power to create policy. He and the “interagency” have the former, constitutionally policy is created only by the president – sometimes delegated to this that the president has appointed and congress has confirmed. The creation of government policy of ANY KIND – not when the president is republican, not when he is a democrat has never in the entire history of the united states been set by any other than the president of the united states and his direct appointments. Every other person in the US government is an advisor at best.
“ It’s one thing to shorten an army officer’s detail to the White House. It’s another to have security escort out an active-duty officer who has been accused of no wrongdoing at all.”
Bill Kristal.
“See, I told you the President was going to act more responsibly now.”
Susan Collins
LT. Col. Vindman testified to providing classified information to 5 people. He CLAIMED that those 5 had both sufficient clearance and a “need to know”, He refused to identify 2 of those people. That alone is sufficient to have him uncerimoniously removed.
Vindman can expect to be thoroughly investigated. It is virtually certain he will lose his security clearance, it is likely he will be asked to resign, it is possible that he will be prosecuted. His very own testimony makes it perfectly clear that he ACTED independent of the direction of any superior for political reasons – Army Officers may not do that.
He specifically testified that he interfered with the actions of Amb. Sonderland because he thought they would undermine the bipartisan consensus for Ukraine in congress.
It is completely irrelevant whether that might have been true or not.
That is an improper basis for any army officer to ACT
The only reason that Vindman was not gone long ago was because of the impeachment.
It is now over. His being re-assigned should be a foregone conclusion.
Further it is likely he will be thoroughly investigated – his own testimony is that he provided classified information to people he refused to name. House republicans may not be able to compel that information – but the army can. Providing classified information to another is a crime UNLESS, that person has the appropriate clearances, that person has a need to know certified by a THIRD PARTY. The person receiving the information and the person providing it ARE NOT empowered to mutually determine whether the exchange is permitted.
It is near certain Vindman mishandled classified information – inside the military that almost always leads to prosecution.
Further EVERYONE in the whitehouse serves at the pleasure of the president.
There is no right to work int he whitehouse, there is no right to work at the NSC.
There are several other witnesses that worked in the whitehouse – they should be dusting off their resumes too.
Vindman is not a particularly distinguished soldier. There is plenty of indications that he did not have the respect of his superiors or peers.
I would say “good riddance” – but he is not “gone” – he is still in the military, and he now needs to answer to the army for his conduct.
Jay, I don’t know what universe you’re living in, but it’s not the one I live in.
I spent 30+ years in Healthcare management. One thing I learned early in my career was support your boss. We would discuss issues, and once the CEO said he was going to do something, you supported him or resigned. There were multiple managers over that 30 years that ” resigned to pursue other opportunities” when it was identified they publicly opposed the CEO’s positions. I was asked many times in board finance committee meetings my thoughts, and even though I did not support the decision, I had a vanilla response that did not provide any leverage for anyone to ask me to pursue other opportunities.
So Vindman did what he thought right, but there is no way in hell I would want anyone in my secret alphabet agencies that openly opposed me. Trump has too many enemies in those agencies to allow an open enemy to remain on staff. And anyone with ties to that individual was also be gone.
People within the administration serve at the pleasure of the President. That employment can be terminated for no reason at all.
In our own personal lives – we are free to “do what we think is right”.
In government – and particularly the military we do not have that freedom.
Those in government excercise not merely their own power – but that of their position – police officer, judge, prosecutor, soldier.
They are not unilaterally free to do what they think is right using the power delegated to them by government.
This should be obvious – we do not all agree on what is right. LT. Col. Vindman makes that absolutely clear. This whole Trump faux impeachment makes that clear.
I have stated here from the start – given reasonable suspicion – the president can ask a foreign power to investigate anyone.
Adam Schiff clearly disagrees with that assessment.
Schiff is actually free to disagree – and act within his elected power as a representative to “do what he thinks is right”, But Lt. Col. Vindman is not. He was not elected. He does not decide what policy should be. The discretion he has in acting with the government power entrusted to him is limited by the policies of his superiors, and the constitution. Government employees do not have the authority for independent action – beyond what was specifically delegated to them.
If half the administration was Adam Schiff and Half was Donald Trump and both were “doing what they thought was right” – the administration would be at war with itself – government would be chaos and anarchy.
This country does not agree universally on whether killing Soliemani was “the right thing”.
If Trump ordered Soliemani killed – could some Lt. Col. decide – no that is not “the right thing”
and thwart that action ?
Or the other way arround – about a year ago Trump stopped short of a significant retaliatory act against Iran for downing a US Drone – that was probably the start of the split between Trump and Bolton. Bolton certainly beleived that attack was “the right thing” – would it have been proper for Bolton to have ordered it on his own initiative – because it was “the right thing” ?
It was no more proper for Vindman to decide on his won who he would share classified information with, or to thwart Amb Sonderlands interactions with a Ukrainian leader.
Vindman is expected to give his best advice.
He is also expected to impliment the decisions that are made – OR RESIGN.
There is not an “interfere because it is the right thing” choice.
SONDLAND out as well: “I was advised today that the President intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” he says in statement.
Will he get a refund of his $million or more donation to Trump’s presidential inaugural committee in 2017?
Trump cultists say fine him another millions for offending their Orange Master.
“Will he get a refund of his $million or more donation to Trump’s presidential inaugural committee in 2017?”
No, why should he?
Why does this surprise you ? Though Sonderland ultimately was an extremely favorable witness for Trump, his testimony in the house made it perfectly clear than as ambassador he was out of his depth.
Regardless, I expect a thorough house cleaning.
I expected that on Jan. 20, 2017. There are lots of people that must go.
If you think this is about Trump – you are an idiot.
As I have said from day one.
If you are in the executive branch you serve the elected president.
If you are asked to do something you can not do – whether you just disagree, or you beleive it is illegal or unconstitutional – you can make your case, but if you can not persuade your superior – then you must resign. You are not free to thwart the policies of the elected president from within the government. You are free to resist, to speak out, to oppose – from the outside.
This is true whether the government is republican or democrat.
You claimed Lt. Col Vindman was a hero – a hero, a person who beleived in the moral and constitutional correctness of his position would have resigned before testifying against whatever administration he was apart of. That would have been heroic.
He would still be wrong – because 5 star generals do not determine the policy of the US government – much less Lt. Col.
Conundrum:
If forced to choose in next presidential election, which is the lesser of two evils:
A goofy socialist?
A vindictive dictator?
There is no such thing as a good socialist.
And your question is self contradictory.
You NEVER have the choice to re-elect a dictator.
If you are really allowed to vote for the next president – then the current president is by definition NOT a dictator.
But you constantly abuse words.
There are likely to be a long list of dismissals coming. I have no idea the extent to which Trump might have directed those – and neither do you. But if Trump said nothing – and those dismissals did not happen – then the rest of the administration is not doing its job.
Vindman is likely to face severe consequences from the military. No one at the whitehouse should have to do a thing for that to happen.
It is possible that he will be allowed to resign – nothing involving Vindman is going to happen quietly. It is also possible that he will be prosecuted.
Regardless, he has a past record of going arround the chain of command – which the military is extremely intolerant of, and in this instance he has by his own admission mishandled classified information – and possibly violated the espionage act. He has also by his own admission overruled a civilian in authority over a matter of policy and politics.
That is a HUGE non-no in the military.
Donnie’s shit-for-brains son just admitted Trump’s firings are retaliations – illegal and prosecutable under federal law.
They weren’t fired, they were “reassigned.” No more chance to listen in on the president’s phone calls, and report back to Adam Schiff. So sad.
But, The Resistance will doubtless invent some other bombshell soon, so don’t lose sleep over these “heroes”.
I expect that Vindman in particular will face more severe consequences with the military.
I would be shocked if he is not asked to resign. I would also not be surprised if he is charged with violating the espionage act. He has testified to violating procedures regarding classified information.
At the very least he will be thoroughly investigated.
Keep making up the law as you go.
BTW Don Jr. is NOT part of the government.
You are wrong on so many levels.
Firing Vindman for no reason is within the president’s power.
There were plenty of good reasons.
No federal law does not prevent the president from firing people who testify that they thwarted the presidents foreign policy. Or people who testified that they decided on their own who was cleared to receive classified information. Or army officers who breach the chain of command.
As to Don Jr.’s remarks – all they prove is that Don jr. is gloating over Vindman’s firing.
You are constantly jumping to false conclusions about both the law and the facts.
And another legal attack on Trump bites the dust.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-emoluments/in-another-trump-win-court-tosses-democrats-suit-over-his-businesses-idUSKBN2011YK
Just to be clear for Jay’s edfication – though the DC court of appeals did what the current law requires, I beleive that SCOTUS decided the issue of standing improperly.
SCOTUS has generally made it hard to sue the federal government (or the president).
It has thwarted this using standing.
I beleive that SCOTUS has improperly denied standing to avoid deciding hard cases that is its job to decide. Several emoluments cases have been dismissed for lack of merit.
That is the proper decision.
I do think that congressmen have standing to sue the president.
Whether it is republicans or democrats.
Lawsuits by republican congressmen against Obama have been dismissed for lack of standing. Just as that was wrong so is this.
Here again I would have to disagree. Fundementally you may be right, congress might have standing to bring about cases. But since Obama ( and maybe before), the opposing party would be lined up in courts waiting to file cases against the sitting administration. With Trump, the democrats would look like fans in Krzyzewskiville waiting days for tickets to the Duke/UNC basketball game.
I think SCOTUS understood the political ramification of any ruling other than the one renderer.
It has been extremely common for courts to duck difficult issues by deciding that the party suing has no standing.
SLOWLY the courts have broadened standing.
A decade ago there is no chance the courts would have heard the suits against Trump’s EO’s because they would not have agreed that anyone had standing the challenge them.
Even now – I do not think that any state has standing to challenge anything related to federal immigration. But the courts decided otherwise.
Regardless, it is very very hard to get standing to challenge federal law or actions.
THAT IS HOW IT IS. I do not agree with it – I think SCOTUS should broaden standing requirements. I think that our elected representatives should always have standing to challenge a federal law or actions. That does not mean their challenge has merit – only that they are allowed to do so.
I think this lawsuit should have died long ago – but on the merits (or lack) not on standing.
This was a 5th circuit court of appeals decision – not SCOTUS.
Yes, court decisions often have political ramification – but the courts should NOT run from a decision because the decision has political implications.
Judges are supposed to decide cases based on the constitution and the law – not political ramifications. If you can not do that – do not become a judge. you are not fit.
I very much do not like Roberts – specifically because I think enormous numbers of his decisions are political – not left/right but more trying to keep the court out of the political spotlight.
Roberts is constantly finding novel ways to either not make a decision or to make a decision that has no precidential meaning. That is fairly common in lower courts and sometimes approporiate. But it is pretty much never appropriate for SCOTUS.
SCOTUS does not have to take any case. It does not take cases because there is some wrong to be righted in the instant case – that is not their job. It is their job to take cases that guide the country in complying with the law and constitution.
If SCOTUS takes a case it is supposed to have importance beyond the litigants.
They should not hear it otherwise.
If they do hear it – they should decide the braod issue of the conflict.
That is their job.
If Roberts can not do that – he should resign.
Again I failed to communicate. Yes I know THIS case was an appels court, but it based its decision on previous SCOTUS decisions on standing.
I still think the democrats would be lining up taking Trump to every court possible if not for the decisions on standing. Jay might even be funding one or two😊
“Democrats would be lining up”
Probably – but decisions on the real issues – on the merits resolve these cases better.
If SCOTUS settled the emoluments issue – and though I completely disagree with Jay’s understanding fo Emoluments – and clearly that is not what our founders intended.
regardless settled is settled.
SCOTUS could find there is nothing wrong with Trump’s handling of his assets while in office.
Or they could find he must put them in blind trust or divest or something.
No matter what – the issue would be resolved.
SCOTUS is there to settle constitutional questions. Not to duck them.
Standing is not more a bar to future lawsuits – than a correct decision on the merits.
I also think that the democrats efforts at “lawfare” drive the courts TOWARDS stronger originalism. Any other position is inherently rife with inconsistancies and short of originalism every decision creates contradictions that undermine other decisions.
Courts do in the long run learn from the messes they make.
Our modern system of law and justice – many parts of it are the consequence of centuries of evolution.
The past is not sacred, it is just presumptively correct and the burden against change is not insurmountable, but it should be high.
And change should be accomplished by changing the law and the constitution – not courts changing the meaning of the words.
Democrats at all levels are doing what Jay is doing. Find any poop available, throw it at Trump and see what sticks. These politicians knew from the very beginning this case would not get a favorable decision. I can understand them doing this, file the case, get favorable decisions all the way to SCOTUS, then have SCOTUS rule no standing, then bash SCOTUS as a conservative mouth piece and attack Trump as always. OOPS, they lost since the appeals court stepped in.
We live in a schizophrenic time period. Recent polls show more than 50% of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, but 90% are happy with their personal life.
I do not think that Jay, the democrats, the media and the left fully grasp the extent to which they have an enormous credibility problem.
I replied to Jay’s “bamboozle” post. – The most important point was that we do not need Trump “explained” to us, we do not need the left the media, the democrats to tell us what is wrong with him.
One of the most interesting things about this election – particularly if it boils down to Bernie and Trump is we will have something we may never had had before – two AUTHENTIC candidates. Two candidates who totally completely intend to do what they promise, who are exactly what they appear to be. Neither is “bamaboozling” us.
I do not think that Sanders will be able to do what he promises – but not because he will not try.
Regardless, Neither Sanders, nor Trump need to be “explained” to voters.
They really are who they say they are.
And yet, Jay, the media, the left and democrats are constantly trying to tell us that Trump is something different than he appears, and when they are not doing that – they are trying to distort reality to make Trump look unusual.
There was no impeachment – not even a credible investigation of IRSGATE, and yet the acts there were clearly more egregious than this Ukraine nonsense.
I WANT an investigation into pretty much all the things on Trump’s list regarding Ukraine.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect those things to be investigated.
Unfortunately I do not expect most of those investigations to bear fruit. Ukraine is too corrupt, the acts are too old, and the conduct as reprehensible as it is, is probably mostly not illegal – though it is definitely unethical and immoral.
I do not think the house investigation of Ukraine was justified – but JUST as it was in Trump’s power to ask for an investigation into ukraine – it was in the houses power to investigate Trump’s actions in the Ukraine. I did not expect that investigation to bear fruit – and it did not.
but it was no more or less legitimate than Trump’s actions.
If Trump may not investigate the behavior of democrats in the Ukraine – why can house democrats investigate Trump ? There is zero diffference ? there is no moreal or ethical or legal difference.
The mere fact of the house investigation makes it perfectly clear that an investigation can be conducted with purely political motives.
The mistake of the democrats was not in investigating, it was in failing to grasp that absent a substantitive abnormal misconduct they were going to look bad.
And this is not going to smell any better for them over time.
We already have lots of clues that we have an organized conspiracy here.
Over time further investigations and further FOIA requests will tie Vindman and Ciaramello, and Schiffs staff as well as some others together ever more intimately.
There may or may not be proof of an actual crime – but no matter what it will smell more and more over time.
The efforts to hide all of this from us will make it stink worse.
Trump cult apologists:
Carl Sagan: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge.”
Those not trying to rid the nation of Trump are complicit in his undermining of the government checks and balances that once protected our democracy. The last few days of blustering Trump authoritarian usurpations of congressional authority are frightening. The DOJ, the IRS, NSA – but you bamboozled rationalizers have reflexively ignored them.
I
And you bamboozled fiscal hypocrites don’t give a hoot about the continuing enrichment of Trump owned businesses from taxpayer money:
“ The Secret Service has paid rates as high as $650 a night for rooms at Trump’s properties… And at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, the Secret Service was charged $17,000 a month to use a three-bedroom cottage on the property, an unusually high rent for homes in that area, according to receipts from 2017. Trump’s company billed the government even for days when Trump wasn’t there.
These payments appear to contradict the Trump Organization’s own statements about what it charges members of his government entourage. “If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free — meaning, like, cost for housekeeping,” Trump’s son Eric said in a Yahoo Finance interview last year.“ WaPo
A family of lying louts; a cult of head-nodding uncaring followers.
I did a PCA on the Essex House hotel in NYC – the CHEAPEST room was 650/night – and they were not 650/night nice. I checked many rooms that were multiple thousands of dollars a night and one that was 27,000/night.
If you have problems with this – change the law.
I have zero problems with substantially reducing what SS spends and what services they provide and what they must do.
As things are the person who is president can run much of their life as they please, and the SS must provide them with security.
I have zero interest in your nonsense regarding the Trump organization. I really do not give a damn if they are gouging the government – they arfe not obligated to be nice to the government just because Trump is president.
Change the law – change the mandate of Services the SS must provide.
I would have little problem radically reducing SS protection.
But quit bitching and moaning and join in doing something meaningful.
Not this “Argh, Trump” nonsense.
Is there anyone here who thinks you would be doing the same moaning if this were Obama or Biden ?
I do not care what “Trump” does. I care what the PRESIDENT does, and the rules need to be the same for all.
Presidents are entitled to large amounts of personal liberty. But we get to decide the extent to which will will provide security if they excercise that liberty.
And the rules – whatever they are must be the same for each president.
“ As things are the person who is president can run much of their life as they please, and the SS must provide them with security.”
A judgement of character: doing what’s responsible, or doing what you can get away with.
Which kind of man are you?
Answer a straightforward question yes, or no – without dissembling
If you were president, and owned resources of rental properties like Trump, would you insist on staying at them an inordinate number of times, and bill the government full rental price? For your staff? For SS security there to protect your life? And keep the profits – because the law permits you to do that?
Yes or no?
The social director of the Office of the President of the US should be given a list of approved locations for meetings, and if not that office, then the SS or some other executive level office. They would know the size of the meeting, the needs of the meeting, the length of the meeting and every need from number of rooms needed to type of soap used by attendees.
After the needs were know, the locations meeting those needs would be identified and those locations would be contacted asking if they would host the event. Some locations may not be able to host it or even want it. Who knows what impact it would have on them and the surrounding businesses. Trump tower in NYC is basically off limits due to the cost on the surrounding businesses when almost the whole street is shut down due to security.
Those locations interested in hosting the meeting would then be asked for proposals for costs. those cost, along with government cost would be one of the major determinants on where the final decision would be to host the meeting.
If Trump locations ended up the best alternative, so be it.If somewhere else was better, then Trump should not override the decision. I would not. But then, the media should keep its nose out of where and when meetings took place.
Right now, i have no idea how, why and who decides where presidential meeting take place. I can’t find anything remotely close to who is in charge of that. I can only find stuff on the social secretary and the office of presidential advance which is the social parts of meetings and the security after the location is selected.
So it appears you have more info than I do on that given your comments concerning the subject. Does Trump select the locations himself? I know he does when he goes on vacation, plays golf or is off for a weekend break, but so did Obama when he went to Hawaii or he played golf.. I mean official meetings.
I could care less where he spends his personal time because he is always connected.
Who am I ?
That is not a “yes/no” question.
Someone who tries pretty hard not to offer as facts things that are not.
Someone who does not make false accusations of others.
Someone who does not jump to illogical conclusions.
Someone who does not lie.
Those as well as others are the attributes of good character.
If this Matthew 25:31-46 is the criteria by which our lives are judged – I expect to do better than most.
Who am I ? Not someone who impugns the character of others absent clear evidence of moral failure.
If I were president, i would expect that in return for performing the 24x7x365x4 job that is president that as much of my time that was not required by the affairs of the nation would be spent enjoying my life to the largest possible extent in pretty much the same ways as I did prior to becoming president.
So if you remove all the spin and distorting adjectives from your misnaming of the question – the answer would be yes.
No president is obligated to live as a pauper because he has been elected president.
Poverty is not part of the oath of office (nor is chastity – as Clinton and Kennedy demonstrated). Presidents are not Franciscan Brothers of Dominican nuns.
We did not elect Mother Theresa.
So your answer is yes, you’d follow Trump’s lead, lining your own pocket’s at your own properties.
Interesting also that you equate residing at the White House as living in poverty.
A Fool and his Tongue are Never Parted…
“So your answer is yes, you’d follow Trump’s lead, lining your own pocket’s at your own properties.”
No Jay – my answer is what I said. When you alter my answer and claim it is mine – that is both a fallacy and a lie.
“Interesting also that you equate residing at the White House as living in poverty.”
Living in the whitehouse – without heat, food, …. is poverty.
Regardless, you are not complaining about Trump living in the whitehouse.
You are complaining that it is expensive for the SS to protect him when he lives in his actual home.
“A Fool and his Tongue are Never Parted…”
You lack of self awareness is astonishing.
Living at the White House without food or electricity?
What dystopian comic book world are you living in?
Did the electricity go out there once or twice, as it does regularly everywhere, for you to come up with that nonsensical example?
As to food – though rent and utilities are provided free, the President pays for meals for himself, wife and family, and personal guests. Also presidents are expected to pay their own household expenses, including tooth paste and toilet paper. Maybe that’s why cheapskate Donnie visits places he owns so often – so he can wipe his ass for free and swipe toothpaste too.
Also if Trump wants to bring someone on Air Force One who isn’t in the official traveling delegation, they have to reimburse the American people the equivalent of first-class airfare for the flight. Is that why he’s hired Ivanka and Jared, to keep more bucks in Trump pockets?
“Living at the White House without food or electricity?
What dystopian comic book world are you living in?
Did the electricity go out there once or twice, as it does regularly everywhere, for you to come up with that nonsensical example?”
What has this to do with anything ?
You create bizzare disjoint hypotheticals and then complain because they do not match reality. You have jumped from the SS to Rooms at Mar Lago to living at the Whitehouse.
Again a reason to focus on the actual law. It will avoid much of your confusion.
“As to food” etc – we follow the law, whatever it is.
“Maybe that’s why cheapskate Donnie visits places he owns so often – so he can wipe his ass for free and swipe toothpaste too.”
I you do not care if what you claim is correct” It Trump owns the place then what is there – tooth paste, toilet paper etc is HIS.
“Also if Trump wants to bring someone on Air Force One …”
Again there is the law. No where in the law is “trump” mentioned.
There is no special “Trump clause” in the law. The same law applies to all presidents,
I would note that whatever the rules are – those same rules apply to Pelosi, ….
I doubt that Pelosi spent 100,000 taxpayer funds on food and wine – paying for her own dinner and that of her guests.
I will be happy to join you in shutting down the Gravy Train.
But you seem only interested in Trump. That is not getting us very far fast.
Whatever the law is – it is the same for all presidents and anyone else in government who is covered.
BTW you are also wrong about the law. The president gets a 50K/year food allowance – that covers his meals and that of unofficial guests at the whitehouse,
And a 100K Travel allowance that covers any unofficial travel as well as guests.
When Trump is at Mar Lago – some costs go up, and some down.
BTW When Trump is in DC – SS agents live in their home and not on government expense.
Why can’t we do the same at Mar Lago ? Or alternately why can’t the government buy a couple of condo’s 30min away for SS agents ?
If the SS is paying to have SS agents stay at Mar Lago when Trump is at home – that sounds like stupidity in the SS – not Trump.
Further we have this problem with every president – and ex presidents.
Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Carter still have SS agents wherever they are and wherever they go.
If you wish to discus how presidential (or other government security) should be handled – I am fully prepared to do so. With certainty I would cut government provided security for elected and appointed members of govenrment far more than you.
But you do not really want to discuss what security should be provided.
You are just looking to find a new way to “trash Trump”.
Trump is not acting outside the law. If you do not like the law – Change it.
I will join you.
But I do not beleive that you really want to change the law. I beleive that all you want to do is bash Trump by holding him to a standard you would not hold others to.
Regardless, to the extent there is any problem at all -it is with the LAW.
It is NEVER EVER a legal or moral failure for someone – a pauper or president, to act as the law permits. If someone’s legal acts offend you the problem is with THE LAW – so change it.
People are obligated to obey the law, change it, or face the consequences of disobediance.
They are not obligated to obey unwritten laws that exist only in your head.
To the extent you can hold a politician accountable for violating rules that exist only in your head – you do that with your vote. given that we do not all share the rules that are in your head, nor when we do share them place the same weight on them as you – it should not surprise that we do not vote the same.
Further as to the costs associated with the president. I beleive that something like 3500 people are employed by the Whitehouse. I think about 1200 of those are the permanent non-political staff. The cost of maintaining them is enormous – Trump has reduced them – slightly.
Whether it is used or not Marine one costs a small fortune every single day. Whether it is used or not Air Force One costs even more (and there are actually 2 different planes).
This cost is the same – regardless of who is president.
AF1 costs just under 200K/hr in the air – but Most of that cost is present – whether it is flying or sitting waiting.
Speaker Pelosi takes a government provided luxury Jet somewhere on average once every 6 days at an average cost of 225K/Trip. during these Trips Pelosi dines like a Queen – or better, I doubt QE II dines as well.
If you are going to bitch because Trump’s purportedly takes advantage of the law – then be consistent and bitch about everyone who luxuriates at the public expense.
Dear dense Trump wannabe:
My criticism is not of Secret Service protection.
My criticism is of Trump abusing the amount of time he TRAVELS for personal benefit.
Are you really this obtuse?
Oh, right – you admitted you’d do the some thing as President.
Not obtuse- merely sharing the same skin with your hero?
“My criticism is not of Secret Service protection.
My criticism is of Trump abusing the amount of time he TRAVELS for personal benefit.”
Yes, we got that. To you – the actual law and whether it is being followed is not an issue.
Conduct is criminal or angelic based on who the actor is, not the act itself.
So long as Trump’s conduct is within the law – and it is, then your problem – like it or not, is with the law. I am happy to discuss the law with you. I would probably go further than you in changing the law to make what bothers you impossible
But I am not blaming people for following the law.
I am not interested in this nonsense that legal conduct is reprehensible – if done by Trump, but beyond reproach if done by Pelosi.
I am not sharing your Trump Derangement.
You are free to vote as you wish in November.
“Are you really this obtuse?”
I am quite straight forward. I even agree with you on the relevant issue – we should reduce the government waste in providing perq’s to those in government. i would with certainty do so far more draconianly that you would.
“Oh, right – you admitted you’d do the some thing as President.”
Absolutely – whether president or not, I will not be constrained by the varing whims of 330m people. I am constrained by the law. In areas of ethics and morality – rather than law – my choices are my own, and I am answerable to me, and my god.
“Not obtuse- merely sharing the same skin with your hero?”
Trump is not my hero – talk about being obtuse.
There is a gigantic gulf between Trump is a hero, and he is the least bad of the last 3 presidents.
Trump has not as an example “made america great again”. He has arrested its decline from mediocrity to pathetic, and possibly restored it to mediocrity.
But “make america mediocre again” does not come off well as a t shirt or ball cap.
But for millions of people who have not seen 3.5% average growth for 2 decades – this might be the closest they will see to great.
You want Trump out of office ? Easy – deliver a better candidate.
Not Joe Biden and the seven dwarves fighting over themselves to burden the country with even more socialism. Give me a candidate who will make promises that the will keep, and will make promises that 250 years of experience with the economy tell us will work, will get us from 2.5% growth to 3.5 or 7% growth. Given me a president that is not promising me free things – that we all know are not only not free, but incredibly expensive. Give me a president that understands government is the problem, not the answer.
But there is no such choice, and among the choices we have, Trump is the least bad. Though I will still probably vote libertarian, even though they seem intent on being less serious than normal.
But for god’s sake do not ask me to vote for someone I that I have to hope is lying in their campaign promises.
Pelosi has an estimated net worth of over 100M. I do not beleive that she has worked outside of government a single day of her life.
To my knowledge she has no businesses like Trump – that sell government services – so in the most accurate sense of the word – Pelosi has never “profited” from government.
Yet, she has grown unbelievably wealthy as a public servant, and she lives like a queen – much of which is paid for by the public – all perfectly legally.
Pelosi’s net worth is about 1/30 of Trump’s. But I would be very surprised if she does not eat as well, sleep as well and in every way has as much creature comforts as high a personal standard of living.
If Both Trump and Pelosi signed over every single thing they own to the government or to charity or to others and were supported from now until the day they die in the manner they are accustomed too – there would be no noticeable difference in their standard of living.
Neither would be “profiting” from government – in the way you use the world profit.
But both would be living incredibly well at govenrment expense.
And in reality – whether they sell or giver away everything – they likely will be kept quite well at govenrment expense for the rest of their lives.
Dear Mini-Trump: I’ll enlighten your misleading Pelosi net worth insinuation:
It’s not Nancy’s net worth; it’s her family’s worth. Pelosi’s husband Paul is a VERY successful real estate and venture capital businessman. The couple’s net worth stems largely from his investments.
Nancy & Paul have a son, Paul Jr., who trump-cult fascists are trying to smear the same way they smeared Biden and son: with allegations the son used unethical name association to further his own financial resources.
I’m sure you’ll busily scurry the search engines to agree and quote from those mental miscreants.
I beleive that you will find that the estimated wealth of $120M of Nancy Pelosi – is NANCY’s Wealth. Paul has his own.
BTW Nancy’s NW has more than doubled since 2009 – has yours ?
Further I do not care all that much one way or the other about Nancy and her money.
That is not the point. The point is that you rant and rave about the wealth of someone who actually had to create their wealth in the real world by delivering value for value and could not possibly prior to 2016 have made a penny by trading in his public service.
Maybe as you claim Pelosi’s money was made through wise investment and not the priviledges of power – you know like Hillary’s lottery winning stock tip ?
But like the Biden’s – we will never know..
While despite all your ranting and raving about Trump – we know exactly where Trump’s wealth came from – and it was not trading public influence, you can rant that he was born with a silver spoon – which he was, But he turned it into platinum on his own. His children were born with a silver spoon too. As Hunter said – they would not have the jobs they have if Trump was not their daddy. But they still work in the real world and they successfully run an enterprise worth billions. Thousands of jobs depend on them doing their job well.
There are no Ukrainian or Russian oligarchs paying them for get out of jail free cards. ‘
As to the Biden and Pelosi families – as well as many other – democrats – but certainly republicans in that mix. It is likely none of them did anything illegal.
That does not mean that what they have done was moral or ethical.
I have alot more problems with Hunter Biden than all this SS nonsense you are ranting about.
If the SS overpaid for rooms – the SS can work that out – as I said – buy some condo’s 30min away. No one says SS agents are immune from a short commute each day. Or move some agents down to LIVE near Mar Lago – Trump is going to have SS coverage the rest of his life.
Regardless, if you were absolutely correct about your claims – DJT has a few extra sheckles because the SS sleeps in rooms at Mar Lago. Given that Mar Lago is losing money, that “few ” is probably zero.
When we look at the Biden’s in Ukraine – do you have any doubt that GOVERNMENT favors are what Burisma bought from Hunter Biden ? Influence.
What we are talking about is renting government power. Further what is most disturbing is Joe Biden was tasked with cleaning up corruption in Ukraine – and even the impeachment witnesses against Trump were saying Biden and the shenanigans with his son were making things worse, and undermining US credibility.
Is this something that should be investigated ? Damn Straight. And THERE ENDS FAUX IMPEACHMENT. Demanding an investigation does not mean jumping to conviction.
My guess is that nothing Hunter did in Ukraine was illegal. VP Joe broke some ethics laws, but those are not crimes and have no teeth. But his actions were inarguably illegal.
US Officials are not permitted to participate in decision making that might impact relatives.
PERIOD.
As to the Kerry Family – and the Pelosi Family. Are they “dirty” – “criminal” – probably not. After all Pelosi has been writing the laws for decades.
But please lets not stupidly try to claim they made their wealth in the real free market – where value is traded for value. not by peddling public influence.
You constantly try to paint acts of Trump – that are not all that offensive is unethical and immoral as well as illegal. Well what is going on with the Pelosi’s and Kerry’s is much more unethical and immoral – whether it is illegal or not.
And finally one of the reasons we investigate – especially investigate the dubious conduct of those in government is to determine whether the law needs changed.
I do not give a schiff about your rants over who private people GIVE their money to.
I care a great deal how those with public duties act.
The problem with Hunter Biden is not that Hunter did anything illegal. It is the open question of what Burisma got from VP Biden ?
If as is likely what occured is unethical and immoral, but illegal – then an investigation will help us learn how to assure that in the future it is unethical, immoral AND illegal.
You rant and rave over Emoluments. You are wrong on what the law and constitution ARE.
But I am all for reigning in the dubious acts of those in government.
Just to be clear – I do not give a schiff what private people do with their own money – including giving it to politicians in the hope of gaining influence.
I absolutely totally care what those in government do.
We have talked about the SS and its cost. Aside from your TDS, I would be fully supportive of cutting SS costs – RADICALLY, of reducing the perqs of politicians.
But to do that we change the law – in the meantime their taking advantage of those perqs to the extent the law allows – is a question for voters.
But I will be happy to add real teeth to public corruption laws.
I would have no problem making it a crime for future VP’s to make decisions in areas that directly effect family members. That is illegal today – but it is not a crime.
If you want to try to pretend there are real examples of this kind of corruption involving Trump – go for it. But the low hanging fruit is with career politicians.
Is this a problem unique to democrats – I doubt it.
Of course personally – rather than make more crimes. We should give government less power. Why is it that the US government is blackmailing foriegn governments regarding who to investigate or prosecute ? Trump, Biden – I do not care. The easy answer is to end US aide to the Ukraine. Then neither Trump nor biden have any leverage.
I would end foreign aide almost entirely.
“ I beleive that you will find that the estimated wealth of $120M of Nancy Pelosi – is NANCY’s Wealth.”
You believe it based on what evidence?
Let’s see the links.
I beleive that based on reading independent assessments of Paul Pelosi’s wealth as well as different lists of his assets and properties.
Regardless, you are demanding links from me ?
Nothing you ever post is justified by anything – twitter BTW is NOT a source.
When you have restored your crediblity – I will take more seriously your demands for sources.
In the mean time – do your own research. You need the experience.
That’s what I thought – you manufactured her individual wealth from whisks of wishful fantasy.
“That’s what I thought – you manufactured her individual wealth from whisks of wishful fantasy.”
More misrepresentation. Pelosi’s wealth is publicly reported. It is reported from numerous sources and at numerous times. We know her wealth on a year by year basis.
The only inferance that I made – was that her reported wealth did not include her husbands because his assets are reported independently and do not appear to be included in hers.
Based on publicly available information – that is a reasonable inferance.
Both Pelosi’s own alot of high end real estate that is leased.
I own two apartment buildings. Neither of those are in my wife’s name. Almost all our wealth is only in one of our names. In the event either of us were to die – the other would inherit it all tax free. But in the meantime any threats – like a lawsuit or tort would only be able to get at those items owned by one of us. This is a common arrangement.
You as always are the only one engaged in flights of fantasy.
What is your evidence that Pelosi’s reported wealth includes Paul’s ?
“ What is your evidence that Pelosi’s reported wealth includes Paul’s ?”
Dear Donnie Dingbat Doppelgänger: YOU made the the original assertion about Nancy’s wealth without evidence to back it up, now you’re asking me to provide evidence to prove YOUR claim? Duh!
Jay,
Google is your friend.
It is trivial to verify that Nancy’s wealth is north of 100m.
The assertion that it was her husbands not hers – was YOURS not mine.
The highest Estimate of Paul’s NW I have seen is north of $200m. The fact that there are different estimates for Paul than Nancy strongly suggests they are not joint.
And yes – you are the one with the credibility and intergrity problem.
The burden of proof will be YOURs for a long time.
Finally – why does this matter to you ? Are you claiming the Nancy is a kept woman ? That it is all Paul’s money ?
BTW one of the complaints regarding Pelosi is that she drags Paul along on many of her government paid for flights – and clearly neither of them need help from the government.
Finally, i am not attacking Nancy for her wealth. So long as she did not get it through influence peddling I do not care.
The big thing I am pointing out is YOUR double Standard.
Melania Trump’s net worth is estimated at 50M – do you think that is joint ?
Nancy is as entitled to take advantage of the law requarding Perqs as Trump is.
If YOU are unhappy with Trump – you should be unhappy with Pelosi.
If YOU are OK with Pelosi – then you should be OK with Trump.
If you do not like the perqs Trump gets – CHANGE THE LAW – I will support you.
But those changes will impact Pelosi as well as Trump.
I am OK with that – how about you ?
So long as you make everything about Trump – we are not getting anywhere.
I will be happy to join you in changing lots of laws.
Laws that would either make some of Trump’s conduct as president – illegal or impossible.
But my changes would not be restricted to Trump. They would make the conduct of Biden. Pelosi and Trump illegal – or imposible.
But you’re become a Trump bot.
Nothing you post contradicts that.
Jay, the only “bot” here is you.
Every other person here has their won personal unique differences with Trump.
Only you can be predicted almost entirely by Trump – whatever Trump says or does – you reject.
In the very post that you are claiming as evidence I am some Trump toady, I noted some differences with Trump and the fact that I did not and likely will not vote for him.
But the fact that I am not in his thral – even though you are clearly controled by Trump – or more accurately ~Trump. does not mean I am required to agree with every stupid thing said about him.
And you do not seem to be capable of saying anything accurate about him.
Nor does the media,
nor do democrats.
nor does the left.
You have pointed out that we appear to live in two different worlds – and that is accurate.
In my world – the one where the earth orbits the Sun.
It is an established fact that Carter Page was an asset of the CIA and FBI as well as other US intelligence agencies – and that the FBI lied to the FISA court about that and forged documents in a warrant to support that lie.
In your world Carter Page was a russian asset and the FBI was truthful.
Everyone in the country is not in my world – almost half the country is not.
But my world is supported by the facts.
This is not the only example where your world has abandoned reality – there are many many others. But this one will do.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Ayn Rand
It is extremely dangerous to have a contradiction in your world view.
Any argument that contains two premises that contradict each other can continue from that point and prove ANYTHING. That is why the existance of ANY contradiction MUST falsify the argument.
So long as you beleive things that are not true, you can not be trusted.
You can not be trusted for moral and ethical reasons, you can not be trusted for reasons of credibilty, but ultimately you can not be trusted for reasons of logic.
Because the existance of a contradiction, compromises your ability to reach logical conclusions.
If the law permits something – then that thing is legal.
You are free to judge that according to your own personal moral standards.
You are free to try to change the law.
But only those moral standards which are near universal – fundimentally the “though shalt NOTs” can be imposed on others by law.
Postive morality – does not have the same universality, nor can it be imposed by force – the law is force.
Standards poistive conduct – positive morality in public officials are the domain of voters – not the law.
You do not have the right to compel the president or anyone else to live according to any standard beyond the requirements of the law that apply to all of us.
You can no more dictate where the president must live than what he must eat.
The only power that government has over the personal life of the president – is in refusing to pay for it.
As I have said repeatedly – I would radically reduce those entitled to government security protection as well as radically reduce the security provided to those who are.
As a practical matter protecting the president is not possible.
Under normal circumstances the SS protects the president to a distance of 500m when his movements are scheduled in advance. The record longest sniper shot is 3800M I beleive – that is more than 7 times that distance. The safety of thee president depends on the fact that the number of people who can make a 500m shot is very small.
Jay how quickly we forget. Just a couple, could dig up more.
DOJ…Obama ordered FBI not to charge Clinton
NSA/FBI…Obama spying on journalist ( Rosen/Atkinson)
IRS…Obama using IRS to target conservative groups
Bamboozled left the station decades ago.
The list is much longer than that.
There were myriads of criminal referals to DOJ that Obama sat on – including IRSGATE, Fast and Furious, and U1. DOJ actually delayed prosecuting cases against Russian spies unti the Trump administration to hide the actions of the russians from congress to get the U1 deal through congress. some of this even involved Carter Page as a government witness.
Obamna witheld Aide from Ukraine for many months – because he did not want to give Ukraine aide. When he finally relented – he refused to give military aide.
Yet the same democrats are suddenly telling us that a fairly normal temporary hold on aide for any reason is a breach of national security.
There is no active fighting in Ukraine right now. Russians were killing Ukrainians when Obama was slow walking aide.
What have you been “bambozzled” on.
Trump is pretty much the most straight forward president we have ever had.
You can bitch about his style and demeanor – but that was no secret before he became president.
Beyond that on issue after issue – he either did what he said he would, or at the very least he has tried hard to do what he said he would.
I disagree with Trump on several issues – but I KNOW how he will act on those issues – it is not some great secret. There is no “bambozzling”.
More than half the country is praying that if ANY democratic contender is elected that they are LYING about what they will do – or that congress with thwart them. We are scared to death that democrats are NOT “bamboozzling” us, and the only hope for the nation if any of them is elected is that they are.
And the good news is they probably are.
