As many of you already know President
Donald Trump recently ordered all of our troops to withdraw from
northern Syria, effectively abandoning our Kurdish allies who have
been so instrumental in our fight against ISIS. The Kurds are no
stranger to betrayal, but this is not what America stands for. Or at
least it shouldn't be.
Senator Mitt Romney recently spoke
about this on the floor of the Senate.
He is not the only person questioning
this policy of Donald Trump. The Kurds are not just allies of the US
but friends to many of our military personnel. Many are not happy
with what they perceive as a dishonorable betrayal.
One military wife penned an open letter
to the Kurds.
But this has not been Donald Trump's
only betrayal. His actions in putting his own political and
financial well being before the good of America have betrayed his
oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution. Perhaps what
is even worse is that so many Americans either do not understand or
actually support what he is doing. To deliberately undermine the
dream that our country was built on is their own betrayal.
Recently, retired General James Mattis
spoke at an event. I had only heard the clip of one of his jokes and
hadn't listened to the full video until a friend sent me a copy. He
said that it might be a good idea for all of us to listen. I did,
and he was right.
Take a few minutes and listen to what James Mattis has to say.
The full quote by Abraham Lincoln:
“Let
every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his
posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in
the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate
their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the
support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the
Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his
property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to
violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to
tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty.
“
76 comments:
"Perhaps what is even worse is that so many Americans either
do not understand or actually support what he is doing."
If you're referencing his self-dealing there, I have a somewhat different analysis. They're willing to put up with it, just as they're willing to put up with his staggering incompetence, because he gives them what they most want, which are his attacks on those they perceive as their true enemies (i.e. the ‘other’ Americans, the majority of us). They consider it a fairly small price to pay for the damage he's doing to America's ability to govern itself democratically.
Then they are not true patriots, are they? They would be more at home in Putin's Russia.
"They would be more at home in Putin's Russia."
For some of them that would be true, but not for all. Russia has more government, not less, and some of them want significantly less government, thus enabling significantly more control by non-governmental multi-national corporations. (Somehow they've convinced themselves that markets captured by huge corporations are more ‛free’ than markets which are not controlled by a few huge corporations. I don't get the logic there, but they certainly seem to believe that.)
Politico: The Justice Department confirmed today (Sunday afternoon, when they figured the news hounds were down for the day) that Donald Trump Jr. was never called before the grand jury during the Mueller investigation. They never interviewed him in person because he ‛declined’, and they never sought to compel his testimony via the grand jury. Mueller wimped out.
I've never known of, and could not have expected, such a timid and constrained investigation by any special counsel.
I can see it's still all about "us and them" for ole' Lee. Prolly didn't watch the bit where Generul Mattis opined that America's greatness lies in teamwork. And I don't think he was necessarily talkin' about Congress. If ordinary folks exemplified it then the congress folks would follow suit pretty quick.
But no, Lee projects his own petty partisanship onto everyone else. They are the ones who have created "true enemies" of "the majority". Ole' Lee is still obsessed with that majority thing. It's the only way he can make sense of all those folk that have been ill-served by his leftie masters and want no more of it. Through a quirk of electoral procedure he's still able to write them off in his tiny mind as "the minority". It never occurs to him that even if they were a significant minority it would still be better to make peace with them than to rage against them.
Nope. Much more important for ole' Lee to keep on imaginin' Reds under the Presidential bed. Or whatever is flavour of the month this month. And that obsession is what will likely lose the Dems the next election. Instead of jes' figgerin' out how to come up with a candidate who is no worse than the monumentally awful Donald Trump, they are still playin' for winner takes all and loser goes to jail. Well, best o' luck with yer scorched earth approach but mind y'all don't burn yer own buns.
"It's the only way he can make sense of all those folk that
have been ill-served by his leftie masters…"
I think we can be fairly certain that even you don't know what that babble is supposed to be about. You're just going with the comfortable practiced babble. Three paragraphs with no real content, beyond a lot of very real hostility.
Luckily, I can remind you that it's the FoxNews gaggle who originally learned to make the great divide between themselves, as the supposed ‛real’ Americans, from the rest of us. (Perhaps you might even remember Sarah Palin's mantra about how they were going to ‛take their country back’. Although she stumbled significantly, and then came up blank, when somebody finally asked her to her face from whom she thought she was ‛taking it back’.)
