And this is an excellent example of what "breaking the spirit of the law" means. Even if these comments are (barely) ambiguous enough to be unprosecutable, he is unfit for office and must be removed.
BTW, Mister Tee, are you willing to meet me halfway? No, the Russia scandal didn't go away after inauguration, but it wasn't proven definitively, and sure-as-shit it changed no one's minds. Had there been no Ukraine call, this frustratingly inconclusive issue would have been left dangling, just another partisan argument without end. I thought it was a mistake to pursue it, fantastical at worst, unprovable at best... although I was impressed at how much Muller WAS able to reveal. But this Ukraine scandal... I mean, this has me doubling back and rethinking the validity of the Russia accusations! After this monster is impeached, removed, tried, prosecuted and executed, we need a long retrospective of this criminal enterprise.
And Disney really needs to shut down the Hall of Presidents exhibit at their theme park.
Campaign 2020
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Campaign 2020
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
To which Newsweek reports:Sabin wrote:Trump predicts civil war if he is impeached. Civil War 2 is trending on Twitter.
Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger condemned President Donald Trump on Sunday for quoting Pastor Robert Jeffress’ warning that impeachment might cause a “Civil War-like” fracture in the U.S. In response, Kinzinger tweeted: “I have visited nations ravaged by civil war.@realDonaldTrump. I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant.”
The president’s tweet came shortly after Jeffress’ appearance on Fox News, where he spoke about the impeachment inquiry into Trump announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday. Jeffress, a prominent evangelical pastor of a Texas megachurch who’s also a vocal supporter of Trump, has been accused on numerous occasions of making controversial and offensive remarks
Re: Campaign 2020
Trump predicts civil war if he is impeached. Civil War 2 is trending on Twitter.
Do with that what you will.
Do with that what you will.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
This was part of an exchange between Sonic and me in January 2017, as the Russia story was first breaking:
"SONIC YOUTH: More like Bush's drunk driving scandal. It's never proven definitively, it changes no one's mind, and it goes away after January 20th.
MOI: Not sure I agree with you, because this appears to be coming from CIA sources. They make a much more dangerous enemy than disgruntled Democrats."
Watching the stories flying over the transom the past 48 hours, I feel pretty good about this take. There are people within the intelligence services who know Trump broke laws to win the 2016 election, know he's been doing shady-maybe treasonous things while in office, and have been furious that, thanks to Barr and the collaborationist GOP Congressfolk, he's paid no price. They're clearly determined that should change, and, with the help of those inside the administration who AREN'T traitors, they're seizing the moment to put maximum pressure on Trump and the GOP. In a sense, Trump is right when he says someone in the government -- the "deep state" -- is working against him. Where he's wrong is, these people aren't doing this to stop him simply because he's himself -- they're doing it because of what he's DONE. As David Frum says, if you substitute "rule of law" for "deep state", it makes a lot more sense.
"SONIC YOUTH: More like Bush's drunk driving scandal. It's never proven definitively, it changes no one's mind, and it goes away after January 20th.
MOI: Not sure I agree with you, because this appears to be coming from CIA sources. They make a much more dangerous enemy than disgruntled Democrats."
Watching the stories flying over the transom the past 48 hours, I feel pretty good about this take. There are people within the intelligence services who know Trump broke laws to win the 2016 election, know he's been doing shady-maybe treasonous things while in office, and have been furious that, thanks to Barr and the collaborationist GOP Congressfolk, he's paid no price. They're clearly determined that should change, and, with the help of those inside the administration who AREN'T traitors, they're seizing the moment to put maximum pressure on Trump and the GOP. In a sense, Trump is right when he says someone in the government -- the "deep state" -- is working against him. Where he's wrong is, these people aren't doing this to stop him simply because he's himself -- they're doing it because of what he's DONE. As David Frum says, if you substitute "rule of law" for "deep state", it makes a lot more sense.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
Where did I say I approved of the Times' actions?Mister Tee wrote:Magilla, I'm surprised you approvingly linked that Times story, since the wide reaction I've heard (matching my own) is that it was disgraceful for the Times to give identifying details about the whistleblower, especially on a day when Trump essentially invited his supporters to assassinate him/her. As many have said, the Times is fine granting anonymity to administration officials who whisper self-flattering stories in their ear, but a person who needs protection from harassment? Must be outed!
The article Is news, but was old soon thereafter with the scuttlebutt that it was a group of concerned intelligence professionals that put the complaint together with one guy volunteering to fall on the sword.
Trump's moronic speech about the whistleblower on Tuesday morning was at a closed meeting that was supposed to be a thank-you to the non-political volunteers/helpers at the U.N. on Monday. It wasn't meant to be an open invitation to his crackpot supporters even if it may have had that result. It wasn't just the whistleblower he was ranting about, but the White House insiders who were complicit in ratting him out.