Obama did almost nothing – except talk about most of his campaign promises.
In myraids of ways we wer e”bamaboozled” by Obama – and that is a good thing. His presidency would have been even more disasterous had he kept his promises.
You say that anyone that does not agree with you is blind to facts – but you pretty much NEVER offer any facts.
We depart from you on several major areas.
1) Spin. Even where we agree on facts – Vindman was “fired”. We do not agree on why or whether that is a good or bad thing. That is possibly OK, but ultimately it goes even one step further. Whatever your view of Vindman being fired – you would have no problem with Obama terminating someone in the NSC who opposed his policies – but it is not OK for Obama to do so.
Obama fired Flynn over a policy disagreement. Flynn was right, Obama was wrong. But Flynn does not get to set policy in the Obama administration, and being right does not change that. But you can not see that with this entire cabal that Trump is dealing with – we have exactly the same thing. They disagree with him over Ukraine, the mid-east, Syria, Iran, Turkey. Israel, ….. That is all OK – we need not all agree. But like Obama – Trump was elected president. And UNLIKE obama, Trump is endevoring to impliment the very policies that he ran on. Obama did not run on raproachment with Iran. Trump did run on reversing policies throughout the world – and he is doing what he said he would.
Vindman, Yavonovitch, even Bolton are at odds with the policies Trump ran on and is trying to impliment. Who knows – they may even be right – though I doubt it. But they are not president. They did not get elected. They are all ADVISORS, They do not get to make the US policy. Each of them used the same nonsensicial rhetoric – “the interagency consensus” as if the US is not governed by the representatives WE elect, but by unanswerable elite experts.
Why does it surprise you these people are being fired ?
There is no “bamboozling” here.
Trump is nearly the most predictable US president in our history.
He does what he promised to do.
If that is your idea of being bamboozled – you have a strange definiton of the word.
But then again – you are constantly using deprecative words – especially adjectives – merelly to convey displeasure – with no other meaning, and with no relation to the real meaning of the words.
Trump is a bamboozler – not because he is actually deceptive or hides his intentions – but because bamboozle is a word with negative context, and you slather negative paint on Trump all the time – without any concern that the implication and the reality match.
Trump may be wrong on a variety of issues. But he is not deceptive. He does what he says he will.
Trump is ANTI-Authoritiarian, he is ANTI-Bamboozling.
He is exactly as he presents himself to be – it is trivial to judge him based on the obvious.
So why is it you must constantly make things up ?
Yep, keep trusting that government we have.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-director-carter-page-was-surveilled-illegally
Christopher Wray when ask “The report acknowledges that … this was illegal surveillance with respect to at least several of these FISA applications, because there was not probable cause or proper predication, correct?” …. “Right”.
Meaning IMO “yes there was illegal surveillance, so what? What are you going to do about it?”
Freedoms are not going to be lost due to illegal gun running stings, storing emails on home computers, or putting pressure on foreign governments for different reasons. Freedoms will be lost internally, one step at a time, with our secret agencies spying on Americans like happened with Rosen, Atkinson and this one, Carter Page.
Where are the Gowdy’s and Schiff’s in something far worse than the investigations that have consumed congress for years.
I am extremely disappointed in Wray.
Wray should have been acting to deal with this mess long before the IG’s report came out.
Wray is the FBI director. He did not need Horowitz to come to the conclusion that there was an illegal and improper mess going on with CrossFireHuricane.
He should have on his own had this looked into starting shortly after he was hired. He should have been making changes at the FBI 2 years ago.
Barr seems to understand that his Job is to restore confidence in DOJ and FBI – and that to do so you MUST expose all the misconduct that was going on, and impose consequences.
In a few instances there are potential criminal consequences – but there are many many instance of misconduct that is not criminal but requires consequences. Everyone in the FBI who knew that the FBI was surveiling Page AND knew that Page was a US Asset should be subject to discipline.
We are going way beyond the law to protect a purported whistleblower who with each passing day and each new document looks more like a conspirator who was looking to protect himself more than anything else. Who reported a non-crime based on hearsay.
Yet no one stepped up and said wait a minute we are telling the FISA Court that Carter Page is a Russian Asset – using evidence of contact with Russians that is because he was a US Asset – that is lying.
I would further note that the same people who botched XFH were the people who botched the Clinton investigation and who participated int he mueller investigation.
We are not pubishing bias incompetence and criminality in law enforcement – we are rewarding it.
Wray needs to CLEAN HOUSE.
Under Bush the NSC staff was 100, Under Obama is swelled to 260. Trump had cut it back to 220. The current NSC director is looking to cut it to 120 in the next 6 months.
Vindman, his brother and more than half the current NSC staff are all going to be re-assigned.
One of my disappointments with Trump is NOT firing enough people.
I do not know what the spat was between Trump and Tillerson. But Tillerson was working aggressively to cut the state department by 1/3. I STRONGLY support that.
Pompeo has restored the State Department to the same staffing it was pre-Trump – that is a mistake.
I do not personally see our state department as especially vital.
The security council should be the minimum number of individuals possible, few if any should be retained from previous administrations and any assignment should be fully vetted to insure support for the adminitration. Anyone assigned should agree to unscheduled and multiple lie detector exams with 3-4 basic questions concerning leaks and communications with anyone outside the council, the same as individuals agree to drug testing in nedical, transportation and other facilities. Anyone failing the test would be immediately reassigned, the same as those failing drug testing. When there are 250+ people, especially holdovers from opposing party administrations, you have 250+ possible leakers.
And this goes for any president. If I were Sanders and got elected, how many hired by Trump could you trust?
This is why Trump will win in November.
There is a huge difference between the left and right in terms of “grass roots”.
The media, the left, the democrats have done an excellent job of building and sustaining Trump outrage over the past 3 years. But anger is degenerating to anxiety and anxiety to depression. Further Democratic efforts are “organized” – “organizing” is in the bones of left wing movements – and organizing consumes energy, and it is not actually all that much fun.
One of Alinsky’s rules is that what your people are doing must be “fun”.
Contrast this to Trump rallies. There is little organization to a Trump rally, These people are coming out to have fun. It is like a football or baseball game to them. The crowds outside are like the tailgate parties. Certainly there is some “organization” but it is organic – not heirachical. Again these people are having fun.
I would suggest finding youtube clips of “the deplorable choir”.
You probably will not like them. But you should compare them to the left – they kind of just happened as a response to Hillary’s “deplorable’s” comment. they are having fun, they are organic. They do not have the same sense of structure and intentionality. They are more spontaneous. And yet they are very successfull. Contrast that to Warren’s failed meme factory. In response to the jeers that “the left can’t meme” Warren actually hired a director of meme’s and a staff and they spent months preparing for the warren campaign’s meme team announcement with a whole barrage of democratic meme’s. But the whole thing flopped, The few memes that got approved by the SJW types were dud’s, and the good memes were too offensive to use.
Warren spent real campaign funds to put together a team to do something that Trump gets from his supporters who are just having fun for free, and Warren failed.
The left is burning itself out. This is not accidental, it is structual.
With few exceptions those on the right do not expend the same energy on politics as those on the left. When some political event motivates them – they do not mostly organize, they do not hold bake sales, or marches – or if they do they are more spontaneous and less organized.
Those on the right are like spectators at a sporting event – cheering their team, showing up in the stands, holding tailgate parties in the parking lots, sometimes angry but always having fun.
Those on the left are like the teams themselves – deadly serious, training. preparing, organizing. Working hard at everything, but not spontaneous, not having fun.
Further trump has succeeded in amplifying these differences.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-arrested-allegedly-driving-van-gop-registration-tent/story?id=68859140
WOW!, The liberals have violent people also. Who would have thought?
I think it is time the anyone buying, leasing or renting a car or truck needs to have a background check before the transaction can be finalized.😈😈😈😈😈
James field was sentenced to life in prison for driving a car into a group of people.
Heather Heyer – who was NOT struck by Field died of a heart attack. Contra the news photo’s of her – at the time she was severly over weight in bad health and a heavy smoker.
Fields had a history of mental health problems.
But for the lunatic left’s need for hate crime convictions anywhere else would have received a mental health sentence – either guilty of not guilty by reason of mental health.
John Hinckley – who attempted to kill Reagan was release in 2016 at the age of 60
It is unlikely that Fields will ever be released.
It is unlikely that Gregory Timm will do serious time.
We have a double standard.
Fields was a necescary scape goat for the left.
The Charlottesville Rally was an example of the failure of the Charlottesville Police and the VA State police, and resulting in Antifa and Angry left wing protestors violently attacking an assortment of alt-right protestors. Who had to run a gauntlet twice – once to get to the site or their sanctioned protest, and once more after they were not allowed to protest and they were forced to leave.
In both cases no police were present, and counter protestors overran the barriers to attack the scheduled marchers.
Having been pummeled and pelted both ways – Fields who had a mental history of paranoia lost it. It is possible that he deliberately attacked counter protestors with his car, it is also possible he got lost trying to get away and lost control when protestors started beating on his car with baseball bats.
No one is looking to excuse what he did.
Only to note that:
It was far less grave than what Hinckley did.
It was less premeditated than Hinckley
It was less premeditated than timm
Both Hinkley and Fields had mental health issues – while Timm does not appear to.
But Fields will die an jail and Hinckley will not, and Timm probably will not even get serious jail time.
But there is no double standard here.
Clearly Fields is guilty of a hate crime and Timm is not – its not like Republicans can be victims of hate ?
I also note – that the left – which celebrates women, and demands that we do not judge them by standard such as beauty has consistently used a decade old photo of Heyer – when she was healthy and attractive, rather than the unhealthy and overweight person at Charlotte.
But it is the right that purportedly has double standards ?
This is a recent Trump political add based on the SOTU.
The point of posting this is to demonstrate how much Trouble the democrats are in in Nov.
I really do not care much about Pelosi tearing up her copy of the SOTU. I am not outraged by it. But this purportedly brilliant politician in doing so gave Trump an absolutely incredible visual that he is using extremely effectively.
This add is pretty amazing – while not quite Reagan’s “bear in the woods” or “morning in america”, it is an effective combination of positive and negative advertising. It is a potent “attack add” – yet not a single negative word appears in the add.
Another cute ad, from the RNC. Didn’t the Democrats know this would happen?
Another cute ad from Bloomberg, that will be streaming through the election…
Liar-Liar-Pants On Fire 🔥
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-bloomberg-donald-trump-lie-campaign-ad_n_5e3d4127c5b6f1f57f0f1a40
And all the people who were never going to vote for Trump in the first place will be drooling over it.
Jay – Democrats lost their last chance at sliming Trump with the Mueller report.
It does not matter what Bloomberg posts.
Bloomberg has been running over $100m in anti=trump adds over the past 8 weeks – during that Time Trump’s approval has hit record numbers.
President Uncouth
Aparently Bloomberg is unfamiliar with the history of US presidents.
Jackson – a Democrats is remarkably like Trump – another populist president getting pretty much the same reaction as Trump from DC and from the american elites.
Please enlighten me as to the greatness of
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Warren G. Harding
Franklin Pierce
Andrew Johnson
and James Buchanan
Ah, yes, our great President Bill Clinton was extremely concerned with the decorum of his office, especially when he invited 22 year old interns into the Oval Office. He didn’t make them stand up for long periods of time, which was quite gracious of him.
I actually thought that Clinton’s political intincts were good, and he realized, once the GOP won the Congress, that he had to become more moderate.
But he was a disgusting horndog. So spare us the partisan BS.
Domestically Clinton was a good president – even before Republicans took congress.
His only significant domestic mistake was the Hillary National Healthcare Fiasco.
But he was pretty poor in forign policy.
And he was and remains a repulsive person.
Clinton traveled to Lolita Island atleast 20 times – and I doubt it was for the beeches.
Dave, I wonder how long it would take someone to leak Trump taking trips on planes like the Lolita Express to Orgy Island like Clinton did multiple times after leaving office. Bet it would not stay quite for more than 13 years like it did for Bill.
And what the heck do those 4 secrets service agents tell their family they were doing on that island with Bill. ” Honest honey nothing happened! ” Yeah, right.
there is some documentation that Clinton took more than 20 trips.
He was only accompanied by SS 13 times.
Aparently ex-presidents are allowed to shed the secret service sometimes.
Those agents tell the families nothing – not where they have been, nothing, that is the job.
FOIA documents reported by Judicial Watch shows Bill Clinton with 4 SS agents on certain dates.
Wife. Reads article showing date of travel. ” Honey didnt you go on an assignment on x/xx/xxx with Bill Clinton? Remeber when you could not attend Sally’s school play she was the lead part? ”
S.S. agent… “Mumbke, mumble..ah, well, ah you know I cant discuss those trips”
Wife..”Yeah right since it was on Orgy Island. After Monika that sure needs to be kept quite. Did you enjoy yourself? “
Cut, But the SOTU add is far more potent. It is a “positive add”, While at the same time and without any words, painting a negative picture of pelosi and democrats using her own actions.
I find it brilliant.
Jay just pushed a bloomberg add.
Blomberg has run about 100M in anti-Trump adds int he past 8 weeks.
Youtube keeps popping them up on me.
The only thing I remember about any of them – is that they annoy me by delaying the time it takes to watch the video I wanted.
I have watched a few to the end – they may even be good, but they are not effective.
We are WAY PAST any ability to define Trump through the media. We have 4 full years of 24×7 Trump – everyone’s oppinion is already formed.
The Mueller report was Democrats last hope.
If House democrats had actually proved that Trump balckmailed Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens – and as Schiff said – create dirt from thin air, the impeachment still would have failed. Not because Republicans control the senate. but because people do not care.
Trump’s supporters would have responded – “So what” – that is no different from what Obama and Clinton and the FBI (and CIA” did to him”
What’s good for the goose, ….
Whatever happened in Ukraine the biggest harm to Trump, is that absent establishing a conspiracy with Schiff and Vindman, and Ciaramello, and … that is more an effort to coverup their own misconduct by targeting Trump, Trump has undermined his own moral outrage over the CrossFireHuricane nonsense.
That is potentially the worst damage of impeachment.
Trump is not teflon like reagan – nothing sticks.
But he is protected – because no one cares.
And that is the fault of the media and the left and the democrats.
Trump’s attack adds against Democrats will work in 2020 – because his targets are not defined yet. Knocking out Biden is a big deal – because Biden is the most well defined democrat.
“The only thing I remember about any of them – is that they annoy me by delaying the time it takes to watch the video I wanted.”
Wonderful. Nice to know I dont live in the “annoyed” neighborhood of life alone.
Jay,
I told you months ago that Biden was toast.
Are you ready to admit that yet ?
Absolutely he has held on with duct tape and bailing wire for a long time.
But the wheels are finally coming of the cart.
Further it was YOUR efforts to impeach Trump that did him in.
That and the DNC’s brazen efforts to favor him over Sanders – deja vue of 2016.
People may be angry at Republicans for not calling witnesses – but they wanted to hear from more than Bolton – they wanted to hear from the Biden’s and all the rest of Trump’s witnesses.
The scheduling the resulted in Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar trapped in DC while Biden – and aparently Butigieg got to trapse arround IOWA can not be blamed on republicans.
Pelosi and democrats did that to themselves – not only did democrats make Trump stronger by impeaching him, but they hammered in the damage to their own annointed candidate.
Then the botched the IOWA primary, The botched the getting on top of the botch, They look really corrupt by allowing Bloomberg into the debates in violation of their own rules.
Recent DEMOCRATIC editorials are attacking the DNC for getting behind Biden in the first place. The story is how could the DNC put forward as their standard bearer a candidate who obviously could not win. Whether the editorial is focussed on Biden’s early signs of senility, or his corruption, or his abraviseness on the campaign trail, the story is NOT so much about Biden – as the failure of the democratic party to realize that they had a bad candidate (and a bad slate of candidates). These critics are bemoaning that even If Bloomberg is the right choice – he has entered too late.
But this is the same thing Democrats did in 2016. Clinton should NOT have been the democratic candidate. We can skip relitigating the Clinton email mess. The fact is whether she was prosecuted or prosecutable is accademic, When the email issue came to the surface democrats hould have found another candidate and they did not.
And 2020 is 2016 all over again.
If Democrats can not figure out how to run a primary without making horrible choices, looking corrupt, and incompetent – how are they going to win a general election ?
Jay, how many political ads are you getting in California. We can not turn on the TV without seeing Mike Bloomberg on almost every commercial break from 7:30 to 10:00. And now asshole Obama has his face stuck in one trying to tie Bloomberg to Obama policies to get him more votes. My mute button is going to be worn out!
`Don’t Watch local tv media here, Ron. Get News via internet memberships, and streaming cable – I daily monitor NYT, LAT, BBC, WaPo, WSJ, Fox, and periodically look at on line news apps for Israel, Spain, Ireland, and Brazil (that for the Rio Carnival updates – you should too if you have any masculine urges still operative 😏)
if you monitor Fox daily you see far more of Fox than I do.
As Biden tanks Jay and all the other slightly less the other democrats teriffied of Sanders will start worshipping Bloomberg.
Even Bloomberg does not have enough money to take out Trump.
The press have been unrelentingly negative about Trump for 4 years – how is a couple of hundred million in TV adds going to do what the 24×7 left news could not do ?
I can understand claiming that Reagan or Carter had better character than Trump.
But LBJ ? Really ? We are talking someone more evil than Nixon dreamed of being.
And Bloomberg starts with a president wbho slept with a german spy during wartime while in the navy, and who slept with the paramore of a Mafia Don as president ?
And then there is Clinton.
Regardless – no one is paying any attention to bloomberg.
You do not understand – you have cried wolf too many times.
You have made Trump impervious to attack.
That is what happens when you lie too much.
But beleive what you want.
The NSC was created in 1947 – pretty much over the objections of Truman and might be unconstitutional – as it was created by congress and infringes on the perogatives of the president.
Truman pretty much ignored the NSC and consulted the advisors of his own choosing.
Which has been relatively commonplace.
The original NSC had 3 members.
Just get rid of it.
Let whoever is president decide who they want National Security advice from.
No comments required. Just a P.S.A. for your info if you have retirement funds that may be handed down to others after your passing. There are tax ramifications from tax reform bill.
https://www.journalnow.com/business/larry-hungerford-pluses-and-one-big-minus-of-the-new/article_e13aecf8-d527-55eb-b620-5bd8b063db17.html
The windmill expert ruminates about contagious disease:
Trump: People think the coronavirus will “go away in April” because of “the heat.”
Will that be before or after Mexico pays for the wall?
So Jay, what does Jay with the TDS News Network Daily Report have for us today concerning President Trump failures concerning the coronavirus.
Seems to me canceling most all China travel, quarantining returning Americans on military bases for 14 days, testing many on cruise ships and other actions is more than what was done with Sars and other viruses. He has offered multiple times to send medical help to China.
So what else would you be doing. And dont say speed up construction of that wall you referenced because that virus is not coming here from the southern border
Ron – EVERYTHING is about “the wall”
Except the things that are about “emoluments”.
Say that 4 times fast
I think those moves certainly are correct, Ron.
And I’m sure you’re 100% certain Trump came up with those ideas all by himself, without insistent urging from multiple government agencies, because he’s primed to act decisively in emergencies, as he did during 9/11, rushing to assist the city in any way possible. (Sarcasm).
Has he bragged yet there’s been Zero cases of the virus at Mar-a-Lago? (Mock contempt)
I have a software project that involves controlling a communications laser.
Initially I did all the work, but eventually I delegated increasing parts of the project to others. Now I mostly supervise, make some of the big decisions – based on input from subordinates who I rarely overrule, and do the billing.
If things go to hell – I am responsible, I get sued, I get blamed. And rightly so.
If someone working for me forks up – I might fire them – that is pretty much the worst I can do to them. but I will still get sued. And if someone working for me screwed up – I will lose that lawsuit. I will be held responsible. It is my company, my business, the risk is my, the rewards small or large are mine, and the responsibility is mine. I own every decision that is made on the project – whether i make it myself or someone working for me makes it.
To the extent there is a difference – the burdens of responsibility for the president are larger.
If the Corona virus is mishandled by the US – some people in government might be fired – fat Chance. But Trump will be blamed – RIGHTLY. It is not his job to be the “expert” it is his job to make the decisions – or to delegate them to people he trusts.
This is also why Vindman and Sonderland and myriads of others must go.
When Vindman talked about Trump being at odds with the “interagency consensus”.
Lost in Vindman’s nonsense was the fact that ultimately The President is responsible.
No one is ever going to impeach Vindman. Or the inter agency. They are advisors, not deciders. Even when they make decisions – it is only because the power to do so has been DELEGATED to them. The real responsibility still rest with Trump, as does the final decision.
Just like with my software project.
It is funny that you bring up 9/11 – who was the NYC Mayor at the time ?
Who was the man of the moment ? America’s Mayor ?
Who was everywhere – including right in the debris for hours immediately after ?
That would be the same guy you think is a nut job conspiracy theorist now.
Rudy Giuliani
Who was in the debris for hours following 9/11 attack?
Hillary was there too.
You saying neither has dramatically changed over the decades?
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/giuliani-clinton-wtc.jpg?w=656&quality=85
No Hillary was NOT There – she was in DC when the attack occured.
She appeared on the news several times in the immediate aftermath and spoke about 9/11 – primarily about going after those who did this too us, and she did so from DC.
I am not faulting her, There is nothing wrong with anything she did or said.
She and Schumer and Rangel where helicoptered to NYC by FEMA on the 12th – which is where your picture came from.
Trump was a virtual non-entity on 9/10/2001. He was still not completely past some of his financial problems of the 90’s. He had not yet started the apprentice.
On 9/11/2001 he was 4 miles from Ground Zero – because that’s where he lived.
He too was interviewed repeatedly on that day including by Howard Stern as well as for many days afterwards.
Trump was first able to get to Ground Zero on 9/13/2001. Unlike Clinton he walked – no FEMA helicopters took him. He did an interview from ground Zero where he claimed to have brought 125 volunteers to help, with another 100 coming.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-hillary-clinton-september-11-911-attacks-nyc-214236
There is nothing wrong with either of their conduct at that time. They had different styles and different roles. Clinton was in government, and he focus was on government aide and retaliation.
Trump was interviewed as a famous new yorker and as a real estate molgul. He is the first to have said things like – never forget, this changes everything, and that we must rebuild. He was not asked as much and did not speak as much about government aide or about military retaliation.
Right – she was there within 24 HOURS, the next day, as the photo of her alongside Rudy shows. That’s not fast enough for you?
And BTW, the current decrepit deceitful Rudy claimed with certainty during the election campaign Hillary was not there touring the site, and had to quickly recant when the photo surfaced.
Though Rudy metamorphosed into an asshole over time, Trump has consistently been one throughout his life. 9/11 was no different: – he made-up claims to puff up his ego:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/11/fact-check-did-trump-help-ground-zero-after-9-11-attacks/2289053001/
I did not complain About Clinton. I merely pointed out that your claim that she was there the same day was false.
Both Clinton and Trump were engaged regarding 9/11 nearly immediately after it happened.
Both were on site quickly.
I have no criticism of how Clinton handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11/2001
Though I would note that her actions were consistent with her job as Junior Senator from NY.
Trump was a private actor – nothing he did was his “job”. If he was at Ground Zero it had nothing to do with his job. It was to help.
Absolutely he sought the spotlight – he always has – so does Hillary, so does all politicians.
As to your claims regarding Rudy – PROVE IT. Your credibility sucks.
Giuliani has CONSISTENTLY given Hillary high praise for her efforts regarding 9/11/2001.
He did so even when he was speaking out against her over other things.
As to this claim that Giulliani metamorphosed. Sorry Jay – very very few people change like that. Further Giulliani has no need to. He had a very successful public career, he was well respected by people of both parties. He is well past retirement.
I would note the same is True of Derschowitz. Alan is unchanged from the person he was 50 years ago. He is still defending the civil liberties of downtrodden or the hated.
Sometimes he defends celebrities. On occasion even guilty people. Often people he does not like. He has openly stated he is a democrat, did not vote for Trump and will not vote for him and does not support him as president. But that does not alter in the slightest his legal argument that the recent impeachment was improper and harmful to the country – and he is right.
I would note that with respect to Ukraine – Giulliani has plenty of support.
Other former US Attorney’s indicate that things in Ukraine stink.
John Solomon has independently confirmed most of what Giuliani has produced.
And Solomon was a near universally respected reporter until he made the mistake of finding thing favorable to Trump or unfavorable to democrats.
As Derschowitz (and Giulliani) have noted – those on the left and democrats shun those who reveal inconveinent Truth.
But you like democrats and the left are incapable of seeing anything but through the lens of politics.
Orange Man Bad – so he must have been bad in 2001 too.
Since Giuliani was once respected by you and now he is saying things you do not like – HE must be the one who changed. You are incapabale of grasping that maybe he is little different, and the truth is just not what you want.
As to your “fact checked” – Chief Aisles was extremely busy and Ground Zero was huge – encompassing many city blocks – as I recall ultimate 4 buildings at or near the WTC collapsed and several others were heavily damaged.
Regardless, Ailes is incorrect – Trump was videod LIVE at Gound zero less than 48hours after. Did he bring 100 or 200 others to help ? Who knows ? I doubt the press has gone to the trouble to properly check it.
Do you know how bad the overal error rate of the media “fact checkers” is ?
They rarely get anything right. They constantly confuse oppinion with fact.
They are under the delusion that media reports are self confirming – that something is automatically true of more than one news outlet reports it.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where we could trust reporters.
I would hope that the whole Trump/Russia Collusion nonsense, the Mueller and Horowitz Reports would have confirmed to you – THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
Random chance would result in a lower error rate than the media reporting on Trump/Russia – or Trump anything.
Trump brags, exagerates, is imprecise, and on occasion is just plain flat out wrong.
But the media reporting on Trump – like YOU is even worse. It would be really nice to have a president we could trust – when have we had that ? Clinton ? Bush ? Obama ?
But it is actually more critical to have a press we can trust. And we do not. It is not even close.
Boy, you have to take everything to irrelevant tangents.
NO ONE has faulted Clinton with respect to 9/11. Even Guilliani has praised her RECENTLY for her efforts to get financial help.
Trump was in a different position, played a different role, and as usual those in the press will always check the thread count of his underwear looking for flaws. Regardless, Trump’s actions on 9/11 and immediately after were is appropriate given his different role.
But Guliani was in an altogther different league. 9/11 was his moment in history. and all but the most partisan credit him for his actions that day an in the days that followed.
At this moment Guliani is at the center of the Ukraine mess. Many of the same people who called him a hero almost 20 years ago are claiming he is now a deranged conspiracy theorist.
I would note that 9/11 is not Guilliani’s only accomlishment.
Giuliani was an incredibly successfuly NYC mayor taking office at the peak of a crime wave and radically reducing Crime in NYC.
Giuliani was a very succesfull US attorney leading njumerous very high profile prosecutions including Boesky and the Mafia. The FBI has evidence that the Mafia took out several contracts on him.
NO doubt, he is most learned PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!
TRUMP: “The European Union was really formed so they could treat us badly.”
MAGAts (pronounced like maggots) rejoice! The PLOT revealed.
Crude and simplistic – but accurate.
The EU was formed to server the interests of the EU,
While everything is not zero sum – somethings are.
The EU as a common market – is a good idea.
The EU as a monetary union is more difficult. There are nations that have thrived absent control of their own money – there are countries that have made the US dollar their official currency and are doing fine. But doing so requires picking a very stable currency base – because the economy of your country will be effected by monetary changes you have no control over. That said – given that the monetary base is stable – the best monetary policy is NONE – i.e. a stable foundation with no possibility fo government meddling – not your own government, not any other. That is the fundimental appeal of the gold standard. It has nothing to do with gold and everything to do with restricting the control of government.
But one of the problems with the European monetary union is not only are countries effected by monetary policies decided remotely – the unions monetary policies are effected – usually negatively by bad fiscal policy in individual countries – see greece.
The last problem is political union – and the EU is a mess – that is why the UK is leaving, and why the EU will likely fall apart over the long run. It is pretty much impossible to have common law and governance over 500M people with so many languages and cultures and despite all that no real tradition within individual states of multiculturalism.
Dave, I have moved your direction on Trump retaining the margins or growing them in some swing states. Still would not bet money on it. But in past elections, Libertarian votes were less than 1/2 a million except for 2016 when Gary Johnson received 4.4M. Looking at thev swing states, reducing Johnsons votes by those received Stein, giving just 50% to Trump still keeps Trump the state winner. And I think a Johnson voter will either sit out the presidential voteor vote for Trump. I cant see a libertarian voting for government regulation of healthcare, green new deals, higher taxes, etc.
With respect to predicting elections – my views are just that – views.
What separates me from political experts is that I know that I do not know what I am doing.
When I look at track records – the experts (both left and right) have done very badly.
We also face alot of contradictory data. Which poses problems.
I would note that Polls are not guaranteed to be consistent.
You can have a poll of 1800 people that produces results claiming Trump will lose to every democrat.
And then another set of polls that shows Trumps support higher in nearly every demographic block than in 2016 – and have both polls be correct – meaning – they really did poll a bunch of people and really did get those results.
I am personally still trying to sort out 2018.
Democrats walloped Republicans in the house. It was a pretty stinging defeat.
But the senate and governors races were almost completely at odds with the house races.
Republicans very nearly swept all possible Senate races. Regardless, they won more than their share of really tight senate races, and could very easily have done even better.
I still do not know what that means.
Further the NORM is that conservatives do better in off year elections.
But the NORM is also that out of power parties do better in off year elections.
Anyway my point is that anybody can look at the information that is out their and be able to claim most anything as the likely results for 2020.
2016 was a shock – because it defied predictions. It defied polls, it defied the analysts.
My “guts” – and the data I choose to place the most importance on strongly suggests that republicans are going to do well in 2020.
I would also say that unusually – the 2020 election – from the bottom to the top is going to be about Trump (with few exceptions). If Republicans get wiped out in the house and Senate – it will be because the election is about Trump. If Republicans take back the house and maintain the status quo or even pick up a seat in the senate – it is going to be about Trump.
Electoral success is often about the party that is most angry – or atleast the segment of the electorate. The GOP success through the Obama years was because of quiet anger reflected by the Tea Party.
No sane person doubts the left, the media and the democrats are pouring gasoline on a fire of anti-Trump anger. And absolutely at various times in his presidency that anger was nearly all consuming.
But I think there are 4 large factors favoring Trump:
Trump anger is fading – it is turning to anxiety and depression.
Angry people vote.
Anxious people sometimes vote
Depressed people don’t vote.
The Trump opposition has thrown EVERYTHING at Trump.
My guess is that if the media just reported the facts and no spin from now until election day, Trump’s favorability would be in the upper 60’s.
That is not happening. But that observation is important.
Trump’s favorability is like a ball being held under water – absent the constant attacks from the left, democrats, the press, Jay, … that ball is popping up.
So between now and the election how is the press going to keep the ball under water ?
I also keep citing the story of two guys in the woods being chased by a bear. One guy stops to put on his sneakers – because he understands – he does NOT have to outrun the bear.
He just has to outrun the other guy.
Trump does NOT have have high favorability. He just has to do better than the other contenders.
The best scenario for Trump right now is Sanders quickly establishes that he is the Democratic candidate and locks this up shortly.
The next best scenario is the conflict rages all the way to the democratic convention.
Even if Biden remains in the race – even if he gets the nominiation.
He is “dead man walking” – he can not beat Trump anymore.
And Biden has always been the most serious threat.
If Sanders is the candidate – Trump runs against Socialism. And Sanders will play right into Trump’s arms.
If Biden is the candidate – Trump runs against corruption and competence and inautheticty.
In 2016 a major factor in the election was authenticity – Trump was what you saw. Sanders was what you saw. Clinton was what she needed to be to win, and everyone knew it.
Biden has massive authenticty problems.
While he does not have the negatives that Clinton had – he also does not have the stature Clinton had. Clinton was formidable. Biden is not. Apparently he blew up at some democrat voter today with a weird insult. Biden has lots of problems and he is beyond fixing them. He probably can’t. Maybe without the corruption problem we would have swept the rest under the rug.
But Trump “won” the impeachment. Not only did his numbers improve from the start to the end – but EVERYONE ELSE’s (except sanders) tanked. Trump is not popular – but he is undeniably MORE popular. Pelosi is LESS popular, the house is less popular, the democrats are less popular.
I heard a poll recently that claimed that self identified republicans outnumber self identified democrats – that has not been true in decades – if ever. That poll might be an outlier – but even outliers have meaning.
The economy is NOT as strong as Trump claims. But it is much stronger than under Obama.
And people really are noticing that. Even Democrats ADMIT that. The various democratic pundits are writing about how DESPITE the good economy they are going to beat Trump.
That is NOT what you ever want to be writing about if you want to win.
That might work – it could happen. But your own the wrong side of the odds, and you do not want to either be there or admit you are there.
Next is the democrats demographics is destiny argument is DYING.
Trump has reshaped the Republican party – not just its core positions – but the actual makeup of the republican party.
I do not know what is happening with Neo-Cons – Many major neo-cons hate trump more than democrats. But NOT ALL. Bolton does not like Trump – but his is still a republican.
Further – as must as I might oppose it Trump has stuck to STRONG DEFENSE.
He is like Reagan – carry a really really really big stick, wave it arround sometimes in a crazy fashion scaring the shit out of people – and do remember – we heard the same nonsense about Reagan starting WWIII as Trump. but Reagan’s big military adventure was “Grenada”.
And Reagan LEFT Lebanon after they bombed the Marine baracks.
Reagan did not fight if it was not in the US interests – regardless of the provocation.
Trump appears the same. At least he is similar.
Jay claimed the military opposed Trump. The polls on that are mushy. The Officer corp is STRONGLY Anti-Trump. But grunts are STRONGLY behind Trump. The people who get shot and killed are behind Trump, and their families are.
Trump is not going to win the minorty vote – or even come close. But if he takes 5% of it from democrats – they can’t win. Most of Trump’s gains are with Men – white men, black men, hispanic men. Blue Collar working Men.
Trump is turning the GOP in to the working class party.
Further the demographic changes Trump is making inside the GOP – are likely permanent.
And will likely grow over time.
Republicans have been trying to appeal to minorities with charter schools for a long long time. DeVos might well be Trump’s secret weapon. It is near certain that the 2018 GOP victories in FL were because 300K black single women with kids voted republican – and they did so for one reason – Democrats threatened to take away their charter schools.
Education is a huge issue for minorities – Particularly Blacks. Trump is agressively supporting HBC’s.
I think the end of the total dominance of democrats over Minorities was inevitable.
But Trump has accelerated it.
I would also note that Trump’s war on immigration works to his advantage with minorities – partly directly. Those groups distant from their own immigrant root just like whites see immigrants as a threat to their jobs.
But indirectly – how is it that the jobs numbers keep climbing, even though unemplyment AND Labor force participation are both at historic levels ?
Partly I do not know. But atleast partly this is because Trump has radically cut into both LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. Illegal border crossings are less than 1/3 what they were.
There is lots of evidence these people were economic immigrants – they came for jobs – not the american dream. Many stayed here for several years and went home (replaced by the next generation of younger immigrants). Well if they are not filling jobs – somebody else has to. There are probably about 80K jobs PER MONTH that are available because of reduced Illegal immigration. And legal immigration is way down too.
And who is getting these jobs ? The working Class – particularly minorities.
Trump is slashing welfare rolls – not by driving people off – but because both reducing immigration, and increasing the standard deduction in the tax reform are large incentives to get a job.
Growth is lower than trump claims – but jobs gains are huge – why the discrepancy ?
Because WAGES at the bottom are rising.
Not driven by idiotic minimum wage laws – but driven by supply and demand.
Wages- especially at the bottom are rising – take home is higher because of the tax cut, and inflation is really low.
The economy as a whole is NOT booming as Trump claims.
But the economy for working class people is probably better than it was under Clinton.
Trump is making the GOP the party of the working class, and the democratic party of while elites.
Democrats are still trying to sell class warfare, and they do not understand – Working class anger at Billionaires is just not that strong. EVERYONE is making more that the working class. A white College Professor shouting “eat the rich” looks like dinner to the blue collar worker.
Reporters like Selena Zito – who was the first to notice that rust belt voters were listening to Trump in 2016 – is now reporting that not only haven’t these voters left Trump – but in OH, PA, WI, MN their numbers are growing.
So lets make it clear. Democrats MUST take back SEVERAL of the “swing states” Trump won in 2016. and they must do it without losing any other states.
They can not lose VA, NM. NV. NH. Maine. CO,
Next is the Cry Wolf effect. I beleive the impeachment was a disaster for Democrats.
So many “bombshells” have purportedly exploded on Trump he should be atomized by now.
Yet, barely a glove has been laid on him.
And before we start ranting about partizanship – absolutely accusations sway people – temporarily. But ultimately you MUST deliver. Cry wolf and everyone comes running.
But when there is no wolf over and over. People quit listening.
Bloomberg is going to flood the market with hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-trump adds.
And they are unlikely to budge the needle.
People will listen to dirt on Sanders, or Warren or Biden – because they have not been barraged by relentless and ultimately false claims. Trump has – the only people listening to anti-trump adds are those that were never voting for him anyway.
Between now an the election to move voters away from Trump more than briefly, you would need video of Trump getting a BJ from a 13yr old boy in the Oval.
People will not beleive or will not care because they have heard way too much of this nonsense.
The left is screaming Partisan over the impeachment. Republicans were not less partisan in 1972. Republicans were going to vote to impeach Nixon – because there was COMPELLING evidence. – not gossip, not policy disagreements. Not a spitball battle between congress and the whitehouse. Nixon arranged to pay for the silence of the watergate burglars, and he did so to prevent charges and investigations of those on CREEP that hired them.
No one heard anything that was compelling.
And democrats from the start had several problems:
Most people understand that the Biden’s should be investigated.
Witholding aide was just not going to fly – because one of the big things Trump wanted investigated – was Biden Threatening to withhold aide.
Everytime the Democrats said the claims against Biden were debunked they were completely undermining the claim that Trump could not withhold aide.
Trump spent 3 years on the short end of democrat driven partisan investigations. And the impeachment itself was a transparently partisan investigation. It was just going to be really hard to get people upset over Claims that Trump was engaged in partisan investigations.
Finally, democrats are quite obviously getting more and more desparate all they time.
Voters smell desparation.
Nobody will likely read this far, but if they do – I do not agree with all of the above.
Meaning – I do think this is what is happening, but I do not universally support all of it.
Just because some of Trump’s policies have benefited working class americans does not mean they are good policies.
I would also note – while Trump is the republican leader in alot of the above.
I think we are looking at a permanent re-alignment of the parties.
Republicans have shed some Neo-Cons, and the remainers will have minimal power.
Republicans are losing white post college and possibly college educated voters.
Republicans are losing a small percent of women.
They are increasing with men, with minorities, and with the working class.
Republicans are becoming the non-interventionaist party.
If republicans hold power – immigration will be way down – and voters will know that and vote accordingly.
If republicans hold power – Trade deals will be unilateral not multilateral, and this weird amalgam of muscular free trade/fair trade. Republicans are not going to be the party of protectionism. but they are going to be the party that throws arround our economic might to get free trade deals that are closer to actually free.
Republicans will be confrontational with Iran, North Korea, China, even the EU and Nato, throwing our weight arround WITHOUT starting a war.
The foreign policy of Republicans in the future will have sharp differences with that of Democrats
Democrats are going to continue to shout about eating the rich, transphobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, hateful hating haters – to diminishing effect.
Ultimately I think these changes make it much harder for democrats to win elections.
Future republicans will adopt this “trumpism” – with minor regional variations – because it is a winning arrangement.
And this will remain this way until Democrats find a new approach. And I think Democrats are in for a long time in the woodshed – 2016 was the moment for reflection and change in the democratic party. The die for the future is now cast.
But the realingment of voters is only just started. It took 6 decades for the GOP to flip the south. It may take decades for the GOP to get the majority of minority voters. But they will get more every year.
I see the Obama presidency as the Gettysburg of modern progressivism.
Gettysburg was not a decisive victory for the Union – there were more union dead. Lee was not defeated. But he was STOPPED, And though the war continued for years, Lee lost momentum and never got it back. Gettysburg was the high water mark of the conferacy.
President Obama was the high water mark of modern progressivism.
But lest we forget more blood was shed After Gettysburg than before it.
So that is not merely my crystal ball of 2020 – but of the future.
Aparently Sullivan rejected Flynn’s withdrawl of his guilty plea.
That is near certain to be reversed on appeal.