"It never occurs to him that even if they were a significant
minority it would still be better to make peace with them than
to rage against them."
That's been tried. Takes two to make peace. They want no part of it. Curious that you should mention rage; rage is their calling card. Have you not seen those Trump rallies?
Post Script:
"important for ole' [sic] Lee to keep on imaginin' Reds
under the Presidential bed."
Probably should have taken the time as well to point out that Putin is not a "Red"; probably never was. Putin's a clear fascist; probably always was.
Politico: Seems that Mick Mulvaney's appearance this morning on FoxNewsSunday hasn't restored him to the good graces of Trump's on-phone advisory staff.
However, there is a fear in the Trump White House that Mulvaney knows too much to fire.
Side note: (There are some continuing signs here that FoxNews is preparing to dump Trump if that becomes necessary to save Hannity and the rest. At the very least they seem to be hesitant about defending Trump just now for fear of what they may be called on to defend later. Gotta wonder how long they'll be able to keep their options open; how long will Trump put up with that?)
Probably oughta clarify:
"At the very least they seem to be hesitant about defending Trump…"
That only applies to the hard news division at FoxNews--certainly not to the prime-time lineup of opinionators.
'Tis odd I think that we don't see Marcus, who doesn't much like Kurds as I recall, cheering for Trump's new policy of getting them slaughtered en masse as the consequence of Trump's promised withdrawal from the Middle East (where Marcus also didn't much like our involvement). One would think that had all the things that Marcus would like--Americans out of the Middle East and dead Middle Easterners as a bonus.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I mentioned last week that William Taylor had not been scheduled to testify before the House committees. That's currently set to occur tomorrow it seems.
I've noticed a distinct lack of Republican Congressmen leaking testimony favorable to Trump (at least, not since their leaks of Sondland's "no quid-pro-quo's" e-mail which was quickly exposed as an insertion at the direction of Donald J. Trump, much to the embarrassment of many Republicans who'd been too quick to parade that language around). Gotta wonder if Taylor's testimony will likewise be met with the sound of crickets from the Republican water-carriers on the committees.
We shall soon see.
LA-Times is doing a "series" on "Beating Trump: Undoing the Great Mistake", with the first seven (7) installments out dated yesterday. I've only yet looked at the opening article, but not all seven first published articles. However, the first one suggests it may be worth following in the days to come.
The Afghans think they're next to be abandoned to the enemy (the Taliban in their case). Vox
However, there is a fear in the Trump White House that Mulvaney knows too much to fire.
I think for some time now there has been a slow leaking of information that is detrimental to Trump. One hopes that eventually it will catch up to him.
It seems he has walked back the location of the G-7, saying now that he was going to hold it there for free. Honestly, nothing is ever really free with him. Even if that were true, which I question, there would have been some benefit to him.
It seems that out withdrawing troops were pelted with rotten potatoes and tomatoes as they left Syria.
While I don't blame the Kurds anger, they are really targeting the wrong people. A lot of those people didn't want to leave. It was Trump's betrayal.
"…saying now that he was going to hold it there for free."
Yeah, well, it was gonna be "at cost" when it was gonna be at Doral, Florida. Except, of course, he never submits his accountings of his costs for auditing (like his taxes--nobody gets a look at his current books). It only turned into "free" after it wasn't gonna happen at all. ‛Alternative facts’ I believe Kellyann calls them.
Politico reports on a new theory known as "attribution science" which ambitious tree-hugger types are hoping to use to sue the shit outta fossil fuel companies (much as tobacco companies were previously successfully sued for societal health costs associated with tobacco usage).
I think our Lynnette will find this interesting. (Kinda long, but not overwhelming.)
Might be time to notice that House Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, is visiting key allies in the Middle East (Jordan and Afghanistan) along with a delegation of Democratic Party leaders from the House. They were there to assure those allies that Trump's betrayal of the Kurds was a "one off" mistake by Trump and Trump alone, and that American political leaders weren't interested in cutting loose other allies in the region. I notice also that the Senate Republican leaders were conspicuously not denouncing the Democrats for meddling in our foreign policy.
Even Mitch McConnell is making noises opposing Trump's withdrawal of US troops from Syria.
I would guess that other allies of ours in the Middle East are now questioning our commitment to them as well, so Nancy Pelosi's move was smart. I never would have believed that I would look at Pelosi as a savior, but I am starting to get there.