Otherwise, good points. The idea of impeaching both Trump and Pence and making Pelosi president is, of course, wishful thinking at this point but the scenario of getting rid of Pence first a la Spiro Agnew and replacing him with someone agreeable to Democrats as well as Republicans in exchange for agreeing not to prosecute Trump if he resigns after the new v.p. is in place a la Ford may well be the way it goes in the end.
As I write this, MSNBC is reporting that the NRA's La Pierre visited the White House today and promised Trump he would support his reelection campaigning if he agrees to back off on gun reforms. I don't know what's newsworthy about that, kind of what we thought was going on anyway.
Pompeo is the first witness called by Shiff's committee as this thing gets underway.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
Magilla, I'm surprised you approvingly linked that Times story, since the wide reaction I've heard (matching my own) is that it was disgraceful for the Times to give identifying details about the whistleblower, especially on a day when Trump essentially invited his supporters to assassinate him/her. As many have said, the Times is fine granting anonymity to administration officials who whisper self-flattering stories in their ear, but a person who needs protection from harassment? Must be outed!
The Times continues to make many of us doubt its value. Granting a few scoops -- and the great 1619 magazine -- the Times has been responsible for Judith Miller, "FBI sees no link between Trump and Russia", Ken Vogel still trying to push the fully-discredited Hunter Biden connection, and, just yesterday, yet another interview with six "swing voters". These voters are the same six the Times has been pushing on us for the past 2 1/2 years, and include 1) a woman who served as delegate to the last GOP convention; 2) a woman who's been to 33 Trump rallies; and 3) a guy with a Robert E. Lee poster on his wall, Spoiler alert: they're all still with Trump!
Things are happening so fast that one hesitates to make in-stone comments about where we're headed, but my take on assorted aspects:
I think Pelosi is wise to make the Ukraine issue the center-piece of impeachment. It's simple and understandable; pretty much a smoking gun. I'm sure I was not alone in being stunned the Trump folk would release something so incriminating. I expected some (to use the Ehrlichman phrase) modified limited hangout -- something that was superficially transparent but concealed a lot, which would lead to extended squabbling between Congress and White House lawyers. If Trump & Co. truly thought they could spin this as non-incriminating, they're either deeper in the weeds than I thought, or way over-confident of their ability to gaslight. The flood of Dem reps lining up behind impeachment as soon as it came to light speaks to its clarity.
Patton Oswalt tweeted the other day that Trump going down for this is like Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman -- not representative of his best work, but recognition deserved on some level. I'd argue that the Ukraine call serves as synecdoche for all Trump's crimes: the one standing in for the whole. Because, as flagrant as this one act is, it wouldn't resonate so loudly had the Mueller report not pre-plowed the field (to mix metaphors). Mueller's report has been deemed a failure to now because it didn't lead directly to impeachment -- as it rightly should have, and as he clearly intended. Mueller was of course blindsided by Barr's disgraceful intervention, but his subsequent attempt to reboot the action was undone by his own "I can't say directly, I can only imply" rectitude. (Ironically, the whistle-blower is a better prosecutor than the guy whose job it was.) It appeared that Trump was going to skate, through a combination of GOP shamelessness and Mueller's self-importance. But now this incident has come along, sort of a "Postman Always Rings Twice" scenario, and the audience -- voters -- will accept it readily because Mueller set up the exposition so well. I guarantee, details from the Mueller report will be prominent in both the hearings and the articles of impeachment, despite the nominal focus on the Ukraine story.
As for where we'll go from here: I assume a lot of people have heard Mike Murphy's claim that, were this a secret ballot, 30 GOP Senators would vote to convict (Jeff Flake today raised him to 35). This suggests Trump's position is shakier than most assume -- his support is fully based in fear (of the base), not affection or belief. If that fear should crumble -- if polls should show further erosion in Trump's position (already underway), elected GOPers may decide the better of their bad choices is to cut him loose and hope enough time passes by November 2020 that voters partially forgive them. It's a horrible choice for them, though, because Trump's loyalists would be so livid at that result that they'd not turn out at nearly the numbers GOPers need to win elections. On the other hand, if the GOP Senate turns a blind eye to what most will see as clear criminality, the voters will likely punish them at a level even higher than 2018 -- more Senate seats would become vulnerable, and a complete party wipeout could come into view. Flip that coin.