Until the sentencing is complete any defendent can withdrawl a quilty plea. But the prosecutor’s are usually able to use any evidence provided to them by the defendant prior to withdrawl. There are plenty (though less) of circumstances where a defendent can withdraw a plea AFTER sentencing.
The Flynn mess is particularly disturbing as most of the same people who conspired against trump were after Flynn – as well as some additional ones.
Flynn was further targeted because of his opposition to the Obama Administration Iran Policy, and because he was coming into the NSA position with the open intent of cleaning house within the entire Intelligence Community.
Had Flynn managed to survive the IC/DOJ/FBI conspiracy against him – all this Ukraine and Russia nonsense would not have happened. The Vindman’s and Ciaramello’s would have been ousted years ago.
Dear Lil’ Donnie-Say: Flynn lied under oath, and admitted it.
Fact one: He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Fact two: Lying to the FBI is a crime. Fact three: Flynn’s lies to the FBI were material.
This is the law he violated:
“(a) … in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, [to] knowingly and willfully … (2) make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation….”
To mimic your parrot squeaks over Trump’s travel wastage: If you’re unhappy with the law change it.
You are clueless.
Flynn did not make a statement under oath.
He was told by the FBI that they were coming over to update him on security procedures – so he was unware that he was actually being interviewed – and that is NOT speculation – Comey and McCabe bragged about setting him up in their emails.
Both of the agents who interviewed him reported in their initial 302’s that Flynn was Truthful – that is on the record too. The 302’s were subsequently altered multiple times – atleast some of those by none other that Page. Until 9months after the interview after Yates, and Comey and McCabe had decided they had nothing on Flynn, Mueller suddenly decides to go after Flynn. Mueller throws all kinds of false allegations at hi, and then Mueller threatens to go after his son. Facing an out of control prosecutor who has a record of torturing the innocent – ask Richard Jewel or Bruce Ivers, Flynn finally capitulated.
Flynn agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI in his interview – even though NO ONE can say precisely what he lied about, and the FBI innarguably set him up.
BTW incase you are not following things – the Mueller team from the stone Trial has just been removed – for ethics violation and for LYING to the DOJ.
The Mueller lawyers on the Flynn case were also removed over ethics issue.
And though it appears that Sullivan is not letting Flynn out of his plea deal – even though Flynn has disavowed it, Technically Flynn has NOT “Plead guilty” – There is a plea deal- that Flynn has renounced. The plea is not complete. As a general rule a guilty plea is not final until sentence is passed. At anytime before that a defendendant can back out of the deal.
In some instances a defendant can back out of a guilty plea AFTER sentencing – but that is usually harder.
Mueller took Flynn’s business partner to court using Flynn as a witness – AND LOST.
Because that is how Shitty the allegations are.
If this falls apart as it rightly should, and Flynn gets a trial – this will be dropped in a heart beat. Flynn’s discovery rights would allow Powel to dig deaper than Mueller has.
Regardless, all the people involved in the Flynn prosecution are the same ones part of Crossfire Huricane and The SC investigation. Some of them are going to jail.
Gen. Flynn is not the liar here – his persecutors are – and YOU are. You are still selling this nonsense that Carter Page was a russian asset – do you understand that an FBI agent is likely going to jail for saying that to the FISA court – why ? Because it is a LIE,
BTW, Mueller made the same claim regarding Flynn. Flynn – like page had actual contact with real russians. That was not unusual in his line of work. However, he was briefed by The FBI and CIA in each instance before meeting with them – to find out what the FBI and CIA wanted to know, or wanted to have told to the Russians, and he was debriefed everytime afterwards. In other words Flynn was never a Russian Asset Either – he was a US Asset working the Russians.
But you and your ilk look to Fork over actual heros – while tolerating actual liars like McCabe, Strzok, Page, Kliensmith. Yavonovitch and Vindman.
And you wonder why many of us not merely do not give a shit whether Trump wanted the Bidens and DNC investigated in Ukraine – but we are angry because you and your ilk have interfered with those investigations.
What occured during the 2016 election – and after was WORSE THAN WATERGATE – by far.
Horowitz exposed the existance of an actual conspiracy inside the FBI, with some links to DOJ. But Horowitz was not permitted to go further than that. He had no subpeona power, he could not compel cooperation outside of current FBI agents. It is near certain that as this is all delved into more thoroughly – this will get worse and it will involve DOJ and CIA and Obama holdovers in the Whitehouse and NSC. And it may well reach Obama himself.
There are several errors in your claims of fact and of law.
SCOTUS has already long ago decided that any misrepresentation must meet several elements – and atleast some of those are actually part of the law that you did not fully quote.
One is the misrepresentation must be consequential.
Minor mistatements – whether willful or accidental are not crimes.
Another is the the misrepresentation must have occured as part of a formal inquiry.
If you trip over an agent in McD’s and tell him someone has taken his car – that does not work.
The mistatement must be inculpatory – the charges against Stone never should have been filed, and will not hold up on appeal because the purported lie he told congress was exculpatory not inculpatory.
The lie must be about something that the FBI does not know – i.e. the lie must mislead the agents.
None other that RBG wrote the last oppinion on this issue and made it clear that charging someone with lying to a government agent is to be viewed by the courts in the narrowest possible context – otherwise it becomes trivial for government agents to do exactly as they did to Flynn and set them up.
In Flynn’s case – the agents interviewing him lied about why they were interviewing him.
Just to be clear FBI Agents can lie. But there is a problem in this instance – because they Lied to the presidents National Security Advisor, they did so about a matter of national security and Flynn is also in the context of 18 USC 1001 a federal agent. In otherwords Strzok and his partner started their inquiry into Flynn with a crime too. Oops.
Ordinarily no one would prosecute them – for exactly the same reason no one would prosecute Flynn. This is all petty bullshit.
But moving forward – though the FBI 302’s said Flynn was truthfull the “alleged lie” was that Flynn was not fully forthcoming about his conversation with Kislyack.
The agents had in their posession prior to the interview the transcript of Flynn’s phone call with Kislyack. In otherwords – there was no possibilty they were going to be mislead by Flynn. Which makes this entrappment – the only purpose for the interview was to try to catch Flynn in a lie to prosecute him. And again none other than RBG wrote the oppinion that the agents can not use interviews for the purpose of getting people to lie to them so that they can charge them with a crime – that is improper.
Because Flynn was lied to about why the FBI was visiting him, he did not get a lawyer from the Whitehouse counsels office – who would have shut the entire interview down the moment the conversation with Kislyack was mentioned.
And BTW we are not even close to done with the required elements for the crime you are alleging.
Government agents can not “ambush” interview people – atleast not and file 18 USC 1001 charges. The requirements of 18 USC 1001 are actually harder to meet than those for Perjury – for good reason – people KNOW they are required to tell the truth when they testify under oath, they have had time to prepare and review their information and they have the oportunity to request a lawyer.
And incase you think this is arcane the same issues came up regarding Hillary Clinton’s interview with the FBI.
Clinton claimed to “no recall” hundreds of times. that is acceptable in an “ambush” interview.
It is not in an interview that is scheduled like Clinton’s was, and where the person being interviewed knows what they will be interviewed about and has the oportunity to prepare.
Think about this. A prosecutor can not call a witness to a trial without that witness knowing they will be called or what they will be expected to testify about, grill them on the stand and them charge them with perjury if they can not get their facts perfect from pure recollection on the stand.
Many of the criteria I mention about are required elements of the crime – you cited a single clause in a single element – not the entirety of the requirements for a crime.
The remaining elements are based on case law and what is called “Due Process”.
Which among other things can be understood as the rules for proceedings that exists to prevent government from using its power to manufacture crimes or to convict innocent people.
You bitch about the impeachment – when from start to finish did Trump get to cross examing ANY witness ? When did he get to present witnesses of his own ?
That did not occur, not in the house, not in the senate. Trump’s rights to due process have been violated. No proceding is EVER legitimate unless the defendent has the right to cross examine the withnesses against them and to call witnesses of their own. Please read the bill of rights, and the 14th amendment.
Flynn was questioned using a pretext, as the Brits say he was not “under caution” – in the US that means he was not mirandized and told he could have a lawyer. Statements made under those circumstances are generally not admissible – there are exceptions – but none apply to Flynn’s statements.
And all of this ignores the fact that had Flynn been evasive withStrzok about his conversation with Kislyack – that would be because the conversation – as all private conversations between the NSA and foreign leaders would have been highly classified. And Flynn could not share that with Strzok – absent THIRD PARTY verifification that Strzok had both sufficient security clearance and a need to know.
Again – as with the idiocy with Vindman, only one person in the entire US government is free to unilaterally decide who they will provide classified information to – and that is the president.
Almost two decades ago I had a TS/SCI – That is a top secret clearance that required an FBI background check. Periodically I went to SCIAC in the pentagon to exchange classified information. For every single trip – my FSO coordinated with the SCIAC FSO, My FSO provided the SCIAC FSO with my credentials and certified my need to know. Conversely the FSO from SCIAC provided my FSO with the same information on all the other participants in the meeting. I was NEVER allowed to decide who I would share classified information with. And the people who shared with me never decided whether they were allowed to do so – that was ALWAYS done by others, and always done before the meeting.
There is no legitimate circumstance including a criminal investigation in which Strzok would have been free to arrange an interviw of Flynn on his own, with the expecation of getting Flynn to discuss classified information.
You all constantly forget – the Flynn case is not dealing with George Papadoulis, or Manaforte, or Stone, or Van Der Zandt.
Flynn was the national security advisor at the time of the interview, and the alleged lie was about a conversation with Kislyak that would have been Top Secret.
FBI agents – not even from the seventh floor do not get to waltz into the CIA, NSA, NSC or the National Security Advisors office and query them about top secret material that they have not been previously cleared for.
If the actual law hadf been followed – Flynn would have been ambush interviewed by Strzok about a call from Kislyak.
If the law had been followed the FBI 302’s would not have been altered.
If the law had been followed Flynn would never have been investigated.
If the law had been followed Flynn never would have been charged.
If the law had been followed Sullivan would have allowed Flynn to withdraw his agreement to plead guilty.
If the law had been followed Sullivan would dissmiss this as there is no legal foundation.
Because the FACTS are Flynn did not lie.
You are holding a thin reed.
It is going to break.
I do not need the law changed.
But you are demonstrating exactly why the law must be followed as written – not bent and manipulated.
If the law had been followed – this could not have occured.
You can not fix a miscarraige of justice by changing the law – when the miscarraige is because the law was not followed.
When bend the law to fit our wishes rather than what it actually says – we can not fix that by changing the law. If the law does not mean exactly what it says – no more and no less, then it means nothing or it means anything. What the law says becomes irrelevant.
You excepted 18 USC 1001.
But even in your except you retained the world “material”.
Legal definition of material
Important; affecting the merits of a case; causing a particular course of action; significant; substantial. A description of the quality of evidence that possesses such substantial Probative value as to establish the truth or falsity of a point in issue in a lawsuit.
A fact that the inquirer (or court) already knows is NEVER material.
To be material the inquistor must NOT know the truth of the information being requested and must as a result of receiving false information have proceded in the wrong direction,
but simply to be material the statement must not merely be important, and misleading, but it must actually mislead.
The FBI – Strzok had the transcript of Flynn’s call with Kislyak Prior to the interview – there was no possibility of being mislead.
Perjury is a slightly different “crim-in-falsi” but the materiality requirement is the same.
To sustain a perjury conviction you must:
Lie under oath.
The court or jury must beleive the lie,
and the outcome of the proceding must have been altered by the lie.
Just lying under oath is not perjury.
Here is a recent 7th Circuit Decision on Materiality
In this case the defendant failed to pay workers as required by law. submitted sworn affadavits to the govenrment that said he paid his workers properly.
Admits he lied.
And the 7th circuit reversed his conviction because the false statements were not “material” – the government presented no evidence that they relied on this statements for anything.
Mr. Clark’s actually lied – we have no evidence that Flynn lied.
The initial FBI 302’s and all revisions for several months say that Flynn was truthful.
In the initial 302’s the agents assert that Flynn admitted that he was not prepared and did not recall the details of the conversation with Kislyak.
Mr. Clark knowingly lied.
The government did not know that Clark paid his workers less than half of what he was required to pay – so the government was mislead.
Strzok had the transcript of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak – no matter what Flynn told him, Strzok could not be mislead. He knew exactly what was said. The only purpose to interviewing Flynn was “entrappment” – to try to get Flynn to lie – and that is forbidden.
What does it take for you to understand you are done ?
I can already tell you there are only two reasons Sullivan has not tossed this already.
If Sullivan allows (as required by law) Flynn to withdraw his plea – that encourages other federal criminal defendants to withdraw their please – and despite the fact that our criminal justice system guarantees the right to a trial, it will fail miserably – come to a grinding halt if there is a small percentage increase in the number of cases that go to trial.
This is the problem with over criminalization. It makes the entire justice system fragile.
The second reason is that if Flynn gets a trial – the DOJ and Mueller attorney’s are FORKED.
Powell already has a damning amount of information of bias and corruption – the very same people who fare badly in the Horowitz report were involved with the Flynn prosecution.
Further Powell will get broad discovery – more than Horowitz, and Powell will be able to make much of that public.
It is near certain that if Flynn withdraw’s his plea – there will be no prosecution.
It is impossible at this time, and the only people on trial would be the government.
Sullivan does not want the Special Counsels office on trial – aside from the misconduct in the horowitz report – which Mueller turned a blind eye to, we now have 5 different Mueller team Federal attorney’s who have been removed from the cases they were prosecuting – or dismissed for ethics violations – including lying to the DOJ.
Hey Jay – isn’t it a crime for the prosecutors in the Stone case to lie to the DOJ ?
If Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea – there will be no trial.
And the strength of Papadoulus. Van Der Zandt’s, Manafort’s and Stone’s appeal will be substantially amplified.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150528146
Ginsburg;
I write separately, however, to call attention to the extraordinary authority Congress, perhaps unwittingly, has conferred on prosecutors to manufacture crimes. I note, at the same time, how far removed the “exculpatory no” is from the problems Congress initially sought to address when it proscribed falsehoods designed to elicit a benefit from the Government or to hinder Government operations.
At the time of Brogan’s offense, §1001 made it a felony “knowingly and willfully” to make “any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations” in “any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1988 ed.). That encompassing formulation arms Government agents with authority not simply to apprehend lawbreakers, but to generate felonies, crimes of a kind that only a Government officer could prompt.
There is actually much more and it is all pretty bad.
And it has all come about.
Ginsburg’s oppinion was a concurance in
BROGAN v. UNITED STATES (96-1579)
96 F.3d 35, affirmed.
As a result of Brogan Congress changed the law and added the “material” requirement.
18 USC 1001 is still routinely trashed in law review articles. and lower courts are routinely trying to find ways to throw out convictions – because as predicted it is being used as a tool for prosecutors to manufacture crimes – exactly as in Flynn.
It is much harder to commit perjury than it is to violate 18 USC 1001.
Further 18 USC 1001 has a history over a century long.
Its original language and purpose limited it solely to false statements in documents provided to government for the purpose of getting a benefit from government.
Essentially fraudulent invoices. It had nothing to do with criminal investigations, or investigations of any kind. And initially it was limited to specific federal agencies.
In 1934 as a result of the massive explosion of regulation it was expanded to cover more agencies – but it still only applied to written statements to government to secure some positive benefit – forms of fraud for profit.
In the late 80’s it was made ridiculously broad – almost its current form.
And that was the form that was used in the Brogan case.
While SCOTUS affirmed Brogan’s conviction the concurances and dissents expressed grave concerns about the law – and congress in 1998 passed a broad revision of the criminal code to require materiality throughout. It is near certain that none of Mueller’s use of 18 USC 1001 would meet the materiality requirement – and some 18 USC 1001 cases have been dismissed – some with more “material” lies that Flynn’s purported one, on lack of materiality grounds.
Absolutely I would strongly support changing 18 USC 1001 – or just plain removing it.
There is separate law today – and most government documents cite it that criminalizes false statements in government forms. And that is all that is nescescary.
I do not beleive there is a single state that has an equivalent to 18 USC 1001 – and many state supreme courts have ruled 18 USC 1001 as unconstitutional in the context of state law.
18 USC 1001 was NOT a tool for law enforcement prior to the 1980’s.
It was not necescary.
It si not a tool for state prosecutors – it is not necescary.
The police lying to you – is not a crime. lying to the police is not a crime.
But lying to the police CAN be used as evidence against you in court.
That is the only tool that police need.
“To mimic your parrot squeaks over Trump’s travel wastage: If you’re unhappy with the law change it.”
Can I presume from that, that you have decided that you do not care about Trump’s spending or this nonsense that he is somehow profiting ?
Or are you saying that Your outraged – but I have to be the one to act to change the law ?
To a large extent we agree here – I think.
The perq’s of those in government should be reduced – I beleive radically.
Whether the president or the Speaker of the House – these are “public servants”.
Not our betters, overlords, ruling elites.
To the extent they live better than we do – it should be on their own dime – not the publics.
I would eliminate the salaries of all elected federal government positions, and possibly all political appointments. I would radically reduce the salaries and benefits of those employed by government.
Government whether elected or hired is “public service”, it is something you should go into AFTER a successfull career when you no longer need a high income. And if at a yonger age you were not successfull enough to afford to go into public service – you shouldn’t.
Nor should people go from public service to lucrative private jobs. The path should be the opposite way. From private work to public service at the end of your carreer.
Barr & Trump are sweethearts.
Lordy how they fuck up the DOJ with partisan love cooing.
Breaking News NYT: “ In a highly unusual intervention, top Justice Department officials are intervening to seek a shorter sentence for President Trump’s former adviser and longtime friend Roger Stone, after the president called prosecutors’ recommendation unfair.”
The four prosecutors on the case have just resigned in protest.
That didn’t interrupt Barr & Trump from mutual master-bating behind closed doors.
The lawless GOP will soon be joining the stroke show, along with other Trump apologists who will shoving each other to grab hold of a penis to yank.
George Conway, veteran Washington attorney and husband of Kellyanne, says: “I’m watching this thing and you know it’s like, the administration is like a shit show in a dumpster fire.”
The GOC – Good Old Coprophagia
You are not paying attention – this is occuring because the Mueller team lawyers LIED to the courts and to the DOJ. They have been removed from the case. They may have been fired, they may be facing ethics charges.
You seem to take lying to the government seriously – when it is Flynn – who no one even can cite the lie he purportedly told.
But when Mueller lawyers lie to the court and/or DOJ – that you have no problem with.
BTW you are also missing that something similar is occuring in the Flynn case where two Mueller prosecutors are being removed for similar reasons – ethics violations.
It does not surprise me even slightly that Mueller’s team has ethics problems.
I have been arguing that here long before Barr was AG.
Yes, this is unusual. Unfortunately prosecutors do lie to the courts quite often.
But Mueller’s people went a step beyond.
And you keep forgetting that most of the Mueller lawyers and FBI Agents and staff are the same people who were part of CrossFire Huricane.
The Mueller investigation was corrupt from its start.
While Horowitz does not openly say that – because his scope did not take him into Mueller’s investigation.
He explicityly stated that the whole Trump/Russia investigation lost reasonable suspicion to continue in mid January 2017.
Comey knew that. McCabe new that. Rosenstein new that.
Which means Rosenstein knew that there was no basis to appoint Mueller.
You can not appoint a special counsel to continue an investigation that the FBI no longer has sufficient reasonable suspicion to continue.
Mueller can be excused for not knowing that on day one.
But he must have known that fairly quickly.
Many people have observed that by August 2017 at the latest – Mueller knew there was no foundation for an investigation – and yet he continued.
That is unethical. That is actual abuse of power.
Barr is trying to clean house. He needs to do that or the country is not going to be able to trust the FBI or DOJ.
I am not aware of 4 resignations in the Stone case.
I am aware that 3 prosecutors in the Stone case have been removed for lying to the DOJ,
Zelinsky and the other federal prosecutors informed DOJ of the recomendation they were going to make to the court, and then filed a completely different recomendation to the court.
That is called lying. And guess what it meets the ridiculously broad definition you use to go after Flynn. It is a lie of substance to a federal official. It is material to the task of the DOJ.
I would further note – there are actual federal sentencing guideline. Both prosecutors and the courts have very limited discression with respect to them. They can go over or under them – but ONLY given specific facts unique to the case that distinguish it – either as more egregious or less egregious than the norms.
All the facts in the Stone case are mitigating – i.e. they require a sentence at the low end of the guidelines. There is absolutely no underlying crime. There is no crime committed by Stone (or Flynn) that they were covering up. Stone’s acts were not crimes. Stone was convicted of intimitading a witness – who was not a witness at the time, who testified that he was not intimidated and that was the normal means he and Stone communicated.
That “witness” had no evidence of any crime to present – so even if Stone silenced him – there was no coverup, there was no bad purpose served. Stone’s purportedly false testimony to congress was again about a non-crime and the “lie” was a failure to provide congress with exculpatory testimony.
The only prosecutors that ever prosecute that kind of nonsense – like Flynn, are vindictive ones who should be dissmissed.
I would further note that Zelinsky and his pals KNEW there was no crime before Aug 2017, and yet they persisted. Every single prosecution that Mueller and his team have proceeded on has occured AFTER Mueller knew that the Russian Collusion nonsense was a hoax – remember that Horowitz confirmed that by mid january 2017 the FBI knew that there was nothing to the Papadoulis nonsense, that Carter Page was a US agent not a russian one, and that the Steele dossier was not only a fabrication – but that its primary source told them is was gossip and unlikely to be true and that regardless he has no first hand knowledge of anything in it.
That is called – there is nothing. The constitution requires you to STOP.
Law enforcement is not permitted to investigate people for crimes that it knows did not occur.
These people are crooks – it is Flynn, Papadoulis, Page, Stone, even Manafort that deserve our sympathy, that are the victims here.
You have a growing problem – you increasingly have what looks more and more like a vindictive conspiracy. You have a quite clear small conspiracy within the FBI that Horowitz uncovered. But Horowitz was unable to go beyond the FBI.
Al the participants in the FBI conspiracy became part of the Mueller team – and the whole team is tainted.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/11/mueller-prosecutors-may-have-lied-to-doj-about-stone-prison-sentence-recommendation/
looks like field is working itself out for democrats. Warren and Biden look to be walking wounded. Trump annihilated Biden as a result of Pelosi’s impeachment. He was, and probably still is the Democrats best to defeat Trump. ut he wont be the nominee.
But if the moderates dont come to an agreement that brings one candidate against Bernie, then they will do what Kasich, Cruz and Rubio did for Trump for Sanders. Division of the moderate vote, sealing Sanders nomination unless the Dems can find a way to override their voters choice. I cant see Bloomberg being in the debates not further dividing the moderate votes after the showing Mayor Pete and Amy K have created.
No current democratic contender is “moderate” – Pete, Amy and Mike are moderate compared to Warren and Sanders – not compared to the center of this country.
Every single one is proposing to Return to the policies of Obama AND extend those with additional taxes and spending – in most cases significant increases.
Unless you beleive that the improvement in growth and standard of living that has indesputably occured after Trump was elected was the result of “magic” then you would be voting to return to the economic doldrums of the Obama era or worse.
Why is it that those on the left can not seem to grasp that the actions of government are not free ? That regulation. taxes and spending are all an economic burden on the country.
That “economic burden” is just another way of saying – our standard of living will rise more slowly, that jobs will be fewer that they will be fewer particularly for “the most vulnerable” among us.
A significant portion of my opposition to Trump is that some of his policies negatively impact growth and therefore standard of living. Why would we pick WORSE ?
Regardless, pretty much EVERY democrat runs on a platform of more spending, more regulation, more taxes. However good whatever they are offering ALL of these come at the expense of our freedom, and the expense of our standard of living.
That is not ‘moderate”
I know you will not agree with this position as I have said it before and you have commented I am wrong.
I think each party should pick the person they believe should be the nominee. At best, i think all primaries should be closed. I don’t think anyone undeclared or of the opposition party should be voting in an open primary.
But i also believe the parties need to return to the process used when Kennedy was nominated, that being few, if any, primaries. If that were the case, I believe we would have much closer to the middle candidates and we would not have a populist Trump or a Socialist Sanders. We would also not have to worry about a 38 year old homosexual mayor from a 100,000 citizen midwest city where he turned off most minorities thinking he had the knowledge to run the government as the possible nominee, nor would Bloomberg even have a chance, just as Trump would have been dismissed from the beginning.
The process we have is acceptable, but in my mind not the best because we end up with less than the best candidates. We would not always have the bests under a party nominating process, but it would be far better than what we have today that results in few of the top qualified candidates running. Had we had primaries in the majority of states, I wonder if Kennedy or Reagan would have been the nominee of their parties. Kennedy as too young and Reagan’s Democrat to Republican switch, along with being divorced may have been show stoppers for their party voters.
but we got what we got and get what we get and every 4 years we can hold our nose and vote from the least worst candidate based on political views. But if we end up with a Sanders/Trump election, damn those voting precincts are going to stink.
And Jay, that’s 50-50 evenly divided stink for those without TDS. 100% stink Trump the person v 100% stink Sanders the views
The general election is the business of government. The rules for getting your name one a general election ballot should be the same for everyone – regardless of party.
Primaries and their rules are the business of the party – and specifically the party in that state.
To the extent I care how that is done – that is between me and my party. Given I am libertarian, I have little voice in GOP and DNC primaries – and do not care to.
If a party wants to close their primary – their business. If they want to let people outside of their party run or vote in their primary – their business.
Some of those things might be bad ideas, but it is their party. My voice matters – in my own party.
What I care about is that regardless of parties – access to the ballot in the general election is the same for all.
If you need 5000 signatures to get on the ballot – republican, democrat libertarian – that is what you need.
In most states the rules favor the two parties. I have read of states where the GOP and DNC need 500 signatures to get a name on the ballot, but 3rd parties require 50,000.
That I have a problem with.
Dave, once again you are discussing something different than I commented.
I know full well it is the state parties that control what takes place in their state. You live in a state that has a much closer process to my position than I do. In N.C., a voter can be unaffiliated and walk in, say they want a democrat or republican primary ballot and vote that way. The state parties decided that was acceptable.
My comment is not what can or cant be done, it was about the impact of the decision they made. It was in response to your discussion about “moderates” in, or lack of moderates in the democrat field running for president and my thoughts on why that happened, the same as the GOP brainfart in 2016 giving us Trump. Yes, I support Trumps policies, but not the person. I think we would be doing close to how we are doing now with one of the others who ran. Maybe not the trade improvements, but much of the other.
I would note that you are openly advocating controling the process to get YOUR desired outcome – more moderates – whatever than is.
I am less bothered by our periodically elected “extremists”.
Trump’s election was not an accident. It is the consequence of decades of failure by BOTH parties.
You fixate on the fact that Trump “gamed” the rules to win the GOP nod.
that does not explain his defeat of Clinton.
Regardless, trump would not have been able to win the GOP nod, if republicans had not lost confidence in their own. I would also note that nearly every republican ran on just about the same platform in 2016.
Trump did not beat Cruz or Rubio, or Bush or … because he had a better platform – you could not have gotten a hair between them on most issues.
He won because alot of republicans and later voters as a whole said – we have given the politicians a shot and they just lie to us. Lets try something different.
I beleive you are a big Kaisich proponent. It is near certain that the media would only attack President Kaisich about half as much as Trump. He would only be called a racist, nazi, hateful hating hater about half as much. He likely would not twitter bomb us with over the top tweets.
But on matters of policy – what would have changed – and would it have changed for the better ?
Go through the list of Trump’s accomplishments, which of those would you have gotten from a Kaisich ? The Federalist judges alone is MASSIVE and long lasting.
Moderates do not fix problems. They just do not make them worse – usually.
Sometimes that is a really good thing. When we have not had two decades of bad government – “staying the course” is really good.
I would rather see Bernie win – than that extinct creature a “moderate democrat”.
If Bernie wins – we will get sick of him quickly. One of the big things democrats fail to understand is that if they win – they must deliver.
Trump did what all the left said was impossible – and significantly improved on the Obama economy. We now know that is possible, and we know that policy differences matter.
IF Bernie is elected and can not deliver the same or better – democrats will get obliterated fast.
“I would rather see Bernie win – than that extinct creature a “moderate democrat”.”
Be careful of what you ask for. If Bernie wins, that means a huge leftist turnout resulting in all three wings of government being Democrat.
Government control of insurance through one payer, Medicare
Government control of the size and horsepower of your car through climate controls
Labor union control of most jobs due to the end of right to work laws
Government control on agriculture use of land due to increased EPA rules.
Increased power bills due to government requirement that power comes from wind and solar.
Increased cost of housing due to federal requirement that new homes have solar panels.
Increased taxes to pay for student loan forgiveness, entitlements and government regulation
Elimination of electoral college
And thats just the first two years before another election for republicans to get some control.
And the democrats see the errors they made with PPACA that allowed the GOP to change that. They will not make that mistake again. They will insure changes much harder to change next time.
If Bernie wins and the economy tanks – how long do you think Democrats will hold on to positions in government as dog catchers ?
“Elections have consequences” – one of those is that when in power you are accountable for your frack-ups.
D’s have just confirmed that you can impeach for any reason at all.
So R’s take over the house in 2022 – which is near certain under a Bernie presidency,
And turn-about’s a bitch.
As we were told over and over – the house can impeach for any reason at all.
Economic failure sounds like an excellent one to me.
Regardless the only way we MIGHT end the assorted stupidities of the left is to subject them to their own tactics. And THAT is why so many people love Trump.
They are tired of being called racist, hateful hating haters, and Trump fights back for them.
You can not fix bad ideas.
PPACA – all forms of socialism DO NOT WORK. There is no amount of “learning from failure” that will ever make socialism work.
Government generally – socialist or not, is NOT often subject to iterative refinement – learning from mistakes. Why would you expect Democrats to be good at a market process that even Republicans can not make work in government ?
And finally – if Democrats actually make PPACA or “free anything” work magically – so be it.
The problem with socialism is not that it is socialism.
It is that it does not work.
Make it actually work well and I will buy it.
But the reasons it does not work are immutable.
The stink is not even close to 50:50.
The left has been calling everyone who disagrees with them fascists and Nazi’s for decades.
Most of your complaints about Trump were leveled at Reagan.
Trump is playing the same game as the left – that is unique about Trump, and he is winning it.
But our politics is full Alinsky today – and until Trump it was the left that was full alinsky.
On the credibility of the press.
4 huge false stories in 10 hours.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-banner-day-for-news-media-four-major-reporting-errors-in-just-10-hours
And they are not even about Trump
Democrats channel Orwell and 1984.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/after_three_years_of_hate_the_dems_have_lost_it.html
Jay, wondering if you think that Biden still has a shot? I think that impeachment sunk him, but can he pick up enough support on Super Tuesday to make a comeback?
If not, who will be your candidate?
Oh, No! That Evil Trump – he is at it again!
drat Him!
https://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160?newsletterad=&utm_campaign=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_source=thdaily
Now you see why I say Trump is his worst enemy. Instead of spending 3+ years bashing others, his people should have been releasing information like this on Twitter and Facebook, along with other social media sites where the main stream media would not be able to censure.
This is the first I heard of most of this and I am not a TDS’er. I support Trumps’s policies, probably more than you, but you are the one defending Trump here and I am one that calls him out for his idiotic behaviors.
No need trying to release this now, everyones mind is already made up.
This is the first I have heard much of this – and aparently there is alot more of this.
But no – if you have to toot your own horn – this gets you nowhere.
If Sarah Sanders was telling you this – your eyes would glass over.
The real problem here is this is the media’s job to report.
And the media will not report good about any republican – or even the wrong democrats.
And it is increasingly hard to get it to report bad about favored democrats.
It is not the media’s job to pick winners and losers.
We are seeing this now in the reports on the removal of the Mueller team Lawyers in the Stone case (something similar has been happening in the Flynn case).
The media is up in arms because of political interferance.
I do not think that is the case. REGARDLESS, we started with a BLATANTLY political prosecution.
Jay keeps fixating on the fact that Flynn is guilty of a lie no one can even identify.
That the FBI did not note on their 302’s.
Well people associated with XFH, Mueller, and the assorted prosecutions have been LYING all over the place. The Stone prosecutors told DOJ what their sentencing recomendation would be, Then they filed something different with the court.
By the broad interpretation of 18 USC 1001 that is being used to prosecute Flynn – THAT IS A CRIME. There are many other examples of similar “lies”.
If we are going to prosecute Flynn for a lie that no one can figure out and certainly was inconsequential – then the very people prosecuting him MUST be held to the same standards.
The stone prosecution is a farce. the elements of “lying under oath” are pretty significant.
Not only must you make a false statement,
But you have to have had the oportunity to correct it.
AND the decision of the tribunal must have relied on the lie.
The standards that must be met for Perjury shoudl be the same ones for violations of 18 USC 1001. Regardless, Stone was charged for false testimony to congress – the perjury standards apply. Schiff and Nadler refused to provide Stone with the transcripts of Stone’s testimony – despite numerous requests by his lawyer. That is supposed to be proforma. the testimony was public. It is the norm for a witness to correct their testimoney – Sonderland did. The Stone charges were clearly a SET UP. They never should have been brought.
We also NEVER prosecute people for lying when what they lied about would have been exculpatory.
If you are charged with murder, and you testify you did not do it and have an albi, and forget that someone took a cell picture of you at your alibi – we do not prosecute you for lying to the court for failing to tell them about the cell picture. We do not obligate you to prove your innocence.
Stone was convicted by a prosecutor who was angry because Stone had been torquing him for two years, and a judge who should be gone, and a jury that convicted Stone based on belief in a crime that never occured (Trump/Russia collusion).
Stone was gagged by the judge, denied the right to properly voidiere the jury.
Prosecutors lied about the case, and the jury disregarded the testimony of the witnesses.
They litterally convicted Stone of telling jokes in emails with Credico.
I think these attorney’s should be prosecuted, not just fired.
Barr’s job is to restore the credibility of the DOJ.
The DOJ will not remain credible so long as partisan hacks are convicting people for holding the wrong political positions.
As Mueller found: NO AMERICAN worked with the russians regarding the 2016 election (except the Clinton team). that should have been the end.
All of Mueller’s convictions – which Jay is so proud of are for failure to kowtow sufficiently low to Mueller. THAT MUST STOP.
“ As Mueller found: NO AMERICAN worked with the russians regarding the 2016 election (except the Clinton team). that should have been the end.”
Seriously? You’re quoting Barr’s slanted interpretation of Mueller’s report. Mueller found no DIRECT proof of collusion; but there was LOTS of proof of Americans Involved in the election working/meeting/soliciting with Russians –
“In fact, investigators have found that Trump and at least 17 of his campaign officials and advisors had more than 100 contacts between Trump associates and Russians, belying the campaign’s November 2016 claim that “there was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.” [Time – April 18, 2019]
No, Jay – Mueller himself actually said that – and he said it BEFORE issuing his report.
Mueller Clears Trump: “No Americans Involved In Russian Meddling” February 17, 2018
That is LONG before the mueller Report.
OK did i sleep walk and say this ““ As Mueller found: NO AMERICAN worked with the russians regarding the 2016 election (except the Clinton team). that should have been the end.”” The emial came in as “in response to Ron P
Your response to me :
Seriously? You’re quoting Barr’s slanted interpretation of Mueller’s report. Mueller found no DIRECT proof of collusion; but there was LOTS of proof of Americans Involved in the election working/meeting/soliciting with Russians –
Did I really say this or is word press FUBARed now since we have reached over 1000 comments on this tread and it can’t keep up?
Contact and “communications” are not the same thing.
Flynn went to Russia – he was photographed at a dinner with Jill Stein and Putin.
He also told the CIA about the trip before hand, was given instructions by the CIA with respect to information he should try to obtain, and was debreifed by them after.
Flynn had actual contact and even communication – but there is no evidence he
“colluded” with Russia and no reason anyone not suffering from TDS would beleive he did.
Numerous Trump campaign workers were contacted by Russians pretending to be americans. Mueller found that none of them had done anything wrong.
Sessions shook Kislyak’s hand and exchanged a few seconds of pleasantries at a public event.
Trump Jr. Kushner an manafort met with Natalia with the expectation of getting dirt on Clinton – which is BTW NOT illegal – or Hillary would be in an orange jumpsuit right now.
They got nothing.
Cohen after being directed by Trump Jr. to drop the Moscow Trump Tower bid, continued with no success to lobby for it and lied about it.
There was plenty of contact with Russians – there is nothing wrong with that.
No one cares that Bill Clinton gave a speach to Russians during the election. They care that he got $500K for it.
Few Care that Clinton worked with Russians to get Dirt on Trump. They care that the FBI used that dirt witrhout properly vetting it to spy on the Trump campaign.
I have no idea if Trump ever said there was no “communication” with Russians – if he did he mispoke. There was no collusion.
I would further note that Mueller Misspoke. Many of these contacts were with US citizens – some of whom were born in Russia or who had parents born in russia.
We also now know from Horowitz that many of those “russian contacts” were with FBI assets.
US Citizens with ties to Russia that the FBI was running against the Trump campaign.
Time is not Mueller – actually read the Mueller report or Mueller’s press conferences.
Not the media.
If you do not trust Barr – fine read what Mueller wrote – and what Horowitz wrote.
The media like you has a track record of spin and misrepresenation.
Hong Kong
https://twitter.com/i/status/1227431919849218056
AMERICA SPEAKS
“Ordinary Americans don’t get special breaks from prosecutors. But if you are a friend of @realDonaldTrump, then @TheJusticeDept does you a favor. That’s the very embodiment of the swamp that Trump promised, but failed, to drain. The Trump Administration is now the swamp.” Ted Lieu
“ Susan Collins said she hopedDonald Trump had learned his lesson. She’s right. The lesson he learned is he can do anything he wants.” Stephen King
“ “What political leadership did here—mandating a favor for a friend of the president in line with the president’s publicly expressed desire in the case—significantly damages the rule of law.”. Bill Kristol
“ The damage this gang is doing to what was once the Department of Justice will long outlast the last remnants and dying embers of Trumplandia.” Lawrence Tribe
“ If a president pardons a defendant in order to ensure that the defendant does not cooperate with the government by providing incriminating information about the president, it is a corrupt—and, as importantly, criminal— exercise of a constitutional power and therefore impeachable.” Keith Abramson
Ordinary americans are not persecuted by egomanical special prosecutors with a partisan bent who spent over two years investigating something the FBI established as baseless two months before they were appointed.
Lets go after the REAL Criminals here.
That these prosecutors were allowed to resign is outrageous.
They LIED to DOJ about their sentencing recomendation – lets do as the left does and WEAPONIZE 18 USC 1001 and prosecute them.
Because lying to DOJ as a far more serious crime than making jokes about the God Father in emails.
Stone should never have been prosecuted.
This was a political hatchet job from the start,
Frankly I would prosecute Judge Jackson for Civil Rights violation over her “gag” order.
Stone has universally been engaged in POLITICAL SPEACH – the most protected kind.
You are not entitled to respect because you where a robe. And your authority ends at the courtroom door.
I am ecstatic to see these attorney’s ousted. They NEVER should have been allowed to prosecute in the first place.
If the DOJ is doing favors for “freinds of Trump”
That does not make up for the fact that the SC and FBI were targeting people BECAUSE they were “friends of Trump”.
Frankl;y right after pitching Vindman Trump should have TERMINATED the prosecutions of Stone and Flynn, Pardoned Papadoulous and Van Der Zandt and Communted Manafort’s sentence.
All of these were weaponizing the law – beyond its legitimate reach to punish Trump’s Campaign staff for winning the election.
What did these people do wrong ? Failed to KowTow to Mueller and his cronies.
Mueller found NO CRIME.
Horowitz Found that after Jan 2017 there was no foundation to continue an investigation.
If Mueller did not know that on the day he was appointed – Rosenstein certainly did.
And regardless, Mueller and his people are not stupid. They understand the law as well as Horowitz. By Jan 2017, The FBI KNEW – there was nothing to the Papadoulous nonsense.
There was nothing to the Steele Dossier. No credible claim of criminal conduct remained.
Continuing to investigate Trump and his campaign staff was ABUSE OF POWER. It was A CRIME.
When Criminals control our justice system we are in deep trouble,.
And Worse than the fact that Mueller must have known very early on he was investigating NOTHING, He continued to do so using the SAME CORRUPT PEOPLE who had already committed crimes to get the FISA Warrant.
You are angry at the wrong people.
You are like the idiot blaming the jews for the holocaust.
These prosecutors were obligated to and did provide their sentencing recomendation to DOJ – long before Trump said anything.