'Tis odd I think that we don't see Marcus, who doesn't much like Kurds as I recall, cheering for Trump's new policy of getting them slaughtered en masse as the consequence of Trump's promised withdrawal from the Middle East (where Marcus also didn't much like our involvement).
Maybe he's seeing all of those freed ISIS fighters making their way to Europe.
Oh, I meant to mention this the other day. So what do you think of Hillary Clinton's talking about Tulsi Gabbard being groomed by Russia?
While I didn't think much of Gabbard's performance in the last debate I kind of thought Hillary's suggestion rather odd. I don't see it accomplishing much of value for Democrats.
"Even Mitch McConnell is making noises opposing Trump's withdrawal…"
McConnell's ‛noises’ allow him to simultaneously offer cover to Trump's withdrawal. Rather than take up the House-passed resolution (bipartisan majority--Republicans signed on by a 2 to 1 ratio), McConnell introduced a different Senate resolution, so now there'll be nothing for them to use to overrule Trump's decision until after it won't matter anyway.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"So what do you think of Hillary Clinton's talking about Tulsi Gabbard
being groomed by Russia?"
I think Hillary perhaps needs to accept the fact that she's always been a lousy campaigner, and 2016 was one of her particularly bad performances in campaigning. That was a bad job of it, even for her. (On the other hand, she's always been a good ‛inside’ politician, once she gets the job; so, she might have made an excellent President.) Might be something to the idea that the Russians are looking at Gabbard as a possible mark in the 2020 election. Gabbard's a bit of a wild card. Just the sort of chaos potential there that they'd like to enhance. But Hillary needs to let it go. She's not the messenger for that story. (And, she might have been dreaming there; probably not, but maybe--she's not been able to let the 2016 loss go in her own head.)
Politico reports on a new theory known as "attribution science" ...
I think placing the blame entirely on fossil fuel companies is a bit of a cop out. We are all at fault. They were providing a product that we all wanted.
However, if the fossil fuel industry has been actively blocking the scientific community from informing people of the facts of climate change, either via propaganda or lobbying in Washington, that is something else. Alternative fuels should have a fair shot on the playing field. Fair competition is part of capitalism.
One thing we know from today's testimony by William Taylor. He took detailed contemporaneous notes. Politico
Looking over the reviews of William Taylor's testimony, and considering the discrepancies between it and Ambassador Sondland's testimony, it occurs to me that an examination of Sondland's records will be necessary to settle the discrepancies. Of course, Sondland declined to produce his notes and records on the theory that they were government property, and the President's directive to stonewall the Congress precluded him from producing them. I think this will probably have to be settled at the level of the Supreme Court. Trump will not willingly give up those records.
The case of United States v Nixon (Wiki) would seem to have settled this matter, unanimously, against Trump's ability to refuse to deliver the records, but that was a different time and a different court. It is outside possible that the currently constituted Supreme Trumpkins will reverse that previously unanimous decision and cover for Trump; not likely perhaps, but possible.
So, what now?
Now, Trump will try to drag out the legal process to give the FoxNews' opinionators time to inculcate the dedicated Trumpkins in whatever faerie tale they settle on as the most saleable to the cult followers. Time is on Trump's side. He has FoxNews, his dedicated propaganda organization. Nixon didn't have that, nor anything like it.
Without the paperwork, the saleable story for FoxNews and the dedicated Trumpkins almost writes itself. E.g:
"The Democrats won't wait to get the paperwork because
they're afraid the paperwork won't support Taylor's
testimony. The Democrats should have waited for the
Supreme Trumpkins to overrule United States v Nixon and
thereby free Trump from all this aggravation the "legal" way.
So, the Republicans have to vote against the impeach-
ment on the grounds that Democrats are in too much of a
hurry here."
On the other hand, the Democrats can wait while the Supreme Trumpkins dither, giving FoxNews the chance to pound away at Taylor's testimony, just as they pounded away the credibility of the Mueller investigation.
My judgment is that the Democrats shouldn't wait for the Supreme Trumpkins to weigh in. They should take the administration's stonewalling on this as an additional ground for impeachment, in and of itself, and force the Republicans in the Senate to set Trump free, as they almost certainly will.
I don't think Trump will win a second term and I think absolving Trump to run again might just cost the Republicans their Senate majority.
