The Trump reƫlection campaign launched a web page yesterday designed to assist the dedicated Trumpkins in arguing with "liberal snowflake family members" at family gatherings today. WashingtonPost
Congress is now home for the holidays; been home for a couple of days. Ya notice that none of the congressional Democrats seem even the least little bit excited about Pelosi having held out on delivering the Articles of Impeachment to Mitch McConnell?
The Republicans spent a fair amount of time telling folks about how the layover doesn't bother them. Trump was up late into last night tweeting on the subject. The Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to be talking about it at all.
I was reading some of the testimony by Gallagher's teammates yesterday. It doesn't sound like they had much respect for him, calling him a cold blooded murderer. He in turn has copied our Dear Leader's MO of denigrating all those who are critical of him.
What is up with the US strikes in Iraq and Syria? That was a surprise to me when I saw the headline the other day. I haven't had time to do any in depth research on the events. I gather it has something to do with an attack on an Iraqi base which killed a US civilian contractor? Or was that just the straw that broke the camels back?
"Perhaps she would be best to do it later in the year…"
I think she intends to hold it long enough to draw the nation's attention to the Republican effort to not hold an actual trial. They're eager to whitewash Trump and get on with it, get this behind them. A lot of low-information voters aren't paying attention to that as of yet anyway. But, 70% of the voters across the board want a real trial with witnesses. I think Pelosi's just waiting out the holiday season when attention is on holidays, and making sure that the low-information voter becomes fully aware of the Republican whitewash I don't think that'll require holding back until summer (or even campaign season)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "What is up with the US strikes in Iraq and Syria?"
Well planned and coƶrdinated strikes on multiple cells of an underground Shia ‛militia’ under the control of Tehran rather than Baghdad. They have been being a nuisance as of late. Looks like something that originated at Central Command or the Pentagon and they talked Trump into it.
The air raids in Iraq are beginning to look less and less like a Pentagon or Central Command operation. They'd have taken the time to get some Iraqi political support (or would have beefed up the firepower at the embassy if it had been deemed to ‛insecure’ to bring Iraqi politicians up to speed on the operation). Probably this was a contingency plan they had on the shelf, and when the White House called for options, they had this ready.
Huh! Chief Justice Roberts inserted into his year end remarks a message to the American people basically saying that we take democracy for granted. Now I wonder where he got that idea?!
"Chief Justice Roberts…basically saying that we take democracy for granted."
Were I Mitch McConnell I'd take that as an indication that Justice Roberts might not be a dedicated Trumpkin. Roberts might even be one of those old-fashioned conservatives who're hostile to the current Republican-favored interpretation of Article II of the Constitution (as meaning that Trump can do anything he damn well pleases). This could be a matter of some significance to McConnell, given that Roberts is supposed to preside over the upcoming impeachment trial.
Such considerations might make Moscow Mitch all the more eager to get the impeachment dismissed, ASAP, as opposed to holding an actual impeachment trial where Roberts might issue adverse rulings.
I note that Trump has tied for first place in a recent poll of whom Americans admire the most. I think that tells us that one story currently being peddled around to media investigators is pure bullshit off the git. They keep trying to tell us that the Trumpkins' support for Trump is "transactional", e.g. that the religious right supports him only because he gives them favorable Supreme Court Justices and such as that. Turns out that ain't right. Rather, there is some serious anti-social shit flowing out of the conservative segments of this society. They know who and what he is, and they heartily approve of that in their President. At least, enough of them do to put him at the top of the "most admired" list among the conservative segments of this society.
Such considerations might make Moscow Mitch all the more eager to get the impeachment dismissed, ASAP, as opposed to holding an actual impeachment trial where Roberts might issue adverse rulings.
I am getting the impression, slightly anyway since I don't want to get my hopes up, that McConnell may find himself boxed in with regards to the impeachment trial. We have Chief Justice Roberts raising a cautionary word, but we also have a Republican Senator, I believe it was Senator Lisa Murkowski wondering about the quickness of the Democrats in the House to impeach when they hadn't heard all of the witnesses. Now, of course, they could not hear all of the witnesses because of the road blocks put up by Trump to their testifying. Now the question arises of whether or not they will be allowed to testify before a Senate trial. Something Pelosi & Co. would like. Now we also have Murkowski, and just recently Senator Susan Collins, questioning the close cooperation between Senate leadership and the White House with regards to a trial in the Senate.
Perhaps Pelosi was wise to wait a bit while the dust settles before sending those articles to the Senate. It would only take 4 Republican Senators to throw a monkey wrench into McConnel's plans. Assuming, of course, that all of the Democrats are on board.
Rather, there is some serious anti-social shit flowing out of the conservative segments of this society. They know who and what he is, and they heartily approve of that in their President.
Why do I get the feeling that I am living in 1930's Germany? True it may not be an exact duplicate, but it is coming really close with each day of Trump's presidency.
"…I am getting the impression…that McConnell may find himself boxed in with regards to the impeachment trial."
I don't think there's a tinker's chance in hell that the Republican Senate will ever convict Trump, no matter what evidence turns up. Ain't gonna happen. That being the case, I think the best use of the impeachment is to turn the public against the Republican Senate. I think that would be best achieved by causing Moscow Mitch and the rest of his Republicans to dismiss the charges outright, refuse to hold a trial at all. I think Pelosi's putting pressure on him that might hopefully achieve that result.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "…and the risk is almost all on the Republicans--after all, the Democrats got no chance of actually getting Trump ejected from office, so it's not like they can blow a win here." Lee C. @ Tue Dec 17, 11:22:00 am (prior thread)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "Why do I get the feeling that I am living in 1930's Germany?"