They LIED to DOJ.
Then they filed a grossly improper sentencing recomendation.
Then the DOJ told them to rescind it.
Then Trump tweeted.
Then they resigned – or were fired – that is still not clear.
There was no contact between Trump and DOJ .
Further this boat sailed long ago when Obama told everyone (DOJ) that Clinton had not committed a crime, while the FBI was still investigating – and even Partisan Comey could not go so far, finding that she had violated the law, but that it would not normally be prosecuted.
While I had problems with Obama’s conduct – ultimately it is perfectly legitimate and constitutional – as is Trumps.
First ALL Prosecutorial power in the Executive branch is constitutionally the Presidents.
Thomas Jefferson ordered the DOJ to prosecute Aaron Burr – a political rival for Treason.
And reviewed the progress of the trial as president every day.
Second Trump has the power to pardon or commute any federal conviction.
Whether you like it or not even if the facts actually matched your claims, this would be perfectly legitimate. If all the DOJ power resides in the president, if additionally the president can pardon or commute, then he may also “interfere” to end any prosecution at any point.
In this instance I would have prefered if Trump would have just pardoned or commuted Mueller’s nonsense accross the board and sent these Bozo’s packing that way.
Or let these Bozo’s continue – and then Pardoned specifically citing their politically vindictive actions.
Duh!
The DOJ and Justice department were “damaged” long before Trump won the election.
Holder is the first AG held in contempt of congress.
He refused to prosecute numerous criminal referals – openly stating that Obama had nothing to fear because he was Obama’s “wingman”.
Then we had Lynch meeting on the Tarmac with Bill Clinton – and a whole collection of dammaging emails involving her. We have DOJ trying to cover up the meeting.
We have Obama telling DOJ nothing Clinton did was a crime.
And then we have DOJ/FBI starting an fraudulent investigation.
Also hiding in the news since you missed it was Grassley and Johnson’s letter to DOJ, asking them to look into MISREPRESENTATIONS in the Horowitz report.
It appears that Some of Horowitz’s key exculpatory representations are WRONG – beased on information that Horowitz has.
This explains why Barr and Durham spoke out claiming That Horowitz claim there were no indicia of political bias and than the investigation had a proper predicate was in error.
Apparently 4 redacted footnotes to the Horowitz report – which Grassley and Johnson read unredacted, demonstate that the FBI KNEW there was nothing to the claims about Papadolous BEFORE they opened the investigation AND That they knew the Steele Dossier was crap before Mid January 2017. It appears that the FBI was aware that Steele’s primary SubSource was a Russian Agent already the subject of an FBI counter intelligence investigation, and that he was likely feeding Steele disinformation deliberately.
You do not seem to get it. The PROSECUTORS and INVESTIGATORS are the “criminals”, liars and crooks.
Even if these specific prosecutors were not personally involved. They were part of Mueller’s team. They MUST have been aware of this.
The entire SC investigation is a CoverUp of the crimes committed by the FBI – making the investigation itself a crime.
What do you need before you realize how corrupt this mess is – a confession ?
You have been ranting Putin Putin Putin from day one.
It sure looks like this whole mess was a big Putin setup.
It is not Trump colluding with the Russians for political purposes – it is Clinton and the FBI.
“ If a president pardons a defendant in order to ensure that the defendant does not cooperate with the government by providing incriminating information about the president, it is a corrupt—and, as importantly, criminal— exercise of a constitutional power and therefore impeachable.” Keith Abramson
At odds with the facts and the law.
Bush I issued a raft of pardons to end an investigation.
It has been done already, it is proper.
As to the “failing to cooperate” nonsense – how would that be ?
Mueller has already told you there was no there there.
The “crime” Stone has been convicted of is lying about and attempting to coverup a non-crime.
No one has “incriminating information about the president”.
We already know that Mueller abused his power by threatening innocent people with jail to get them to make up false testimoney.
You do not think he did that with Flynn, Papadoulis, Manafort, Gates, Credico, Stone ?
That is pretty much established. Regardless it is Mueller MO.
Or have you never heard of Richard Jewel or Bruce Ivens ?
The coverup is the SC investigation itself.
Marine Corp General Kelly explains why Trump is a lump of excretion:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/john-kelly-alexander-vindman-north-korea-and-trump/606496/
Kelley goes of the rails at the start.
Vindman is a soldier – soldiers obey orders – specifically from the commander in chief.
The entire executive branch was ordered not to co-operate with the House absent a court order or successful negotiations regarding witnesses with the house.
BTW that is NOT unusual, that is NORMAL. The house supeonas exectutive branch witnesses and documents all the time, and the executive branch says NO!, and then they negotiate the terms, and almost always work something out.
Regardless if you are in the executive branch you are not permitted to testify pretty much anywhere without eitehr whitehouse counsel or counsel from you department.
Not even Bill Barr testifies before congress without DOJ counsel to advise him.
Vindman ignored orders, and then he spun his testimony.
I do not beleive he lied – technically – because you can not lie about a matter of oppinion.
But he was WRONG about innumerable things.
Vindman made numerous statements about Ukraine that are all OPPINIONS. In a normal court they would not be admissible. Had he had counsel he would have been told not to answer as oppinions are not evidence and you are never obligated to provide an oppinion, and so long as you are part of the executive you are not permitted to offer an oppinion publicly that contradicts the policy of the administration.
Gen. Flynn was FIRED from the Obama administration for PRIVATELTY expressing oppinions contradictory to the administation regarding Iran.
Next Vindman explicitly testified that Trump behaved improperly by acting contrary to “the interagency consensus” – Guess what – the interagency concensus is NOT the foreign policy of the US.
Further Vindman abdmitted under oath that on his own he shared classified information with multiple parties, and refused to name those.
We are playing this idiotic game regarding the WB. Vindman claims not to know who he is.
Schiff claims not to know who he is. The law DOES NOT give whistleblowers anonymity. It can not. Yet Vindman refused to answer and Schiff blocked Vindman answering a not only perfectly legitimate question – be a required one. It is likely that Vindman’s exchange of classified information was a crime. But that fact – as well as the extent of the crime can not be established without knowing who Vindman shared classified information with.
Further the question goes to possible biases and BIAS is ALWAYS admissible and ALWAYS something you can cross examine on.
It is possible that Vindman’s answer must be provided in a classified setting – but he must answer. And I can assure you – all too soon he will.
It is extremely disurbing that Kelly would condone the insubordination of a junior officer – because that is precisely what it is. In any prior era Vindman would be asked to resign or courtmartialed.
I did not read any further.
I am not attacking or supporting Trump concerning the Stone trial. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ISSUE I EXPOSE! You can suffer from TDP (New name for TDS as it has now grown to a pandemic, thus TDP), or can support Trump 100%.
Read article:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreperson-in-roger-stone-trial-had-history-of-anti-trump-social-media-posts
Everyone by constitution is guaranteed a fair and impartial jury. But in this day and age, how can anyone expect that to happen if the issue has any political overtones at all? How can one expect jurors to be honest when questioned concerning political issues and how can we expect that when judges refuse to excuse jurors for reason as reported in the last paragraph.
Division within society is one thing. Division in trials is totally different. How can we be sure a “Jay” is not allowed on a trial of a Trump supporter and chosen foreperson, a position that carries alot of weight in some trials?
I addressed you concern about the juror in my comment to Priscilla
Thank you. Short and to the point. Agree completely. What we dont know from our wonderful media on both sides of the issue is what was asked of the jurors before the trial in a questionnaire (if they used one) and what was asked of the jurors at jury selection. Did they ask, “have you or a relative ever worked for the democrat party of candidate?” Based on that answer, further questions would follow.
What was asked in questionaires is relevant to the process of excluding those who never should have been on the jury.
Anything relative to questionaires is about the failure of the courts.
It appears we now have atleast two jurors with serious indicia of bias.
Better handling of questionairs would have not fixed the fact those jurors were biased.
The core problem is not the questionaires – it is the refusal of the judge to allow the defense attorney’s to explore potential bias during voir dire.
Normally it it the responsibility of the defense attorney’s to eliminate jurors that might be biased against their client.
In order to do so the judge MUST give them broad latitude to question prosepective Jurors.
The judge gets the final decision as to whether a juror gets seated.
But when the judge interferes with inquiry – the question is no longer of the bias of the juror, but the bias of the judge and the fairness of the trial.
The problem is not these two jurors –
There will always be jurors that should not be allowed in a trial. That is a given.
The defendant is not entitled to an unbiased jury pool.
He is entitled to a jury that has not prejudged the case.
The resp[onsibility to ensure that is the judge that prevented proper inquiry and allowed them to be seated
From your response you have seen information elsewhere that I have not that specifically covers multiple instances where this judge shut down questioning of potential jurors based on political bias. I have only seen the one I linked that said she refused a challenge to one juror.
Seems like Stone has plenty of reasons to appeal.
Jackson heard both the manafort and Stone cases.
So there is alot about her out there.
Even Jay – thinking he was defending her provided an instance were she thwarted the defence from inquiring into bias.
There is a right of judges to question witnesses and jurors – but it is to SUPLIMENT the questions asked by the prosecutor and the defence,
It is not to forestall questioning by the prosecutor or defense.
The defence attorney has the incentive to ferret out bias against the defendant in a way that a Judge never will.
We have an example of a juror who made posts about Stone’s guilt before the trial.
Jay and Jackson are trying to claim that oh well a biased juror got onto the jury – but the conviction is fine because you have not proved the judge did anything wrong.
If there is a prejudiced juror on the jury – we are DONE – mistrial.
Figuring out blame is for later.
The requirement is for SUBSTANATIVE Due Process, not Pro Forma due process.
i.e. meaningful, rather than rote.
SCOTUS did say that you do not HAVE TO exclude a juror for prior knowledge.
They did not say you are permitted to turn a blind eye to or fail to inquire about the possible prejudice that might result.
Prior knowledge of the case presumptively bars a juror. That is a presumption that can be overcome with thorough questioning. That question is best done by the defence attorney given a fair amount of latitude as the incentive is for the defence attorney to ask the right questions in the right way to ferret our bias if it is present.
Judges should always err on the side of latitude to the defence on what is essentially cross examiniation.
They should particularly do so during voir dire, as the questioning is about the Juror, and the decisions regarding what is elicited is made by the judge.
Judges should always avoid being both the inquisitor and the judge.
There is a reason that trials have separate prosecutors, defence attorney’s judges and juries.
That separation of responsibilities has been found over centuries to most probably get us to the truth.
Stone’s trial was the epitomy of a star chamber.
Stone was subject to a gag order. It is common for judges to restrict what the prosecutor can say publicly – among other things public statements by prosecutors can cause mistrials.
It is less common for judges to silence the defense attorney’s – that is within the courts power to do, but it is usually unwise.
One of the confusions is that the right to a jury trial and the right to an untainted jury is a DEFENDENTS right – government has no rights.
It is perfectly legitimate to gag the prosecution and allow the defense attorney’s to speak openly to the press.
During the trial the court is obligated to protect the defendants right to a presumption of innocence – that often requires silencing the prosecution.
But there is no prosecution right to silence the defence and no right of the court to do so.
Anyway, Jackson silenced the DEFENDANT. That is extremely rarely done – and it is unconstitutional. You do not lose your right to free speach because you have been accused of a crime.
Next Jackson severely limited the defenses right to inquire about the political biases of jurrors. Given the highly political nation of the case that was highly inappropriate.
So we are now discovering that the Foreperson of the jury not only was politically biased – but that she expressed animous to stone BEFORE being selected for the jury.
I would be shocked if that does not get a mistrial.
Ms. Hart’s political involvement were a legitimate area of inquiry that Judge Jackson blocked.
That certainly would have raised challenges for cause. Jackson Might not have granted those – but her handling of challenges for cause is a potentially apealable issue.
But blocking effective Voidiere Jackson appeared to act “innocuously” – but in reality he actions protected her from having to decide more difficult questions.
Hart’s public statements about Stone prior to being seated on the jury are ABSOLUTELY disqualifying.
This likely will result in an easy reversal.
The courts frown heavily on post trial inquests into Jurrors – particularly their conduct during deliberations and after the trial. But clear expressions of bias prior to being accepted on the Jury are a very very serious problem. Had Judge Jackson allowed proper voidiere Ms. Harts animous to Stone would have come out and she never would have been allowed on the jury.
This is also evidence that the judge prejudged the case – which is highly likely.
I would further note, that removing biased jurrors is not just the obligation of the defense – it is the obligation of the courts, and the prosecutor.
If it is found that the Prosecutors were aware of Ms. Hart’s biases and hid them – that is a serious ethical violation. And we are dealing with Mueller and his clann – Mueller has been ethically challenged his entire carreer.
Thanks. I am near a total dimwit when it comes to legal crap, but just reading that one article seemed to provide information that this judge was anything but impartial at best, and out to get Stone, at worst.
Was she a federal appointment?
Jackson is a 2011 Obama apointment.
She is also the judge on the Manafort case.
She is the epitome of what a judge should not be – arrogant, and demanding rather than earning respect.
Innocent people inherently feel the fact that they are in a court is proof that the system is biased against them.
They may be wrong – but the feeling is natural.
It is perfectly natural for an innocent defendant to lash out – at the courts, the prosecutor, ….
It is rarely good strategy. but it is human nature.
It is also THEIR RIGHT.
Further, SOMETIMES they are correct – the government is corruptly prosecuting them.
Judges are NOT entitled to respect merely because they are judges.
They should expect that many who appear before them DO NOT respect them and lash out.
The judges power is limited to THE COURT ROOM.
The can and SHOULD demand order in the court.
When they start gagging defendants or threatening them in the process of a trial for conduct OUTSIDE the court room – they are out of line.
Unfortunately arrogance and hubris among judges, prosecutors, law enforcement is not uncommon, and knows no political boundaries.
“ She is the epitome of what a judge should not be – arrogant, and demanding rather than earning respect.”
And you have first hand info on that, having monitored many of her proceedings first hand, correct?
She is in fact highly respected as a judge, Considered by her peers as a CENTRIST judge, who has ruled in the past in favor of conservative cases (Ruling in 2011 the IRS had unfairly audited conservative groups), and against liberal/Democrats (2013, she sentenced Illinois congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. to two and a half years in prison for misuse of campaign funds). And BTW, in the past was a frequent guest law expert featured on FOX news shows and other cable entities.
And of course you and other Trump Zombie Bots don’t have a fucking clue what sentence she is going to dispense – she’s not noted for severe jail time sentencing. Maybe she agrees with Barr the prosecutor recommended jail time is too much (Barr, a Trump appointee, who if speaking honestly, just trolled Trump to STFU with his Tweeting, said he has no problem with the guilty
Trump is crap.
Stone is crap.
Manafort is crap.
Flynn has become crap.
And when Trump pardons them, those who will support those pardons have brains of crap.
“Trump is crap.
Stone is crap.
Manafort is crap.
Flynn has become crap.
And when Trump pardons them, those who will support those pardons have brains of crap.”
You have a right to that opinion.
It is just an opinion.
It is not a fact,
Nor is it a crime or evidence of one.
It is a basis for your vote, not the use of the power of government to convert your opinion to something imposed on all by force.
We do not investigate people – because you think they are crap
We do not prosecute people – because you think they are crap.
We do not convict people – because you think they are crap.
Nor should We impeach people – because you think they are crap.
You have nothing between your opinions and your willingness to use force.
And that is “crap”.
More importantly it is immoral.
I may agree with you on some of your opinions about specific people.
I might even vote against them.
But I will never support your willingness to go outside the law, to use force to impose your opinion – that is crap.
“And you have first hand info on that, having monitored many of her proceedings first hand, correct?”
So you are saying that your opinion on Barr, On Trump on Stone on Manafort on pretty much anything is based on hours of in person first hand monitoring ?
I have read alot about the Manafort and Stone prosecutions – including many transcripts.
I doubt your familiarity is greater than mine – you are free to prove that wrong if you can.
Regardless – you are entitled to your oppion – though I wish it was based on something other than your feelings. Something like FACTS, Logic Reason. And I am entitled to my opinion – which I have supported with facts, logic, reason.
“She is in fact highly respected as a judge, Considered by her peers as a CENTRIST judge, who has ruled in the past in favor of conservative cases (Ruling in 2011 the IRS had unfairly audited conservative groups), and against liberal/Democrats (2013, she sentenced Illinois congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. to two and a half years in prison for misuse of campaign funds). And BTW, in the past was a frequent guest law expert featured on FOX news shows and other cable entities.”
I am aware of her past cases. And I know how to read wikipedia – just as you know how to edit and spin it. I accused her of arrogance – that is a trait common to judges LEFT AND RIGHT. It seems to come with the robe.
Our constitution provides the courts as a check on the executive and legislative branched.
But there is no check on the judicial branch – and just as there was no check on the Special Prosecutor, the absence of over site leads to corruption – not always fiscal corruption – though there are plenty of examples of that.
You also did not cite here entire (short) record, She has been reversed by SCOTUS several times – on decisions where she substituted POLITICAL judgement for legal and constitutional judgement. As to respect and qualifications – those are INFERIOR to 80% of the judges that Trump has nominated thus far. Jackson had very little of a track record prior to being elevated. She clerked for a federal judge – which I respect – but that was not followed by an appellate clerkship or better still SCOTUS clerkship – as is true of more than 80% of Trump’s nominees. She server a brief and undistinguished stint as a federal prosecutor and spent many years as a corporate lawyer. Her criminal and constitutional qualifications are poor.
Regardless, these cases thrust her into the public spotlight in a way that she has never been before, and they thrust her handling of criminal defendants into the spotlight.
Constitutionally ALL defendants are presumed innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
Constitutionally ALL defendants are entitled to an affordable bail.
Constitutionally ALL defendants – like ordinary people, have the right to free speach, we support NARROW constraints of that right – inside of court rooms as an example, but the court does not have the constitutional authority to broadly infringe on the free speach of anyone – just because they have been accused of a crime.
Judges that are not full of themselves, who are secure in their position, and the law and the constitution need not silence defendants, Even ones who are critical of them.
The wise judge stands silent and deals solely with matters of the court room.
Assuring that even the most obnoxious defendant gets a fair trial, and letting an informed jury have the final say on the facts.
Jackson has violated all of the above. While it is not unfortunately unusual for judges to at least threaten to violate some of the above – it is uncommon for a judge to violate all of the above.
It should be self evident to pretty much everyone that she botch vior dire, with the result that an awful lot of people think the verdict of the jury was politically corrupt.
This is something you do not seem to grasp.
Justice is NOT served when the people with Red Hats, think it was, or when the people with blue hats think it was. It is served when nearly everyone agrees that the defendant received a fair trail that neither the judge nor the jury was not biased, that the defendant’s constitutional and civil rights were respected, and that due process was followed.
If all of those are wrong – we are still free to disagree with the outcome – but the remedy is to change the law. But if any one of those requirements is not met, we have a problem with our justice system that can not be fixed by changing the law – we have a lawless justice system
We have more than a disagreement about the outcome – we have a disagreement over the fundamental lawfulness of the process.
Legitimate government follows the law and consitution to protect the rights of individuals – what the declaration of independence establishes as the purpose of government.
And the words of the declaration of independence are MORE important than those of the constitution.
The entire purpose of the declaration of independdence was to distinguish when we are constrained from working inside the law and government – when “change the law or constitution” is the appropriate response to ones claims that something was wrong about the outcome, and the instances in which was are justified in taking up arms to remedy government failure.
I write over and over about the use of force by government REQUIRING justification.
That justification is what distinguishes between our right to correct government failure by changing those elected, changing the law, changing the constitution, and when revolution is justified. The more you have government act without justification – the more you undermine the legitimacy of that government. the more you justify revolution, rather than elections as the means to effect change.
“ So you are saying that your opinion on Barr, On Trump on Stone on Manafort on pretty much anything is based on hours of in person first hand monitoring ”
No, un-artful-dodger, I said your opinion regarding juror suppression IN THIS TRIAL was pulled out in odoriferous opinion-anus fashion. But you deflected from that in devious sidestep without defending your incorrect assertion.
If the judge was wrong, Stone’s lawyers can contest it, according to established rules of law. Right? You’re in favor of that, correct? Because you’re a law and order guy, isn’t that so? And again in the hypothetical situation of you as president now, having the same buddy-buddy relationship with Stone, you’d never publicly suggest you were considering pardonIng him, circumventing the rules of law, never never ever… And if Trump does that, you’ll stomp you your foot in opposition … am I right?
“No, un-artful-dodger, I said your opinion regarding juror suppression IN THIS TRIAL was pulled out in odoriferous opinion-anus fashion. But you deflected from that in devious sidestep without defending your incorrect assertion.”
What i pointed out is that your argument applies better to you.
“If the judge was wrong, Stone’s lawyers can contest it, according to established rules of law. Right? You’re in favor of that, correct? Because you’re a law and order guy, isn’t that so?”
The rule of law required Jackson to prevent this, when she found it occured it required her to grant a mistrial. Success at appeal is a determination by the appeals court that she failed to conform to the requirements of the rule of law.
Yes, I am extremely happy that we have an imperfect appellate process to correct the wrongs that happen in the courts. It is that appellate process that is one of the primary barriers to violence should the lower courts get things wrong.
Remember the central premise of the constitution is when government fails to protect our rights we are entitled to replace that government with one that does – by violence if necescary.
The entire due process and appeals arrangement – even the requirement to change the law or constitution if you do not like it is all about providing the legitimate means to correct errors.
If we do not have legitimate means to correct error and the error is significant enough we are justified in resorting to violence.
Due process, the rule of law, the requirement that the use of force by government is JUSTIFIED the high bars to violations our rights are all their to preclude citizens either as individuals or in groups from resorting to violence.
Injustice without remedy – real injustice – unjustified violations of actual rights – not feelings, justifies violence.
The entire purpose of “the rule of law” is to assure that government does not act such that violence is justified, and that if it does, that the eroneous actions of govenrment are remedied to avoid the justification of violence.
“And again in the hypothetical situation of you as president now, having the same buddy-buddy relationship with Stone, you’d never publicly suggest you were considering pardonIng him, circumventing the rules of law, never never ever… And if Trump does that, you’ll stomp you your foot in opposition … am I right?”
I would have gone public the moment that Mueller;s fraudsters filed charges and said proceed and you are fired.
PERIOD.
Because though you do not understand it THAT IS the rule of law.
Mueller already knew there was no crime BEFORE Stone testified before congress.
Mueller’s hounding of stone, and his prosecution of stone are the parting shots of a vindictive prosecutor who does not grasp that when you have dug under every pebble and can not find the evidence of a crime, that is NOT unable to prove innocence. That is as close as we get to actual innocence in this world as is normally possible.
As we now know DOJ and FBI new in Mid January 2017 there was no crime, and there was not reasonable suspicion necescary to continue.
EVERYTHING that happened after than moment in DOJ/FBI/SC was the abuse of power under the color of authority. That is a crime.
Everything include the appointment of Mueller as SC and every person he investigated and prosecuted.
Horowitz has found that DOJ/FBI never had probable cause for a warrant – while that is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion – the standard to conduct an investigation.
Probably cause is the standard to issue a subpeona, to request a warrant to spy on someone.
There was not probable cause at any time to go to the FISA court for a warrant – against Carter Page, or anyone else. That has been absolutely possitively established.
There was not reasonable suspicion after Mid January 2017.
That means every warrant request, every subpeona after that moment was as corrupt as the Page FISA warrant.
Mueller has actually done an absolutely fantastic case of proving himself guilty.
He dug under every grain of sand and in two years of digging, found absolutely nothing that was not known at the start. in the end he left the evidence that in Jan 2017 was not sufficient to continue even more thoroughly disproven then when he started.
I have not criticised Jackson regarding Sentencing Stone.
I criticized the Mueller prosecutors for unjustifiably exceeding the sentencing guidelines AND lying to DOJ about that.
I have separately criticised numerous aspects of her handling of the manafort and Stone trials. Though I will note that in atleast one instance in the past I actually defended her – because the law (bad and unconstitutional law) required her to do as she did. The misconduct was on the part of Mueller’s team for leveraging bad law to punish manafort for trying to prove his innocence.
It would be helpful if you did not blur all criticism together and pretend that it universally applied.
When I want to criticise broadly I make that clear.
Regardless, even you have accepted that atleast one of Manafort’s jurors was sufficiently biased to disqualify them and to require a new trial.
I am not sure that will happen – both of us should be equally offended if it does not.
Though I fully expect that if Stone looses his challenges to the fairness of his hjhury that suddenly you will have changed you mind. Would you have allowed Roger Stone on a jury for Hillary Clinton ? I wouldn’t.
Regardless, for atleast a moment you accepted that Stone was entitled to a fair trial, and that he did not get one. Even if you still beleive he would be convicted.
The responsibility to ensure a fair trial is Judge Jackson’s.
If that did not occur prima fascia the judge failed.
Ron has fixated on jury questionaires – I would note that if Jurror’s lied on those – that would be an actual violation of 18 USC 1001.
But the jury questionaires are a TOOL. The responsibility to assure the trial is fair, belongs to the govenrment, and primarily to the judge.
The fact that multiple biased jurors were accepted on this jury means Jackson FAILED.
It might be useful to look into how, but the how does not change the fact that she failed.
Stone did not have a fair trial. Even if you somehow successfully defend every decision of jackson’s – the outcome was still aun unfair trial and that is Jackson’s responsibility.
I am not particularly interested in the sentencing per say or what Jackson imposes.
The sentence itself is irrelevant if the trail was not fair.
And “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus” still applies.
If Jackson failed to provide Stone a fair Trial – it is not likely that she gave manafort one either.
As to Trump.
Lots of us would like it if he would STFU.
But he does not, Nor did Obama opining about Clinton – nor are those the only examples of presidents failing to STFU.
Yes, Trump has made Barr’s job harder. but that is Barr’s problem. He took the job.
But ultimately Trump ha the constitutional authority to direct prosecutions – so long as those prosecutions are otherwise justified.
Like Pres. Thomas Jefferson, Trump can order the AG to prosecute a political opponent, so long as there is reasonable suspiction. OR Trump can order the AG to excercise discretion and not prosecute someone for a crime – as Obama did with DACA – which is nothing more than an executive order directing the entire US government not to prosecute specific crimes by specific people.
Trump can tell Barr today – Do not prosecute Stone.
We can all dislike that – but the only rememdies are impeachment or elections.
And impeachment without a crime is a nonstarter
And finally through different powers Trump can tweet out a Pardon of Stone or anyone else he wishes tomorow.
And on top of Trump’s other power to direct the justice system – the power to pardon, is unlimited. He can pardon or commute at any time.
The power to pardon of commute includes all lessor related powers.
The power to terminate a prosecution, the power to change a sentencing recomendation.
That does not mean the president can do anything he pleases.
Only that the limits on his power over prosecutions is:
Elections,
Impeachment.
House democrats have discussed a new impeachment based on this Stone nonsense.
They are free to do so,
They are also free to investigate.
If they choose that I would STRONGLY recommend a process that respects due process.
Actually call all your witnesses in the house – subject them to thorough cross examination – by republicans and byt the president.
Allow opposition witnesses IN THE HOUSE.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. ”
If you do not give those who disagree their best opportunity to refute your claims you will not know the truth.
“TDP (New name for TDS as it has now grown to a pandemic, thus TDP)”
Hahaha. Good one.
“How can we be sure a “Jay” is not allowed on a trial of a Trump supporter and chosen foreperson, a position that carries alot of weight in some trials?”
We can’t. Plus, although I’m assuming that the judge did not know that this woman was an anti-Trump activist, we can’t know that for sure. The sentencing judge, Amy Berman Jackson, put Paul Manafort in solitiary confinement…for tax evasion and financial disclosure crimes. A seventy-something man who was not in any way violent or dangerous, serving a longer, harsher sentence than many murderers and rapists? And the recommendation that Roger Stone, a self-aggrandizing clown,but a non-violent, first time offender spend most of the rest of his natural life behind bars may have been canceled by Barr, but Berman Jackson can and probably will impose it anyway.
At least Stone and Manafort have a decent chance of being pardoned or having their sentence commuted ~ the rest of us can’t count on that, but, if jailing people for their political beliefs is ok, then we’re all at risk. Hell, Jay probably would send me away for life, based on my blog comments, lol!
No, Priscilla – not for life; but a year or two confinement in a straight jacket would be appropriate. For recreation you should be allowed hours of video access to all of Trump’s rally speeches (or would that be cruel and unusual punishment?).
And YES, if juror Hart provided misleading answers on her jury form about her political or social media activity, her views on any of the charges against Stone – let’s give him another trial, and make sure to officially include an additional charge for threatening physical harm to a witness in the first trial – which could include additional jail time under guidelines that apply in cases of threatened violence.
Actually, it was supposedly a threat to harm his dog, which the witness, Randy Credico, said was not serious. Credico wrote a letter, pleading for no jail time for Stone, who is now financially ruined, and, if in prison, will no longer be able to care for his disabled wife. Credico said that incarcerating Stone would be “cruel.”
So, sure, add that, too.
Well then, in the retrial Stone’s lawyers should insist on keeping any dog, cat, or horse owners off the jury, right? Or anyone sympathetic to pets.
But wait – why didn’t Stone’s lawyers object to a pro-Democrat juror being seated in the past trial? She plainly laid out her Democratic preference on her pre-selection juror questionnaire – and during jury selection Q&A, but Stone’s lawyers didn’t strike Hart from the pool. When will Trump accuse those lawyers of being agents of the Deep StateConspiracy?
From what I’ve read, she did not indicate her bias. Do you have a source?
Two or three news report I googled – including Washington Post, similarly said she disclosed her political affiliation and past involvement with Democratic political campaigns during the selection process. A former federal judge – I think his name was Gardner or Gertner – who had examined the trial questionnaires – said that was revealed. And as is standard, she was asked if she could put aside political leanings and objectively examine evidence at trial, to which she and all the other jurors had to answer affirmatively to be allowed on the jury.
Did she completely set aside her bias? Doubtful.
Did other jurors, many of them undoubtedly Republican Trump supporters, set aside their bias completely? Unlikely.
Was Stone still found guilty on the evidence? Looks like it.
And Barr just said he has no problem with the verdict.
So let’s compromise: Stone gets the lighter sentence, if Trump keeps his piggy fingers off the Pardon Button.
Found the link. Then one of two things took place. Stones attorneys were totally incompetent or they asked for this person to be dismissed and the judge refused.
And it only takes one strong person on a jury to sway the verdict. Someone that has run fro a political position can say many things to impact others thinking. There are some that will just vote for whatever the majority thinks just to get back in normal life.
But I really feel sorry for this person and the fact her name has come out because there are going to be many that want to get her one way or the other.
Trump is not better than Obama (with jumping to Ferguson and Treyvon conclusions) if he does not say something that indicated he was doing the job she was assigned. But I know that will never happen.
The problem is not the jury questionaire.
There are two HUGE problems.
The first which alone justifies a new trial – is that BEFORE the Trial she publicaly expressed views that she was strongly predjudicial to Stone.
Her affiliation with democrats is NOT proof of bias. But it is at the core of the 2ND Problem.
Judge Jackson barred Stone’s attorney’s from asking political questions of jurors during Voir dire. Had she not barred such questions a deeper inquiry into Hart would have been possible and her bias may have come out, and she would have been removed for cause.
Jurors can come into cases with political biases. Many can get past those biases and judge a case fairly. You can not exclude a juror because they are a democrat. or because they are politically active. But you can excuses them for any reason – including politics where those biases rise to the level that they pre judge the case as Hart did.
I do not know the political make up of the jury – but alexandria went for Clinton in 2016 by almost 80%. The likelyhood of there being a single republican on Stone’s jury (or Manafort’s or any Mueller Jury) was near nil.
There is nothing to “compromise”
Stone would be entitled to a lighter sentence “by law” as the sentencing recomendation of the Mueller attorney’s was way outside the sentencing guidelines.
The Hart issue means Stone did not get a fair trial.
He is entiled to a new Trial. Stone was in his home in Flordia for most of the alleged “crimes”. He is by the 6th amendment entitled to a trial in the district where the crime was allegedly committed. That would NOT be Alexandra.
He is entitled to a trial by impartial jurors.
He is entitled to a trial by prosecutors who are not corrupt, and who have not lied to the DOJ and the courts.
He is entitled to a judge who is capable of running a fair Trial Whether Jackson is politically biased, personally biased or incompetent is not known for certain. But she is self evidently incapable for running a fair trial.
Do those things and Stone will not be convicted – because he is INNOCENT.
Trump is going to pardon or commute the sentence of every person that Mueller has bullied with the possible exception of Cohen.
The only way Trump does not pardon Stone, is if Stone is acquitted.
I am honestly surprised Trump has not done so already to end this nonsense.
How about a different offer.
Trump publicly anounces pardons for Stone, Flynn, Vander Zandt, Papadoulous, communtation for Manafort, and an offer of transactional immunity from criminal prosecution for all who come forward publicly within the next 30 days and FULLY cooperate with Durham.
That is all leakers, conspirators, abusers of power, forgers, fraudsters. …..
BUT the immunity is limited to criminal prosecution. It does not protect your job.
If you committed a crime under color of authority you should never hold a government job again.
I would even extend that to those involved int he Clinton email probe, and the Ukraine probe.
Lets get all this out in the open.
The Deal is full immunity – but only with full cooperation.
What is relevant is that she prejudged the case.
That alone justifies retrial. The failure to determine that is an independent issue.
The failure to find that she was prejudiced is a failure of the COURT
That failure occurred because Jackson limited inquiry into Juror’s political biases in the most politically charged trial in my lifetime.
With Manafort the charges were atleast divorced from politics – even if the prosecution was not.
I would note that Jackson was also the judge in the Manafort Trial.
Any finding that Jackson failed to give Stone a fair Trial implies that Manafort did not get one either.
I doubt Stone cares if dog owners are on his jury.
The only people who do not understand Stone was joking are those with severe TDS.
There was no actual reason to threaten credico – there was no crime.
There was not even a secret. The public already knew.
You are misrepresenting the actions of Stone’s lawyers.
They attempted to question perspective Jurors about politics – as this case is at its core political. Had Jackson allowed them to do so. Harts prior remarks about Stone would have come out.
Judge Jackson can preclude Stone’s lawyers from striking a juror based on their politics – if after questioning it is reasonable to presume that the politics of the juror would not cloud their judgement. For many people that is true.
Not for all, not for Ms Hart.
But we did not get to find out, because Stones lawyers were not allowed to ask.
The Mueller prosecuting attorney’s are already being accused of being part of a “deep state conspiracy”. Given the facts they is no question that there is malfeance on their part.
It is not as of yet been establed that they were part of the conspiracy we know about in FBI.
Please document this statement. Would like to read the info that this was brought out before trial.
Early information on Stone/Credico emails and texts.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/roger-stone-wikileaks-randy-credico-mueller/
Early 2019 – lots of spin here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/roger-stone-threatened-to-steal-a-therapy-dog-and-tampered-with-a-witness-mueller-indictment.html
Dave, thanks for this info, but my documentation request was to Jay and the report that Tomika Hart disclosed her bias in the jury questionaire. ( I then found it eventually)
Sorry for bombing you.
But there is an important point to my links.
The charges against Stone do not survive the use of a time line.
Absolutely Stone claimed to have direct contact with wikileaks.
But when he was forced to testify about it he told the truth.
And he told the truth to Mueller.
And Mueller verified that it was true.
Bannon and others testifying that Stone told them he had contact with Assange – does nto change the fact that he didn’t – and Mueller knew that.
So it was ALWAYS imposssible for Stone to have conspired with Wikileaks or the Russians
And Mueller KNEW that.
Next all the “threats” Jokes, etc that are supposed to be witness tampering occured BEFORE there were any “witnesses”.
Next – what is it that Stone is purportedly trying to threaten Credico about ?
To Not tell congress or Mueller that Stone could not be guilty of something ?
Why would stone threaten credico to lie to make stone look guilty ?
The other alternate is that Stone threatened Credico who was also publicly lying.
Credico was Stone’s source – not Assange
But Credico was publicly denying that.
Since when is it a crime to threaten a witness to get them to tell the truth ?
Only a biased judge and jury could convict on this mess, and only a morally bankrupt prosecutor would have taken this to court.
This does not have the dog thing in it but it is lots more exchanges between Credico and Stone.
Why Meuller bother Stone after this is beyond beleif. Stone told CONGRESS and MEULLER that Credico was his contact with Wikileaks. Though Credico initially denied that it ultimately proved completely true.
Stone had absolutely no contact with Wikileaks or with Russians. His public remarks about Clinton were exagerations based on rumours.
That is how he operates, that is how he has always operated, that is how LOTS of people like him operate. Whether you like it or not – and I do not, it is not a crime, and it is incredibly common in politics.
Credico ALSO had no real source for his wikileaks information.
So the entire claim that The Trump campaign had actual wikileaks sources and knew anything ahead of time was crap. Stone made broad foreboading generalizations based on rumors he got from Credico – who also had no source.
The only thing Stone has ever been guilty of is political exageration on a grand scale – and being lucky that sometimes his predictions prove true.
The fact that Mueller hounded him – and credico, is damning – to Mueller.
Worse, they actually Charged and convicted Stone of conspiring with wikileaks – something the KNOW is false.
They put on an array of witnesses – including bannon and others who claimed they beleived Stone had a direct connection to Assange.
Their testimony was truthful. but it never should have been admitted – the SC already new LONG BEFORE that Stone had no ties – not even indirect ones to Wikileaks.
And yet the Jury convicted Stone of conspiring with Wikileaks and Russia – even though Mueller new and the evidence showed no such conspiracy existed.
But this was a fair trail ? By unbiased prosecutors ?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/exclusive-text-messages-show-stone-friend-discussing-wikileaks-plans-n936371
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-indictment-just-a-hint-of-roger-stones-bonkers-email-abuse-of-frenemy-randy-credico
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/roger-stone-threatened-to-steal-a-therapy-dog-and-tampered-with-a-witness-mueller-indictment.html
Credico as well as the other witnesses against stone only testified because Mueller gave them a choice between testifying against Stone or being the defendant.
This is well documented. To an actually unbiased person there testimony was not damaging.
The absolutely critical issue is THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING CRIME.
To convict you have to beleive Stone was credibly threatening Credico to preclude him from testifying about legal acts that everyone already knew about.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/trump-friend-roger-stone-shouldnt-go-to-prison-randy-credico-says.html
First, I am honestly shocked that you concede Stone is entitled to a new Trial.
I would not have expected that out of you, and I am honestly suprised,
Understanding that people you do not like and assume are guilty are entitled to a jury that starts with the presumption of innocense was not something I expected you to understand or agree with.
Kudos!!!!
It is near certain that Ms Hart lied on here Jury questionaire.
I would be entirely shocked if it did not contain a question about prior public statements regarding the defendant.
But the bigger failure was Jacksons, She severly limited inquiry into juror biases.
This is not just a failure on the part of Hart.
This is a failure on the part of the court.
I am glad that you understand that Stone deserves a new Trial.
Stone lives in Florida, he works out of his home. Many fo the alleged crimes took place from his home. The Venue of Stones new Trial needs to be FL – not Alexandria.
It will be easier to get a fair trial and an unbiased jury in a Start that is only barely republican, than in alexandria where the odds of getting anyone on the jury that is not like Ms Hart is near zero.
Stone is not entitled to a trial by republicans.
But he is absolutely entittled to the presumption of innocence – the REAL presumption of innocence.
Jay, Stone was tried, and convicted of the charge you say was not included – and it is one of the more ludicrous charges.
It is based on emails between Stone and Credico. Both were competing for public attention and credit. Credico and Stone are both friends and competitors.
Stone in his emails made a reference to the horses head scene from the god father.
It was an obvious joke. There were many such refences in exchanges between Credico and Stone – I beleive Credico started the God Father theme.
Credico TESTIFIED that it was a joke – that not only was he not threatened but that he has never been threatened by Stone. They are firends who are also competitive.
Finally – how do you threaten a witness requarding testimony of a non-crime ?
“If you tell Mueller the perfectlhy legal things we did, I will leave a horses head in your bed” ?
How is that a threat ?
Neverytheless Stone was convicted. Given the Jury and the judge and the prosecutors it is easy to understand.
At this point if Stone gets a new trial – likely after many delays the charges will be droped.
Which they should have been from the start.
Ms. Hart publicly mocked Stone and expressed his guilt prior to being a juror.
The jury questionaire is relevant to HOW did hart get on the jury, much less as foreman.
That would be because the judge failed. Because Stone was deprived of due process – like the right question jurors to assure that they are impartial.