As for the logistics of how a Trump departure would be engineered -- I think Sonic is right that Republicans would fiercely resist a Trump/Pence departure that would make Pelosi president. But Pence does seem to have significant involvement in this, so they may not be holding a strong hand. There would also be the question of Trump's post-presidential vulnerability to prosecution. I imagine many GOPers would want to negotiate with that ("You want him gone? Fine: the price is, agree not to indict him"), and some of the Steny Hoyer-crats might be sucker enough to go along. But I think that would enrage the Dem base -- some of whom are old enough to remember how Nixon skated, and all of whom might think it's once again Trump getting away without true punishment, as he has his whole life. That scenario -- premature Dem capitulation -- is about the only way I can see the blue team failing to gain from all this.
I have no idea which of these possibilities is more likely as of today. We're living in a Baldacci novel, and credible precedent has almost no role in how things turn out. We have to stay tuned; the season finale may come at any time.
The Times continues to make many of us doubt its value. Granting a few scoops -- and the great 1619 magazine -- the Times has been responsible for Judith Miller, "FBI sees no link between Trump and Russia", Ken Vogel still trying to push the fully-discredited Hunter Biden connection, and, just yesterday, yet another interview with six "swing voters". These voters are the same six the Times has been pushing on us for the past 2 1/2 years, and include 1) a woman who served as delegate to the last GOP convention; 2) a woman who's been to 33 Trump rallies; and 3) a guy with a Robert E. Lee poster on his wall, Spoiler alert: they're all still with Trump!
Things are happening so fast that one hesitates to make in-stone comments about where we're headed, but my take on assorted aspects:
I think Pelosi is wise to make the Ukraine issue the center-piece of impeachment. It's simple and understandable; pretty much a smoking gun. I'm sure I was not alone in being stunned the Trump folk would release something so incriminating. I expected some (to use the Ehrlichman phrase) modified limited hangout -- something that was superficially transparent but concealed a lot, which would lead to extended squabbling between Congress and White House lawyers. If Trump & Co. truly thought they could spin this as non-incriminating, they're either deeper in the weeds than I thought, or way over-confident of their ability to gaslight. The flood of Dem reps lining up behind impeachment as soon as it came to light speaks to its clarity.
Patton Oswalt tweeted the other day that Trump going down for this is like Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman -- not representative of his best work, but recognition deserved on some level. I'd argue that the Ukraine call serves as synecdoche for all Trump's crimes: the one standing in for the whole. Because, as flagrant as this one act is, it wouldn't resonate so loudly had the Mueller report not pre-plowed the field (to mix metaphors). Mueller's report has been deemed a failure to now because it didn't lead directly to impeachment -- as it rightly should have, and as he clearly intended. Mueller was of course blindsided by Barr's disgraceful intervention, but his subsequent attempt to reboot the action was undone by his own "I can't say directly, I can only imply" rectitude. (Ironically, the whistle-blower is a better prosecutor than the guy whose job it was.) It appeared that Trump was going to skate, through a combination of GOP shamelessness and Mueller's self-importance. But now this incident has come along, sort of a "Postman Always Rings Twice" scenario, and the audience -- voters -- will accept it readily because Mueller set up the exposition so well. I guarantee, details from the Mueller report will be prominent in both the hearings and the articles of impeachment, despite the nominal focus on the Ukraine story.
As for where we'll go from here: I assume a lot of people have heard Mike Murphy's claim that, were this a secret ballot, 30 GOP Senators would vote to convict (Jeff Flake today raised him to 35). This suggests Trump's position is shakier than most assume -- his support is fully based in fear (of the base), not affection or belief. If that fear should crumble -- if polls should show further erosion in Trump's position (already underway), elected GOPers may decide the better of their bad choices is to cut him loose and hope enough time passes by November 2020 that voters partially forgive them. It's a horrible choice for them, though, because Trump's loyalists would be so livid at that result that they'd not turn out at nearly the numbers GOPers need to win elections. On the other hand, if the GOP Senate turns a blind eye to what most will see as clear criminality, the voters will likely punish them at a level even higher than 2018 -- more Senate seats would become vulnerable, and a complete party wipeout could come into view. Flip that coin.
As for the logistics of how a Trump departure would be engineered -- I think Sonic is right that Republicans would fiercely resist a Trump/Pence departure that would make Pelosi president. But Pence does seem to have significant involvement in this, so they may not be holding a strong hand. There would also be the question of Trump's post-presidential vulnerability to prosecution. I imagine many GOPers would want to negotiate with that ("You want him gone? Fine: the price is, agree not to indict him"), and some of the Steny Hoyer-crats might be sucker enough to go along. But I think that would enrage the Dem base -- some of whom are old enough to remember how Nixon skated, and all of whom might think it's once again Trump getting away without true punishment, as he has his whole life. That scenario -- premature Dem capitulation -- is about the only way I can see the blue team failing to gain from all this.