Probably because that's the descent into fascism you're most familiar with, so you see the parallels through that filter. I think fascist Italy, pre-WWII, is probably a better fit. Maybe Franco's Spanish dictatorship is an even better fit. And, it happens to be the only one of those three fascist regimes to have survived WWII. (Also, people are less likely to tune you out when discussing the parallels. The ‛Nazi’ charge has been grossly overworked and, as a result, people tend to tune ya out if they suspect you're going there.)
Rudy Guiliani's announced that he'd "love" to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Or, he could "give demonstrations"¹, maybe even prosecute a "racketeering" case against Joe and Hunter Biden. NBCNews Mitch McConnell must be thrilled to hear all that. Sounds like "must see TV".
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ ¹ Not clear exactly what Guiliani thinks he'd be "demonstrating".
I don't think there's a tinker's chance in hell that the Republican Senate will ever convict Trump, no matter what evidence turns up.
I think you are right. Even if there are some defectors on the Republican side there wouldn't be enough votes to convict.
That being the case, I think the best use of the impeachment is to turn the public against the Republican Senate. I think that would be best achieved by causing Moscow Mitch and the rest of his Republicans to dismiss the charges outright, refuse to hold a trial at all.
I don't see that happening. McConnell is too smart to fall for that trap. He'll hold a trial of a sort.
Probably because that's the descent into fascism you're most familiar with, so you see the parallels through that filter.
Partly true. I am not as familiar with Italy or Spain's fascist history. But what strikes me as similar to Germany was the reaction of the crowds to Hitler and the crowds today to Trump.
The reports are that rockets were fired at Baghdad Airport, killing Soleimani and also the leader of the paramilitary group which was protesting outside the US Embassy.
Arwa Damon is saying the Popular Mobilation Force is blaming the US. So, it doesn't matter if we actually were involved. She is saying that for sure Iran will respond in some way.
Yeah, there's Iranian factions that'll take this news quite poorly.
(This news seems to be propagating rapidly without any significant push-back, so it may well be that this particular Iraqi source is considered credible.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "CNN is saying Soleimani was killed in a rocket attack at Baghdad Airport."
NewYorkTimes is reporting it to be an air strike. (FoxNews is reporting it to be a rocket attack.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "But what strikes me as similar to Germany was the reaction of the crowds"
There is that. Although Hitler's crowds were orders of magnitude larger than anything Trump will ever generate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "McConnell is too smart to fall for that trap."
Maybe not; maybe his choices will be limited. He's got shit comin' at 'im from all angles on this. There's Guiliani and Trump wantin' to go for the show. There's the Republicans from non-safe seats wantin' this to just go away, and there's Pelosi, who's at least a match for McConnell when it comes to schemin' on things. And McConnell has long been a cautious, risk-averse type. Shutting the damn thing down is least risk.
Well, it seems that someone has found another headline for the news than impeachment. But if this slides into a hot war that includes us they may wish for that impeachment headline back.
"Well, it seems that someone has found another headline for the news…"
That diversion may not last long (although the subject may come back up later). There's no reason to expect the Iranians will react immediately. (Trump would want to react immediately, but the ayatollahs are more clever than he.)
But you are right about how McConnell will want to avoid doing that too blatantly, if he can. He'll have to be scared into that.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "The Pentagon is saying that Trump ordered the killing of Solaimani."
That was probably not smart, just hoppin' out there and admitting that right off. And, it was also probably Trump's reaction to Ayatollah Khamenei's tweet about how Trump "couldn't do a damn thing".
And it means there'll have to be threats and stuff. Even if there's a break in the action while the ayatollahs consider their next move, there'll have to be immediate threats and stuff, so…
Yeah, we got competing headlines now. You were right on that one.
Lee: "And it means there'll have to be threats and stuff. Even if there's a break in the action while the ayatollahs consider their next move, there'll have to be immediate threats and stuff, so…"
Probably more than that, probably some assymetrical action also. In Iraq against US forces maybe, but maybe something like ordering Hezbollah to kidnap some Israelis or hitting a few oil-tankers in the strait or against Saudi again somehow. Something obvious but still on the surface deniable.
Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed to take "severe revenge" on the United States, and the Iranian Defense Minister has promised a "crushing response". WashingtonPost So I'd reckon ‛deniability’ ain't high on their list just now.
"The Pentagon is saying that Trump ordered the killing of Solaimani."
That was probably not smart, just hoppin' out there and admitting that right off.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how smart the Ayatollahs really are. I know what I would do if I were in their shoes.
In Iraq against US forces maybe, but maybe something like ordering Hezbollah to kidnap some Israelis or hitting a few oil-tankers in the strait or against Saudi again somehow. Something obvious but still on the surface deniable.
That's not it. I doubt they really want a war with the US. But they will want revenge.
I see that Trump has begun to publicly emphasize the notion that Suleimani was plotting "imminent" attacks (presumably against Americans). ABCNews I'd reckon that means his lawyers have been explaining to him that it's actually against the law for him to unilaterally order the assassination of an Iranian government official. (Not that I expect that law to be enforced against Trump.)
(Not that I expect that law to be enforced against Trump.)
Indeed. And that is just proof again that Trump needs to be reigned in.
I have been trying to warn that Trump is not just a danger to us, but also the world. Granted, it has usually been in the context of climate change, but he is also a loose canon when it comes to regional or world stability as well, as demonstrated by his action against Iran. Both George W. Bush and Obama chose not to target Soleimani during the war because of the unpredictable consequences, despite his obvious guilt in the deaths of numerous American service members.