So I'd go with keeping it simple, gathering all the evidence that's gatherable; write up an article of impeachment on the evidence that Trump blocks from the light, and then let it go to the Senate within a reasonably tight timeframe.
TrumpTweets: Trump was up tweeting late into the night, and he's at it again fairly early this morning. It may turn out to be an interesting news day.
"Even Mitch McConnell is making noises opposing Trump's withdrawal…"
Meantime, Trump doubles down. Trump has just announced the removal of the sanctions previously imposed on Turkey for it's campaign against the Kurds. NBCNews
"…for its campaign against the Kurds."
They should take the administration's stonewalling on this as an additional ground for impeachment, in and of itself, ...
It's obstruction and, yes, in itself is grounds for impeachment IMHO.
Trump has just announced the removal of the sanctions previously imposed on Turkey for it's campaign against the Kurds.
He also declared a big victory. But he is a little confused as to whose victory.
New polling out this afternoon shows Joe Biden getting a significant surge in popularity among both Democrats and independents, almost certainly as a result of the attacks made against him by Trump and his gang at FoxNews. (There's nothing else to explain it; Biden's debate performances certainly aren't the answer.) It seems to be a backlash. Biden's been a known quantity to too many people for too many years, and he's had an enduring reputation all those years for being squeaky clean ethically (compared to the run-of-the-mill politician anyways).
So, the ethical complaints Team Trump's been trying to make ain't working. In fact they're making Biden even more popular; he's being noticed as the "clean guy" getting slimed by the slimeball.
So, the attacks on Biden are having the perverse effect of making him even more popular. (This may or may not be a good thing come the general election if it turns out Biden's no longer quick enough to keep pace with the constantly morphing slimeball, but it's lookin' good for Biden right now.)
Also beginning to look like Trump's recent whining about himself not getting enough protection from other Republicans has had the effect he wanted it to have. Both House and Senate Republicans are ramping up their attacks on the impeachment process, and William Barr's Justice Department is said to be ratcheting up the Barr/Durham ‛investigate the investigators’ project into a full-blown criminal investigation.
This is, arguably, just what we'd want to see happen--the remainder of the Republican Party going whole-hog into a campaign to justify and protect Trump, and this just as the majority of the country is beginning to come down on the side of booting him outta office. (After all, I think the real advantages to impeaching Trump come down to two: First to preserve for the generations to come the idea that the President is still accountable to the law, and… Second, and of more importance the current generation, forcing the Republicans to "save" him, which will prove detrimental to their own survival in their current form come the 2020 elections. Ain't like the impeachment is ever gonna actually happen in the Republican dominated Senate.)
Second, and of more importance the current generation, forcing the Republicans to "save" him,...
You are forgetting the "rats leaving the sinking ship" phenomena. I think in the end they'll turn on him.
"You are forgetting the 'rats leaving the sinking ship'
phenomena."
Not forgetting; discounting. Rich Lowrey, occasional essayist--full-time Republican pundit and cheerleader, had a brief explanation in Politico couple of days ago. What Lowrey didn't say, but is true nonetheless….
A major difference between this and the Nixon impeachment is in who controls the Republican message. Ain't the Republican Party anymore, wanting to protect the Party's politicians. It's FoxNews wanting to protect their own ratings.
FoxNews wants eyeballs on the screen; clicks on the webpage. They'll wanna keep the Republican Senators toeing the line through the end of the show; make for a better show clear into January 2021--♪♫will he stay or will he go♫♪?
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Related topic:
The WashingtonPost has an article out that claims the White House is getting 'frustrated' at the number of executive branch employees who're ignoring Trump's orders to not testify, and they're now seeking additional legal and 'messaging' help to devise a new strategy for stonewalling the impeachment investigations.
(I should think 'frustrated' is probably a bit of an understatement. And, Trump being Trump, I expect any new strategy he might find acceptable will involve going on the offense for awhile, and also massive, angry Tweeting)
The WashingtonPost has an article out that claims the White House is getting 'frustrated' at the number of executive branch employees who're ignoring Trump's orders to not testify,...
Well, if Trump doesn't like that he's even less likely to like the new book coming out written by Anonymous, the writer of that OpEd piece outing the chaos, incompetence and swamp like environment of the Trump administration.
I may look for it.