This failure was predictable given Jackson’s own prejudiced handling of the case.
Regardless, whether it is a witness or a juror, you can not properly evaluate their bias and truthfulness without subjecting them not merely to freindly examiniation, but to strong skeptical examination.
Stone is entitled to a new Trial – because Hart never should have been on his jury – and if Hart made it who else may have made it because the jury selection process was limited by the judge ?
But most important Stone is entitled to a new trial with due process.
Priscilla quoted Credico:
‘I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog.’”
Credico clarifies what he meant with his wording: ‘Stone himself’
. “I never thought Stone personally was going to do it himself,” Credico told me. Rather, he thought that one of Stone’s supporters might. “I look like the guy that’s gonna be the guy that’s gonna force Stone to talk to the feds and say everything that he knows on the president,” he said. “So I’m expendable at that point. That’s what I’m thinking.”
On Credico’s testimony as you claim – Jackson was REQUIRED to dismiss the charge.
Credico’s representation is EXACTLY the difference between free speach and “true threats”.
There is even a recent SCOTUS case on this.
If Stone was not going to do this himself, and did not order another over which he has authority to do so – it is not a crime PERIOD.
I would further note the entire line of thought is ludicrously stupid.
BOTH Stone and Credico were playing a tricky game.
One the one had BOTH wished to be publicly (particularly by those on the right) beleived to be in close contact with Wikileaks and Assange. Something BOTH were lying about.
At the same time as Mueller ludicrously tried to criminalize a non-crime, each was concerned about being forced to tell Mueller the Truth. Or that the other would tell Mueller the Truth.
Not because they participated in a crime – but because neither had any real contact with Wikileaks.
Mueller was not going to expose them as crooks, he was going to expose them as political liars and bragarts.
Which may sound well and good – but THAT is not his Job. It is not the job of government to find and expose the truth. It is to punish actual crimes.
Where there is no crime the authority of government to investigate ENDS.
Why ? – for among other things exactly what you have here.
ALL of the allegations against Stone – every single one of them, is essentially some claim that the coverup of a non-crime is itself a crime.
And this is exactly what is wrong with 18 USC 1001. If merely lying to government is a crime – you manufacture criminals where they did not exist otherwise.
Most of us understand that telling a federal agent that it is tuesday when it is actually wednesday should not be a crime. But by the interpretation of 18 USC 1001 that you are using – it is.
As I noted the Stone Prosecutors told DOJ that they were going to recomend a sentence in the lenient range of the guidelines – as is appropriate based on numerous factors.
Instead they recomended one outside the maximum – almost certainly driven by political and personal animus. which should NEVER be a factor in justice.
Regardless, they lied to DOJ – that is by your interpretation of 18 USC 1001 a crime.
Many people including weakly the Mueller report itself asserted that you can not claim obstruction of justice – atleast not without an incredibly compelling case, absent an underlying crime.
It is virtually impossible – as is evidnced By Trump’s ranting and fuming about Mueller and Stone’s own attacks on Mueller and Jackson, between an innocent person justifiably angry at being targeted, and a guilty person trying to obstruct justice.
Therefore we must assume that absent proof of a crime, there is no obstruction of justice.
18 USC 1001 completely elides that.
Technically Stone was not prosecuted on that, but the problem remains the same.
If you are charging people who did not commit crimes with crimes because they did not kowtow to your investigation – YOU are the criminal.
Prsecutors – no matter what they think – do not know who is innocent and who is guilty, and have a natural prejudice to assume guilt.
Actually innocent people – do know they are innocent. And the actions of law enforcement ALWAYS look to the innocent like injustice – because they ARE.
But we tolerate small amounts of injustice – because as noted about, absent inquiry prosecutors do not know who is guilty.
And just to be clear – credico’s statement STILL makes it clear that Stone did not “threaten a witness”.
Your and the NYT’s lunatic claim converts the remarks of one person in to a criminal threat based on your SUBJECTIVE feelings and beleifs about the acts of THIRD PARTIES.
Credico states he was not threatened by Stone.
Credico states he did not beleive Stone would act to harm him – BTW your beleif does not make someone else’s words or actions a crime.
Your claim is that Credico was threatened because Stone’s followers might beleive that he was somehow responsible for putting Stone in Mueller’s crosshairs ove racts that were legal.
Why is it so hard for you to see that is nonsense ? That at the very least – no matter how sincely Credico might have believed that – it is still NOT A CRIME, and NOT A THREAT.
It is a cornerstone of law that we are not responsible for the actions of third parties unless we specifically direct them to act.
If Stone had publicly given a speach calling Credico a dirty dog who deserved to die – that would be repugnant speach – but it would still be free speach.
The term credible threat means a threat that is “ real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1212 (D. Wyo. 2006)
Jackson was required to dismiss the charge AS A MATTER OF LAW based on what you are claiming.
Judge Jackson severely limited the areas of inquiry during viodiere.
Jackson did not find out this juror was biased because he own rulings made discovering that impossible.
This is not merely a failure because a clearly admittedly predjudiced person ended up on the jury, but because the judges actions made this possible.
“Judge Jackson severely limited the areas of inquiry during viodiere.’
That’s your flatulent opinion, and It stinks. To put it more clearly, you’re full of Crapola. The defense EXCLUDED multiple potential jurors for cause during the selection process. And they were able to question them in detail, after the juror questionnaires were presented. And his lawyers tried to exclude Democrats from the jury who voted against Trump, or any who worked for government agencies, or anyone who had read or heard anything about the case. In other words they were trying to stack the jury pool with dumb-bunny anti government sludges.
And when Stone’s lawyers asked for a retrial over a “prejudiced witness, guess what: Ms. Hart wasn’t the one mentioned “for bias.”
It was, complained Stone’s lawyers, a person “employed in a division of the Internal Revenue Service” who worked with the Justice Department on criminal tax cases, who during the trial admitted reading news about the trial prior to being called for jury service. Stone’s lawyers had tried to get rid of him/her during selection , but the judge asked if the news or her job had given the juror any opinions about the case. When the juror responded “No” The judge, as almost every judge in a criminal trial asked to rule on that exact charge, followed the Supreme Court standard for juror qualification that they need not “be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved … It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”
Read Stone’s Motion For NewTrial, and the judges response to it, available on line in full.
“The fact that the juror was just one of these approximately 1,400 lawyers (at the IRS) does not begin to establish the sort of inherent bias that should have prompted the Court to strike (the person) in its discretion,” Jackson wrote.
Stone’s best bet for a retrial is lawyer-incompetence. The judge’s replies to defense doddering make her a prime candidate for SCOTUS appointment.
It is irrelevant how many jurors the defense excludes.
The law does not require that a defendant gets the least biased jury possible out of 100.
That was the technique used in the south to convict black men – ensure a jury pool of only white men – many of who were members of the clan.
The law requires that a defendant is entitled to an unbiased jury.
A single biased juror makes the entire process unfair.
Typically during voir dire the prosecution and defense are given an equal number of pre-emptory challenges – those are challenges WITHOUT CAUSE – based on the prosecutors or defense attorney’s instincts that a jury might be biased – without a requirement of proving Bias.
But every prosecutor and every defense attorney has INFINITE challenges for cause.
Today NO ONE would allow a single Klansman on the jury of a black man.
If the judge had to go through 1000 prospective jurors to get 12 that were not Klansman and not otherwised biased, they judge would have to do so.
Further whether you like it or not – Stone’s attorney’s are permitted to try to exclude democrats. You have this bizarre idea of the standards of conduct in a criminal trial.
Both the prosecutor and the Judge are bound to an oath to do justice.
The defense attorney’s obligation is to their client – not justice.
There are a collection of ethical constraints – things that defense attorney’s can not do in representing their clients – like present testimony that they know is a lie.
But in general they are free to do whatever they can to exclude jurors that they think are harmful to their client.
The burden of selecting an impartial jury is NOT on the defense – they are permitted to try to get the most biased in favor of their client jury they possibly can.
The prosecutor can not appeal an innocent jury verdict on the grounds of jury bias.
There are very very very few grounds that a prosecutor can appeal an innocent verdict.
Conversely if the judge or prosecutor does not deliver a fair trial – due process, and unbiased jury to the defendant – the verdict will be overturned.
There are bizarre quirk’s in the way this works – according to the law as it currently is, with a few exceptions usually focused on errors of law by the judge, the failure of the prosecutor or judge to assure a fair trial is attributed to the defense attorney – as it is the defense attorney’s job – so says our appelate courts to assure that the prosecutors and courts follow the rules.
So most criminal appeals are for “inneffective assistance of counsel” and the appeal will read “the defense attorney failed to object to some misconduct on the part of the judge or prosecutor”.
But the requirement for an unbiased jury is absolute.
Trying to exclude jurors who have read or heard anything about a case occurs in EVERY SINGLE JURY TRIAL.
As a general rule such jurors are EXCLUDED.
But since some cases have so high a profile that would exclude everyone from the jury,
In the instance of high profile cases judges allow prosecutors to attempt to :rehabilitate” jurors who have heard about the case – and they are sometimes successful.
Regardless, defense attorney’s are normally given BROAD latitude in questioning jurors to ferret out possible prejudice.
Trials are complex and expensive. A retrial even more so. Further, the prosecutions odds of winning a retrial are dramatically lower than a first trial. Quite often cases are just dropped if a retrial is granted. It is in everyone’s interest to get it right from the start.
A good judge tries to reign in prosecutor’s and give the defense alot of latitude.
A good judge rules agains the defense only when they are absolutely clearly wrong.
And in favor of the prosecution only when they are absolutely clearly right.
Put simply all benefit of the doubt goes to the defence.
A good judge runs a trial that way – because when the defendant is convicted – which is near certain merely by being charged. there will be no viable appeal.
Unfortunately there are few good judges today.
But the absence of good judges does not change the requirements.
As to the rest of your “legal nonsense”.
The evidence in hand TODAY is that the jury foreperson posted on social media about Stone’s quilt prior to the trial.
Nothing in what you have said, nothing in what the judge has said gets arround that problem.
A biased prospective juror got onto the Jury.
There is not anything that corrects that problem. Even if the judge had perfectly done her job – that Still would require a mistrial.
The fact that as you claim Jackson has not grasped that is just more evidence of her own unfitness.
Mistakes do happen in trials – though this one was foreseeable by Jackson’s constraints on vior dire.
Jackson’s response is a pretty classic bad decision.
“I got it wrong, but everything is kosher anyway because I pretended to follow the rules”.
The requirement is an unbiased jury. Not platitudes about failed efforts to do so.
The remedy is a mistrial, not forcing apellate courts to fix this or worse, saddling us with bad law.
Your cites also demonstrate the problem – and I have seen this from the bench before.
The responsibility for questioning jurors (and witnesses) belongs to the prosecutor and the defence.
While Judges do and have a right to question jurors and witnesses, it is normally because an attorney – and usually the defence attorney has FAILED.
It is generally not a judges job to make sure the prosecutor does their job.
Since the judge has a duty to justice it IS her job to assure that the defence properly questions witnesses and jurors.
What the judge can NOT do is question witnesses and jurors as a tool to PREVENT the attorney’s from questioning witnesses and juror’s.
Think about this. We do not have trials where the prosecution adn defense call witnesses by the judge does all the questioning.
Why ? Because just as John Stuart Mill said “If you know only your own side of the argument you know little of that” – we require the prosecutor to bring out their case in the strongest way they can. We require the defence attorney to bring out their case in the strongest way they can. We expect that prosecutors and defence attorney’s are nearly always going to do a better job of ferreting out bias – because they have the incentive to do so.
When a judge steps in and it is not clear that it is to remedy the fact that a defense attorney failed to ask an important question possibly exculpating a client (or inculpating a juror), we should be highly suspicious of the judge.
Jackson precluded the defense attorney’s from exploring the political biases of juror;s and instead did so in a limited fashion herself.
It is now self evident that she failed. ‘
I can attack further her methods of conducting Voir Dire.
But that is irrelevant – just as Ron’s complaints about the jury questionaire are irrelevant.
A prejudiced juror ended up as foreperson of the jury.
That is all that is relevant. If you wish to beleive naively that Jackson did not fail because of her arrogance – beleive what you want.
The Trial was still a failure.
“The fact that the juror was just one of these approximately 1,400 lawyers (at the IRS) does not begin to establish the sort of inherent bias that should have prompted the Court to strike (the person) in its discretion,”
I can not recall a criminal case in the 20+ years my wife has been a lawyer in which a lawyer was allowed on a jury – EVER. Any lawyer, any kind of lawyer.
Lawyers are pretty much at the top of the list of people who the courts exclude routinely for cause.
Following lawyers are:
Engineers, doctors, pretty much all professionals and scientists.
Below that is members of law enforcement and their families.
As a rule of thumb prosecutors particularly – but also defense attorney’s do NOT want on juries people who know the law, or are technically competent, or good at logic.
Criminal trials are almost entirely about the emotional evaluation of evidence.
Anyone with the actual understanding of probability – and therefore “beyond a reasonable doubt” is barred from juries.
Of course stones “best shot” is lawyer incompetence.
Just about every Criminal appeal reads as follows.
“The defendant is entitled to a remedy because his defense council was inefective, for failing to object, stop thwart or otherwise prevent the judge or prosecutor from violating the defendents due process rights.”
And almost all appelate decisions in favor of the defence read”
The defence counsel was ineffective as they failed to prevent the judge or prosecutor from interfering with the defendants due process rights.
About the only time I can recall seeing a judge being directly held accountable, is when they issue a ruling on a point of law, it is properly objected to and the judge overrules the objection.
If a prosecutor quotes from the bible in their opening or closing – which has not been permitted in my state for decades, it will be the defense attorny that is found ineffective for failing to prevent that.
If the judge makes and error – the defense attorney is responsible for failing to object.
The thing that is of concern to me is the last paragraph where it is reported ” “ … it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views — and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone’s arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.”
I have no idea what constitutes a predisposition for a certain verdict or conflict of interest, but that seems to me to be close. I remember my mother-in-law was called to a jury years ago for someone accused of killing a child (car, gun, not sure) but the attorney would asked the older individuals if they had grand children around that age, If they said yes, the defense ask that they be dismissed and the judge allowed it. So if your TDP, then I would think your predisposed of a guilty verdict.
Alexandria is pretty much the definition of a place where if there is a political element to a trial – there will not be a fair trail.
Comey was actually right that He could not get a conviction of Clinton – because the trial would be in the DC area, and no DC jury would ever convict Clinton.
Just Like DC Juries were assured of convicting Manafort and Stone.
One of the ereasons that Mueller got so many guilty please is because all he had to do was charge people associated with Trump and he was guaranteed that a DC Jury would convict.
Trump is looking to move large portions of the federal govenrment out of DC and to the states.
This is an excellent idea. The people regulating our country need to live closer to the people they are regulating.
Further this is likely to atleast slightly mitigate the red/blue split in the country.
We have far to much of elite (and mostly white) clueless blue overlords ruling over a mostly red or pink country of people they do not know and that they hate.
It is much easier to hate people when you do not know them.
JUST NOW: Barr tells Trump to Stop Tweeting About Ongoing Trials!
Barr thinks Stone Guilty Verdict Correct. only Objects to Sentence Recommendation
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-blasts-trumps-tweets-stone-case-impossible-job/story?id=68963276
IT si generally accepted that the president should not speak about Trials.
But that norm was breached by Obama.
You have no clue what Barr beleives.
But the misconduct of US Attonery’s is his legitimate domain.
You have already accepted that Stone did not get a fair trial.
Barr has not publicly taken a position on that either – even though it is self evident.
Ha Ha Ha!
Lou Dobbs!
Trump Uber allis
I would not follow Lou Dobbs on stock market picks.
What should disturb you is not that Dobb’s is often wrong.
But that Dobbs (or Alex Jones) is sometimes right.
When the extremist paranoid tin foil hat crowd proves right – something is very very wrong.
One of the things that has been most disturbing about the past 3 years is that the Lou Dobb’s and Alex Jones, the nut job conspiracy theorists of the right have been proven right occasionally.
That should scare the shit out of you.
Dobbs is a gurgling borderline senile idiot Trump adulator who over the past three years is acceptable as an on air commentator as vomit heaved daily on the family dining table.
Am i surprised to see you readily defend the vile bile he regurgitates?
Not in the least.
Not a fan of Dobbs or many of the other Fox Journalists you hate.
But I can provide an enormous list of those at MSNBC, CNN. …. that are no better or even worse.
And Dobbs does atleast have the possible excuse that he is heading for Senility.
The others don;t.
I do not recall defending “dobbs” for the most part I do not defend people.
I defend truth facts, or principles.
Sometimes those are offered by people I like, sometimes by people I detest.
I’m a bit confused by all of this DOJ stuff. If the DOJ is part of the executive branch, which it is, why do so many people insist that it’s independent?
Of course, the DOJ needs to be unbiased or, perhaps more acurately, biased toward fairness, but “unbiased” and “independent” are not the same. William Barr, just as Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch before him, works for and reports to the President. He is not supposed to be a “wingman” for anything that the President wants, (as Holder openly was), but he is certainly not supposed to independently choose what laws or lawful orders are enforced, as Sally Yates did, for example, when she refused to enforce a lawful executive order from the President.
I think that the problem is that 1) the Obama administration packed the DOJ with biased operatives, who see their primary and correct role as resisting Trump at every opportunity, even to the point of being insubordinate and seditious, and 2) the willingness of the media to portray this as “courageous,” when it is, in fact, dangerously undemocratic. Undemocratic, because these people, who are unelected, are resisting the duly elected executive, to who they report. The rise of an ignorant and gullible electorate has made this possible, and I see no signs that the electorate is becoming more knowledgeable. In fact, it seems to me that it’s becoming ever more ignorant and prone to believing dangerous misinformation and ideologies.
I have asked numerous Trump haters to give me an example of how Trump behaves like a “tyrant,” and I have never gotten a straight answer. Usually, the answers have something to do with him being a bully, making fun of people, tweeting too much, disrespecting women, etc., etc. Which are perfectly adequate answers as to why a person might dislike Trump, consider him a bad person or a bad leader or a bad role model. Certainly, they are good answers as to why they wouldn’t vote for him ~ but, if he were a tyrant, they wouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway, right?
Trump a tyrant? That’s ridiculous and ignorant, in my view, because it ignores the very defnition of what a tyrant is, which is “a cruel and oppresive ruler, such as Joseph Stalin.” Yet, many “highly educated” people will tell you that, in fact, Trump is very similar to Stalin.
I honestly don’t know how we have gone downhill so fast…although, I suppose that Ron is correct, and we’ve been frogs, in the slowly boiling pot for a long time, and the pot has finally reached a full boil.
***Not biased towards “fairness,” but biased toward “equal justice under the law.”
Neither the DOJ, nor the FBI nor any other cabinet office in the executive branch is “independent” of the president.
There are very FEW instances where SCOTUS has found any executive branch office “independent” – I beleive those decisions to be wrong – no part of the executive is “independent”.
But generally SCOTUS has found that when congress sets up a part of the executive, that is not explicitly setup by the constitution, proclaims it to be “independent” creates a committee to govern it and has the members of that committee appointed by the president and confirmed by congress – that committee has a limited degree of independence.
The Federal Reserve was the first such instance, The FEC is another.
SCOTUS Struct down the claim that the CFPB was independent because it did not meet the criteria of being run by a committee.
Anyway the FBI and DOJ are NOT independent of the president.
They have a long standing “tradition” of independence, that has no support in the law, or consitution and has a long history of breach.
‘
It is GENERALLY wise for a president to appoint capable people and then leave them alone to do their job so long as they are following the policies he dictates.
But there is no legal or constitutional requirement for independence in ANY portion of the executive branch.
“It is GENERALLY wise for a president to appoint capable people and then leave them alone to do their job so long as they are following the policies he dictates.”
Dave, that has been a difficult thing for Trump to do, partly because of his own personality, and what I believe to be a somewhat flawed understanding of the president’s role.
I think that Barr was wise to give that interview on ABC. Trump must have gotten the message, since he did not tweet about McCabe being let off the hook.
I missed the McCabe thing.
That is surprising.
There has been a fight going on because DOJ wanted to prosecute McCabe but they wanted to delay and would not explain why to the courts.
In other editorials I read speculation that the DOJ was stalling because starting McCabes prosecution allowed McCabe discovery and that would expose Durham’s investigation and interfere with the cooperation of witnesses. Right now, no one knows who is talking and what they are saying.
Maybe it is possible to refile on McCabe later.
That said – the right answer to all these “lying to investigators” (18 US 1001) charges is too drop them. McCabe, Stone, Papadoulis, Van Der Zandt, Flynn.
Further there is no just world in which Flynn is convicted of jay walking that does not put McCabe behind Bars.
McCabe bears special personal responsibility and animus towards Flynn, and McCabe;s actions with respect to Flynn earn him a special circle in hell.
“Dave, that has been a difficult thing for Trump to do, partly because of his own personality, and what I believe to be a somewhat flawed understanding of the president’s role.”
Since getting elected, Trump faced a secret army – including many in the executive branch ACTIVELY seeking to frame him and get rid of him.
These same people ACTIVELY sought to Fork over anyone who supported him.
In myriads of instances his own appointees, and staff – people purportedly loyal to him were advising him not to fight back – and effectively disempowering his presidency – which was almost as good as getting rid of him.
While many of those people are good people and good intentioned, and ultimately SOME of their efforts MIGHT have stopped Trump from taking actions that would have proved disasterous.
As any attorney will tell you there is no worse client than an innocent person.
At the same time – all the tweeting and fighting etc that Trump did WERE necescary.
I will PARTLY agree with you that sometimes Trump is his own worst enemy.
But sometimes those looking out for him are.
I think Trump has been mostly right to rail about the injustice of all of this.
But it appears that on several occasions he was prepared to and may have actually ordered Mueller’s firing.
As justly deserved as that was. and as strongly as I might have supported him doing so,
with the possibly unwanted assistance of many of his close advisiors – some of whom have subsequently been fired – that did not happen – and politically, that is probably a good thing.
So overall I am LESS supportive of the claim that Trump shoudl listen to his advisors.
But GENERALLY I think he should listen to Barr.
But I understand how that might be hard for Trump.
Of all the people purportedly supporting him – who has stood by him through all of this ?
I think Sessions is an honorable man, but he was an absymal choice as AG, and more importantly by recusing himself he left the justice department in control of people out to get Trump. But for the investigations of Nunes in the house – they likely would have “trumped something up” and succeeded. If nothing else Mueller would STILL be a boil on Trump’s but.
Mueller is gone because Nunes made public enough information to erode the foundations of the SC investigation.
I THINK Barr is an excellent choice to clean up the DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA.
But I think Trump has been disappointed by so many that he does not completely Trust Barr to do so.
Under the circumstances I understand that.
Of the hundreds of people involved in this mess from the start of the Trump administration – who is it that you would say Trump should Trust ? Even among his own appointments.
Many Trump appointments that I think were mostly wise – and mostly served him Well. still eventually got fed up resigned or were fired and then pissed all over him. Kelley being the latest.
I think Kelley likely did a great job. I think it was a difficult job. I think it involved alot of conflict with Trump.
As I have sort of said about lots of these people – their advice to trump was WRONG.
But Trump’s own desired course of action was WRONG too.
As these people butted heads the outcome was pretty close to RIGHT.
Oddly I think Trump knows that.
I would note that Trump does not attack these people – not while working for him nor after they leave – until they attack him.
Trump has brought lots of talented people to his admistration.
And MANY have been in conflict with him. There is a great deal of information that Trump does NOT want “yes men” that he wants people who challenge him.
Oddly the Trump cabinet reminds me of my family and my family business.
Family disagreements were often heated – and they were always about the business.
They got loud and frequently drove everyone in the office out of the building early – that is as many as 55 people.
But in the end the decisons we made were very good. And independently not one of us would have done as well.
Further my parents were a bit like Trump. While she was alive – the final decision was my mothers, but it was usually affected by the often angry loud advice of the rest of us.
After she died the business failed (slowly) My father was less inclined to conflict and more prone to try to please everyone, but when that was not possible – and it never is, he was more prone to act rashly on his own. I spent my last decade in the business and then the rest of my fathers life protecting him from mistakes he made. or trying to mitigate the damages. I ended up in a 3 year holy war with the IRS over something totaly stupid that I knew I was going to lose – but I did so, with the advice of a lawyer, because my father had not consulted anyone, done something that was both stupid and criminal – though small, that the IRS had not figured out, and would not figure out so long as we fought over this other stupid issue. And for Jay’s edification, I had to manage to do that without violating 18 USC 1001 and actually lying to the IRS. I fought with the IRS about who owned a Truck, so they would not figure out that what they should be doing is trying to figure out what happened to the oriental rug.
Priscilla, In my point of view (And many will disagree, but its mine) the relationship between the A.G. and president is unique since it is not really an executive agency which implements the presidents agenda ( Treasury, Energy) and an independent agency where the president may or may not have his appointment heading the agency ( Fed chair, FBI). The A.G. is a cabinet position, but is operated more like an independent agency enforcing the laws.
There is a line the president should not cross in my mind. That is commenting on the guilt or innocence of an individual, the evidence of a possible illegal act before a trial or the sentencing of an individual before that occurs.
For this reason alone, even with any other reasons, I will not be voting for Trump, just as I did not vote for Obama. Obama went too far when he said “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness” when the Ferguson case was still under investigation. he went on to say much more. This was in September and the grand jury did not clear the police officer until November. President should not accuse police of racism and guilt before findings are released, just as they should not comment about sentencing and guilt before a trial has come to a complete close. That is what commutation power granted the president is for. To do that just undermines law enforcement, from the small town cop the the federal courts.
It is one thing to bully your opponents, congress or the press. It is something different to bully the DOJ. Those who gave the president commutation power understood that. Trump does not. Trump does not understand he is not the CEO of Trump America, he is United States President Trump . He is not king and can not dictate what his subjects do.
I thought 2016 was a cesspool when it came to presidential voting. Given the direction of the democrats which now looks like Sanders or Bloomberg v Trump, with no acceptable third party, we now have the community sewer processing plant. How much dumber can voters get?
Ron, that is an excellent response to my post. It gave me a lot of food for thought.
I don’t believe that the A.G. should be a political “wingman” for the president, but, because the presidency is a political position, I believe that every president puts a certain amount of political pressure on the AG, whether it be to aggressively defend certain laws, or to ignore others. A good example would be when Obama directed the DOJ to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act, passed during the Clinton administration. Other chief executives have made similar directives.
Elena Kagan, when she was Solicitor General, argued that, because the president has the power to fire the AG, he also has a limited power to direct him, although that direction may be subject to legislative impeachment and judicial review. The president himself is subject to rejection by the voters, should he overstep, so that, presumably keeps him in check, although that check is based on an educated and informed citzenry. The US attorneys in the DOJ answer to no one but the AG.
The Roger Stone situation has come about because of the enormous power that has accrued to those career attorneys, who have become a obstacle not only to the judgment of the AG, but to the President, who has seen himself, his family, his associates and advisors spied upon, harassed and abused by the DOJ and its investigative agency, the FBI.
The idea that a supporter (not even an appointee or staffer) of Trump should spend almost a decade in prison for lying to Congress ~ not even under oath ~ when Trump opponents in positions of enormous power have gotten off scot free for perjury , FISA abuse, and worse is an outrage, and I believe that Trump’s tweet about the Stone situation was based on his expression of that outrage. It is Trump and his circle that have been bullied and persecuted, not the other way around.
Where I agree with you is that Trump did not have the discipline to let his own AG handle this situation, to the point where Barr had to go on tv to tell Trump to shut the hell up and stop making a bad situation worse. I understand why he did what he did, but it was stupid and gave his political enemies cover to attack Barr.
On the other hand, today, Andrew McCabe, who was criminally referred by the DOJ IG, for perjury, lying to the IG, and leaking to the NYT has had no charges brought and the case closed.
If this is not a two-tiered justice system, I don’t know what is. That, to me, is what will destroy our system, not Trump’s tweets.
Nowhere in the constitution is the power of the executve branch assigned to anyone or any office other than the president.
If we want differently – if we want independence in the AG or ….
Then we must change the constitution.
The president has the power to demand most anything of most anyone in the administration – regardless of their personal views and regardless of the constitutionality or legality of his request.
To the extent their oath pledges fealty to the law and constitution they are obligated to speak up privately within the administration.
To report requests of themselves to act illegally or unconstitutionally as Whistle Blowers, and if that does not work to resign and speak publicly.
It is the job of congress – with the courts assistance to thwart the actual unconstitutional or ilegal conduct of the president.
That is our existing constitutional system.
If we want actual independence on the part of the AG – then we must change the constitution.
At the same time I do not have a problem with the tradition of independence of many parts of government – but those are TRADITIONS – the are not the law or constitution.
They are good traditions and the president should be wary of violating them.
Scrutiny should be higher if he does.
Right now the house is looking into Trump’s and Barr’s conduct with respect to Stone.
I do not think that will lead anywhere – I do not think it CAN lead anywhere – once again the worst possible allegation it true would require heightened scrutiny but would not violate the law or constitution.
But investigate away – I am NOT opposed to congressional investigations.
BUT I do respect the Court as the arbiter of disputes between congress and the executive.
I expect that had the House not been in a rush – they would have gotten much though not all they wanted from the courts. And had trump THEN resisted (which would have been impossible as no one in the administration was going to sacrifice themselves to defy a court order. Had Trump hypothetically resisted THEN you have abuse of power.
I also do not think that the House getting everything they wanted would have gotten them anywhere.
But they were free to do things right and prove me wrong.
I do not care that the house investigation was political – if there was substance to it, Republicans eventually would have gotten on board.
Had they given republicans and Trump due process and done things properly – either their case would have failed – as I suspect it would have, and we would never have gone through this nonsense, or they would have found a meritous claim – and republicans would have joined in impeaching Trump.
That is how it is supposed to work.
And I agree concerning McCabe. But Barr’s DOJ made that decision. If he andTrump had not discussed this beforehand due to the history surrounding this, then Trump should talk with him privately now. If he is not happy and finds this unacceptable, then ask for his resignation. But he should not be airing dirty laundry on twitter, nor “asked Donald” gatherings before getting on the chopper.
I do think Barr and Trump discussed this beforehand and there is something that few will ever know why, but since Trump did not tweet about this and make a big deal, he knew it was coming.
Trump has correctly cited his authority with respect to Barr.
Trump can direct Barr as he please.
Barr has correctly noted that Trump’s tweets etc are making his job more difficult.
The fact that Trump has the power to do something does not make it the wisest course of action.
We will all be happier if whatever Barr accomplishes has the least possible political taint to it.
Barr has tasked himself with an extremely difficult job – restoring the credibility of the DOJ and FBI after Obama politicized the crap out of them.
While Trump’s objective’s are different.
But ultimately it is in Trump’s best interest that Barr accomplish that task with the least interference from Trump possible.
And Trump will be best served if he does something he is not accustomed to and his experience in government thus far gives him good reasons to not wish to do.
And that is to trust a subordinate who is not family.
I think Jeff Sessions is a decent person – but he was a poor choice for AG, and quite honestly he served Trump poorly. His recusal left DOJ/FBI in the control of a cabal that was out to get him.
Trump has appointed many other good people to positions in his administration.
Those people have often butted heads with Trump – and quite often the end result was good for the country. And that is precisely why you do not pick yes men as subordinates.
At the same time it takes a toll on those people. Trump has generally be cordial to them when they moved on. Only attacking them when after leaving they felt compelled to attack him.
Is there some reason that anyone should expect that working for the Trump administration would be different than “the apprentice” ?
I do not think that Trump and Barr are conferring on much of anything,
As I noted before while it is Trump’s right as president to demand that even direct, he is best served politically if Barr makes the right choices independently.
Nor do I think Barr is Trump’s “Wing man”.
I would also note that I have said repeatedly that if the president asks you to do something illegal and unconstitutional – you resign.
I omitted that if the president asks you to do something you think is unwise, you can resign or threaten to resign.
I think Barr is at this moment sending a pretty clear message to Trump.
Trust me, I will get the house at DOJ and FBI in order on my own. You will not like every thing I do, but it will be done carefully mostly quietly – atleast until indictments occur, and you will be well served.
But if you continue to make my life more difficult with outside comments – I will resign and you can have fun finding someone else who will clean this mess up with my stature and credibility.
I do not like Barr. I am likely at odds with him on many points of policy that are relevant to DOJ. But despite that he appears to be the right person to clean this mess up.
And I think that Bill Barr came back as Trump’s AG specifically looking to set his place in history as the guy who cleaned up this mess.
King Donald did not hear his subject speak. This morning…..
“IG report on Andrew McCabe: Misled Investigators over roll in news media disclosure…Lacked Candor (Lied) on four separate occasions…Authotized Media Leaks to advance personal interests…IG RECOMMENDED MCCABE’S FIRING. @realdonaldtrump
I am quickly moving toward voting for anyone but Donald! Not because of TDP or TDS since I support almost all of his policies, but the president never gets anything in their second term. He needs to return to Trump Tower where he can demand action and get it unlike with government. He will be impossible to control with no influence at all for 4 yrs. Who knows what the heck he will do.
You can obviously vote as you wish.
I have no idea what Trump’s 2nd 4 years will be like.
While the pattern is the the 2nd term of presidents involves little accomplishments
That is overall a good thing. The less government does the better.
But Trump does not fit prior patterns.
He came into office with nominal support from a Republican congress that accomplished very little. He was being illegally investigagted by his own DOJ and FBI who managed to drage that out almost 3 years. He faced an angry violent mob of people who lost the election and beleived they were not allowed to lose ever.
It is against this backdrop that he has accomplished everything that he has done in the past 3+ years.
Interestingly he ends his term with the Republican party transformed and broadly supporting him,
Anyway, I would not predict Trump’s 2nd Term based on history.
I do not think it applies as a model.
“I do think Barr and Trump discussed this beforehand and there is something that few will ever know why, but since Trump did not tweet about this and make a big deal, he knew it was coming.”
Agreed, Ron, and it may be that McCabe had to go free on this one, because Barr and Durham have bigger fish to fry, and they don’t want the testimony and documents from the Durham investigation to become public yet.
I also agree with Dave that there are many things, often positive things, that Trump tweets out, things that would never be in the public realm, if he did not reveal them. He is a public person, and he is very transparent about his policies and why he pursues them.
Often his tweets reveal important information that the press refuses to cover. If Trump hadn’t started a huge brouhaha over his “wires being tapped,” we may never have known about the illegal spying on his campaign.
So, Trump didn’t tweet about McCabe. Yet. It might be that he’s learned a valuable lesson. “Might” being the operative word there… 😉
“So, Trump didn’t tweet about McCabe. Yet. It might be that he’s learned a valuable lesson. “Might” being the operative word there… 😉”
Might was right. His tweet diarrhea returned this morning.
And then to cause me so much glee and happiness, I heard a report this morning that Bloomberg wants Clinton as his running mate.
Woo Hoo. “MIKIE AND THE BITCH”! Wonder if Elton John would write them a campaign song to be played as they walk into rallies to the music from Benny and the jets?
And I just said the voting booth would be the sewage processing plant. If this happens, it will be the sludge pit from the plant. I guess the only way we are ever rid if her will be once she enters politics in the after life.
Second try. 1100+ comments causing 2-3 minute process for posting and then comments go into a invisible void.
“So, Trump didn’t tweet about McCabe. Yet. It might be that he’s learned a valuable lesson. “Might” being the operative word there… 😉”
Might was right. His tweet diarrhea returned this morning.
And then to cause me so much glee and happiness, I heard a report this morning that Bloomberg wants Clinton as his running mate.
Woo Hoo. “MIKIE AND THE BITCH”! Wonder if Elton John would write them a campaign song to be played as they walk into rallies to the music from Benny and the jets?
And I just said the voting booth would be the sewage processing plant. If this happens, it will be the sludge pit from the plant. I guess the only way we are ever rid if her will be once she enters politics in the after life.
Do not presume McCabe is going free.
At most this means McCabe is not being charged for THIS CRIME AT THIS MOMENT.
None of us know what is going on with Durham. But we know that DOJ has been stalling moving forward on McCabe for a long time.
Speculation is that one reason is that going forward NOW with the McCabe prosecution opens DOJ up to discovery from McCabe’s legal time which will make the Durham investigation more difficult.
This also might have been a factor in not charging Comey.
An independent issue is that POLITICALLY not charging McCabe and Comey for lying multiple times atleast once under oath. makes it politically more paletable if they withdraw charges against Flynn and do something about the Stone prosecution – their actions look more consistent.
It is also highly likely that Trump will pardon many people Mueller investigated, that again becomes politically more palletable if DOJ does not persue Comey and McCabe for the same offenses.
Further there are other charges that may be in the offing – against Comey, McCabe and others. Nor is DOJ prohibited from reflining these charges later.
Anyway we are in a very pregnant period. It is traditional – though there are many breaches, for DOJ/FBI to NOT announce anything that could effect an election during the last months before the election. that means that each month after July it becomes less and less likely that Durham will announce anything – even if he has something to announce.
We have about 6 months during which if Durham has found miscounduct that may be announced or indictments made. After july it gets increasingly unlikely with each month.
It is highly unlikely that Barr will allow a repeat of the several past October Surprise fiasco’s
Barr is trying to restore the reputation of the DOJ/FBI not destroy it.
The media is free to portray people as it wishes.
And they are answerable to us in how they do so.
The people have pretty much universally lost all faith in the media.
That is the consequence of the lying partisanship of the media.
Separately those in the executive branch serve the president.
Frequently part of that responsibility is to advise the president.
Whether DOD or CIA or DOJ they are obligated to give the president their best advice.
Vindman’s interagency concensus is a real thing – as ADIVCE.
But policy decisions ar made by the president, or those he delegates them to, and can always be overriden by the president.
Advice is provided, decisions are made.
If you are in the executive and after the decision is made you act to publicly oppose those decision, or privately thwart them – you should have resigned and you must be fired.
You are ALWAYS as a private citizen free to speak out agains the policies and actions of the executive. You are not free to do so as a public servant.
Resign or be fired.
I have no problem considering some of those who defy a president – by resigning and speaking out hero’s. But resistance from within is improper and probably criminal.
Trump is many things – some of them bad,
But one thing he is not is a tyrant.
There is a recent editorial from some lefty saying that Trump requires us to redefine totalitarian as he is not totalitarian in the same way Mao was.
Just proof of the word salad nonsense of the left.
Trump is not a totalitarian like Mao. PERIOD STOP END.
Totalitarian means something. we accuse people of being totalitarian because it means something bad and we are saying that they are that particular kind of bad.
Redefining is another way of saying lying.
If we redefine a dog to be a cat – does that alter anything in the world of facts ?
If not why do it ?
Most of the time when we seek to give new meaning to old words – we are doing so to LIE.
To make A look like B by calling A B.
Again that is called LYING.
Ron noted correctly – possibly in the same post that Both parties have been doing this.
But Ron claimed they were doing it Equally – that is not even close to true.
A man in NYC was recently assaulted because he wife gave him a red baseball cap for his birthday that said “Make fifty Great Again”.
Hardly a day passes when someone is not assaulted for actually wearing a MAGA cap.
Jussie Smollet was just indicted for fraudulently claiming he was the victim of a hate crime that he inflicted on himself.
Old people in walkers are getting beat up by antifa teenagers for the crime of trying to cross the street.
One left wing nut was just prevented from getting to his job by a horde of other left wingnut who had taken over two public bridges and refused to let him pass.
I am a huge free speach advocate. I spent alot of my life as have myriads of others long before me, fighting against the efforts of the right to supress speach they did not like.
Most of the history of efforts to supress undesireable speach – both political and otherwise have been by the right through the history of this country.
UNTIL NOW. Almost the only consequential threat to speach in the last decade – and possibly longer is from the left.
I have Zero problems with Ron’s claim that both the left and right have committed the same sins.
But at any given moment in time they do not sin equally.
I will absolutely totally agree with Jay or Ron that much of Trump’s rhetoric is offensive. Even highly offensive.
But Trump is doing to the left what they have been doing to the right for 50 years.
Every single republican president and nearly every prominent republican has been called a Nazi in the past 50 years.
Nut jobs on the left are calling Alan Derschowitz, Dave Rubin, Bret Weinstein, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager Nazi’s All of these are Jews. All had immediate family killed in the hollocaust.
Three of them are Liberals. Not only is Trump and Carter Page “russian assets”, but now so is Tulsi Gabbard.
The left is not merely looking to silence the right – but often its most vicious efforts are targeted at its own.
Nor is this doctrine of speach supression consistent.