Yeah, well, here's the deal on that: Trump gets acquitted in the Senate (which is almost certainly going to occur), and Trump will have the proof he wants that he can't be reined in. The Republican pols who've enabled him exhibited clear fear when Trump's Ukrainian caper first broke into the news. However, as the scheme unfolded in the public view it became clear that, once again, the dedicated Trumpkins simply did·not·care. So, the fear has turned to disdain (as have Trump's initial fears, if he had any), and, for Trump and the Trumpkins, to anger. And now he's thinking he's invincible. (But, he sorta suspected that all along--the "shoot somebody down on 5th Avenue" language.)
Thing is, we'd have had the exact same result if the Democrats had refused to impeach him.
The U.S. Central Command (that would be "central" Asia, including the Levant and the Middle-East) has announced that they're abandoning the fight against Da’esh for the time being in order to concentrate on keeping their heads down. CentCom The announcement hints, but does not assert, that this is a temporary measure.
Meantime Iran has announced, officially, that it is abandoning the 2015 nuclear non-proliferation agreement. NewYorkTimes They did allow that their decision was not irrevocable, and that Trump could still surrender and agree to lift all sanctions, and they'd then consider reaffirming the agreement, but nobody expects that to happen.
It seems that Lindsey Graham is making noises like he wants the rules changed to allow them to start a trial right away. Yup, Trump's example of disregarding proper procedure seems to have rubbed off on others.
Just a small aside, the Vikings managed to defeat the Saints in their playoff game today. I have to admit I couldn't watch the last 3 minutes. I was sure they'd blow it at the end, and they almost did, allowing the Saints to come back and tie the game. The Vikings managed to pull it out in overtime.
They are scheduled to play the 49'ers next. I doubt they will squeak by them. But at least they have one more game. :)
Iran's mention of being willing to reinstate the nuclear agreement under sane (read: Non-Trumpian) conditions did get them an invitation to send their Foreign Minister to meet with the EU in Brussels. Trump was not invited to attend, nor even to send anybody in his stead. RadioFarda So, the "posturing" got 'em somethin'.
I think CentCom was broadly hinting that whackin' Suliemani was not their recommended option back there.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "Trump's example of disregarding proper procedure seems to have rubbed off on others."
That just adds to the increasing risk McConnell's taking every day he delays. There are a lot of ways this could go sideways on him (none of them particularly likely, but the combined risk…), so he has conflicting incentives. There's the incentive to get the charges dismissed, quick and clean, before new evidence turns up, new court cases come down hard against Trump, or somebody gets a wild hair and storms off on lunatic quest for whatever they perceive as justice/personal political advantage/or whatever. And then, of course, there's the countervailing incentive to make it look like the Republicans are being at least vaguely reasonable about attending to their constitutional duty. McConnell never shows the pressure, but he's gotta be feelin' it. His history is as highly risk-averse; he can't be likin' his position here.
So far I don't see any real risks in Pelosi's current position. That doesn't mean she can wait forever, but it does perhaps mean that she can wait longer than McConnell.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Congrats on the Vikings' win. Although I probably would have been sympathetic to the Saints if I'd known they were playing yesterday. (Just 'cause they're AFC.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ I think we're going to have to admit to ourselves that history has presented us with a question for which we currently do not have an answer. I.e: "Can the President of the United States just up and kill whomever he wants to kill and get away with it, simply by chanting the magic incantation ‛National Security’?"
Our current Orange POTUS seems to be growing frustrated these past few days with the growing suggestions that this is not so.
Back on the subject of somebody getting a ‛wild hair’ (or, in this case perhaps, somebody morphing into a wild hare)….
John Bolton has issued a public statement saying, in relevant part, that: "[I]f the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."
Bolton did not indicate what would happen if the House impeachment committee issues a subpoena now for him to show up for the deposition he declined to attend while the Democratic House was trying to decide on articles of impeachment. NewYorkTimes
Trump's habit of upping the stakes elsewhere to distract from his domestic political troubles has produced another stunner today. This one stands a chance of knocking the news about John Bolton bolting off the top headlines of the day.
Reuters: HeadlineU.S.-led coalition says it will withdraw from Iraq: letter
"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States-led military coalition against Islamic State said on Monday that it was pulling out of Iraq and would be repositioning forces over the next few days and weeks."
Now the Pentagon is saying the "withdraw from Iraq" letter went out by accident, ain't real--never mind the letter. (Still gonna steal some headlines with the lesser withdrawal that Trump hasn't actually announced yet, but likely will announce soon.)
I think CentCom was broadly hinting that whackin' Suliemani was not their recommended option back there.
I suspect you are right.
I think we're going to have to admit to ourselves that history has presented us with a question for which we currently do not have an answer. I.e: "Can the President of the United States just up and kill whomever he wants to kill and get away with it, simply by chanting the magic incantation ‛National Security’?"
Especially as that President has been known to lie. And given the fact that the action taken has increased the threat level to our military, how has this done anything to help with our national security?
John Bolton has issued a public statement saying, in relevant part, that: "[I]f the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."
I could see where this ultimately may be the most critical event.
Politico is suggesting that news of the bolting of John Bolton has been assimilated among the Republican Senators and that the "moderate" Republican Senators have taken stock of the risks to their status within what's now the Party of Trump and are coming to the conclusion that they will be most safe if they are not confronted by unfortunate evidence. Ergo: No witnesses.
Most folks will see this as a win for McConnell. I think it may be otherwise in the end. I think probably otherwise in the end.