There was a small little blurb in my paper today about the release and
subsequent deportation of Maria Butina to Russia. If you remember she was the Russian woman involved with the NRA without registering with the US Justice Department.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who met with Trump at the White House on Thursday for lunch, said the president was defiant. “He just kept saying he did nothing wrong, he did nothing wrong,” Graham said in an interview. “He said it over and over.”
Graham said he wanted to see a more aggressive legal and communications team: “I was on the receiving end on the Clinton team. They were good. They knew what they were doing.”
Lol! I think the same could be said about the Clinton Administration vs the Trump Administration.
My leaves are calling...
"…and subsequent deportation of Maria Butina to Russia…"
I saw she was getting out. I suppose the deportation is the obvious next step. I think she was having fun at the NRA meetings. She'll probably miss the fun. They don't allow those in Russia.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…he's even less likely to like the new book coming out written
by Anonymous…"
Perhaps he will issue a Tweet on the subject?
Trumptweet @ 6:23pm - 26 Oct 2019 "Something very big has just happened!"
Then nothin’. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾
Hugh Hewitt, who made his name as a supposedly "cerebral" Republican cheerleader on Radio-Right-Wing, makes the case for why Republican Senators will not vote to impeach Trump. WashingtonPost
(Hint: They got no future in the Party if they so vote.)
[Lynnette]: "Oh, I meant to mention this the other day. So what do you think of Hillary Clinton's talking about Tulsi Gabbard being groomed by Russia? While I didn't think much of Gabbard's performance in the last debate I kind of thought Hillary's suggestion rather odd. I don't see it accomplishing much of value for Democrats."
Rolling Stone, which I don't ever remember being accused of anti-Democrat bias, seems in little doubt it. They reckon "Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years". They call her "loonybiscuits". I'm glad to see someone else (especially someone normally left-leaning) acknowledging how batshit crazy the Dems and their supporters (like ole' Lee) have sounded for the last couple of years. They agree with me that it's partly an inability to comprehend how they could lose the presidency to a very non-Machiavellian bungling idiot. I'll quote their last few paragraphs at length:
"This witch-hunting insanity isn’t just dangerous, it’s a massive breach from reality. Trump’s campaign was a clown show. He had almost no institutional backing. His “ground game” was nonexistent: his “campaign” was a TV program based almost wholly around unscripted media appearances. Trump raised just over half the $1.2 billion Hillary pulled in (making him the first presidential candidate dating back to 1976 to win with a funds deficit). He didn’t prepare a victory speech, for the perfectly logical reason that he never expected to win.
Even if you posit the most elaborate theories of Russian interference (which I don’t, but of course I’m denialist scum), what happened in 2016 was still almost entirely a domestic story, with Trump benefiting from long-developing public rejection of the political establishment.
Rather than confront the devastating absurdity of defeat before an ad-libbing game show host who was seemingly trying to lose – a black comedy that is 100% in America’s rich stupidity tradition – Democrats have gone all-in on this theory of foreign infiltration. House speaker Nancy Pelosi even said as much in a White House meeting, pointing at Trump and proclaiming: “All roads lead to Putin.”
All? Seriously? Is this ever going to end?"
"I don't ever remember [Rolling Stone] being accused
of anti-Democrat bias…"
Matt Taibbi, long a radical writer for Rolling Stone, has been on something of pro-Trump, anti-Democratic tirade for several months now…. He's been sometimes just short of hysterical on the subject since the impeachment of Trump has come to look likely, sometimes, maybe not short of hysterical (depends on where one draws the line I reckon).
Perhaps you should brush up on his more recent writings.
Might also point out that Matt Taibbi began his writing career as a journalist in the Soviet Union. He did a year of "study abroad" in Saint Petersburg in 1990, and then took up his career as a local journalist just before the Soviet Union collapsed, continuing on as a local journalist in Saint Petersburg just as Vladimir Putin returned from Germany to begin his political career in the Saint Petersburg Mayor's office.
Taibbi moved back to New York (after having gotten himself expelled from Uzbekistan where he was then working). But then returned to work in Russia, Moscow this time, in 1997, just after Putin moved his political career to Moscow in 1996. Taibbi finally returned to the United States, seemingly for good, in 2002. He's never been a liberal not so's anyone would notice it anyway--but he's definitely been a seemingly eclectic radical.