I have no idea which of these possibilities is more likely as of today. We're living in a Baldacci novel, and credible precedent has almost no role in how things turn out. We have to stay tuned; the season finale may come at any time.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
Here's the link to the New York Times report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/p ... pe=Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/p ... pe=Article
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
The scope is not limited to the Ukraine but that's the main focus. The New York Times has already revealed details about the whistleblower, a CIA agent who worked at the White House and first reported his concerns to FBI lawyers who went straight to the White House where the cover-up began shortly after the phone call.
Paul Ryan, who is now on the Fox Board of Directors, has told Fox News to prepare for the end of the Trump presidency. Lachlan Murdoch is already working on the direction of a post-Trump Fox.
There are already more than enough votes to impeachment in the House. Although Senate Republicans won't say so in public it is reported that when it comes to a vote when they have to say "yes" or "no" to removal from office they will say "yes".
Current estimates are that Trump will be out by Thanksgiving.
Paul Ryan, who is now on the Fox Board of Directors, has told Fox News to prepare for the end of the Trump presidency. Lachlan Murdoch is already working on the direction of a post-Trump Fox.
There are already more than enough votes to impeachment in the House. Although Senate Republicans won't say so in public it is reported that when it comes to a vote when they have to say "yes" or "no" to removal from office they will say "yes".
Current estimates are that Trump will be out by Thanksgiving.
Re: Campaign 2020
I deleted it because I honestly changed my mind... I've had so much whiplash over the past day both with the news (and professionally) that I'd rather listen than post my own thoughts.
What I wrote was there are pretty much four avenues for removal from office: 1) Republican Senators turning against him, 2) Resignation, 3) 25th Amendment, and 4) if the jackass is just straight-up conned into losing his job. Like in a shell game or something.
He's not going to resign because he's going to have to face New York prosecutors. I remain dubious that Republicans are going to turn on him because I'm just not sure they're going to do better in 2020 without him (all the Pro-Trump Republicans will stay home with an Trump critic on the ticket). If he does increasingly crazy shit it's possible they'll turn on him or perhaps the 25th Amendment will be invoked but it's hard to see a breaking point coming up soon. As for being tricked into leaving office... I don't know. It would be a fitting end.
My point is he doesn't want to leave, the Republican Party is completely bankrupt, and on day one Nancy Pelosi has already limited the scope to the Ukraine which to me already looks like a mild bungle (although I'm open to be persuaded otherwise). I'm not getting my hopes up.
What I wrote was there are pretty much four avenues for removal from office: 1) Republican Senators turning against him, 2) Resignation, 3) 25th Amendment, and 4) if the jackass is just straight-up conned into losing his job. Like in a shell game or something.
He's not going to resign because he's going to have to face New York prosecutors. I remain dubious that Republicans are going to turn on him because I'm just not sure they're going to do better in 2020 without him (all the Pro-Trump Republicans will stay home with an Trump critic on the ticket). If he does increasingly crazy shit it's possible they'll turn on him or perhaps the 25th Amendment will be invoked but it's hard to see a breaking point coming up soon. As for being tricked into leaving office... I don't know. It would be a fitting end.
My point is he doesn't want to leave, the Republican Party is completely bankrupt, and on day one Nancy Pelosi has already limited the scope to the Ukraine which to me already looks like a mild bungle (although I'm open to be persuaded otherwise). I'm not getting my hopes up.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
Why do Sabin's posts keep disappearing? That's two now that I've seen, was going to get around to answering, and I come back and poof! -- they no longer exist.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
If they were smart, the Congressional Republicans would go to Pence now and convince him to resign, demand that Trump nominate a Republican of "impeccable character" to replace him and after he's confirmed resign himself to avoid impeachment, thus giving the Republicans a fighting chance in the next election.Sonic Youth wrote:In that case, they'll never be impeached.Big Magilla wrote:make Pelosi president!
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Campaign 2020
In that case, they'll never be impeached.Big Magilla wrote:make Pelosi president!
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
"We'll release the funds but we would like you to do us a favor, though..." "Giuliani will visit you." "Attorney General Barr will call you". "Vice President Mike Pence will call you." "Work with Putin."
What's left to investigate? Impeach Trump, Pence and Barr now, lock Giuliani up!
What's left to investigate? Impeach Trump, Pence and Barr now, lock Giuliani up!
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
The whistleblower report has been released. Pence is also involved. Impeach them both - make Pelosi president!
Re: Campaign 2020
I agree with the people who say that unlike Russia this is pretty easy for the public to understand.
Trump threatened to withold funds from another country unless they gave him dirt about his political opponent. As simple as that.
Even Trump's language (I need you to do me a favor) is familiar to anybody that has ever watched a mob movie.
Trump threatened to withold funds from another country unless they gave him dirt about his political opponent. As simple as that.
Even Trump's language (I need you to do me a favor) is familiar to anybody that has ever watched a mob movie.