I think now the House will almost certainly subpoena John Bolton. (It's a toss-up whether or not he'll honor that subpoena.) Either way, the spreading House investigations of Trump will move forward in tandem with the campaign for control of the Senate. And that's liable to not be a good look for the Republican Senators up for reƫlection this cycle (23 of them--only 12 Democrats).
My view, that this is probably good for the Democrats (and likely just what Pelosi wanted), is a minority view just now. Nevertheless, I think she'll now "buckle" (supposedly) and send over the Articles of Impeachment this week, after some of the "moderate" Republicans publicly weigh in against the calls for witnesses at trial. I think this is pretty close to what she's been looking to achieve with the delay, and I think she'll grab it before it can get away.
Politico is suggesting that news of the bolting of John Bolton has been assimilated among the Republican Senators and that the "moderate" Republican Senators have taken stock of the risks to their status within what's now the Party of Trump and are coming to the conclusion that they will be most safe if they are not confronted by unfortunate evidence. Ergo: No witnesses.
It looks like they are jumping on the McConnell plan for the rules of a trial and will wait until after it actually begins to decide on witnesses.
My view, that this is probably good for the Democrats (and likely just what Pelosi wanted), is a minority view just now. Nevertheless, I think she'll now "buckle" (supposedly) and send over the Articles of Impeachment this week, after some of the "moderate" Republicans publicly weigh in against the calls for witnesses at trial.
I don't know. I will have to wait and see. I have no confidence in Americans to realize what the Republicans are doing. Or, like you have said in the past, the loyal Trumpkins are okay with everything they do.
"It looks like they are jumping on the McConnell plan…"
Yeah, I saw that; didn't take long: By noon (CST) the Republicans had compared notes and decided they were going to move ahead with the impeachment without calling witnesses to testify. And it does look like they'll hold a vote formalizing that decision only after Pelosi sends the Articles of Impeachment over; technically, it would be a surrender by Pelosi to send them before she has a commitment one way or another on the witness question, but that's a mere technicality; McConnell's taken his count and says he's got the votes and Senate Democrats have agreed--McConnell's got the votes he needs. WashingtonPost (Technically, they could still decide to call witnesses later, but that's highly unlikely to happen.) The so-called "moderate" Republican Senators had it explained to them that they were going to take the blame if dragging this thing out produced even more bad news for Trump.
So, Pelosi's got her whitewash just almost locked down (almost), McConnell might allow Senators Susan Collins and/or Lisa Murkowski to vote in favor of witnesses later to help save their own reputations back home. (Depends on what Mitt Romney decides to do whether or not McConnell can let them vote their own way; Collins, whatever else she may pretend to be, is always there to vote with McConnell when he needs her, although he lets her vote against him when he doesn't need her vote--it's deal they've worked out that works for her.)
"NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged a major donor to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee with obstructing a federal investigation into whether foreign nationals unlawfully contributed to the inaugural celebrations. The donor, Imaad Zuberi, recently pleaded guilty in a separate case in Los Angeles to campaign finance violations, tax evasion and failing to register as a foreign agent." AssociatedPress (via the Washington Post
Iran has shown it can hit us if they choose to, we knew they were bringing out the missiles and did nothing to prevent it, and they have managed to shut up Trump for the night. There is a slight hope that maybe we can scrape through this without all out war. Maybe...
"[W]e knew they were bringing out the missiles and did nothing to prevent it…"
I think preventing it would have required striking into Iran. Looks like Trump wasn't quite willing to go there. (And I still guess this would be just Iraq's first round; more comin'.)
"I still guess this would be just Iraq's first round; more comin'." Lee C. @ Tue Jan 07, 09:37:00 pm ↑↑
Looks like I guessed that one wrong. Statements coming out of Iran overnight, from the Revolutionary Guard as well as from the civilian government, indicate that the Iranian response to the hit on Suleimani has "concluded", that they're willing to call off the retaliatory strikes with (apparently) no American fatalities and fairly minimal property damage to American bases in Iraq.
We seem to have gotten lucky, so far. However, Trump's an unpredictable element, as always. He may not be content with having been lucky. But, for now…
Pelosi's showing no signs of sending the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate until McConnell actually holds that vote to begin the trial without committing to witnesses. May well be that she's decided to hold out against what I earlier called a "technical" surrender (Lee C. @ Tue Jan 07, 01:45:00 pm)
McConnell says he's got the votes. Trump is getting antsy. Pelosi may be content to wait for McConnell to hold that vote, or to at least wait out the week, in spite of some Senate Democrats wanting to get on with it.
Speculation is rife that Iran shot down the plane that crashed near Tehran by mistake. I wouldn't be surprised. That's one of the problems when you start this kind of tit for tat, people get jumpy.
I get the impression that the Trump administration doesn't quite understand that the ability of Moscow Mitch and his Republican Senate majority to give cover to Trump doesn't extend past America's borders. E.g:
"WASHINGTON — The State Department on Friday rebuffed the Iraqi government’s request to begin discussions on pulling out troops, saying that any American officials going to Baghdad during a state of heightened tensions would not discuss a “troop withdrawal,” as the Iraqi prime minister had requested. *** “There does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership,” she said. “We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.”" NYTimes
Word's been leaking out of the White House that the President's top advisors have learned to follow what the ‛opinionators’ on FoxNews are saying about federal policies (both foreign and domestic) so they can conform their advice for Trump to what he's watching on FoxNews. (Luckily the FoxNews stable of talking heads were pretty much in agreement this past week that Trump should avoid a real war with Iran, if possible.) Politico
Scary thought that our government is forming policies by the opinion of Fox News anchors. However, at least they are not stupid enough to want to jump into another war.