I reckon it's y'all that need to brush up. Taibbi has been talking about the derangement of American politics for over a decade. Back then it was about 9/11 conspiracies and religious nuts, which he reckons set the scene for Trump. Today it's about lunatic Dems and their crazy Russian obsession paving the way for Trump's reelection. No objective -- or even sane -- reader could look at that piece from two months ago and reckon Taibbi is on a "pro-Trump tirade".
But a hysterical Dem fanatic would certainly read his piece about the outrageous lack of media objectivity over Mueller as a sign of going over to the dark side. Which brings me right back to Mattis's comments about teamwork. Y'all have no idea what it even means anymore, y'all are so convinced that "the other side" has declared all out war on y'all. Anyone who doesn't parrot the partisan dogma is a sellout and a traitor. All I can say is that y'all better wise up or y'all will richly deserve the fallout from that eye-for-an-eye approach.
"No objective -- or even sane -- reader could look at that
piece from two months ago and reckon Taibbi is on a 'pro-Trump
tirade'."
Anybody paying attention would have noticed that Taibbi's proposed course of action has always been that the Democrats should do what Trump wants them to do. Which is what I meant by writing that he was "pro-Trump". (In that case, the Democrats are exhorted to lay off noticing any connections to Putin.) It may come as a surprise to you to learn that the pro-Trump Russian bots and the Russian Internet Research Agency active on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, likewise did not publicly mark themselves as "pro-Trump" although that was clearly their purpose.
"Exhorted" is the wrong word there ↑↑--I should say rather "encouraged".
"y'all are so convinced that "the other side" has declared all
out war on y'all."
Nobody's declared war yet. But….
"Partisan political division…has reached a low in America, with
67% believing that the nation is nearing civil war, according to
a new national survey."
WashingtonExaminer (a "conservative" outfit)
Nor is anybody expecting the Hollywood liberal crowd to take up arms against the subscribers to Gun'sN'Ammo. So, guess who's in that 67% contemplating violence as the answer to the upcoming election.
For the record: I'm not among the 67% who think the dedicated Trumpkins will resort to widespread violence. There'll be some scattered sporadic mayhem probably, but nothing that'll approach a civil war level, not even a full-on uprising (think Injuns and Cowboy movies--not even that).
Matt Taibbi says the ‛whistleblower’ isn't a real whistleblower. (Statutory compliance with the ‛Whistleblower Statutes’ notwithstanding)
"The Ukraine complaint seems to be the work of a group of
people, supported by significant institutional power, not only
in the intelligence community, but in the Democratic Party and
the commercial press."
Matt Taibbi writing in the Rolling Stone
Taibbi forgot to include in his proposed Deep State conspiracy the Department of Justice and the Inspector General who questioned the individual, but that's just a detail I suppose.
Kind of a footnote to this conversation:
I wonder how Petes could have managed to have missed Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign did indeed "collude" with the Russians. How is that Petes doesn't seem to know that? Maybe he'll let us in on that lapse on his part, one of these days, maybe…or maybe not.
(Mueller didn't find sufficient evidence that they conspired with the Russians (and, in my opinion, clearly didn't try too hard either), but the collusion was obvious and that was clearly reported out by the Mueller report. However, as I mentioned way back at the start of this thing, spring of '17, collusion with a foreign power to influence an American election is not, in and of itself, a crime. Maybe it should be; that don't change the fact that it isn't.)
I'll have to catch up on comments later...but...
Trumptweet @ 6:23pm - 26 Oct 2019 "Something very big has just happened!"
Trump is announcing that they got al-Baghdadi. They sent US Special Ops troops last night. Unfortunately I had to listen to all of Trump's bluster, but there was actual real substance at the core.
I wonder, was there a tip by someone?
I listened to it on FoxNewsSunday. It appears that Trump either wrote the speech himself (not the first few minutes, but lion's share of it after the first few minutes) OR, maybe he was just ad-libbing.
Mueller didn't try hard enough to prove a conspiracy, and Matt Taibbi is a Russian sock puppet. Listen to y'all's self ... y'all's as hysterical as Clinton and Pelosi and the rest of the deranged Dems. And now I must bid adieu to the resident paranoiac and be off about my master Vlad's bidness.
"Matt Taibbi is a Russian sock puppet."
He is? And here I thought it was just a happy coincidence that he consistently advocated for the propositions that you and Trump find comforting.
Andrew Sullivan does his rant on Brexit, the Republicans (and Trump), and the Democrats. Kinda long but amusing this time.