It is OK to call republicans Nazi’s and sexists. and racists,
But apparently Sanders is not allowed to claim that those same “deplorables” who would not vote for Hillary, are unlikely to vote for Warren or any other women – that is somehow sexist of him ?
Absolutley Trump is using the same repugnant techniques the left uses against them.
leaving some of us not on the far left jumping between anger, joy, and confusion.
Anger because many of us honestly belive that we should prevail by ignoring the insults and attacks and dealing with the facts,
Joy because no one is more deserving than most of those Trump skewers.
Confusion because we tried to prevail by the virtue of our arguments – and that did not work. But Trump adopting the tactics of left – tactics that are repugnant, has accomplished more.
Tyranny is government without individual liberty.
Stalin was an actual tyrant. Mao was an actual tyrant.
Obama was not a Tyrant – but he was closer to a tyrant than Trump.
Can anyone name a single instance in which Trump has acted as president to reduce the individual liberty of US citizens ?
I can name several in which Obama did.
I can name many in which Bloomberg did, or in which the slate of democratic candidates promise to.
But no actual acts of Tryanny come to mind regarding Trump.
Aparently Tryanny has been redefined to mean thwarting the left from imposing its will on the rest of us by force.
Language mangling is a very good place to start when looking for the causes of our current problems. ‘
It is extremely rare that words are redefined for a good purpose.
History is about the competition of ideas.
We find word mangling when we can not sell our ideas by persuading free people.
So we change the meaning of words to lie to them.
The entire thesis of Orwell’s dystopia’s is how the destruction of the meaning of words is used to control people and to remove arguments from reality – where they failed and advantage them in the unreality of distorted language.
Word games have no place in law or government. Save them for poetry and fiction where they belong.
More Trump is a liar, but Trump ass-smoochers don’t care:
Asked in November if he directed Giuliani to “do anything” in Ukraine, Trump said, “No, I didn’t direct him.”
Asked by journalist Geraldo Rivera in an interview yesterday, “Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?” Trump responded, “No, not at all.’ He admits Rudy was his lawyer, acting in his interests on the trip.
A deceptive lying weasel is president – hosannas from bowing cult subservients
You can keep your doctor if you want to
You can keep your insurance if you like it.
Benghazi was a spontaneous act in response to an internet video.
These are all actual lies.
I guess we could add Sec. Clinton is not guilty of anything except poor judgement.
Yes, jay remarks at different times about slightly different topics in response to leading questions, with answers that do not contradict are lies.
And I forget – about something irrelevant.
Rudy Giuliani is a private person who is Trump’s personal lawyer.
He is not a government actor.
Trump can direct him. or just allow him to go off and do as he thinks is best.
Regardless, Giuliani’a actions are not excercises of the power of the US government.
They are no different from Clinton sending Mark Elias to get dirt on Trump.
Giulliani claims that he made clear to those he interacted with that he was not acting in any official capacity – and I strongly suspect that is true – but even if Giulliani lied to them, even if Giuliani was tasked by Trump with “getting dirt” on the Biden’s that would be perfectly legal as he was doing so outside of the government. Guiliani could have met with Zelensky and actually uttered the words in Adam Schiff’s script exactly as Schiff said them and there would be no crime.
There is a reason that no one is calling Giuliani to testify. He actions do not implicate the President in any way.
I would also note that though Trump’s remarks are not actually contradictory.
That is reveals more about you than Trump that you are looking for the most inconsequential of discrepancies to claim “liar liar pants on fire”.
I do not care if Trump specifically tasked Giulliani to go to Ukraine to get Dirt on Biden.
Again that is no different from Clinton tasking Mark Elias to hire Fusion GPS to get Dirt on Trump.
I do not care if Trump is perfectly forth coming on his legal acts, in short tweets, or answers to press questions.
Besides not demanding precision in those settings – which is the gist of nearly all your claims that Trump is a liar, I do not demand truth from anyone about private legal acts.
I am not obligated to tell you where I was last night, or who i told to do what.
I do not consider it consequential to not precisely or accurately answer questions that you are not entitled to answers.
If I start asking you all kinds of questions about your private life – are you going to answer accurately and precisely ? Or are you going to find the easiest way to blow me off ?
Are you a liar if you refuse to provide me with perfectly accurate answers to questions about your private life ?
Trump loves to brag that he’s not taking a salary.
But with this latest trip to Palm Beach he has spent 334 YEARS of presidential salary playing golf.
Those not condemning him for that profligacy are subservient toads
We have been through this before.
Change the law.
BTW, you can not prohibit trump from playing golf.
All that you can do is preclude the SS from providing him security when he does.
Jay, you continually comment about Trump lying and why that should keep him from being president. Now Sanders is running on a platform with Medicare for all and getting that for all Americans. But his support group is telling all the. “moderates” not to worry, it will never happen. Today even AOC said it will not happen.
So where does running on an outright lie trying to buy votes rank with Trumps lies?
Is one liar worse than the other liar?
Like I said earlier, we are headed for the “sewer processing plant” election, so I view each one, with the exception of Amy K as way worse than 2016.
Jay is A OK with big lies – like Trump colluded with Russia.
It is tiny inconsistancies that drive him nuts.
Trump does to Trump what attornies do to witnesses on cross examination.
Find the tiny inconsistancies that ALWAYS exist in peoples remarks and try to leverage them into persuading a jury not to trust the witness.
But since both sides do that to almost all witnesses it has little impact.
To get anywhere you have to catch a witness in an accuracy that is clearly deliberate and substanative.
Jay does not seem to grasp that.
On everything that is substantive Trump has been Correct – and the media, and his attackers and the left have been WRONG.
I’m strongly anti-Bernie.
I’m still pro Biden.
I’m OK with Billionaire Mike defeating Faux Billionaire Trump.
And I’d prefer a gay president over a mendacious asshole President.
Almost no one – including Trump cares if the US president is gay.
A recent poll found that there is no significant opposition to a Jewish president.
Sanders, Bloomberg.
A woman president,
Klobuchar, Warren
A Gay president
Buttigieg. ‘
An athiest or catholic president.
A black or Hispanic president.
Yet the left tells us all that we are racist homophobic, hateful, hating haters.
There is slightly more opposition to a septuagenarian
Trump, Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders, Warren.
There is a strong majority opposed to a socialist president.
Aside from the fact that Sanders openly owns to being a socialist, you can guarantee that Trump is going to paint whover is running against him as a socialist.
And they have all given him lost of ammunition to do so.
I would prefer a president with the public persona of Obama and the effectiveness of Trump.
But that choices does not exist.
If I was choosing entirely based on personality – Trump would be at or near the bottom of the list.
If I was choosing based on ability to trust their promises – Trump would be at the top of the list.
If I was choosing based on results, Trump is at the top of the list.
There are many many criteria to choosing a president.
Asshole is only one of those.
I would note that Joe Is doing an excellent Job of being an asshole of late.
I do not recall Trump ever calling one of his own voters a lying dog faced pony soldier.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.scoopwhoop.com%2Fdan%2Fweirdbans%2Fhorse.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
dhlii: Tell your no-one is anti-gay tale to Trump’s Medal of Whatever Medal winner
https://apnews.com/117be4fd845592a09fe8bd16f0e8112f
I would say that you can’t read, but we both know the truth – you will misrepresent anything.
You are misrepresenting what I said –
“Almost no one – including Trump cares if the US president is gay.”
Not absolutely no one – “almost no one” – if I recall the poll result – and I beleive it was Pew – only 10% of people thought that whether the president was gay mattered.
Next while I have no special desire to defend Limbaugh – he did not say no one would vote for a Gay man.
He said Buttigieg on the debate stage being compared to Trump while kissing his husband would lose votes.
Because he was gay ? Maybe ? Because that particular image would just not fly ? More likely.
I think Sander’s alleged remark that Warren could not win – because voters would not vote for a woman is Wrong – but enough voters will not vote for Warren. Regardless, sanders remark does not prove he is a misogynist – he could be both incredibly feminist and correct – assuming he made the remark.
As to Limbaugh
In 2013, Limbaugh commented on same-sex marriage by saying, “This issue is lost. I don’t care what the Supreme Court does. This is inevitable. And it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this. As far as I’m concerned, once we started talking about gay marriage, traditional marriage, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, hetero marriage, we lost. It was over.”
In 2010 Elton John played for Rush’s 4th marraige.
There are even stories that Rush is Gay.
In the end – I do not care whether Rush is Gay, Straight, closeted, homophobic, …
I pay very little attention to Limbaugh.
Maybe he speaks for something like 30M listeners – Maybe.
That is less than 10% of the country.
Then there is the fact that he did not say the country would not vote for a gay president. What he said was more specific that that – that it would not vote for a gay Buttigieg engaged in PDA or national TV.
Change of Topic.
Why do you suppose that Bernie is not going hard after Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is sitting back, letting the other candidates beat each other up, while he literally is trying to buy the election.
I think Bloomberg will succeed, because everyone has their price. Including Bernie, who has stopped demonizing millionaires, because he is now one. I think Bloomberg will eventually buy him off too. Bernie talks like a bolshevik, but he loves the good life of a capitalist.
Change of change of topic:
Priscilla did President Gross & Disgusting actually tweet this? As a devoted Trumpster I’m sure you closely monitor his daily profundities. Please verify or deny.
Well, I just checked, and he did retweet a gross, but hilarious, video. I’m sure that Joe Walsh would not have done that. Life’s been good to him so far…
Have you bothered to check this out ?
It is not a video of a mayor taking a shit.
Trump did not post it.
Since you require absolute precision in your posts, would this be you lying ?
At a city counsel meeting that was being video’d the mayor left his tie mike on when he went to the restroom. Given that everyone in the counsel meeting broke out in laughter – it is not a reach to say it is funny.
But I guess you have no sense of humor.
If it is partisan in some way it is not obvious.
the perpitrator is not identified, so absent much research it does not insult anyone.
And it was not a Trump tweet.
“ But I guess you have no sense of humor.”
I have a great sense of humor.
You have no sense of presidential impropriety.
I have lived through Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton.
I have low expectations of propriety from presidents.
I have high expectations of accomplishment.
I also expect that presidents will not further infringe on liberty.
If along the way they make fart jokes, the country will survive – and thrive.
Priscilla, you are right about Bloomberg buying the nomination. Heard this morning that some candidates are spending up to $20M in California for super tuesday. Bloomberg is spendin g $100M for advertising. In my area we are bombarded by “Mike can do it” ads, while there are only a few ads from local candidates for local offices since Bloomberg bought most all the ad time set aside by local TV for political ads. Thats one way to silence your opposition!
It is all a plot on Bloomberg’s part.
He secretly shifted all his stock to streaming video services and when his adds drive everyone to hulu amazon and netflix he will make a killing.
Bloomberg secretly shifts all stock to streaming companies.
Cant find anything online supporting this.
Source?
And if secret and not sourcable, how do you know the secret?
Ron;
Sorry – that was a joke. I thought it was obvious. My mistake.
The point was Bloomberg’s real effect is to drive people to media that they do not have to listen to him.
But on the serious side – 3 years of this nonsense has made most political adds and the TDS media ineffective.
4 times more people watched the soaps than the Impeachment.
The only people who watch the news – whether it is pro or anti-trump is those who already believe.
It is very very hard to break through.
Doing so requires THE Truth.
Not heavily spun nonsense – but real clear unequivocal Truth.
Trump is president – that is True.
Overall he has been successful – maybe not as much as he claims but more than Obama – that is true.
He has done much of what he promised – that is true.
Democrats are a mess – that is true.
House democrats look incredibly impotent, politically biased – and ineffective even at what their own people want of them – containing Trump.
Further Democrats are now fighting with each others.
Sanders is being attacked, Bloomberg is being attacked, the party is being attacked.
And just to be clear – they did this to themselves – Trump didn’t.
Bloomberg is probably more of a threat to Trump than Sanders – but not because of his money. Because he was a successful NYC Mayor. He has (or had) credibility as a centrist – sort of. But he is throwing that away because he beleives that is necescary to get the democratic nomination.
But Bloombergs really big flaw is he is not “authentic” – Sanders is. Trump is.
Bloomberg isn’t.
I do not know how Trump managed to convince people that he was not just an egomanical rich dilitant dabling in politics. But he he succeeded.
He succeeded in making people who by all rights should think they have nothing in common with him think he is their buddy. There is no way in hell Bloomberg pulls that off.
While my Bloomberg secret stock shift was a joke.
The idea is not a bad one.
Anywhere politiicians can advertise will be hell the next 9 months.
Invest in the places people will flee to. those will probably do really well in the next 9 months.
Dave, with the number of comments made, it is difficult to parse truth from jokes now. Too much fiction where documentation is now needed.
As for the dems, they are going through GOP2016. Cruz, far right (Warren, far left), Bush, Kasich, Rubio, (Biden, klobuchar, Buttegieg,Bloomberg, moderates) and Trump (Sanders, anti establishment populist, activist).
So the stop Bernie people have Bloomberg targeted. But Bloomberg has bad baggage. Can he motivate the minorities. Donna Brazill this morning talked about Bloombergs record and his many apologies, along with his money buying the election.
But one thing I dont think will impact Bloomberg is the sexual issues reported by the Washington Post. Trump has made America immune to these issues. If the conservative born again’s will overlook Trumps transgressions, the liberal certainly will overlook Bloombergs.
GOP2016 does not compare to DNC2020.
The GOP had a slate of mostly top tier candidates. Almost all of which would have made acceptable presidents.
The actual policy differences between Cruz, and Rubio, and Bush and Paul and Trump were inconsequential. The most significant differences were style.
Further of the GOP candidates Trump was the most similar to Sanders – he was an authentic populist, running as an outsider. Further though NONE of the GOP candidates were actually “extreme” – they were all running of very nearly the same policies. Trump was arguably the MOST extreme, Trump was the most vigorous about immigration, and the strongest advocate of protectionism – and these positons were the most divergent both from GOP core values and from centrist values.
The GOP 2016 contest was different because the GOP primary was generally viewed as the real contest – the winner of the GOP primary was going to be president.
Hillary was essentially running for Obama’s 3rd Term. Even Obama hard a hard time fending off a milquetoast challenge from Romney. Clinton while formidable was Not nearly as popular as Obama and the country wanted change. Further the election was likely to follow modern historic precidents – where each party gets two terms and out.
The general election only became interesting when Trump won and it became an actual horse race.
The GOP had from 2010 through 2016 worked towards assessing why they had lost to Obama and was working successfully towards a broad appeal to voters. Despite the array of Candidates, Republicans were generally united, and debating the fine points of what was likely to be an appealing an winning platform.
The DNC in 2020 is still clueless, they seem to be unifying arround a LOSING platform – ever more socialism. The candidates are nearly uniformly weak.
To the extent that democrats have any chance in 2020, it is because they have and have had the nakedly partisan aide of most of the press.
In an era of constant investigations no president has ever been so thoroughly and partisanly been investigated by both the press and a nakedly partisan DOJ/FBI and been so thoroughly aquitted.
And yet the press and the left have successfully persuaded 10’s of millions of people that allegations that are litterally impossible are true.
Worse still those persuaded are disproportionately the most eductated people in the country.
We have a very very serious problem with our education when in area after area the most educated people in the country believe utter claptrap so bad it never passed the smell test and never was the basis for an investigation in the first place.
What is wrong with our education when the most educated beleive that an “evil genius” – so mastering decption and intrigue as to leave only imperceptable fingerprints was also so unbelievably stupid as to fail to accomplish by skuldugery and foreign collusion what could have been done openly and legally at a cost of pennies on the dollar ?
Anyway the only comparison between GOP2016 and DNC2020 is that each party fielded many candidates.
The republican party had some bitter power struggles post Bush, but the democratic party is directionless and in danger of fracturing. The GOP never was.
No one should have doubts that many with power in the Democratic party seek to use that power to acheive an end rather than the will of the democratic electorate.
Democrats self evidenctly do not give a shit about their own rules – that should not surprise anyone, “the ends justify the means” is the moto of nearly all democrats.
I do not know it Bloomberg is being targeted to help sanders or to hurt him.
Honestly I can not make logical sense out of much of what democrats do, likely because logic has no place in the democratic party.
Nor do I care much.
Jay or you could be right – and Trump will get obliterated by anyone in the democratic field in 2020. Or Trump could be caught getting felated by a 13 yr old boy in the oval between now an then.
But I think the odds of that are slim to none. Absent a miracle Trump wins in 2020.
The only question is depending on which candidate goes up against him how bad that blowout is.
Right now I think the more serious questions are:
Will the GOP gain ground in the Senate ?
The 2020 Senate map has Republicans defending more seats and should favor democrats.
And it is theoretically possible if Democrats have a great year in the Senate that they take the senate. But it is actually MORE likely that Republicans will gain seats than lose control.
With the best odds favoring no change or a loss of 1 seat.
Will Republicans retake the house ? That would be ahistoric. Bujt house democrats have very successfully made the entire 2020 campaign about Trump – from the top to the bottom of the ticket. And if Trump does well – house democrats will do badly.
I am not going to predict that democrats lose the house in 2020. Only that since 2018 they have done absolutely everything in their power to assure that the very people who voted them into power in 2018 vote them out in 2020.
There is an old political story (likely untrue) that LBJ demanded that his operatives place a story in the news that his opponent forked pigs. LBJ’s advisors said – but we know that is not true, and LBJ said – I do not care, I just want the SOB to have to publicly deny it.
Biden is now claiming that Obama deporting 3m illegal immigrants was wrong.
Klobuchar is rolling back statments that English should be the official language of the country or that there should be a fence along the southern border.
Bloomberg has had to disown Stop and Frisk.
On issue after issue Democratic candidates are being forced by the high priests of their own party to disown post positions that alienate them from the left but actually appeal to the center of the country.
Neither Trump nor republicans have this problem. Trump’s policies are KNOWN, He can not disown them if he wanted to. They are not all highly popular – bu many of them are – outside the bubble of the left.
If the 2020 election is about issues – Trump will crush democrats. Even if Trump’s policies are less than perfect – democrats have all been forced to kowtow to policies that are disasterous, and that most americans oppose.
If 2020 is about the economy – Trump will win.
If 2020 is solely about Trump – Democrats are moving from anger to anxiety and depression – that is the consequence of 4 years of failure. Conversely Trumps supporters are quietly angry.
I saw one poll recently where Republicans were 4 pts ahead on the generic ballot.
That poll is likely an outlier, but the NORM is that if the GOP is at -2 or Better on Election day they will win do to overall differences in enthusiasm GOTV and the concentration of democrats in cities.
The Real news in Iowa was not the disaster of the voting App, but the low democratic turn out.
Trump as an unchallenged incumbent will get low turnout through the primaries – but he still getting much better turnout by far than Obama unchallenged in 2012 and Bush unchallenged in 2004.
Conversely the Iowa caucus was projected to have turnout of 300K Actual turnout was a very disappointing 160K If democratic voters do not have the energy to come out to vote for highly contested primaries, they are in very deep trouble in the general election.
The entire democratic party has bet that Outrage is their winning weapon against Trump.
If they are correct – Trump will be thoroughly defeated. But my read – and many many others, of the tea leaves is that Democrats have burned out their own base.
The level of democratic outrage since 2016 has not been sustainable.
The Tea Party managed to maintain an effective but quiet level of anger for nearly a decade.
That is hard to do, and democrats have done everything possible to move from smoldering coals to an open bonfire – smoldering coals last longer.
Bonfires burn out.
More Trump BS revealed as BS.
https://apnews.com/850cf00b403e230809f9d07e2a0a9c7d
According to Pew in every single industry in the US there is more US Born unemployed workforce than illegal aliens.
I am getting conflicting statistics – but there is no doubt that illegal boarder crossings in 2019 are WAY WAY down – between 300% and 400% DOWN.
Not mentioned much is that the probability that reducing illegal imigration is a substantial contributing factor to the continued strenght of the job market – particularly at the low end.
It would also contribute to rising wages – at the low end.
It would also contribute to decreasing unemployment among minorities.
I remain a proponent of open borders and no entitlements.
But if you think that Trump supporters really care about your claims here – your nuts.
From the perspective of those wearing MAGA hats – Mexico IS paying.
Because jobs that used to go to illegal immigrants are going to citizens.
To these people – that is PAYING.
To these people Trump is not lying.
And they have a point. You don’t.
In actually meaningful news
Jussie Smollet has been indicted for falsley reporting a hate crime to Chicago police.
For Jay – this is what and actual lie looks like.
Barr has appointed an outside attorney to review the Flynn case.
There is an agreement with the Taliban – and a small chance they will keep it and US will end combat operations in Afghanistan.
Barr will be testifying to the house regarding Stone – you should look forward to that Jay – Nadler and the democrats have done so well with witnesses that they did not get to prep before hard (NOT). One wonders why house democrats actually bother to request that people like Barr or Leowendowski or other Department heads testify as the hearing go so badly for them.
Republicans in tight races are so terrified by impeachment they are already running attack adds against their democratic opponents over their positions on impeachment – even in swing states.
Several days have passed – therefore there is atleast one instance each day of someone assaulting a Trump supporter. Tuesday Patrick Bradley invaded a Trump booth outside the polls in NH Punched two people and slapped a teen, knocking one guys tooth out.
The attack came just after Donald Trump Jr. left the booth.
But democrats are not violent.
When Barr testifies before the house Dems should invite former Deputy AG Donald Ayer, Barr’s former superior, as counsel to question him:
Whoever Ayer is, he may have been senior for some moments.
But William Barr was the 77th US Attorney General of the United States from 1991, until 1993. Ayer was NOT his superior at that time. Prior to being AG Barr was Deputy AG, and bfore that the head of OLC.
Ayer was never AG. Ayer lead an interesting carreer up to his appointment as D AG,
But since leaving that 30 years ago at about the age of 40 he has accomplished nothing of consequence. He has been a corporate lawyer since then.
If this report is to be beleived.
The misconduct hidden in the IG reports footnotes is the most serious of all.
The FBI XFH team met with Steel in Rome in October 2016 – BEFORE the election.
Steel briefed the FBI on the Dossier.
All of that has been previously reported and is known.
What has not been reported is that the FBI briefed Steel.
It has already been noted that XFH was handled unusually – that it was handled from washington which does not normally handle investigations, that it was handled from the 7th floor of the FBI which never directly runs investigations. Less reported is that the FBI choose to classify the entire investigation at the highest level that it can. No one within the FBI who was not participating in that investigation was given any access to anything regarding that investigation.
Parts of this classification are choices that the FBI itself made, and thus that the appropriate people within the FBI can waive. But portions were because some of the sources of information were from the CIA or foreign governments – these are inherently top secret and outside the scope of the FBI to disclose without permission from CIA or other sources.
FBI agents in Rome provided to Steel information on their own investigation – they provided him material from foreign sources and from the CAI and possibly NSA.
There are several huge problems.
This is a violation of the espoinage act. Steel is a foreign actor, and a foreign agent.
Next – Horowitz documented that The FBI at this time knew that the Clinton campaign was paying Steele. And Steele confirmed with the FBI that Clinton was personally updated on his work.
So in addition to sharing classified information with a foreign agent, the FBI shared classified information about an investigation of a political opponent with a political candidate.
There are several other damaging facets of the rome meeting.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/02/13/buried_in_ig_report_fbi_gave_steele_highly_protected_secrets_122394.html
What is it that those of you with TDS need before you understand that OUR GOVERNMENT meddled in the 2016 election against Trump and favoring Clinton.
There are still indications that have not been well explored that Obama was involved in all of this. BUT that does not change that this is really bad. Though it does make it even worse.
Aparently the Russians are trying to tank Bloomberg, or is it Sanders ? Or is the media and the left just bat shit crazy and seeing Russians everywhere ?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-democratic-partys-red-scare-has-melted-the-medias-brains
While the Article starts with Micheal Avenatti, it goes through a littany of people who have attack Trump and ulimately either lost or proved credulous – like Avenatti.
Donald Trump paid Stormy Daniels a bit over 100K for her silence.
Stormy paid Trump over 300,000 in legal fees because she wasn;t.
Aventatti – will not have stones benefit of being an elderly first offender – he has been convicted of multiple crimes and faces several more pending charges.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-media-elevated-michael-avenatti-to-stardom-his-felony-conviction-reflects-on-them
Say what?
She was fined after she – following Anenetti’s bad legal advice – sued Trump for defamation. The judge dismissed the charge. Trump’s money-gouging lawyers asked for double the fine. The judge indicated they had inflated their billed hours.
And of course, that has NOTHING to do with Trump’s illegal NDA payment to hide having sex with her.
There are TWO decisions against Daniels- KEEP up.
I beileive all suits have concluded.
NO ONE has found the NDA illegal – it is not.
And Two courts have held against Daniels to the tune of a total of $300K.
If those courts have reduced Trump’s legal fees – she is lucky.
Overall I feel sorry for Stormy. Avenattie snookered her and left her holding the bag.
The only positive Thing I would say is she has spiked her popularity – aparently among Trump supporters, who want Pictures and autographed Maga hats with Stormy.
Hopefully that will more than pay her legal bills.
What does your added on babbling have to do with the fact Trump fucked Stormy when his wife was pregnant? Paid for Stormy’s silence. Lied about not knowing her. Lied about knowing anything about the payment. But you, over and over, keep insisting Trump never lies.
And there were three suits not two.
She also sued Cohen and her previous attorney Davidson, claiming they had colluded against her interests when negotiating the NDA payments: that was settled last May; we don’t know how much Stormy was paid. And the $300,000 court sanction is under appeal.
And NY State investigations continue into Trump’s involvement in hush money payments to Stormy and another woman in violation of campaign laws, and the House Judiciary Committee promised an investigation as well – as election time approaches we can expect that to proceed, though it will be lost in the blitz of other favored Trump idiocies documented since 2016. Billionaire Bloomberg could go broke resurrecting them in video ads: pussy groping tapes, tax release promises, Mexico wall payment guarantees, insulting retarded facial expressions, inflated inauguration crowd exaggerations…. and a thousand Covfefe references to his daily lies and misstatements and word mangling.
First – I do not presume that because you say something it is correct.
I am also guessing that Trump does not recall every woman he forked.
That is not a good thing – but he has not made any secret of his past philandering – he does not “advertise” it today – but there is lots of howard Stern tape where he does.
AGAIN – NDA’s are perfectly legal and perfectly common contracts.
In your story – she sued Cohen – not Trump.
If some attorney’s in NYC wish to waste their time on bogus legal theories – so what.
You can legally buy peoples silence – it is done ALL THE TIME.
In your own comment, you have an example – Daniels settled one lawsuit for an “undisclosed sum – We do not know who paid who or how much, the CONTRACTED not to tell anybody.
Somebody got “hush money” For all we know it could have been Cohen.
A court settlement is just a CONTRACT – between the parties in the lawsuit where they mutually agree to solve their dispute and avoid going to court.
And frequently they agree that the terms of that agreement can not be made public.
“Hush money” is legal – unless it pays for silence about a CRIME.
Yes, you have alot of left wing nut lawyers and AG’s who are spitting into the wind against SETTLED LAW on campaign finance.
John Edwards was AQUITTED – and he actually used campaign money to buy his paramours silence. Every FEC chairman since has gone on the records saying – If Campaign funds were used – this would not be illegal. And the independently idiotic argument that because there was potentially a political benefit this was a political contribution is also crap.
By that buying mouthwash is a campaign finance law violation.
If you actually drug this to SCOTUS and persauded them that there was a campaign finance law violation – the likely result would be striking down the campaign finance law as overly broad.
This is a dead letter – but keep beating it.
The only question on the few outstand lawsuits and investigations regarding Trump – is how soon they will be dismissed.
Once again you seem to think you are entitled to know whatever you want about the legal and private actions of others, and you are entitled to control by force what others do with their own money.
Bloomberg has spent several hundred million on his own campaign thus far – guess what that LEGAL.
Bloomberg can go broke making anti-Trump adds,
But he can not make people care.
We have been through this over and over before. ‘
First you are openly admitting that Bloomberg’s potentially billion dollars worth fo camapign adds are …. SPEECH – and you can not regulate political speach.
But speech is merely an attempt at persuasion – and EVERYONE if free to attempt to persuade … Even the Rusians – because like it or not you can not prevent others from speaking not even the russians. Certainly not bloomberg.
But you can not make people listen.
I can not make you listen – no matter how rock solid my arguments are – you are not obligated to listen.
And I am not obligated to listen to you – no matter how much you insult me.
WE can try to speak effectively but we have a right to speak, not a right to be heard.
And no amount of money that Bloomberg spends is likely to get people who have heard all this before to listen, much less change their minds. Just as you can not find a signle person who will said that Russian influence changed their vote in 2016.
You do not seem to get it.
Your not entitled to know who ANYONE else has had consensual sex with.
Trump LEGALLY paid Daniels to keep quiet. And stormy voluntarily agreed to do so in return for money. that is a legal binding contract, they occur all the time.
There is some possibility that Cohen botched the contract – meaning it is not binding, but even that is squishy – as Stormy took the money. If the contract is bad and Cohen was arguing breach, the court would likely tell Daniels – you are not bound, but you have to return the money.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1228312343525748737
Lol! Omg, Seattle may be worse than San Francisco. (Also, I’m going to have that stupid song stuck in my head all day …”Somebody’s makin’ money!!!!”)
And this is the party that may well allow Michael Bloomberg to buy the nominination, because he’s got $60 billion, and will buy off whomever it takes…Meanwhile, they support campaign finance restrictions on other candidates, who can’t accept more than a couple of thousand from any one individual.
By the way, apparently Bloomberg is paying all campaign staff through November 2020, regardless of whether or not he gets the nomination. Most of his senior campaign staff is paid well into the six figures, with cadillac health benefits, ipads, iphones, and 3 catered meals p/day. No wonder he’s been able to poach the best talent from other candidate’s campaigns.
It wouldn’t be a problem, if we didn’t have such stupid campaign finance laws, purporting to “take money out of politics.” Thank you, John McCain.
“ By the way, apparently Bloomberg is paying all campaign staff through November 2020,”
Unlike Donnie, who still hasn’t paid off his 2016 campaign debt to staff promised paychecks that never arrived. Kinda like Donnie’s screw-you refusals to honor contractor work, and recent refusals to pay police bills for security at rallies in at least nine states.
But, hey, if you nevertheless want to continue to embrace dead-beat Donnie as your presidential master – that’s your prerogative.
Sources?
If you go to a store – and they rip you off – do you continue to buy from that store ?
Most of us don’t.
There are no credible sources.
There is always someone who will complain.
As I said I have been part of 100’s of contracts disputes.
The people who do not honor their contracts do not remain in business very long.
In fact the most common reason for ACTUAL failure to honor a contract is NOT malfeasance or greed, but mismanagment causing financial difficulties. A company in financial trouble starts delaying payment and if it can not resolve the problem ultimately fails.
Wise businesses carefully monitor their Accounts Receivable Aging. And they know from that who among their clients is in trouble.
I assume you mean this part:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/donald-trump-policy-advisors-quit
The $$$million in unpaid police bills are easily googled.
Jay, look at the date. 2016!!!!!!!!
Give me something from 2019-20!!!!!
Is Trump being sued for this pay?
Is it still unpaid?
Current info?
Ron. The 2016 example is just one more tic in a character profile filled with disreputable Trump twitches. Like his earlier history of screwing contractors and suppliers. He has a 40 year history of short-changing people. That character deficiency warning was established by the WSJ when Trump started campaigning. They documented filings against Trump in 33 states, along with interviews from a variety of businessmen who ended up suing him. A warning ignored apparently in retrospect by your dismissal the 2016 Trump no-pay maneuver not current enough to deserve mention. And remember, the unpaid campaign advisor example was to compare Donnie’s bill paying mode to Mike’s.
Comparing the two, don’t you agree Trump is a weasel, and Bloomy’s a Fox?
.
Mostly what you keep ticking off is your own poor judgement of character, and your own poor character.
You keep citing (without actual cites) news stories, that quite often do not say quite what you claim.
About matters where for the claims to be true – very capable business people – all these consultants and contractors would have to have for years been repeatedly duped despite your claimed evidence to the contrary.
You still do not seem to grasp – you do not stay in business long if you lie and cheat and steal, if you do not keep commitments.
There MIGHT be rare instances where someone gets away with this deceipt once, or where they run a long con – like Maddoff – after years of operating with integrity.
But there are really no examples of long term success of people who can not be trusted.
Even Criminals – like Al Capone – will not stay in business long if they do not deliver what their customers want.
The only actor who can take over and over without delivering value in return is govenrment – and there are even limits to that.
I am sure that similar stories exist about Bloomberg. I have no interest in those either.
I presume based on their past success that both Bloomberg and Trump as shrewd and competent businessmen.
There are some Tradeoffs between them – Bloomberg succeeded in media and politics.
And is wealthier than Trump.
Trump succeed in multiple commercial venues, Television, gambling, and politics.
Success accross multiple domains is harder and requires more intelligence – but all success requires intelligence.
I also have a high degree of trust of both Bloomberg and Trump.
They are likely to do what they say they will do.
For Trump that is mostly a reason to vote for him.
For Bloomberg – as good as trust might be it is a reason to vote against him.
We should have trusted that Hitler would do as he said he would.
I do trust the Bloomberg will. therefore I can not vote for him or support him.
I am sure that both have plenty of people claiming they were duped or cheated.
So some advisors quit ?
That is what people do when they are not paid.
That is ONE of the things I told you happens.
Another is that they sue – and if their claim has merit they get paid + plus legal fees.
Another is that they do not work for him again, and tell the same to others.
Yet, I have not heard that Trump is having problems getting advisors in 2020.
In fact possibly the biggest problem Trump has getting advisors is that “the swamp” has sent a message – work for Trump and we will throw you in jail.
And that is what is wrong with Mueller.
Do you really think the Podesta’s and Axelrod’s and Plouffe’s are even half as clean as Stone or Manafort ?
Yet, only one side was prosecuted. Tony Podesta completely fell into Mueller’s face.
Podesta was working for/with and being paid by Manafort for Manafort’s Ukraine work.
In fact Podesta – not Manafort was the one with the FARA problem – Podesta was doing the actual Lobbying
Regardless, I do not need to google to know that If Trump does not pay his bills, that people will not work for him.
And that if they do – They must be recieving a value for their efforts besides a pay check.
People take unpaid internships all the time.
I know this is hard for a democrat to understand – nearly all democratic campaign workers are paid. But nearly all republican campaign workers are volunteers.
So, these people were never actually hired, but they “quit” when they weren’t paid?
🙄
`They were under the assumption they were hired – by assurances of associates of Trump they would be paid.
You have no sympathy for them, early Trump supporters who believed what they were told? If they thought they were volunteers, why did they then jump ship? Could it be, Priscilla, that the early Trump organization had the moral disposition of mob enforcers? Hint: the names mentioned who promised to pay them.
`”They were under the assumption they were hired”
??
When you go after a job do you assume you felt the interview went well you have a new job ?
Would you quit your old job ? Move ? Come in to start work the next day with nothing more than an assumption ?
Every single time a person has hired me for a W2 job – there was paperwork – W-4’s have to be filled out at the least. Usually I spent a full day getting “on-boarded, Signing assorted agreements, Reviewing employee handbooks.
I have also hired people. I have never had anyone “assume” they were hired.
If I hired them – they knew it – again they were asked to fill out W-4’s and lots of paperwork,
Whenever I have a consulting job or negotiate a contract – there is a W9 that must be filled out and a contract that must be signed.
If you do not end up filling out atleast one IRS form – you are not getting paid.
If you are an adult and you do not know that – you need to sue the public school and or college you went to for failing to provide you with a basic education.
Which do you think is more important in the real world – being able to tell if you have actually got a job ? Or using the right pronoun for someone you bump into at the water cooler ?
” – by assurances of associates of Trump they would be paid.”
If you have not filled out a W4 or a W9 – your not getting paid.
If you do not know that – your not an adult.
“You have no sympathy for them”
No, I have no sympathy for someone unable to tell whether they have a job or not.
And if they are confused – I do not blame Trump, but the people who were supposed to assure they got to adult hood with basic skills like – figuring out if they have a job ?
Why is all of this so hard for you ?
Why is it that you come up with these myriads of claims – demands for outrage – that always rest on feelings not facts.
According to YOU – these people felt they had a job. They did not know ?
If you get hired – don’t you care how you will get paid ?
In the real world – there are FACTS – being hired – in pretty much any way, employee, consultant, contractor is a CONTRACT, Contracts are typically in writing.
If a plumber comes to fix your toilet – you sign an estimate or work order first – so that he is sure he will get paid.
If you are employed at the barest minimum your employer is required to get you SS# and have you fill out a W9. If you are employed as a consultant – you usually have a contract and fill out a W9. if you have a B2B relationship – there is a contract.
There are FACTS that distinguish having a job from not having a job.
It is not based on FEELINGS.
You and lots of judges – who in doing so demonstrate they do not have the logical skills to be judges, and lots of layers – who are raise questions about how they past the bar, seem to think that sentence recomendations are based on feelings – and despite that that only the feelings of the trial lawyers count.
Guess what – they are not. In the real world when a prosecutors files a sentencing recomendation it is not only a legal document – it is one that is derived MATHEMATICALLY.
There are no “feelings” involved. There are prior records scores – for Stone that would be ZERO, as well as points for each crime the person was convicted of this results Mathematically in a sentence range. A sentence outside that range is often called an illegal sentence. With rare exceptions it will be tossed on appeal.
Inside the range the prosecutor must list both agrevating factors and mitigating factors – agrevating factors drive you to the towards the top of the range and mitigating factors towards the bottom of the range. Very very rarely there can be agrevating or mitigating factords that will drive a sentence out of the standard range. Those are HIGHLY unusual – things like multiple instances of torture.
Further an aggrevating factor must be something independent of the crimes.
As an example if you are convicted of being a person not to posses – i.e. a prior convicted fellon not allowed to posess a gun – then you can not ALSO count the gun as an agrevating factor.
This is just a subset of the rules – calculating sentencing recomendations is closer to calculus than anything else in law.
The prosecutors “sentencing recomendation” – which is much less a recommendation that a calculation – goes to the defense attorney that veryifies it – if they disagree you are going to have to correct. There are not “FEELINGS” involved.
After that is all owrked out the Judges Clerk is supposed to review it, and in my state corrections officers review it. and THEN the judge imposes sentence.
And if the judge relies on a improperly calculated sentencing worksheet – that will with certainty generate a sentencing appeal – for an illegal sentence.
All that stuff i described about agrevators and mitigators – those are part of the prosecutors sentencing recomendation to the judge – but with very very rare execeptions they must fall within the standard ranges.
FINALLY the judge sentences – the judge can ho outside the standard range – but to do so they must justify in detail exactly why they did. Even whether a sentence is in the bottom or the top of the range must be justified.
And again do it wrong there will be a sentence appeal and the defense will win.
The purpose of the above is to point out that sentencing recomendations are NOT FEELINGS. They are one of the closest things in law to MATH.
And in fact in the stone case the prosecutors – likely deliberately, made a simple error.
They added a points enhancement that duplicated a crime.
Much like the gun example I provided. Nothing that is included as an agrevating factor, can also be scored as a crime.
You can not convict someone of rape, and separately claim that rape was an agrevating factor. You can use a gun as an agrevating factor – but not if they are also convicted of a gun law violation or crime.
Any prosecutor that does not know this – is an idiot and never should have passed the bar.
Any judge that does not know this – should not be on the bench.
Playing games with sentencing recomendations is wasting the courts time and guaranteeing appeals – ones you will LOSE.
The DOJ reviewed and rejected the miscalculated sentencing recomendation of the prosecutors and rejected it – Weeks before Trump or Barr knew anything.
The prosecutors then threatened quietly to resign and the DOJ caved – my quess is figuring that the judge would fix it or that the appeals courts would or that if it generate outrage – the prosecutors are the ones who justifiably would catch hell.
Regardless THAT is when Barr stepped in and said FU – The recomendation will follow the LAW – if you want to resign over that – go ahead. I am sure Barr is happy to be rid of prosecutors who will not follow the law.
Barr had already directed the Mueller Prosecutors – to correct the sentence recomendation to reflect the guidelines before Trump tweeted.
Though Derschowitz has noted – there is a very long history of Presidents overruling prosecutors – starting with Jefferon and including such noteables as FDR, Kennedy and Obama. Trump has the legitimate constitutional authority to order DOJ to drop the case completely. He did not do that. He did not even direct anyone to alter the sentencing recomendation. He merely expressed outrage at an outrageous sentence.
As Derschowitz noted the standard range maximum sentence for Stone would be a bit more than 30months. The likely sentence absent the high profile political bullshit would be 2-4 months.