It looks like Iran has come clean and admitted to shooting down the civilian aircraft, mistaking it for a cruise missile. It sounds like while their technology has improved their personnel skills are still questionable.
This has caused some rather intense anger from the Iranian public. I'm guessing some of those people killed were friends and relatives of local Iranians.
The Iranians are attempting to shift some of the blame to the US because of Trump's rather volatile foreign policy choice. In some respects they are correct, but you can also go back farther to the idea that if Soleimani wasn't conducting clandestine operations against the US he wouldn't have then been a target. I think there is enough blame to go around and both sides should stand back and let emotions cool.
"This has caused some rather intense anger from the Iranian public."
We probably should remember that the Iranian people were already pretty fed up with the Iranian government. There were serious public protests against the government (and perhaps crucially, against the diversion of funds and attention to the foreign adventures of the Iranian government) before the assassination of Suleimani diverted Iranian public attention and anger back to the United States. (Not one of Trump's smarter moves as against Iran in particular.) But, it didn't take much to remind them that they were up in arms about foreign policy just a few days ago.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "I didn't have my hopes up, so I wasn't really disappointed."
Iran has apologized. Trying to gain the high road.
The thing is, is that everyone is at fault. And it goes back years. Until people can...er..."let it go" we will continue to be at each other's throats.
You look at what happened during Soleimani's funeral as well, people were trampled to death. I think the count was 56. He wasn't worth their deaths.
Huh! Apparently Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman can't win the Presidency. Personally I'd give Amy Klobuchar a shot. But then that's just me...
"Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman can't win the Presidency."
I s'pect that subject will come up in tonight's Democratic debate. Sanders has denied the charge, but Warren issued a public statement last night confirming the comment was made. So, the CNN moderators will be eager to go there and get ratings. The initial, and subsequently confirmed, "leak" against Sanders would seem to indicate a breakdown of the so-far-still-mostly-holding non-aggression pact between Sanders and Warren. The extent of the breakdown has yet to be fully exposed, but it certainly seems the agreement has frayed some. (It's probably relevant that this information is coming out after Warren started slipping in the polls as against Sanders. There have been other hints at the breakdown as well.) Anyway, this is a tempest in a teapot. Too easy to explain away, and besides, Amy Klobuchar has already made a big deal on the debate stage about how female Democratic Presidential contenders are held to a higher standard than their male counterparts (re: Buttigieg being higher in the polls than she). That's Sanders' get-out-of-jail-free card, right there.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ I notice that Attorney General William Barr has entered the field on the controversial story about the late General Suleimani being an "imminent threat" to our personnel and installations abroad. He has declared the entire story to date, all ten days of it, to be a "red herring". Now they're going to have a different story, all shiny and new, but going in a totally different direction. I suppose this is a concession to reality; the old story just wasn't passing the laugh test, no matter how hard the dedicated Trumpkins tried to pretend to believe it (and they tried hard as anyone keeping track of Hannity will know). But, it just wasn't workin'; they couldn't pretend hard enough to keep a straight face on that one. So, now we get a whole new story, and the old story is now a ‛red herring’. No longer is the State Department (Mike Pompeo) in charge the story about military intelligence (instead of the Defense Department); now it's the Justice Department taking over. And a whole new story this time. Dedicated Trumpkins and Republican Stalwarts alike will need to take note of that last part about the whole new story. (Probably best if they ignore the part about the Justice Department jumping into this and rescuing Trump with an entirely new story.)
Yes, I agree Amy has an uphill fight to come out on top in the primary. VP is a real possibility.
There is a Frontline special on tonight on TPT on the "Great Divide" from Obama to Trump. It is in two parts, both 2 hours long. I know I won't manage both in one night, but hopefully they will be online later. The first one starts at 7:00.
I may end up flipping between the Frontline special and the debate, depending which is the most interesting.
Morning news about last night's debate is not about Biden. That means he won another debate by not noticeably screwing up, and not getting skewered successfully by any of the challengers, who apparently went after one another to the extent they went after anybody.
Biden keeps "winning" these debates merely by not losing too badly, on account of he goes in the frontrunner and then nothing happens to change that.
"There is a Frontline special on tonight on TPT on the 'Great Divide' from Obama to Trump."
I'm guessing we can expect some more from Frontline over the course of the next year. Just the new revelations about Guiliani and his Ukrainian henchmen from the past couple of days will probably give them at least an hour's worth of stuff. Plus there's the hacking attempts on that natural gas company, Burisma.
I watched most of the first part. They started with Obama's presidency and its effect on the country, in particular the Republican Party. They mentioned that the Republican leadership got together and discussed what they could do to undermine Obama's presidency. I remember you had talked about that at the time.
They also talked about the original person who dealt in "alternative" truths, Sarah Palin.
"Republican leadership got together and discussed what they could do to undermine Obama's presidency."
Trump routinely whines about not getting a "honeymoon" from the press after he took office (it's about a 10-15 minute spiel in his arena shows), which press he denounced in his inaugural address as "the enemy of the people"; kind of a honeymoon killer, that.
But, it goes back further than the opening of the Obama Presidency. The "movement" Republicans ( once the Republican "right-wingers"; now their ‛base’) have been working on a long-term project to make our society and our nation ungovernable since the days of Ronald Reagan. They're still working on that project. Reagan famously said in his first Inaugural address, 21 January 1981: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." (About the 7 minute mark) They've pretty much held fast to that belief in the decades that followed. And they've been persistant and committed to eventually solving that problem.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "The text of the U.S.-China agreement has yet to be made public, and according to an administration official, will not be released until after Wednesday’s formal signing. "But the Trump administration said China has agreed to purchase billions in U.S. agricultural products and end its practice of forced technology transfer for foreign companies that do business in China." ABCNews (emphasis added)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ (We may be a week ahead here. PBS was already showing the second part by the time you mentioned it.)