Speaking of Brexit, the threat of political violence stalks Great Britain and North Ireland as well. TheSpectator
Might call this a "parting shot" at Petes:
"I wonder how Petes could have managed to have missed
Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign did indeed 'collude'
with the Russians. How is that Petes doesn't seem to know
that?"
Lee C. @ Sun Oct 27, 05:14:00 am ↑↑
Didn't wanna touch that one, did he?
No wonder there is a sense of foreboding in the country, a nagging fear that something grim may yet happen; a presentiment that something – and perhaps everything – has gone badly wrong. The polling tells us this but so too does everything else.
That sounds a bit familiar.
Morning news brings the story that Trump told the Russians of the raid on al-Baghdadi in advance, but keep it secret from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
I'm guessing that's some of that teamwork that Petes was goin' on 'bout.
The ranking Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has today announced his impending retirement from congress at the end of this term. If the Republicans win back the majority in the House, he'd be the chairman of the committee again. His retirement indicates he doesn't think that's gonna happen. That makes 21 sitting Republicans already announced they're not going to run again.
Meantime, a record number of previously unsuccessful Republican candidates from 2018 are preparing to run for the House again in 2020 because they think running with Trump on the ticket will boost Republican turnout and give them a better chance of winning this time. Politico
Trumpkin fanatics returning to the campaign trail, and 'establishment' Republicans retiring. Must mean something, but I'm not entirely sure what, beyond the fact that somebody's guessing it wrong.
NewYorkTimes: The diplomats at the State Department weren't the only ones concerned and appalled by Trump's pressure on Ukraine officials to investigate the Bidens. A Lieutenant Colonel on the NSA staff who heard some of Trump's communications with Ukranian President Zelensky. Apparently the colonel not only overheard Trump specifically pressing for investigation of the Biden's, but Trump also wanted the Ukrainian officials to work to clear Paul Manafort of the charges which he'd already pled guilty on. The colonel is scheduled to testify tomorrow.
Hmmm… Sloppy editing above, but I'm not gonna rewrite it. The essence comes through.
Lee: "'Tis odd I think that we don't see Marcus, who doesn't much like Kurds as I recall, cheering for Trump's new policy of getting them slaughtered en masse as the consequence of Trump's promised withdrawal from the Middle East (where Marcus also didn't much like our involvement)."
I don't have any strong feelings for or against the Kurds really. They're in a tough spot living in an area divided amongst nation states where other groups form a majority.
But I'm a bit surprised at YOUR stance tbh. Your opinion on ethnicity is usually that it isn't important. Erryone in Merica is merican, right. Why can't you tell the Kurds to stop being so ethno-centric and just go be good Turks, Iraqis, Syrians or Iranians?
Lee: "One would think that had all the things that Marcus would like--Americans out of the Middle East and dead Middle Easterners as a bonus."
Yawn, not gonna dignify that with an answer even.
"Erryone in Merica is merican, right."
Not right. Anyone coming to America (legally) can become an American. The common bond and minimum requirement is acceptance of and allegiance to the United States' Constitution. (Used to be a requirement of functional fluency/literacy in English, but that's seemingly not much enforced these days. And I think there is still a test on American history that just about anybody can pass (brief; multiple choice)--or keep trying until they manage to eventually pass by statistical probability) There are various other disqualifying attributes and criteria, but you are correct in that ethnicity is not relevant. (And, of course, people born here are American by birthright--14th Amendment and case law based thereon.)
Beginning to look like the substantive defense of Trump in his impeachment proceeding is going to center around the fact that he got caught and called out on his attempts to coerce the Ukrainians into investigating Biden, Burisma, and the imaginary server computer, and (this is the defense) he got caught before the Ukrainians succumbed to his pressure, so it's all okay.
Doesn't sound like it should work, but it's all they got just now so they're gonna try to make a go of it. And, ya never know, it might be enough to hold off a bloodletting on the Republican Senators trying to sell it.
A North Carolina gerrymandered political map that the United States Supreme Court declared to be immune to federal justice has been struck down under North Carolina state law. Politico T
One for the good guys and an embarrassment for the Supreme Trumpkins. (Can't overrule them on this, but can embarrass them.)
Had a thought this morning….