These were always bullshit charges.
But again – we have you and a phalanx of “deep staters” arguing FEELINGS.
Grow up – the world is about facts.
Nothing involving government EVER should be decided based on FEELINGS.
“early Trump supporters who believed what they were told?”
Were the told to fill out a W4 ?
“If they thought they were volunteers”
I do not care what the FELT – which is what you were arguing.
I care about facts. Employment is a contract, and it is a contract that ALWAYS has paperwork.
“why did they then jump ship? ”
They were free to “jump ship” whether employed or volunteers – that is a completely irrelevant argument.
Your entire argument seems to boil down to the “felt” they were employed.
Their feelings are not facts.
“Could it be, Priscilla, that the early Trump organization had the moral disposition of mob enforcers? Hint: the names mentioned who promised to pay them.”
Show me the W4’s – otherwise you have dubious claims based on feelings.
As a separate issue – democrats hire and pay almost all of their campaign workers.
Republicans mostly do not. That has been true during my entire lifetime.
It is one of the reasons that even though democrats tend to outraise republicans, that they are still more cash strapped because republicans do not spend as much on campaign workers.
The only people who do not know this are democrats.
You claim there was a “promise to pay” – in writing ? No W4 ? Nothing else in writing ?
If I employed someone I would NEVER let them start work until they had filled out a raft of paperwork – and I have actually employed hundreds of people.
Absent some paperwork saying “You are hired” is some way – such as a W4, or a benefits election (or rejection) form or something – I am highly disinclined to beleive anyone who says they “FELT” they were hired.
Real world – facts, not feelings.
As always you are selling your feelings in a world the facts are against you
Just soooo coincidental that the two people who allegedly “promised” these volunteers that they would be paid (even though, apparently, none of them had proof of employment) happen to be the two exact people who had long since (Lewandowski in June, Manafort in August) been forced out of the campaign! Why did none of these folks go to court for non-payment of wages? If there was a promise, an agreement, a contract, they would have had a legal claim for damages. And, if that failed, they could have gone to to the state labor department (Virginia? Maryland?) and filed a claim there. Even if Trump were the cheap s.o.b. that you believe he is, he certainly would not have wanted something like this to become public, just 2 months before the election.
When there is no evidence, and it doesn’t make sense, it’s fair to assume it’s fake news.
Employment in the US today does not happen without at the bare minimum a W4.
Even when chicken plants hire illegals – they fill out a W4 – often with a fake SS# – but still a W4.
A W4 is required to collect taxes.
And if you are not an actual employee – but an independent contractor – you fill out a W9.
Because the place that is paying you will get in deep shit with the IRS if you do not.
There is a reason there is no paperwork – because this is either a fraud or “feelings”.
Dave Really? Employment does not happen without a W-4? where have you been?
.
According to NOLO.com
“The “underground economy” consists of income earned under the table and off the books. It can include income from both legal and illegal activities. How big is the underground economy? Huge. It has been estimated that the worldwide underground economy amounts to $2 trillion per year. That’s two-thousand billion dollars upon which no taxes are paid to governments around the world. The IRS says that the United States lost $500 billion in taxes in 2012 because of unreported”
So not everyone has a W-4 or W-9
There are 3 ways you can get paid by another person for work.
As a W2 employee – the most common, and you WILL have to fill out a W4.
The other is as a consultant/contract worker. In this case you are self employed, you usually fill out a W9,
The last is a B2B arrangement – typically there is a contract there.
If you are “hired” by another business, it will be in one of these arrangements.
If that business is engaged in legal activities – or even is just trying to appear to be involved in legal activities – it is going to claim your cost as an expense on its taxes – there WILL be a W4 or W9. Otherwise it will be extremely difficult to expense your cost and they will have to pay tax on what you are paid as if it was profit.
Any business that is itself above ground – will require you to provide a tax payer ID # – either a SS# or EIN.
There are ways arround this.
Work for an illegal business – like a drug dealer. Who does not file tax returns.
Work for an individual who is not in business and therefore can not claim your pay as an expense. As an example if you mow your neighbors law for them.
Work via the internet for a foriegn company that is not paying taxes in the US. ‘
Work for a business that operates almost entirely on cash.
The Trump campaign is NOT in the drug business, it is “above the table”, it reports to the IRS, it is not a cash business.
If the IRS is correct – that would require a $1.5T “underground” economy in the US – taxes average 1/3 of revenue. And if you use a smaller percent for taxes – the size is lager.
Put simply – the IRS is lying.
Regardless any business that hires you “off the books” must either have a way to report you as an expense WITHOUT a Tax ID number – and that is very hard.
Or must have substantial unreported/untaxed revenue(cash) that it can pay you from.
How much of your life is conducted in cash today ?
I no longer carry much cash in my wallet.
Regardless, NONE of these would apply to working for the Trump campaign.
If you are working for a drug dealer – I suspect that you KNOW that.
If you are working in a cash business and being paid in cash – you know that.
Ron,
At what time in the 21st century have you worked for money that you have not:
Had a contract ?
Provided a W9 ?
provided a W2 ?
It is not entirely impossible to work without documentation.
There are even parts of the economy – organized crime, where it is common place.
But we were not discussing drug dealers.
Nor was this about “the underground economy”
This was not working in the resturaunt industry EXCLUSIVELY for tips. as an example.
Jay, I checked internet. Can only find articles in late 2016 and early 2017, including huff post, that report this. Please provide 2018-2019 articles reporting debts still outstanding that you have read supporting your comment. I would like to see who is still unpaid. Thanks Ron
The test of this is NOT the news. It is political consultants.
If Trump is able to hire good people – that means they expect to be paid.
Do you take work from people with a track record of failing to pay you ?
Dave, Jay keeps making these claims and provides no facts to back them up. I want documentation or he is just as good a liar as Trump. And the numbers he post now is approaching Trumpian numbers.
Jay is not on the far left in terms of policy. But he has adopted the same language, strategies and tactics.
Trust is earned. Credibility is earned, integrity is earned.
We all start at neutral and shift from there.
If you develop a record for accuracy, truthfulness and dependability,
You earn trust – people beleive you just because you say something.
When I go to my bank they fawn over me and offer me services that are not available to most customers, or deliver service that most customers can not get.
That is not how I was treated when I opened my first bank account or applied my first loan.
I get that treatment because I have an established reputation for trust, integrity and wise behavior with money.
And I will lose that treatment if I do not continue to behave with trust wisdom and integrity.
It is the same in all domains.
I have far greater trust of Trump than you do and certainly than Jay does.
That does not mean I like him.
My bank does not know how I treat my children or Wife, but they do know how I behave in the realm of finance, and they treat me accordingly.
Trump has been successful in multiple very different business domains.
I have absolutely zero interests in Jay’s claim that Trump is ripping off staff.
Even news articles would not impress me.
That claim is self evidently false. In a free market people trade value for value.
I do not know whether Trump is paying all his campaign workers.
I know that if they did not think they were getting SOMETHING out of it worthwile, they would not be doing it. I know that if Trump had a reputation as a bad employer her would either have to pay a premium for workers or no one would work for him.
I do something similar with tenants. I will rent to people who do not meet my (relatively low) credit standards. But I will place additional demands to compensate for my lower trust – higher deposits, higher rent. I take a higher risk, but get a higher return.
None of this is secret sauce – it is how the world works.
If you are in business and you do not know it already – you learn it or you fail.
One of my problems with Bloomberg is that I trust him. He is making promises that I do not like, but unlike Bernie or Biden or Warren I expect Bloomberg to try hard to keep them.
Bloomberg is betting his reputation in this campaign – and I think he actually values that reputation. I do not think that Biden or Warren does so much.
I do not want to get into a big debate with you over “Trump’s lies”
Just note that – while I fully except that Trump exagerates and speaks simply, bluntly often offensively and probably deliberately inarticulately – I think it is self evident that he is credible.
It is evident because of his past successes – you do not succeed once, much less multiple times if you are not trustworthy – and that goes for Bloomberg, and my problem with Bloomberg is that I DO trust him.
It is also evident because of our experiences with him as president.
Mueller did not “get him” Pelosi did not “get him”.
Either there is nothing to get – the odds, or he is far more intelligent and deceptive than the left credits him for.
sigh…..
“sigh…..”
Not an argument.
Not a source
not a fact.
Al Sharpton still owes a million dollars for his run for office in 1997.
“ Al Sharpton still owes a million dollars for his run for office in 1997.”
I’d never trust a dead beat like Sharpton. Feh on him.
What-about-ism you however use the double standard to defend President Douche.
“Whataboutism” is the term people attempting to obfuscate the fact that they want their enemies to be treated differently by the law then themselves and their friends.
Regardless, I am consistent here.
Sharpton – atleast on paper owes alot of money.
If those who are owed had a real issue – they would be suing him.
Or otherwise making him pay.
Same with Trump, or Clinton or ….
I am not going to jump up and down and spew spittle over things that do not involve me, do not effect me and that neither you nor I actually know the facts.
If ANY Business person cheats people – they do not last long.
No one will work for them,
and the courts will bankrupt them.
I do not care about stories – if you claim you are owed money – but do not go after it, then it is not that important, and it is not my business to get upset about what is your problem.
If you do not do your due dilligence before taking a job – from a politician or anyone else, and part of that includes – do they actually pay – then that is your problem.
And if you cheat other people – it does not take long before no one will work for you.
The system is so nearly self regulating that we almost do not need the courts.
You keep making these claims – as if there is no such thing as contract law – almost the oldest law that there is.
If Trump is not keeping a contractual obligation – then take him to court – you will win.
If you do not – then that means what you are claiming you are owed is not part of the contract.
I have been part of hundreds of contract disputes in my life – many of which resulted in law suites. While they almost never work out perfect, they almost always work out right.
I would further note that even absent the law – free markets punish people who do not keep their commitments viciously. And I have seen that many times in the real world.
If you do not keep your contracts – no one will do business with you.
Who is going to work on the 2020 Trump campaign, if Trump did not honor his committments to his 2016 staff ?
Who was going to work for Trump on his next building project, if he failed to pay contractors for the last one ?
You can always find someone who claims they were ripped off as part of any large project.
Ultimately the courts and the markets decide whether that claim is credible.
If neither the courts nor the markets act – YOU are being duped, and you should be suspicious of the person making the claim – not the person they are making the claim against.
But judgement and reason and logic have not been your forte.
And yet you have constantly told us that you have this significant past business experience while making assertions about business that only someone without that experence would view credibly.
Trump is building his 2020 Team now. A significant portion of those are from the 2016 team.
If Trump ripped off his 2016 team – do you think they are coming back for 2020 ?
If Trump ripped off his 2016 team – do you think ANYONE is going to work for him in 2020 ?
You never seem to ask yourself – “do these claims make sense ?”
Even drug dealers do not last long if they do not deliver value to their customers.
I just wanted to kidnap the woman and drop her off in the rain forest.
Bloombergs campaign is really just a “get Trump” super PAC.
By running for president he can spend as much of his own money as he wants.
Bloomberg is old, and has nothing else to do with his money. He has been pumping millions into Democratic causes – but it is easier for him to do that as a candidate.
Just to be clear – my views on Bloomberg are about his position on issues.
He is NOT a moderate by a long shot. But he is one of the more moderate of the current crop.
If he wants to spend a Billion on the 2020 elections – that is fine by me.
“ Bloomberg is old, and has nothing else to do with his money”
Trump is old, and has nothing else to do but rake in as much money as he can from scheming the presidency.
Trump is old, so is Biden, so is Warren, this is an old folks election – But Bloomberg is the oldest.
How do you get from Bloomberg has nothing else to do with his money to Trump has nothing else to do but rake in money.
Those are opposites.
Neither Bloomberg nor Trump have the remotest possibilthy of consuming their own wealth, or even the yearly interest on their wealth in the rest of their lives – even if they lived forever.
You do not seem to grasp What Adam Smith did 250 years ago, that the maximum amount that any human being is capable of consuming on for their won personal benefit is small in comparison to that of the wealthy.
Put differently – while your wealth is less than the top couple of percent, you are working and increasing it for your own benefit. But once you get into the top couple of percent, no personal benefit can possibly acrue to accumulating further wealth. Anything further you do is for the benefit of others.
Both Bloomberg and Trump are well past the point at which increases in their wealth could possibly benefit them personally.
Smith noted this 250 years ago. I have repeated it here. You still do not get it.
Ya gotta love Bloomberg. He’s hiring experts on narcissism and comedy writers to get under Trump’s thin orange skin:
I think that there are a number of steep impediments that Bloomberg has to overcome to have a chance.
At the same time he is the smartest person in the democratic field.
You do not get to be a multibillionaire who has also succeeded in several distinct areas if you are stupid.
But Bloomberg actually posses a serious problem for all other democrats – too much money.
As Ron noted, he is drowning EVERYONE out – even local races.
Trump can survive that. Trump can survive being attacked, and he can create his own media oxygen in ways no one else can.
Heck, all he has to do is retweet fart noises and YOU will spread him all over the world.
More importantly, he can get the media to attack him over something most of his supporters support. that is free advertising.
But no democratic presidential candidate can get any air in a media market Bloomberg moves into. And worse Bloomberg drowns out every other candidate – senator, rep, mayor in that market.
Lastly, Bloomberg is absolutely positively expert at specific things.
If the election is decided by traditional media advertising Bloomberg will crush everyone.
But if that were the case Hillary would be president.
I do not think Bloomberg should be under estimated.
But he has many problems in this election.
Sanders is doing well – not because of his policies – but because he is authentic.
Trump is also authentic – you get what you see. Which is oddly why there are these weird Sander’s Trump crossover voters who make no sense otherwise.
Bloomberg is not authentic. Bloomberg is already running like a very good but very traditional campaign – and that has not worked in a long time.
Bloomberg is trying to run as an appealing moderate – but very early in the campaign re repudiated a long list of the things he did as mayor that got him support accross party lines.
Probably because the entire democratic party seems to think they need to swing left to win the primary. If that is true – democrats are toast.
You can get away with that if your opponent had to do the same thing.
That is one of the advantages incumbents have – especially ones not being primaried.
They are likely to hold their base, and they can afford to carefully encroach into ever more of the middle.
While challengers must typically shift towards the extreme – the party base to get the nomination and then shift back to win the general.
And that erodes trust and certainly destroy’s authenticity.
And authenticity seems to have become the critical criteria for voters in the past decade.
Trump has that Sanders has that Bloomberg does not, Biden does not, Warren does not.
Yang did and was more moderate – but he is out.
Butigieg ? Klobuchar ?
We will see.
Regardless Democrats need to pray that Sanders has another heart attack.
Otherwise:
Either he will win
Or
There will be a brokered convention that he loses and lots of his supporters sit it out.
Bloomberg decreases the odds of a Sanders win outright.
Biden was democrats last great hope of an outright defeat of Sanders in the primary.
and if you do not accomplish an HONEST defeat of Sanders, you will lose lots of sanders supporters in the general.
Last, have you finally accepted that Biden has bit the dust ?
I told you that months ago.
And Guess what YOU did it to him. The hysterical efforts to “get Trump” assured that Biden would get an early spotlight he could not survive under.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
And there is a ton of this stuff available to make political messages funny and uses his own words in a way people will view instead of paging through or hitting the mute button. And it just highlight some of the issues I talk about.
Maybe Bloomberg will prove me wrong.
It would be great to have an actually good political add.
But I am not betting on it.
Thus far Bloombergs add as good, but not good enough to keep me from click “skip” at the first instant I can.
And even if I listened all the way through – an hour later what I remember is stop and frisk, recanting stop and frisk, mr 64Oz drinks, and that he spends a fortune to pass stupid inefectual gun laws.
The Add ? Can’t remember.
A bully is someone who uses force to take from you what is yours – such as Bloomberg depriving people of the right to buy the soda’s they want.
Please cite an example of Trump using the power of government to take from anyone what is theirs by right ?
Interesting. Guess schools have defined bully incorrectly for years since kids who were bullys in school did not have to take something from you to be a bully. So what is the definition of those kids that pick on, punch, make fun of, disparage and demean other kids wuthout taking their lubchmoney?
My body is my own – when you punch me, you are taking something from me by force.
You are injuring me.
Jay calls people names all the time – he is alot of things many of them not good. – he is not a bully – atleast not hear.
Schools being Forked up is a given.
Question: Ever see anything like this in US history EVER?
Answer: No, not ever before this DIVISIVE Trump swamp came to power!
WASHINGTON —“ More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials called on Attorney General William P. Barr on Sunday to step down after he intervened last week to lower the Justice Department’s sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr.” NYT
Nowhere in your post is there a claim he is not doing his job.
One of the specific things that Barr is AG for is to restore the reputation of the DOJ and FBI.
Doing so requires ending the Wingman nonsense of Holder and the tarmac meetings of Lynch.
It means administering the FBI and DOJ such that the follow the law in the same way for everyone – republicans and democrats.
I disagree with Barr’s decision not to prosecute Comey and McCabe for leaking classified information and for lying – both under oath and to investigators.
I beleive that law enforcement should be held to a HIGHER standard not a lower one.
Further Comey and McCabe’s misconduct was as part of a broader panopoly of REAL miscounduct and crimes – it was a part of REAL false investigation. It was a part of REAL frauds to the court, It was a part of REAL spying on political opponents, and now it appears it was part of REAL instances where the FBI was usued to oprovide opposition research to a political candidate.
Barr now has another US attorney doing an independent review of the Flynn prosecution.
My question is what took you so long ?
In that prosecution we have lost and altered 302’s, we have agents who claimed Flynn was truthful at the time who months later say he was not. We have a setup arranged by McCabe targeting someone he had personal animus toward. We have the only instance ever of a 18 US 1001 prosecution where the target was not informed they were being interviewed or they were a target. We have a prosucution as a result of an investigation that by the time Flynn was interviewed was no longer legitimate and the agents involved new it. We have myriads of other indicia of bias, and corruption.
Yet Flynn is infront of the courts – and Coment and McCabe are not.
Any attorney or prosecutor on your list who thinks that is acceptable – should be FIRED.
In stones case we have a prosecution that was undertaken solely because Stone was a thorn in the side of Mueller – because Stone pissed on Mueller much as Trump did – but Mueller could not go after Trump so he went after Stone. We have another manufactured crime.
The purported “threat” will NEVER survive the recent Scotus standard, and never should have been charged. It is an obvious effort to criminalize free speech. The Judge’s gfag order of Stone amplifies the fact that the purpose of the prosecution was to shut Stone up.
The entire prosecution fixates on documented exchanges between to competitors that were also freinds regarding disagreements over activities that were not crimes.
And in the end Stone was factually correct. Yet stone was convicted of lying about a non-crime that he was correct about, and initimidating a witness who was not a witness at the time who was not intimidated, and where Stone’s representation of facts was correct and Credico’s was not.
The only thing that does nto make the Stone prosecution orders of magnitude more eggregious than even that of Flynn – is that Stone is a political operative and Flynn is an actual hero (unlike Vindman) and a 3 star general.
Regardless, if your 1000 attorney’s actual think Barr is undermining rather than rebuilding a deeply corrupt DOJ – then THEY, not Barr are the problem.
And if you do not fully grasp that – YOU are part of the problem too.
One law intepreted narrowly and the same FOR ALL.
Justice that is blind to whether you are a democrat or a republican.
Here is a response from one of those “carreer lawyers”
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/president-trump-starts-to-drain-the-swamp-yanks-liu/
Ms. Hart – Juror #1261 is likely one of those carreer government lawyers.
The democratic party needs to resolve the fact that it has been taken over by its own extreme left. And this article argues that the only way past that is to allow democrats to suffer a catastrophic defeat to Trump.
I have no idea. Democrats learned nothing from 2016.
https://spectator.org/a-trump-bernie-brawl-would-benefit-the-nation/
“ The democratic party needs to resolve the fact that it has been taken over by its own extreme left”
More dumb dumb unsubstantiated nonsense noise.
In FACT the GOP has ALREADY been taken over by Trumpanzees.
In FACT a wide majority of the Dem candidates are moderate-left, their cumulative polling numbers around 70%. They are trying to prevent what Republicans allowed: an outlandish minority unrepresentative candidate from eliminating candidates who reflect Long standing party values.
““ The democratic party needs to resolve the fact that it has been taken over by its own extreme left”
More dumb dumb unsubstantiated nonsense noise.”
I posted an article claiming precisely that. There are myriads of democrats bemoaning precisely what I am saying.
The claim is well substantiated.
“In FACT the GOP has ALREADY been taken over by Trumpanzees.”
Trump has effectively taken over the GOP. But outside his style his policies are not extremist and more importantly they have EXPANDED rather than contracted the Republican base.
I am libertarian – I can argue that my philosophy is RIGHT – but it is inarguably not highly popular.
Some of Trump’s policies are wrong – but they are popular.
Nearly all Sanders policies are wrong, they are also unpopular – atleast if voters are given their cost.
“In FACT a wide majority of the Dem candidates are moderate-left, their cumulative polling numbers around 70%. ”
And yet every one of them is falling all over themselves to pander to the far left.
It is likely that every think you write above is correct – yet in their debates, in their platforms and in their policies they are all trying to appeal to the far left – not moderates.
“They are trying to prevent what Republicans allowed: an outlandish minority unrepresentative candidate from eliminating candidates who reflect Long standing party values.”
I am neither a republican nor democrat and each party is free to run itself as it pleases.
I am merely observing self evident facts from the outside – and I am not alone in those observations.
If Democrats did not want Sanders in the election – they should have prohibited candidates that were not democrats.
There are other things they could have done – some of which they are doing.
But by letting him into the the election in the first place they delegitimize their efforts to get rid of him.
You say 70% of the candidates are moderate – probably, but not from their platforms.
Possibly 70% of democrats are moderate – that is a guess – my defintion of moderate would make that number much smaller. Regardless socialists make up a sufficiently significant part of the democratic party that democrats can not win without them – all of them.
You want to thwart a Sanders candidacy – possibly a wise idea.
But unless you do so in a way that leaves the Sandersnistas inclined to vote – Democrats will lose. And if you cede too much to the “sandersnistas” – democrats will lose.
The Tea party did a smaller version of this to the GOP, but it was on net positive for the GOP in most regions – capitulating to the TP did not cost Republicans “moderate” votes, and it assured republicans support from the TP through moderates.
Do you think that democrats efforts to draw in the Sandersnistas will work as well for them ?
The democratic party has a fracture that impairs its ability to win elections.
“ And yet every one of them is falling all over themselves to pander to the far left.”
For a far-deluded chap like you, all the left is far left, and useless to point that out.
Jay,
Every single democratic candidate has a vastly redistributive and.or massive freebee plank in the platform – usually several. Sanders is spending nearly 4T/year more according to his platform.
Absolutely they are all lying and they are not going to do any of that.
But they are lying for a reason.
They are all pandering to the far left.
The far left does not rule the world – but they rule the democratic party. That is self evident.
Are all democrats far left ? Nope.
As I noted no candidate is going to live up to the promised they make to the left.
We not only know that – but if we elect any democrat – we are going to be praying that is true.
Regardless, the pandering is real. If you think I am making that up – you are delusional.
But it goes well beyond promised platform freebies that will never be delivered.
The far left owns the language and through that the ideas and principles of democrats.
We live in the least racist moment in the least racist country in the entirety of human history.
Perfect ? No, nor will it ever be. Yet, if you listen to not just the left, but the media and nearly all democrats you would think we live in Nazi Germany.
Self Evidently – the left own you – and worse it owns your language and your principles.
We are not seeing a literal recreation of 1984.
The left has vast influence over the way our children are raised.
To the extent that in far too many places toddlers are given life altering choice of their own gender, and before we teach children math we are teaching them about transexuals.
We live in an increasing surveilance state – you can blame either or both parties for getting there, but the obama administration was the pinacle of political surveailance – whether FISA abuses or spying on congress or reporters, or …
Do you think that if Trump was spying on Anderson Cooper or Pelosi that he would not have been impeached by now ?
Obama was spying on Senators, and journalists.
In 1984 the party controlled the news.
There was a ministry of Truth – like todays fact checkers who are self referential – a news story is true if there are other news stories claiming the same. It is false if there are few.
1984 had Two minutes of hate and hate week, during which we are required to heap hatred on some boogey man.
I can go on and on.
Why Trump must keep tweeting.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/forget-the-good-manners-trump-should-keep-tweeting_3239431.html
Mike’s Daily Liar-Trump Tweek:
Right – more nonsense.
This is not worth responding to.
There is an even easier way to respond to this.
If Trump (or any politiician) had actually cut 920B in benefits from these programs, he would have been impeached, recalled, voted out of office.
“The proposed Medicare changes aim to address waste and abuse in the system — efforts that both major parties have supported in the past”
You Bloomberg Tweet/Add presumes that people currently receiving these benefits are ignorant.
Just stupid left wing nut scare tactics.
The FACT is that ultimately we are going to have to cut all of these programs – including benefits.
But I doubt that will occur under Trump.
I also doubt that Trump will successfully get any substantial spending reductions via purported changes to reduce waste and abuse. That has NEVER worked with any government program before.
But proposing and likely failing to cut waste and abuse is not something normal people would consider a violation of this promise.
BTW we have been through this before.
If you are on SS and I say – I am going to cut the government cost for SS by 10% – but I am not going to effect your beneifts at all – are you going to say “Hell No! I want lost of Fraud and Abuse and waste in SS !!” ?
In my entire adult life, I do not remember a single election in which the Democrats din NOT accuse a Republican candidate of cutting SS.
Also, I read Bloomberg’s plan. It is classic redistribution. He want’s poor retirees to get more, and retirees with pensions to get less, regardless of how many years they worked or how much they paid into the system. He also wants poor people of any age to be able to opt into the SS system.
Of course, he weasel words the plan to sound as if he would raise SS for everyone, neglecting the poor middle class schlubs who will pay for that raise, but have their own SS cut.
Attention Trump Cultists
Do you think is all right for Trump to tell Nevada primary voters to vote for Bernie?
If Bernie is a s bad for the nation as Trump claims, why would he want him to have a chance to be president? Shouldnt fart-lover Donnie want TWO good candidates vying for president?
Jay, for the same reason it was ok for the democrat party in N.C. told independent voters in March 2016 that if they supported the bitch to ask for a republican primary ballot and vote for Trump. Trump was considered the weak link and the easiest to defeat in Nov 2016. They also did not want them voting for the democrat primary and voting for Sanders.
Turn about is fair play!
But in N.C. It has more weight because its an open primary, while in Nevada its closed. How many democrats do you think will follow Trumps advice like they did in N.C. And this was discussed many times with the party when 14% of the GOP primary voters were first time GOP voters, 52% of those voted for Trump, those that ID as liberal, 40% voted for Trump and 35% ID as indeoendent, 35%voted for Trump. Last, all candidates received close to the number of votes as polls showed a month before except Trump, who out performed the polls from 15-30 days prior by 10%+, much from the independent voters.
In Jay World good and evil are decided by the outcome Jay likes – and all too often Jay does not know what he wants – only what he doesn;t – Trump.
“ Turn about is fair play!”
Turn about is fair play between political thugs slugging it out in public battle; it’s not good for objective bystanders who don’t want to be governed by unethical assholes.
Jay, as long as the dems do it, the GOP will do it and if the GOP does it, the dems will do it. I have said many times the parties should decide their own nominee, not independent in partially open primaries and not opposing regestered individuals in fully open primaries.
So as long as it happens, from the president on down to private citizens, turn about is fair play!
It’s not my party.
As usually you constantly conflate words with acts.
Do I think that voters in NV should vote for Sanders ? No. though each voter gets to make their own choice.
Do I think it is wrong for Trump to ask NV voters to vote for Sanders ?
That is not even a question. There is no “Do I think”.
Trump or anyone else can suggest that voters vote for anyone . There is not a question.
It is a right. You may do it.
I linked an editorial that made a strong argument for democrats to vote for Bernie.
Even if they think he is a bad choice. And I beleive the editorial was by a democrat.
Democrats are not going to be able to get their act together, until the figure out what they are doing wrong. They face an uphill battle until they figure out how to contain their own far left flank.
Sanders getting obliterated by Trump MIGHT do that. Though I doubt it.
Then we will all get told that Sanders was not a true Socialist – that is why he lost.
If democrats felt so strongly about Sanders they dhould not have let him into the election in the first place. If you were so concerned that Sanders will win and then get trounced by Trump – you could have run a candidate that appealed to ordinary voters, not left wing nuts.
If you think Trump should face a strong opponent – who would that be ? Sanders keeps winning, that suggests that as a democrat goes he is strong.
Democrats started the 2020 campaign early – they had a huge slate of candidates.
Nearly all the “moderates” either dropped out early or are in single digits.
Further every major contendor for the past 9 months has embreaced very nearly Sanders platform – so are these people who claim to be moderate but have been falling all over themselves to promise socialism – moderates ?
Most of your so called “moderates” came into the election with alot of baggage.
They were not going to appeal to the left wing of the democratic party.
Yet every single one of them – from Bidn to Bloomberg has fallen all overthemselves appealing to the far left.
And now you are worried that Sanders will win rather than some stronger moderate.
THERE IS NOT STRONG DEMOCRATIC MODERATE.
Just authentic and inauthentic woke socialists.
Jay – Get over it. Trump is likely to crush democrats no matter who is nominated – because he either faces a real authentic socialist – or a fake one.
Similar outcome.
President’s Day Reminder
So you are talking about the PResident that turned the Whitehouse into a brotherl ?
Who was dating the former girlfreinds of mob bosses – while married ?
Who was dating a german spy during WWII ?
Who was responsible for having President Diem assassinated ?
There was an interview of a historian on FDR recently.
He noted that the FBI and DoD had told Roosevelt that interring the Japanese was unnescascary as only a handful had real loyalty to Japan, that these people came to the US to get away from Japan. FDR did not inter the Nissei because they were a threat to national security – he did so to get votes. The internment was very popular amoung voters in the effected states – as white people from those regions took over the businesses and farms of the internees.
FDR also OPENLY weaponized the IRS to go after Melon – failling because Mellon was a meticulous accountant. And Annaberg – because he controlled the Phila Enquirer which was very anti-roosevelt and FDR was trying to flip PA – which he eventually did. and the IRS was after Huey Long and his cohorts before Long was assassinated – because FDR feared that Long running for president would deprive him of the south and give the republican a win.
You complain that Trump is authoritarian – there has been no more authoritarian a president than FDR. During his term he hand picked the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the Senate. Early on only the Supreme Court was an impediment to his doing whatever he wanted. He attempted to stack that – which produced one of few congressional revolts against him, but ultimately scared 4 justices into retiring.
Southerner’s complain thatr Lincoln was a totalitarian – which he was. Members of his own cabinet noted that they would all hang for war crimes and abuse of power if they did not win the civil war. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.
You can bitch and moan about Trump’s tweets, but the fact is that we have a relatively law abiding president who pretty much sticks inside his lane, who is actively being unconstitutionally thwarted by career government officials.
you noted the 1100 government attorney’s demanding Barr Resign – what more evidence do you need of a “deep state” conspiracy ?
The more I find of the Stone sentencing recomendation the worse it gets.
Federal sentencing guidelines are damn near mandatory.
Stones offense score would have resulted in a sentence of about 30-40 months.
The politically biased Mueller Prosecutors bumped his score by 9 points by counting one of his offences as an aggravating factor – which you can not do – and even then using a deliberatly and obviously miscalculated score they recommended at the aggravated range.
They were very deliberately trying to send a message – not to mess with them, that they were above the law. They were doing exactly the same as FDR using the IRS to go after Mellon and Annanberg and Long. you still do not get it – the crooks worked for Mueller, not Trump.
Anyway the Deputy AG they reported to told them NO! and changed the sentencing recomendation back to the correct one. That is when they threatened to resign (privately),
At which point the Deputy AG capitulated, and THAT is when Barr stepped in and they resigned. GOOD RIDDANCE.
Regardless, I would NOTE that in the process they “Lied to a federal agent” – I say prosecute them. Put them in orange jump suits – right next to Stone.
Nothing pisses me off more than those in government using government power to squash the less powerful. I am more angry at Clinton by far for going after the idiot who posted the “innocence of the muslims” that she scapegoated than her Espionage act nonsense.
“ you noted the 1100 government attorney’s demanding Barr Resign – what more evidence do you need of a “deep state” conspiracy ?”
I see! We’re under deep-state attack! And have been for decades! Those letter-signers are proof of how deeply imbedded the deep-state is in our government: a cohort of devious bi-partisan attorney’s, who have served in Republican and Democratic administrations, conspiring to undermine Trump! They showed stealthy patience, waiting for decades to reveal themselves now!
When 1100 people demand the AG resign – and yet there is no law broken, no crime committed. Not even an actual crime alleged – then yes we have a problem.
I am aware of past instances where many people protested govenrment policy – in writing, in the streets.
I recall very few instances where they went beyond aguing for their own policies and want on to demand – not just their their policies were implimented but that those who disagreed who were acting lawfully guit or be forced out. And I can not think of any without atleast alleging a crime.
The claim against Barr is that he must go because he is following the law, rather than kowtowing to the outrage of the left.
I think it was very wrong for Barr to let McCabe and Comey off the hook.
The IG recomended prosecution of both for crimes he found.
And Horowitz is not some republican toady.
But I am not demanding Barr’s firing.
Yet, you – and these 1100 people are demanding that Barr resign – because he refused to allow prosecutors who went after people without government power who committed lessor crimes than Comey or McCabe to sentence those process crimes by first (non)offenders being prosecuted polifically at double the maximum sentence and quadruple the recomended sentence, for convictions that will not survive appeal, and will be pardoned if they do, where we KNOW the trial was a farce.
Yes, I think the letter by 1100 government attorney’s establishes without a doubt the existance of a deep state that thinks it gets to set policy.
GASP! THE DEEP-STATE CONSPIRACY IS SPREADING – faster than the Chinese Virus!
“Update: over 2000(!) former bi-partisan DOJ officials have now signed the letter…” (Mimi Rocah)
I beleive the political makeup of the federal government is about 90% democrat.
So “bipartisan” is a huge stretch.
Regardless, the larger the number of people in DOJ who want Barr to resign for:
working to restore the integrity and trust in the DOJ the more self evident it is that Barr is confronting a DOJ lacking in integrity and trust.
Keep raising the number – your just magnifying the problem.
At this point these people must know that McCabe and Comey are not being prosecuted for lying under oath and lying to federal agents, that Stone did not get a fair and impartial jury.
If they are STILL pushing for Barr’s resignation – THEY are the ones that need to go.
BTW, one of the many reasons that the Obama people went after Flynn was he was actively working on a peace plan between Ukraine and Russia that would have ended the sanctions against Russia.
Taking Flynn our made the plan kryptonite.
So one again we have deep staters meddling in the foreign policy of the elected president – because they do not like it.
Because – god forbid that Russia and the Ukraine should come to terms.
Oh, and this MUST be True – it was reported in the NYT
Today’s Best Come-Back Retort:
It is Clinton who waited forever before Conceeding the election.
It is Obama who mined the executive branch to harm his successor – the first time in history that has EVER been done.
In election after election – it is democrats who have been unable to accept the outcome when they lost.
Abrams is still ranting about GA – yet there is no way she could pick up enough votes to win.
In 2018 pretty much accross the board – Republicans did not get into court or verbal battles over close elections – even though we KNOIW that democrats in CA did by the millions what the Republicans in GA were accused of doing by the 100’s.
We still have Bush Gore 2000 – who is it that would not concede a loss ?
Nixon ceded the 60′ election – though we know there were 90K dead voters in IL.
Coleman not only beat Franken but remained ahead for months – until some flunky found thousands of uncounted votes in her car.
Regardless, any elected official of any party to any office will leave when their term is up or they lose re-election. There is no question about that at all.
It is not their choice. When their replacement is sworn in, no one will listen to them any more.
You are not president until you choose to leave office, you hold office until your term expires.
During that time the entirety of your authority comes from the fact that people accept you as that office holder.
In 1989 in East Germany we saw what happens when the population of a country refuses to acknowledge the authority of their leaders.
You do not need to impeach Trump if the majority of people in the country refuse to accept him as the legitimate president.
Not wish he had not won, not disapprove of him as president, but are completely unwilling to accept his legitimacy.
Our government exists only because after elections those who lost and their supporters – even if they do not support the winner, still act in accordance with the outcome. They accept that the winner is now the president, senator, representative, ….
That is a fundimental requirement for representative government.
As the declaraion says
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Whatever office one might hold, it is by virtue of the consent of the electorate.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 HAHAHAHA. LMAO ..HAHAHAHA
Best joke I have heard in ages!!!!
Didnt know he was a comedian!!
HAHAHAHA
“Barack Obama @BarackObama 7h
Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.”
OMG, that is the funniest thing I have heard in ages!
It is not a joke – it is just taking credit where it is not due.
While the negative impacts – including Job losses had not ended yet, the fundimental causes of the downturn had corrected and recovery was inevitable before Obama took office.
Every recession is followed by strong job growth. The worse the recession is the stronger the growth – and usually the longer the growth.
Obama presided over the weakest recovery since the great depression.
Further the resession itself was not as severe as the on in 1980 that the Fed deliberately caused – to purge stagflation from the economy.
Regardless, Obama did preside over a weak and protracted recovery, That means a very long period of slow job growth.
That job growth has continued into the Trump administration.
The job numbers and labor force participation Trump is hitting – are purportedly impossible.
And all this was slowing before Trump was elected.
Regardless, what Obama said is basically true.
But what that MEANS is quite different from what he is claiming.
I made what would otherwise have been a rapid strong recovery take almost a decade – is NOT something to be proud of.
It is like when the business owner says – sales are way up.
And the accountant says – and you are losing $5000/sale.
Ron, do you think it’s time to move to another thread? ( I can’t remember which one we were using before this post.)
Priscilla, Bilingualism has few comments. We were using the Bush link, but I think we filled that one up where it was getting delayed. I was ready to move 300+ comments ago, but no one else seemed to be having problems, so said nothing, just took a couple minutes to relax while stuff post.
I will move if you do. Maybe Dave and Jay will follow. If not, we can have our own conversation.
Ok, on my way.
Ok, See you in Bilingualism!
Roby, Jay, Dave..Priscilla and I are moving to Bilingualism to clog up that thread. This one is taking longer to process a comment than writing the thing to begin with.
And when Rick starts getting activity on a dormant subject for 11 years, he might decide its time for some input with a new subject.
DHLII- YIKES – DEEP STATE NOW IN CONTROL OF 1,000 MEMBER FEDERAL JUDGES ASSOCIATION!!!
“WASHINGTON – A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.
Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.“
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/17/roger-stone-sentence-judges-worried-political-interference/4788155002/
These would be the same people who made the mess we currently have ?
These would be the same people who can not select an unbiased jury ?
These would be the same people who put the guy who has spent the past three years screaming there was no problem with FISA warrants in charge of cleaning them up ?
These would be the people flooding SCOTUS with obvious loser cases because they can not follow the constitution, the law or precident ?
Yeh, there is a big problem with our courts.
BTW, Federal Judges do not get to “Weigh in” on politics or policy – AT ALL. They are entitled to life time appointments purportedly to insulate them from politics and policy.
There is a very very limited oversite role of the judiciary with respect tot he executive – and that is confined to the constitution, and is ultimately the responsibility of the Supreme Court – not some “independent judges association”.
Yes, you are again proving – there is a swamp in the federal government and it is really big and needs drained.
Lots of ordinary americans – long before Trump, understood that our judiciary had failed us.
According to Polls – Soldiers – particularly grunts are among the most trusted by ordinary people. Followed by corporate executives and security guards. followed by police. Followed by judges with politicians at the bottom.
And again you seem to think a massive (fallacious) appeal to authority is somehow meaningful ?
Should we poll drug dealers for their opinion on Barr ?
Trump is doing what he can about Judges.
Unfortunately that will take a while.
BTW there are only 870 total federal judges.
Trump has appointed 192 of those.
Obama Appointed 329
There are only about 350 judges sitting not appointed by either Trump or Obama.
Barr has fallen short on enforcing the rule of law and restoring the integrity of DOJ and FBI.
Lots more people need fired.
While there is an argument that these attorney’s can be prosucuted under 18 USC 1001.
I do not want ANYONE prosecuted under that – atleast not in the weaponized way it is being used.
If you are not misleading the government to coverup an actual crime – then you should never be subject to prosecution for misstatements.
You are not in any state court in the country.
You can lie to the police.
The police can lie to you.
But if you lie to the police – that can be used as evidence against you.
That is how things should be.
McCabe and Comey’s self serving false statements should not be prosecuted as Crimes.