WashingtonPost: The GAO (Government Accountability Office) has determined that the Trump administration did indeed violate the law by impounding and withholding assistance funds (roughly $400 million) appropriated for the Ukraine's defense.
This is marginally relevant because the Trump administration, and specifically the Great Orange himself, have been carryin' on 'bout how there "was no crime", as Trump tweets it.
85 comments:
Merry Christmas indeed.
The Trump reƫlection campaign launched a web page yesterday designed to assist the dedicated Trumpkins in arguing with "liberal snowflake family members" at family gatherings today. WashingtonPost
One can only hope that such propaganda backfires on them.
Congress is now home for the holidays; been home for a couple of days.
Ya notice that none of the congressional Democrats seem even the least little bit excited about Pelosi having held out on delivering the Articles of Impeachment to Mitch McConnell?
The Republicans spent a fair amount of time telling folks about how the layover doesn't bother them. Trump was up late into last night tweeting on the subject. The Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to be talking about it at all.
I hope that means they have a plan.
I see it as more along the lines of recognizing a potential opportunity.
Scathing essay on the pardon of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher in the NewYorkMagazine. Not too long, especially for a Sunday afternoon.
As of early morning on 30 December 2019, the United States Senate is still not scheduled to convene during the entire month of January 2020.
McConnell wasn't kidding about not being eager to take up that impeachment issue.
I was reading some of the testimony by Gallagher's teammates yesterday. It doesn't sound like they had much respect for him, calling him a cold blooded murderer. He in turn has copied our Dear Leader's MO of denigrating all those who are critical of him.
As of early morning on 30 December 2019, the United States Senate is still not scheduled to convene during the entire month of January 2020.
So at the moment there is no reason for Pelosi to be in any hurry to send over the articles of impeachment.
Perhaps she would be best to do it later in the year, say in the summer when the campaigning is in full swing.
What is up with the US strikes in Iraq and Syria? That was a surprise to me when I saw the headline the other day. I haven't had time to do any in depth research on the events. I gather it has something to do with an attack on an Iraqi base which killed a US civilian contractor? Or was that just the straw that broke the camels back?
"Perhaps she would be best to do it later in the year…"
I think she intends to hold it long enough to draw the nation's attention to the Republican effort to not hold an actual trial. They're eager to whitewash Trump and get on with it, get this behind them. A lot of low-information voters aren't paying attention to that as of yet anyway. But, 70% of the voters across the board want a real trial with witnesses. I think Pelosi's just waiting out the holiday season when attention is on holidays, and making sure that the low-information voter becomes fully aware of the Republican whitewash
I don't think that'll require holding back until summer (or even campaign season)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"What is up with the US strikes in Iraq and Syria?"
Well planned and coƶrdinated strikes on multiple cells of an underground Shia ‛militia’ under the control of Tehran rather than Baghdad. They have been being a nuisance as of late. Looks like something that originated at Central Command or the Pentagon and they talked Trump into it.
The air raids in Iraq are beginning to look less and less like a Pentagon or Central Command operation. They'd have taken the time to get some Iraqi political support (or would have beefed up the firepower at the embassy if it had been deemed to ‛insecure’ to bring Iraqi politicians up to speed on the operation). Probably this was a contingency plan they had on the shelf, and when the White House called for options, they had this ready.
And, as if on cue, "US Officials" have just now announced an intention to increase the Marine presence at the Baghdad Embassy. Reuters
"…too insecure…"
It looks like they have been flying Apaches over the protesters as a warning as well.
It would seem that the underground war between the US and Iran is heating up.
Huh! Chief Justice Roberts inserted into his year end remarks a message to the American people basically saying that we take democracy for granted. Now I wonder where he got that idea?!
"Chief Justice Roberts…basically saying that we take
democracy for granted."
Were I Mitch McConnell I'd take that as an indication that Justice Roberts might not be a dedicated Trumpkin.
Roberts might even be one of those old-fashioned conservatives who're hostile to the current Republican-favored interpretation of Article II of the Constitution (as meaning that Trump can do anything he damn well pleases).
This could be a matter of some significance to McConnell, given that Roberts is supposed to preside over the upcoming impeachment trial.
Such considerations might make Moscow Mitch all the more eager to get the impeachment dismissed, ASAP, as opposed to holding an actual impeachment trial where Roberts might issue adverse rulings.
I note that Trump has tied for first place in a recent poll of whom Americans admire the most.
I think that tells us that one story currently being peddled around to media investigators is pure bullshit off the git.
They keep trying to tell us that the Trumpkins' support for Trump is "transactional", e.g. that the religious right supports him only because he gives them favorable Supreme Court Justices and such as that. Turns out that ain't right.
Rather, there is some serious anti-social shit flowing out of the conservative segments of this society. They know who and what he is, and they heartily approve of that in their President. At least, enough of them do to put him at the top of the "most admired" list among the conservative segments of this society.
Such considerations might make Moscow Mitch all the more eager to get the impeachment dismissed, ASAP, as opposed to holding an actual impeachment trial where Roberts might issue adverse rulings.