When the impeachment gets televised, how does FoxNews manage to program? They ain't gonna wanna carry the proceedings; they don't wanna show that to the dedicated Trumpkins, but I don't see that they have a workable alternative choice.
I'll have to give this some more thought. I'm sure they're doing the same.
Another thought…
It may have gone unnoticed yesterday under the headline noise of the death of al-Baghdadi and the pending impeachment vote in the House, but the DoJ has appealed the order that they turn over the unredacted version of the Mueller Report to the House committees which have subpoenaed same.
Kinda expected that'd happen, and now it has.
Whoa. Thomas Friedman just called all of the Republicans who are protecting Trump "disgusting and a danger to our country" on CNN.
He's absolutely right.
It appears that Boris Johnson lost on the Brexit extension issue. The EU has agreed to a three month extension until Jan 31st. Score one for the rule of law in the UK.
News is now out that the White House sanitized the "transcript" of Trump's call to Ukrainian President Zelensky to remove Trump's explicit demands regarding and invetigation of the Hunter Biden and Burisma, and that Lt. Col. Vindman attempted to correct the record and was rebuffed.
The Senate Republicans are purporting to not believe the lieutenant colonel. Problem they have with that is, he's probably telling the truth, and there very well may turn out to be corroborating evidence appear later.
Or, they may get lucky on this one, but that's probably not a good bet.
It occurred to me this morning that impeachment isn't necessarily a one-off drama with this particular President. There's gonna be new evidence coming out next year during the election season, as the courts cycle through the disposition of Trump's fairly outlandish claims of total immunity from investigation by the Congress. (Presumably even the Supreme Trumpkins will have to disallow Trump's claims there.)
As new evidence becomes available, new impeachable offenses will come to light. And it's highly likely the Democrats will be holding ‛impeachment round two’ hearings--open hearings this time, mind you--right on into the summer campaign season.
"Whoa. Thomas Friedman just called all of the Republicans…"
He decided to follow that up with an Op-Ed in the New York Times.
The White House is supposedly eyeing one Toney Sayegh, once head mouthpiece for the Trump Treasury Department to head up its new anti-impeachment ‛messaging’ effort. (Yeah, right, like ‛messaging’ is their problem here.). Couple of thoughts present themselves immediately.
First one being: Where the hell is Kellyanne Conway? Why ain't she doing this job? And where has she disappeared to ever since the impeachment thing got real?
And if she won't come out and defend him anymore, why ain't she fired now? Or, does she know too much to let go?
First question being: "Who the hell would want that job?" Trump thinks he's the Twitter King and makes his own messaging greatness. Kellyanne's apparently got better sense than to take it, so why would anybody else wanna go there, having seen what she's had to do (and she won't do this).
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Also in the morning news: Trump declared his candidacy for a second term as President on the second day of his Presidency I believe it was, the day after he was sworn in back in January 2016. He's been collecting campaign cash every since, and has a historically record-setting pile of campaign cash already sitting in his accounts, collecting interest.
So, he's begun distributing those campaign funds to friendly Republican Senators whom he thinks can be counted on to have his back during the upcoming impeachment. (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins get zero dollars--faithful Trumpkin types getting in the hundreds of thousands of dollars already.) Politico All seems perfectly legal so far. (I explained before how difficult it has become to commit an actual crime when bribing a federal political candidate--ya almost gotta sign the confession before ya take the money; it's gotten almost that bad in the last few years, since Republican leaning Justices have acquired the majority of seats on the bench of the Supreme Trumpkins.) Nevertheless….
I'm thinking that Democratic challengers will want to make noises about these payoffs in the coming Senate elections.
Hmmm… Seems to be an editing glitch up there ↑↑ Second question is denominated as the First question, giving us two first questions and no second question. Oh well… Shit happens.
Where the hell is Kellyanne Conway? Why ain't she doing this job?
Maybe she got wise? Maybe her husband said it was time to wake up and smell the coffee?
It looks like Mitch McConnell finally told Trump face to face that it would be better if he stopped attacking Senate Republicans. Their good will may be needed in the future.
So, he's begun distributing those campaign funds to friendly Republican Senators whom he thinks can be counted on to have his back during the upcoming impeachment.
Yup, given the fact that he's giving with one hand and withholding with the other I would say that's bribery. Among all the other things he's done it may look innocuous, but it fits his pattern of corrupt behavior. For any reasonable voter it would a consideration.
Post a Comment