Though they justify their firing.
I am more concerned about their lies under oath – though I want more details on those.
At the same time Flynn never should have been prosecuted for anything.
Nor should Stone, Papadoulis or Van der Zandt.
No special counsel should have been appointed.
When the FBI determined in mid Jan 2017 that they no longer had reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed – they should have publicly dropped the Trump/Russia nonsense.
It is increasingly self evident that Comey’s firing over Trump/Russia was justified.
When Mueller found that the FBI had already lost reasonable suspicion – he should have closed up shop.
Rosenstein MUST have known this – and therefore his appointment of Mueller was illegal.
When are we going to see all of this cleaned up ?
DOJ is at the center of this.
A susbstantial portion fo the country wants to know why are Comey and McCabe who committed crimes under the color of government authority, walking free, while Stone. Flynn, Papadoulis … were targeted for dubious process crimes and face jail ?
They want to know how a virulent Stone hater could possibly have made it onto Stone’s jury.
And why he does nto have a new trial now ?
Worse the only reason we know this at all – is because AFTER Barr thwarted the Stone prosecutors from imposing an illegal sentence the stone and trump hating biased jury foreman outed herself and google did the rest.
Divide and conquer. Started out in D.C in 2017. Now moving to the heartland. And with our gullible society, they can say almost anything and it will spread, especially if its anti Trump.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/russias-radio-sputnik-airing-in-kansas-city/ar-BB10644X
If you want to listen to radio Sputnik or follow Russian Facebook posts – be my guest.
You can not stop ANYONE from trying to persuade other people.
Of course it is propoganda. So what ?
You say it is stupid and guilible people might be persuaded ?
Sure – just as people are persuaded there is such as thing as free college or healthcare or ….
if you can decide what can not be said – because stupid people might beleive it – then anything can be banned.
Do not mess with free speech – it always ends badly.
We must tolerate speech we think it bad or evil or lies, or …
because there is no one that has universal trust to censor our speech for us.
If you can ban Russian radio because guilible people might be persuaded – you can ban the democratic platform.
“The power to investigate is the power to destroy,” a former U.S. attorney, Gregory Brower, told the Washington Post recently. “The ability to simply point to a pending investigation against a person can have devastating effects on that person and can have a potential political benefit to the person orchestrating the investigation.”
Irony seems outside the left’s vocabulary.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/whos-complaining-about-investigations-now
The same standard do not apply to the left as the right.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/17/source-democrat-senator-held-secret-meeting-in-munich-with-iranian-foreign-minister-zarif/
This is a continuation of the secret diplomacy with Iran that has been happening with John Kerry, for well over a year. They are promising Iran that, if Trump is defeated In November, they will reinstitute the JCPOA, and Iran will be back in the money, and on the way to being a nuclear power, within a few short years.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/09/trump_john_kerry_is_violating_logan_act_sabotaging_talks_with_iran.html
No one has ever been charged with violating the Logan Act (the Dems wanted to charge General Flynn) but, if anyone has violated that law, by attempting to undermine and sabotage the foreign policy of the duly elected POTUS, it would be Joh Kerry and the Deomcrats.
Technically this is an egregious violation of “the logan act” – what Flynn and Manafort were targeted for.
A law that is so unconstitutional no one has ever been prosecuted for it.
But when Republicans engage in working with foreign countries – they are hounded by special prosecutors, threatened with jail, and the jailing of their families.
While John Kerry does it openly and brazenly.
I have no desire to jail John Kerry. I think what he is doing is morally wrong. It is also technically illegal – it violates an unconstitutional law. I do not think he should do it.
But there should be no law against it and no one should try to prosecute him.
I am unbeleivably tired of all these double standards.
I am tired of this crap where we pass unconstitutional laws – and only enforce them against those on the right.
I am tired of rants about foreign intereference – only when it purportedly favors the right.
I am tired of those targeting republicans lying – under oath with impuntiy, WHILE charging their victims with lying to FBI agents.
I expect that is possible that people wearing Pink Pussy hats are capable of deluding themselves into beleiving they and theirs are law abiding and those on the right are not.
But most ordinary people – even if not cognizant of the scale of the double standard or not totally outraged – do atleast grasp that what is occuring is one sided.
Ordinary people understand that Roger Stone did not get a fair trial, and that If Stone is headed to Jail – Comey and McCabe should be beside him.
Ordinary people may not grasp that Trump did not “influence” the DOJ regarding Stone.
But they do understand that if he actually did everything the left claims – he did less than Obama did regarding Clinton.
There were no secret tarmac meetings at airports.
The problem those on the left have is that they have so corrupted government and people KNOW IT, that most ordinary people DO NOT CARE if Trump is actually doing what he is accused of – because to them it is no different from what they know democrats do all the time.
The problem those on the right have is that ordinary people are so innured to corruption that they do not grasp how ACTUALY outrageous and unusual what happened to Trump was.
BARR (on ABC interview Feb 13th): “Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted… BARR: Yes. Well, I have a problem with some of, some of the tweets. As I said at my confirmation hearing, I think the essential role of the Attorney General is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it. And I have done that and I will continue to do that…. I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
TRUMP (this morning): “These were Mueller prosecutors, and the whole Mueller investigation was illegally set up based on a phony and now fully discredited Fake Dossier, lying and forging documents to the FISA Court, and many other things… Everything having to do with this fraudulent investigation is badly tainted and, in my opinion, should be thrown out. “
USA TODAY: “A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases…”
I think Barr’s remarks were politic and incorrect.
As Barr noted in his own memo on the Mueller report – obstruction of justice without an underlying crime is almost never charged. One of the reasons is because the normal conduct of innocent people is often viewed as obstruction.
The claim of witness tampering runs afoul of Elonis vs. the US – a RECENT SCOTUS decision that Barr I am sure is familiar with. It never should have made it to the jury.
Elonis threatened to shoot his wife and to bomb the police.
SCOTUS deemed that heinous but protected free speach.
A threat must be IMMEDIATE and it must be CREDIBLE – or it is protected speach.
Joking parodies of the god father that the “target” did not take seriously
are free speach.
Further both obstruction and witness tampering must take place in the context of an actual proceeding.
You can not obstruct justice with actions that occur before there is an investigation.
You can not tamper with a witness who has not been called as a witness.
This is AGAIN why you need to establish an underlying crime.
If stone did not commit the crime of “colluding with Russia” – then he does not have a motive nor sufficient criminal intent to “cover up” that crime or to “tamper with witnesses”.
Innocent people – want witnesses to “tell the truth”.
Which BTW is exactly what Stone wanted of Credico.
The animus between Stone and Credico was because Credico was Stones “source” for wikileaks information. And Credico was denying that. Because Credico had no actual contact with Wikileaks. Credico made up his Wikileaks claims and then lied to Stone who beleived him. And then both of them got caught up in Mueller – because the actual truth had a resemblance to What Stone said publicly based on information that Credico told him came from wikileaks but was actually made up.
Even if you do not actually beleive that – though it is well documented by Mueller.
The alternative is that Credico is lying. that does not make your case against Stone better.
What part of Trump’s comments is inaccurate ?
The FISA court itself has stated that atleast 2 of the 4 FISA warrants were fraudulently obtained. Most of us grasp that ALL of them were fraudulently obtained.
Horowitz has confirmed that by Mid Jaunary 2017 the FBI KNEW not only there was no “trump/Russia collusion” – but that they no longer even had reasonable suspicion to continue.
EVERYTHING that happened after that was ILLEGAL. EVERYTHING that happened after was FRAUDULENT.
Horowitz’s investigation was restricted tot he FBI and Crossfire Huricane – he did NOT look at anything before July of 2016 or After March of 2017. So he made no comment on Mueller.
Regardless, he burned the foundation for the SC to ash.
Comey knew long before he was fired that he was continuing a fraudulent investigation.
Rosenstein new when he appointed Mueller SC – that there was no “trump/Russia collusion”.
You can argue that Mueller did not know that on Day one. But he had to have figured it out fast.
Further Mueller has praised himself for the number of warrants and subpeona’s he issues.
If the PAGE warrant was illegal – then EVERY Mueller warrant and subpeona was illegal
The standard for a warrant or subpeona is “probable cause”.
Horowitz established that reasonable suspicion no longer existed after mid January 2017.
That is a MUCH LOWER standard than probable cause.
ALL of Mueller’s supeona’s and Warrants were “illegal”
So everything Trump is saying is correct.
Further Barr innarguably knows this.
Absent additional evidence that has not todate been made public or even alluded to,
Pretty much everything Mueller did is not merely illegal – but in legal terms “fruit of the poisoned tree”.
Where were these jusdge when Bill Clinton was meeting AG Lynch on the Tarmac ?
Where were these Judges when the DOJ refused to investigate congressional referals of illegal acts in the Obama administration ? Where were these Judges when Obama announced in the middle of an FBI investigation that Clinton was not guilty of anything ?
Where were these judges when Comey told us that Clinton committed a crime but he would not prosecute ?
Where were these judges when McCabe and Comey started an illegal investigation of a political campaign ?
Where were these judges when Comey and McCabe and Brennan and Clapper lied under oath ?
Where were these judges when the Mueller attorneys filed an “illegal” sentencing recomendation ?
I can go on and on and on.
Regardless, I have ZERO interest in “outrage” over Trump’s conduct, but people who said nothing about truly outrageous conduct by those in government.
YOU have no credibility or integrity.
Nor do they.
Dershowitz added: “We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department. The difference: This president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it. And, I don’t think these 1,000 former Justice Department officials would pass the shoe-on-the-other-foot test. Maybe some of them would, but a good many of them wouldn’t.”
Constitutionally, Dershowitz said, the president “could make a decision to really control the Justice Department” and decide specifically whom to prosecute and not to prosecute. The former member of Trump’s impeachment defense team clarified, however, that it wouldn’t be a good move.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-obama-george-soros
Its clear to me now, Bernie Sanders and his progressive cultists have successfully killed the Democratic party. Whether he is its nominee or not, his progressive movement, inexorably like the trump cancer has successfully infested and destroyed the values of a major party. There is one vile lying dishonorable party with a terrible man as its leader and it faces a party of economically and historically illiterate idiots with an terrible idiot as its most popular figure.
Since Sanders has destroyed the dem party whether he is the nominee or not, I hope he IS the nominee and loses by a landslide just to make the reality crystal clear that America is not a left wing country. Then I can hope that the most fervent progressives leave for a more promising country in their despair following their rout. But they will be back, alas, when the reality of life in France or Sweden finally reaches them. Those idiots will not be happy anywhere.
Going skiing. Have not taken up drinking yet, not likely to either since I don’t like the feeling the day after a big drunk. I have good Scottish and Irish genes and can hold my own with Russians if need be in the drinking department but I never drink alone and never drink when I am unhappy. Drugs and weird sex are also out of the question. I guess its family, music, and fitness, reading a good book in the evening, perhaps building a survival bunker<– This last was a joke Dave, not serious.
You have won, trump people, at least for now.
Robby.
I likely share your views of Sanders policies.
But Sanders is winning Democratic primaries.
Absolutely some Sanders supporters could be described as a cult – but that is true of a portion of supporters for every candidate.
I saw a cringe worthy video of some Biden supporters chanting a few days ago.
Biden is just NOT the candidate you would think had a cult following.
Regardless, Sanders has NOT “Killed the democratic party” any more than Trump has “killed the GOP”
As with Trump – what happens with Sanders is because large numbers within the party want that.
We can debate whether Trump or Sanders represent the majority of their respective parties.
But BOTH represent large and loud voices that are demanding to be heard.
Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard – these are fringe voices – not because of the merits of what they are saying, but because no matter how true or well said their positions, Sanders, not they have resonated within the democratic party.
Though I would spin Trump and Sanders differently than you.
You are absolutely correct that their policies reflect the wishes of large segments of the country.
Again we can debate whether those segments are majorities – though it does not matter all that much.
Is it not a serious problem if 25% of the country truly buy Sanders solutions ?
What does it mean if 25% of the country thinks Sanders ideas are good ?
I think that at the very least reflects a substantial institutional failure of our educational system.
Sanders ideas should be highly unpopular – because ordinary people have enough exposure to history to know about their long history of failure.
The problem is not Sanders, nor is it his “cultists”, it is not “the takeover of the democratic party”. It is the institutional failure to provide people with the tools to engage in critical thinking before they become adults.
I would further note that If 10%, 25%, 30% of the country finds Sanders ideas viable, what is the portion that finds similar ideas that are “half as bad” plausible ?
Almost every democrat is selling some form of “free college” – some of the greatest educational institutions in the world in europe have been reduced to banality by “free education” – we know where that leads.
If 25% of the country does not grasp how bad socialism is – what portion of the country will find “half socialism” apealing ? And if that turns out to be only “half bad” – is that good ?
Roby, do not dispare. The band will snap back to the center. Trump people did not win. The democrats created Sanders and gave him a platform since they allowed him into the presidential contest, even though he is not a true democrat. They wanted to avoid his third party contest.
But they created Sanders since the mainstream democrats did nothing of importance for the average democrat, so they went looking for an alternative. Thus Sanders. Just as the mainstream republican party did little while in power, the republicans went looking, thus Trump.
What is different today that was not that prevalent before Trump is the division the left has promoted since his election. IMHO, the turning point between political opposition and political hatred took place the day Hillary called everyone supporting Trump “deplorable”. You will hardly ever again in the foreseeable future have unions like Mary Mataline and James Carvelle. Most younger people today say they would never date a person supporting a political party different than they support.
Yes, we had Obama opposition. Yes we had birthers. But most all opposition was his progressive agenda, as demonstrated by the unpopular individual mandate in PPACA.
I believe the problems in this country is due to career politicians. Everyone dislikes congress, but likes their own officials. So we have McConnell, Pelosi, Shumer and others that only have their careers and party in mind. Nothing gets done, people other than in those states and districts are pissed so they look to activist like Trump and Sanders to shake things up.
“Roby, do not dispare.”
In the long run the future is near certain better than the present.
“The band will snap back to the center.”
Mostly it is a pendulm and it spends very little time in the center, but like a pendulm it never swings back to exactly the same place it came from.
The country has been moving left for almost two decades. It is swinging right now – but not back to Reagan or some conservatism of the past, and not to libertarianism either.
“Trump people did not win.”
Actually they did – Trump has transformed the GOP in ways that are likely to remain for atleast a decade.
It is likely that Trump’s capture of blue collar democrats is permanent.
Trump’s gains with minorities are likely permanent and will grow SLOWLY.
The move of NeoCons away from the GOP may be permanent.
The republican party for some time to come is likely to be more protectionist more immigration restrictionist.
It remains to be seen whether the less interventionist position will be permanent.
Further I suspect that though other republicans will not be able to duplicate Trump’s adoption of democratic tactics, regardless, it is near certain that future republicans will be more confrontational with the left and the press because it works.
“The democrats created Sanders and gave him a platform since they allowed him into the presidential contest, even though he is not a true democrat. They wanted to avoid his third party contest.”
Sanders exists as a force because institutional failures – such as in our education leave far to many of us incapable of the critical thinking and ignorant of history necescary to grasp how bad Sanders policies are.
Democrats are primarily responsible for that.
I have predicted that Trumpism will have long term stamina within the Republican party.
I can make no predictions regarding democrats.
The democratic party is in serious disarray and has structual problems that I do not see as solveable.
You can not build a viable coallition bases on diversity while attacking people for differences.
Unifying disparate groups requires downplaying our differences not fixating on them.
Further “political correctness” is a shotgun that wounds too many allies when pointed at enemies.
Our political problems today started in the 60’s when marxists grasped they could not build a winning political platform in the west based on class, and shifted to culture, race, identity.
Marxists themself still remain a fringe group – even in academia. But their ideas have taken over society. Even very moderate democrats accept as truths core elements of modern progressivism which is inherently a child of cultural marxism.
IDEAS MATTER.
Much of stuff that is debated – that you have little or no interest in personally, that seems fringe, can still radically influence society over the long run.
The far left has engaged in a very long game.
While there is only a tiny portion of people who would identify as maxists – and almost none outside college campuses today – the changes in marxist though since the 60’s have entirely permeated our society
The concept of intersectionality – is litterally out of post modern marxism.
The concepts of safe spaces, trigger warnings,
the concept that some speach must be silenced.
These and myriads of others originated with post modern marxist thinkers that few of us have heard about.
Ideas matter, they change the world, though sometimes they take decades to do so.
Well, things may get worse before they get better, if “Mike” gets it done, but hopefully we will be spared another NY billionaire, this one an arrogant, authoritarian oligarch, who believes that he can buy the presidency, and may be right. Give me a patriotic populist, who, despite his many flaws, has shown no inclination to trash the Constitutional role of the president, despite his lack of respect for presidential behavioral norms and decorum.
Roby, I agree with you that the best result of this Democrat “civil war” would be Bernie getting the nomination, and going down in flames~ metaphorically speaking, of course. The party would likely be cleansed of “democratic solcialism,” which, as far as I can see, is standard issue communism, at least in Bernie’s case.
It’s hard for me to believe that so many Bernie bro’s can’t see that, although my son (the political one, who worked for Bloomberg) says it’s because the younger generation (he’s only 29, so he’s speaking of his own generation, but, more specifically, those in their early twenties, now known as Gen Z) have truly been marinated in the idea that the government should be big, all powerful. and all caring. But the majority of them have zero concept of history, and therefore don’t understand what socialism and communism have wrought on other countries. You would think that they would be able to see the plight of Venezuela, but they are not well-educated enough.
And that’s not to say that they are not formally educated, but that our public educational system has deteriorated to such an extent that it no longer prepares students to become critical thinkers and informed voters. And the news media has become useless, as well. Social media? Basically, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai, and a few others choosing who gets free speech and who doesn’t.
It’s not that I don’t think we will eventually make our way out of this, but it will take some major political and social changes. Just blaming everything on whomever is president ain’t gonna cut it.
Amen
What is it that you want ?
If you want the country less divided – then we should quit trying to divide it.
I am not a conservative – but some aspects of conservatism are correct.
Pretty much the core of conservatism is that we should not change what already is that is by definition working to replace it with something that we feel is better without being sure that the change will be an improvement.
That is not an inherent opposition to change.
I have said many times that we live in the least racist time in the least racist country in the world. And that is absolutely true.
That does not mean that racism is not still a problem.
My daughter is chinese and has a job in a target paying her way through college.
My daughter has not been to china in over 20 years. there has been no corona Virus in my state, Right now customers are terrified by her.
I do understand that plenty of very real racism still exists.
I also understand that though less than today – it will still exist on 100 years.
What does that mean ? Should we stand idly by and do nothing ?
I do not know what we should do. What I do know is that we should think before we act, that we should act slowly and carefully, we should to the extent we can be sure that what we do is an improvement not a detriment, and that we should assess what we do at each stop, stopping or back tracking if we are making things worse not better.
I also know that shouting racist, racist, racist is going to make things worse not better.
Last night my wife and I watched “Find Me” on amazon.
I would recommend this documentary – not so much for the core of the documentary itself, but for what I hope are some of the side perceptions.
The documentary is about adoptions from China. There is no religious theme, yet it is subtly obvious that the adoptive parents are evangelical christians.
My family bumps into this all the time. I radically disproportionately large portion of US foster parents and US adoptive parents are strongly evangelical christians.
When my family seeks out other families with adopted children – the odds are they will be very christian.
These people hold values I do not hold, and they are inculcating those values in their children – black children, asian children, hispanic children. children’s whose cultures they often have no understanding of.
But innarguably however I might criticise these people – they strive, just as I do to be the best parents they can be for their kids – even if their idea of what that means is radically different.
Innarguably they love their kids.
When you are ranting about Trump cultists, or ignorant voters or evangelicals who are hypocritically voting for Trump, when you are shouting “hateful hating hater” these are some of the people you are talking about.
Some of your criticisms of them – may even be true. These are not the most enlightened people on issues of race, or gender, or ….
but they are adopting children no one else will. And they are loving parents.
Having parented two children myself and learned along the way that I had no idea what I was doing, I am extremely reluctant to judge another parent – even when I am pretty sure they are wrong.
Thanks for convincing me to buy my whiskey in bulk…
Save a Bottle for Jim Biden
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/02/17/federal_probe_for_james_biden-tied_firm__122447.html
Quid Pro Dough
‘ NEW — The son of one of Trump’s pardon recipients gave $85k to Trump victory this August. His wife gave $50k that same month. On top of that, they made an in-kind contribution for $75k in air travel.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-grants-clemency-to-another-round-of-people-he-saw-on-fox-news
Yea Pogue bought himself out of 2 months of probation.
Oops, no he served that.
He avoided 500K in taxes in 200K in fines – nope he paid that too.
He is a big Trump donor ?
Nope he has been a big republican donor for a long time.
He also contributes a great deal to charity.
The overwhelming majority of these are the type of people Obama should have pardoned but did not.
Minority first time offenders with really long sentences, who already served many years who showed real evidence of rehabilitation.
“Republicans have advised the president against [commuting Blagojevich’s sentence], arguing that Mr. Blagojevich’s crime epitomizes the corruption that Mr. Trump had said he wanted to tackle as president.” NYT
Trump loves criminals like himself.
Trump identified with Blago as a kindred spirit..
And where is this connection you see ?
Sanders is the one who has been leveraging non-profits.
Clinton is the one who had the pay for play scheme running.
You do not seem to grasp this
Trump does not need money.
Trump has been telegraphing the Blago commutation forever.
He has also been pretty open about exactly why.
It is a finger in the Eye to James Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald(Comey’s buddy/lawyer).
I would expect a pardon for Martha Stewart in the future should she ask.
I would expect that Trump may will go through every major case of Fitzgerald, Comey, and Mueller and look for ways to spit in their eyes.
Comey’s attempted to blackmail Trump.
Yes – he has the constitutional right to abuse the pardon power.
If the founders in their wildest imaginings anticipated as asshole like Trump could be ejected, they would have set limits pardons abuse. Now we commiserate on their short-sightedness
We’re lucky Manson isn’t still alive. If he was pictured with a MAGA Hat in his cell, he would have made the list.
A MAGA hat would not get him pardoned.
But if James Comey was the prosecutor – probably.
Of couse, Jay, you apparently have no clue who was pardoned/commuted by previous presidents, in recent times.
People such as: Most of those convicted in the Iran-Contra affair, Marc Rich (Pardoned after his wife made a huge donation to the Clinton Slushf…er Foundation) , Susan McDougal (Clinton business partner) Roger Clinton (presidential brother), Henry Cisneros (HUD Sec’y, lying to the FBI) Chelsea (ne:Bradley) Manning( classified military documents to WikiLeaks), Oscar Lopez Rivera (domestic terrorist, declared “combatant against the US”), and, of course, Richard Nixon.
So, perhaps you’re right about the founders changing their minds about the pardon power of the president, but you’re wrong about Trump being the first president to use that power to pardon/commute a controversial person or group.
Did previous presidents pardon people they knew personally, who appeared on their tv show, who supported them politically with donations?
And when Trump soon pardons those convicted of crimes who worked for him, are you going to repeat the same asinine whataboutism excuse?
Read again, Jay. That was not “whataboutism.” But, nice try.
Also, I’m pretty certain that Clinton knew his Whitewater business partner. And I’m even more certain that he knew his own brother!
Read Jay’s original post.
He Starts with a claim this has never happened before and ends by saying – and you can not prove me wrong by showing that it has happened alot before.
“Did previous presidents pardon people they knew personally, who appeared on their tv show, who supported them politically with donations?
And when Trump soon pardons those convicted of crimes who worked for him, are you going to repeat the same asinine whataboutism excuse?”
You start by claiming Trump’s actions are unprecidented and end by claiming that refuting your argument with precident is “asinine”.
Logic is not your forte.
You can not demand that we all join in your outrage at Trump’s “unprecidented” actions – when the fact is whether you like them or not – they are not unusual.
Mark Rich
Roger Clinton
Chelsea Manning
16 members of FALN – a terrorist group
Rostenkowski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama
Donnie’s rationalization for pardoning Blago included the accusation he got an unfair trial because Comey was involved in the investigation
Trump: “Rod Blagojevich did not sell the Senate seat. He served 8 years in prison, with many remaining. He paid a big price. Another Comey and gang deal! “
1- that’s another lie from lie-a-minute Trump; Comey left DOJ before Blagojevich committed his crimes and returned after he began serving his prison sentence.
2- Trump is a hateful lump of excretion whose unfounded criticism of the investigation insults those who did work on it.
“he got an unfair trial because Comey was involved in the investigation”
Sounds like an excellent argument to me.
I have no special desire to defend Blago.
I do not think he makes the list of people who deserve commutations.
At the same time he is not nearly so outrageous as Marc Ritche or the FALN terrorists, or even Chelsea Manning.
“1- that’s another lie from lie-a-minute Trump; Comey left DOJ before Blagojevich committed his crimes and returned after he began serving his prison sentence.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-robert-mueller-and-james-comeys-best-friend-sent-rod-blagojevich-to-prison
“:2- Trump is a hateful lump of excretion whose unfounded criticism of the investigation insults those who did work on it.”
Like Mueller and Fitzgerald ?
Dave would you mind moving over to bilingualism. With 1300 comments, this one is impossible to access and post to for some. If not, , will catch up to you when Rick post another article.
“ Sounds like an excellent argument to me.”
Of course it does to you… Even though Comey WASN’T involved in it… nitwit Trumpism in action…
“Of course it does to you… Even though Comey WASN’T involved in it… nitwit Trumpism in action…”
So ?
What is Your argument ? That Trump is not doing this for the right wrong reason ?
The Argument is that you’re intellectually retarded saying Trump was RIGHT pardoning Blogo because Comey was involved in Blogo’s investigation.
Comey wasn’t at the DOJ when Blogo was investigated.
What part of COMEY wasn’t there are you too addled to comprehend?
Jay, see comment under “bilingualism”
T”he Argument is that you’re intellectually retarded saying Trump was RIGHT pardoning Blogo because Comey was involved in Blogo’s investigation.”
1). That argument is fallacious – it is not a valid argument it is ad hominem.
2). It is false, Fitzgerald was heavily involved and to a lessor extent Mueller.
3). It is false, Trump did not Pardon Blago, he commuted his sentence.
4). I did not say that Trump was “RIGHT” for Pardoning/commuting Blago. All I noted was the likely reason WHY, and that the Blago commutation was not the most offensive pardon in the world. it is not even the most offensive of Trumps, It is inconsequential, and as most Pardon’s/commutations go relatively innoffensive.
I have no problems with Trump reviewing cases that Mueller, Weisman, Comey, Fitzgerald, McCabe, …. all those in the Hoax participated in and granting extensive pardons and commutations.
I think he should do so with some degree of care.
As I said Blago is not the most deserving.
At the same time – he is not Willie Horton – there is little danger in commuting his sentence.
Many of the minority women that Trump is commuting are more Dangerous.
Trump has featured Alice Johnson in his superbowl add.
While she does look like a really good choice for a commutation.
She she re-offend it will be very embarrassing for Trump.
Should any of these people re-offend – especially violently, it will look bad for Trump.
That is one of the reasons for Pardons to people like Blago, and Pogue, and Miliken (and Marc Rich) The danger of their murdering someone and becoming the next Willie Horton is very low.
But it is the Alice Johnson commutations that matter far more.
Presidents and governors issue myriads of pardons and commutations.
Pres. Obama issued 1700 commutations.
Every single pardon of every single president is someone that some prosecutor and judge and jury saw fit to convicgt.
Inherently every pardon ever MUST be controversial. There will ALWAYS be some that feel that person never should have been pardoned or commuted.
Many pardons – usually a handful fo reach president are HIGHLY controversial.
I do not agree with the Arapia pardon or the Blagovitch commutation.
But neither are especially heinous compared to some of Obama’s; pardons.
The Blago Pardon is a clear poke at Comey – and we should expect more of the same.
I would expect that Trump will start looking for Mueller cases where he can commute somebody.
But overall Trump’s pardon’s lean heavily in one particular way – Minority WOMEN who were convicted of FIRST TIME Drug offenses, who recieved near lifetime sentences and who clearly have rehabilitated themselves.
Trump should be commended for those.
And if a Blago and Arapio pardon is the price we have to pay for an Alice Johnson pardon,
I am OK with that.
If Jay is not that is his problem.
Trump just announced a long list of pardons and commutations.
The ones NOT reported on are wonderful. Many of those that caught the presses eye are much less offensive that claimed. Milken was scape coated. There was nothing wrong with what he did. He noted that lots of publicly traded stock were undervalued. And he used them to finance LBO’s. Most of those worked out extremely well. A few did not.
That is how markets work.
So, the leading figure in the Democratic primaries was a member of a Marxist-Leninist party in the 80s and very actively participated in its works. This is an unbelievable turn of events. Its even become common knowledge and it does not faze Sanders’ supporters. As to how many people today in America support Marxism or socialism and truly understand their definitions, history, and implications and think they have answers to our problems, I still do not believe its many people who actually consciously and in full understanding of what they are doing are Marxists. Ordinary people simply do not understand economics any more than they understand biochemistry or quantum physics or the details of auto mechanics or foreign policy. They don’t need this knowledge in their personal lives. People who work in the financial sector understand economics, its a small number of people as a percentage. The rest will believe anything that becomes popular in their group, without any deep basis or conviction.
The progressive movement is essentially an economic movement, but very few of its members are interested in the material taught econ 101 and 102. They do not understand the motor of the economy, they are simply mad at the motor, like an ordinary non mechanical person gets mad at their car when it breaks down. But, you take a broken car to a mechanic, someone who understands its principles and how to fix it, not someone who idealistically thinks that the car should cost $2000, get 85 mpg, last 50 years, and have zero emissions and further believes that the way to fix the car and bring it up to the standards it should meet is to pass a law.
So, these are the people who will fix the ills and pains of capitalism by passing minimum wage laws and free everything laws, and no more billionaires laws. They don’t even know that there are any fundamental principles involved, they think the fundamental principle can be changed by mass psychology and legislation. Really, they are not really very different from other Americans in this respect. Needless to say very few of these people, or people in general have done any deep reading of history, and that is not any different than it has been anywhere at any time. People in general know the minimum of stuff it takes them to function. There is a small population among us who have specialized knowledge of a science, engineering, medicine, economics, or history, etc. They are the ones who create the impression that we are an intellectually advanced species. Most people would live like great apes or like people in the dark ages if it were not for the efforts of a few to create the trappings of modern technology and science.
I was willing to believe than Sanders was more of a Scandinavian socialist than a Marxist, or god forbid a Marxist-Leninist but I have altered that opinion. Underneath, this “former member” of a Marxist Leninist party has probably not changed much, he has changed his tactics but not his core beliefs. The information is not exactly hidden, but his fans think that was all in the past.
This ability to create denial is explained by the way the competing hidden parts of the brain works to create narratives to justify the final opinions and ideas that the conscious mind generates. I am reading a series of books by the neuroscientist David Eagleman, I recommend them, most especially “Incognito.” His books are not politically directed and touch politics little, but all they describe about how the mind words is very relevant to the behaviors I see in the political world and here at TNM. I have watched as people I know performed exactly the same process of creating a justifying narrative to follow Trump and tune out his negative behaviors as I have watched, for example my son, tune out all dissonant information about Sanders. Multiply this by tens of millions and you get the true believers in political movements.
I have come to the opinion that people are generally stupid, ignorant, tasteless, and very easily led. I don’t just mean Americans today. I mean people everywhere at all times. I have watched Rap “music” go from a small thing to a huge thing, I have watched tattoos go from something sailors have to something most people under 60 in Vermont have, along with all kinds of extreme variants, piercings, total face tattoos, ears mutilated to emulate Ubangie tribes, all perfectly normal, now every giant woman in Vermont is covered with the cheapest and lowest forms of tattoos, and not only these lost souls but also people who seem to come from much higher cultural level have tattoos. I have seen PC running amok, a movement to have confused men (or anyone who claims to be confused) use the women’s public bathroom, the rise of Trump, the NRA turned into a death cult, the Sanders cult become mainstream, all manner of incomprehensibly extreme ideas and behaviors turn into popular movements and become normal. People will do what their friends do or their group does, no matter how idiotic, like lemmings, and certain ideas just inexorably grow powerful.
This is why I fear populism, it terrifies me. There is really no limit to how far people will go in a mass movement. For me, being a Marxist-Leninist is as bad as being a Nazi holocaust denier, but you have now tens of millions of people who have joined a cult that follows the “former Marxist Leninist” Sanders. Its like getting your tongue pierced, once an extreme idea, now normal. Its like what Trumpism has done, made previously impossible behaviors normal.
It was, I believe, 13 million people who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, those are the true Sanders believers, that is about 5% of Americans. It will be about the same this time. But that level of infection is enough to cause chaos. It does not take a huge percentage of people joining some movement to change our culture radically.
I am rambling.
There are 330m, people in the country.
In 2016 a bit over 1/3 of them voted.
About 1/6 of them voted for both the winner and the loser.
Nor is this unusual.
But it is one of the common flaws of democracy.
If government is properly constitutionally constrained – it does nto matter who is elected, the power of government is sufficiently limited that even a tyrant has little power.
But that requires a government that is actually constitutionally limited, and a government that respects the limits of the constitution – that means all of those int he executive, legislative and judicial branch.
If you accept a true democracy – where the constitution means nothing, and the will of the people expressed through an election is all powerful. that means anyone that can ratchet up enough anger in a large enough minority has near infinite power.
I do not understand those of you here who are terrified of Trump and think he is some totalitaraian – because the FACTS are that he is not.
But I do understand that Trump has raised your fear – even if I do not understand Why it is Trump that you are afraid of.
I am not especially affraid of Sanders – he will not win, if he does, he will not be able to act, and if he is – he will fail quickly and catastrophically.
I think PPACA was the last Hurrah of american socialism. It proved an ineffective and expensive failure. Very few people have benefited, many have been harmed – if not greatly and all of us have to pay for it. PPACA is probably one of the largest Obama drages on the economy – and even now we have at best reduced that drag.
Despite an abysmally bad education system that tells us otherwise – most of us actually do understand socialism fails.
Oddly it is the less well educated that seem to understand that best – in fact on myriads of issues it is the less well educated that understand things best.
Ron rants about common sense. I do not like Ron’s idea od common sense – because there is no stable definition of common sense.
But it is oddly true that 100 years ago for the most part the better educated understood that socialism was evil, while it appealed to the masses – the working class.
Today it is the intellectuals that are selling us Socialism, and ordinary working class people who have the “common sense” to understand that is crap.
I suspect a large part of that is rising standards of living for the working class.
Nor is this weird dichotomy where the better educated are increasing wrong on more and more and the less well educated are right – displaying more “common sense”.
Regardless, Sanders is a threat to the democratic party. With respect to the country he is a long odds threat that we will have to learn a lesson over again painfully.
The failure of so many people in this country to grasp the evils of socialism is just evidence of the mess that has been made of our educational system.
A basic capacity for critical thinking or a weak understanding of the history of socialism is all that is necescary to persuade someone socialism in all forms is a bad idea.
I am constantly attacking “the left” – progressivism, whatever you wish to label that small political group that is the most influential voice today in both politics, and education.
THAT is where our problems is.
The most important “fight” is that of ideas.
Quite often int he battle of ideas the loudest and most influential voices are those of a small minority.
Other posters here – who are not and would not think of themselves as part of the radical left – as still influenced – in some areas HEAVILY influenced by the radical left.
Identity politics is quite litterally the CORE to modern marxism – In the 60’s marxists shifted from class to all forms of identity based disadvantage as the foundational oppression to justify revolution in some form to forcibly impose egalitarianism on all of us.
Movements for womens rights, gay rights, minority rights have all been good things, and they have resulted in incredible successes, but they have also provided a fertile environment for the spread of marxist egalitarianism. All too often we do not grasp that rights and equality are not only not the same, but are often at odds.
Regardless we see the intellectual dominance of the thought of the extreme left throughout society today – even to a limited extent into the right. That does not mean that everyone has become marxist, just that lots of marxist ideas have successfully spread and influenced people who would not call themselves marxists.
Anyway my point is that IDEAS MATTER. Today in the battle for peoples hearts and minds there are fundimentally only two ideas in conflict. Modern progressive marxism and libertarianism. Conservatism is not an ideology its central “idea” is “go slow” which is good advice but does not answer any questions. I have spent years hear at TNM trying to find some expression of a moderate “idea” – compromise is not an idea. It is like conservatism just a form of pragmatism – not that there is a fundimental problem with pragmatism.
But pragmatism does not help you find the truth, it as best trades small mistakes for large ones.
Progressivism like libertarianism is not an “economic movement” it is an ideology.
It has core principles and values, it differs from libertarianism in that it is neither internally consistent, nor consistent with the real world, nor consistent with human nature.
Regardless, we are dealing with a battle of ideas, not a battle of economic systems.
Scandanavian socialism FAILED.
The economic might of the scandanavian countries all happened as a consequence of the evolution of free market and libertarian principles – almost completely independent of that development in the Anglo countries, in the 19th century and continuing through the first half of the 20th century.
In the late 60’s with prosperous economies. Scandanavian countries decided they were wealthy enough to afford a broad and deep social safety net. By the early 80’s there standard of living had fallen behind and they have been working since then to shift back to market economies. The only swedish success story is “free markets”.
Failures in scandanavian countries mirror those of all countries that have tried hybrid socialism.
Socialism does not work in any form.
In fact the core problem is NOT socialism per say – but government size.
There is no significant difference in the decline in the rate of growth of a nation with large government regardless of what the form of large government is.
It is not socialism per say that fails – it is government beyond a narrow scope.
“not someone who idealistically thinks that the car should cost $2000, get 85 mpg, last 50 years, and have zero emissions and further believes that the way to fix the car and bring it up to the standards it should meet is to pass a law.”
Presuming that is what you want – actual free markets will eventually deliver just that.
But government and regulation will not.
We are at a strange time. You are very hard on ordinary people. And they have their faults,
but our failures today do not emanate from the miguided masses – but from the most educated among us – particularly those outside of STEM – though nonsense is still more common among scientists than ordinary people.
I would note that progressism and to some extent socialism arose from the advance of science.
At the same time as the enlightenment we also so the rise of the view that the advance of science would solve everything. Over the course of the past 200+ years the idea that through science we could control everything has been pervasive.
Marxism was purportedly Scientific. Progressivism – Woodrow Wilson’s administrative State had at its foundation the presumption that we could centrally plan everything. The rise of computers once again lead to a belief that science would deliver all the answers and allow us to top down optimally plan everything.
Yet the magic of science while bringing us many marvelous things and improving our lives is no closer to being able to efficiently manage everything top down than it ever was.
The great failure of progressivism, socialism, marxism – all forms of government by elites is that central planning does not work. Or more accurately in just about every successful system in existance “control” follows a pattern – a hybrid top-down/bottom up arrangement that is very light on top down control.
Populism is many things in many places.
Populism today in the anglosphere is a revolt against the failures of elitism.
That populism is NOT a threat, it is a correction.
To the extent it is a “mass movement” – it is one to back away from past failures.
The “mass movement” withing anglo populism is a partial reversion to past approaches that worked better if imperfectly.
Whether it is Brexit or Trumpism – neither are pushing anything new. Neither are purist nostaglia for a purportedly better past.
The english want a return of national soveriengty – they are not seeking to return to the british empire, They are turning away from Top Down EU governance – not turning their back on Europe.
Trumpism is an almost William Bucklean cry “Stop” – to progressivism.
The left has won the culture war – we are a diverse society, we have room for every flavor in the rainbow, But we can not make a society with a hierarchical structure of deifed oppressions – victims work.
Whether you think they are right or wrong Trumpism is not seeking to impose on the country new untested ideas or old ones that failed miserably. It is an effort to slow down the runnaway train of political and cultural experiments in change, and proceed more slowly, and the undo mistakes.
There are aspects of Trumpian policiy that are wrong – but they are not authoritiarian, and we have past evidence of their performance – they will not catastrophically fail.
Anglosphere populism is not dangerous, it is not a threat, and it is only likely to last so long as the left continues to attempt to press blindly and at high speeds onward with disruptive change that we either have no idea about or we actually know fails.
Donnie & Rush in close Conversational admiration about gayness:
“Hell, the president even called me about this!” Limbaugh said Monday on his show. “He said, ‘Rush, I just got to tell you something. Never apologize. Don’t ever apologize.’ “
I have no idea what your post is about – but here is an except of a Dave Rubin interview of
Richard Allen Grenell the current United States Ambassador to Germany. He is the longest serving U.S. spokesman at the United Nations.
Or if you have more patience – you can search for the full hour interview.