I am getting the impression, slightly anyway since I don't want to get my hopes up, that McConnell may find himself boxed in with regards to the impeachment trial. We have Chief Justice Roberts raising a cautionary word, but we also have a Republican Senator, I believe it was Senator Lisa Murkowski wondering about the quickness of the Democrats in the House to impeach when they hadn't heard all of the witnesses. Now, of course, they could not hear all of the witnesses because of the road blocks put up by Trump to their testifying. Now the question arises of whether or not they will be allowed to testify before a Senate trial. Something Pelosi & Co. would like. Now we also have Murkowski, and just recently Senator Susan Collins, questioning the close cooperation between Senate leadership and the White House with regards to a trial in the Senate.
Perhaps Pelosi was wise to wait a bit while the dust settles before sending those articles to the Senate. It would only take 4 Republican Senators to throw a monkey wrench into McConnel's plans. Assuming, of course, that all of the Democrats are on board.
Rather, there is some serious anti-social shit flowing out of the conservative segments of this society. They know who and what he is, and they heartily approve of that in their President.
Why do I get the feeling that I am living in 1930's Germany? True it may not be an exact duplicate, but it is coming really close with each day of Trump's presidency.
"…I am getting the impression…that McConnell may find
himself boxed in with regards to the impeachment trial."
I don't think there's a tinker's chance in hell that the Republican Senate will ever convict Trump, no matter what evidence turns up. Ain't gonna happen.
That being the case, I think the best use of the impeachment is to turn the public against the Republican Senate. I think that would be best achieved by causing Moscow Mitch and the rest of his Republicans to dismiss the charges outright, refuse to hold a trial at all. I think Pelosi's putting pressure on him that might hopefully achieve that result.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…and the risk is almost all on the Republicans--after all, the
Democrats got no chance of actually getting Trump ejected
from office, so it's not like they can blow a win here."
Lee C. @ Tue Dec 17, 11:22:00 am (prior thread)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Why do I get the feeling that I am living in 1930's Germany?"
Probably because that's the descent into fascism you're most familiar with, so you see the parallels through that filter.
I think fascist Italy, pre-WWII, is probably a better fit. Maybe Franco's Spanish dictatorship is an even better fit. And, it happens to be the only one of those three fascist regimes to have survived WWII.
(Also, people are less likely to tune you out when discussing the parallels. The ‛Nazi’ charge has been grossly overworked and, as a result, people tend to tune ya out if they suspect you're going there.)
Rudy Guiliani's announced that he'd "love" to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Or, he could "give demonstrations" ¹, maybe even prosecute a "racketeering" case against Joe and Hunter Biden. NBCNews
Mitch McConnell must be thrilled to hear all that. Sounds like "must see TV".
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
¹ Not clear exactly what Guiliani thinks he'd be "demonstrating".
Whoa, they just interrupted my program with a breaking news update. Iraqi TV is saying that Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US air strike.
I don't know how accurate the Iraqi news station is, but if this is true Trump may have stepped into a hornets nest.
I don't think there's a tinker's chance in hell that the Republican Senate will ever convict Trump, no matter what evidence turns up.
I think you are right. Even if there are some defectors on the Republican side there wouldn't be enough votes to convict.
That being the case, I think the best use of the impeachment is to turn the public against the Republican Senate. I think that would be best achieved by causing Moscow Mitch and the rest of his Republicans to dismiss the charges outright, refuse to hold a trial at all.
I don't see that happening. McConnell is too smart to fall for that trap. He'll hold a trial of a sort.
CNN is saying Soleimani was killed in a rocket attack at Baghdad Airport. That doesn't sound like a US air strike.
Probably because that's the descent into fascism you're most familiar with, so you see the parallels through that filter.
Partly true. I am not as familiar with Italy or Spain's fascist history. But what strikes me as similar to Germany was the reaction of the crowds to Hitler and the crowds today to Trump.
The reports are that rockets were fired at Baghdad Airport, killing Soleimani and also the leader of the paramilitary group which was protesting outside the US Embassy.
Arwa Damon is saying the Popular Mobilation Force is blaming the US. So, it doesn't matter if we actually were involved. She is saying that for sure Iran will respond in some way.
"Trump may have stepped into a hornets nest."
Yeah, there's Iranian factions that'll take this news quite poorly.
(This news seems to be propagating rapidly without any significant push-back, so it may well be that this particular Iraqi source is considered credible.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"CNN is saying Soleimani was killed in a rocket attack at
Baghdad Airport."
NewYorkTimes is reporting it to be an air strike. (FoxNews is reporting it to be a rocket attack.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"But what strikes me as similar to Germany was the reaction of
the crowds"
There is that. Although Hitler's crowds were orders of magnitude larger than anything Trump will ever generate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"McConnell is too smart to fall for that trap."
Maybe not; maybe his choices will be limited. He's got shit comin' at 'im from all angles on this. There's Guiliani and Trump wantin' to go for the show. There's the Republicans from non-safe seats wantin' this to just go away, and there's Pelosi, who's at least a match for McConnell when it comes to schemin' on things. And McConnell has long been a cautious, risk-averse type. Shutting the damn thing down is least risk.
Well, it seems that someone has found another headline for the news than impeachment. But if this slides into a hot war that includes us they may wish for that impeachment headline back.
"Well, it seems that someone has found another headline
for the news…"
That diversion may not last long (although the subject may come back up later). There's no reason to expect the Iranians will react immediately. (Trump would want to react immediately, but the ayatollahs are more clever than he.)
The Pentagon is saying that Trump ordered the killing of Solaimani.
...the ayatollahs are more clever than he.)
That's not a high bar.
Soleimani
"Shutting the damn thing down is least risk."
But you are right about how McConnell will want to avoid doing that too blatantly, if he can. He'll have to be scared into that.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The Pentagon is saying that Trump ordered the killing
of Solaimani."
That was probably not smart, just hoppin' out there and admitting that right off. And, it was also probably Trump's reaction to Ayatollah Khamenei's tweet about how Trump "couldn't do a damn thing".
And it means there'll have to be threats and stuff. Even if there's a break in the action while the ayatollahs consider their next move, there'll have to be immediate threats and stuff, so…
Yeah, we got competing headlines now. You were right on that one.
I wonder how long it'll be before we see Trumptweets on the subject of the hit on Suleimani. Ain't nothin' up as of yet.
Lee: "And it means there'll have to be threats and stuff. Even if there's a break in the action while the ayatollahs consider their next move, there'll have to be immediate threats and stuff, so…"
Probably more than that, probably some assymetrical action also. In Iraq against US forces maybe, but maybe something like ordering Hezbollah to kidnap some Israelis or hitting a few oil-tankers in the strait or against Saudi again somehow. Something obvious but still on the surface deniable.
Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed to take "severe revenge" on the United States, and the Iranian Defense Minister has promised a "crushing response". WashingtonPost So I'd reckon ‛deniability’ ain't high on their list just now.
"The Pentagon is saying that Trump ordered the killing
of Solaimani."
That was probably not smart, just hoppin' out there and admitting that right off.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how smart the Ayatollahs really are. I know what I would do if I were in their shoes.
In Iraq against US forces maybe, but maybe something like ordering Hezbollah to kidnap some Israelis or hitting a few oil-tankers in the strait or against Saudi again somehow. Something obvious but still on the surface deniable.
That's not it. I doubt they really want a war with the US. But they will want revenge.
I wonder how long it'll be before we see Trumptweets on the subject of the hit on Suleimani. Ain't nothin' up as of yet.
He screwed up badly. We'll see if he comes to understand that.
I see that Trump has begun to publicly emphasize the notion that Suleimani was plotting "imminent" attacks (presumably against Americans). ABCNews I'd reckon that means his lawyers have been explaining to him that it's actually against the law for him to unilaterally order the assassination of an Iranian government official. (Not that I expect that law to be enforced against Trump.)
(Not that I expect that law to be enforced against Trump.)
Indeed. And that is just proof again that Trump needs to be reigned in.
I have been trying to warn that Trump is not just a danger to us, but also the world. Granted, it has usually been in the context of climate change, but he is also a loose canon when it comes to regional or world stability as well, as demonstrated by his action against Iran. Both George W. Bush and Obama chose not to target Soleimani during the war because of the unpredictable consequences, despite his obvious guilt in the deaths of numerous American service members.
"…proof again that Trump needs to be reigned in."
Yeah, well, here's the deal on that: Trump gets acquitted in the Senate (which is almost certainly going to occur), and Trump will have the proof he wants that he can't be reined in.
The Republican pols who've enabled him exhibited clear fear when Trump's Ukrainian caper first broke into the news. However, as the scheme unfolded in the public view it became clear that, once again, the dedicated Trumpkins simply did·not·care.
So, the fear has turned to disdain (as have Trump's initial fears, if he had any), and, for Trump and the Trumpkins, to anger.
And now he's thinking he's invincible. (But, he sorta suspected that all along--the "shoot somebody down on 5th Avenue" language.)
Thing is, we'd have had the exact same result if the Democrats had refused to impeach him.
The U.S. Central Command (that would be "central" Asia, including the Levant and the Middle-East) has announced that they're abandoning the fight against Da’esh for the time being in order to concentrate on keeping their heads down. CentCom The announcement hints, but does not assert, that this is a temporary measure.
Meantime Iran has announced, officially, that it is abandoning the 2015 nuclear non-proliferation agreement. NewYorkTimes They did allow that their decision was not irrevocable, and that Trump could still surrender and agree to lift all sanctions, and they'd then consider reaffirming the agreement, but nobody expects that to happen.
Should probably say: "…central Eurasia…" there ↑.
There is a lot of posturing going on. Kind of like roosters crowing in a barn yard.
I have always thought that Trump could easily talk us into a war. He's an idiot who should never have been President. But nobody listens to me.
It seems that Lindsey Graham is making noises like he wants the rules changed to allow them to start a trial right away. Yup, Trump's example of disregarding proper procedure seems to have rubbed off on others.
Just a small aside, the Vikings managed to defeat the Saints in their playoff game today. I have to admit I couldn't watch the last 3 minutes. I was sure they'd blow it at the end, and they almost did, allowing the Saints to come back and tie the game. The Vikings managed to pull it out in overtime.
They are scheduled to play the 49'ers next. I doubt they will squeak by them. But at least they have one more game. :)
"There is a lot of posturing going on."
Iran's mention of being willing to reinstate the nuclear agreement under sane (read: Non-Trumpian) conditions did get them an invitation to send their Foreign Minister to meet with the EU in Brussels. Trump was not invited to attend, nor even to send anybody in his stead. RadioFarda
So, the "posturing" got 'em somethin'.
I think CentCom was broadly hinting that whackin' Suliemani was not their recommended option back there.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Trump's example of disregarding proper procedure seems
to have rubbed off on others."
That just adds to the increasing risk McConnell's taking every day he delays. There are a lot of ways this could go sideways on him (none of them particularly likely, but the combined risk…), so he has conflicting incentives. There's the incentive to get the charges dismissed, quick and clean, before new evidence turns up, new court cases come down hard against Trump, or somebody gets a wild hair and storms off on lunatic quest for whatever they perceive as justice/personal political advantage/or whatever. And then, of course, there's the countervailing incentive to make it look like the Republicans are being at least vaguely reasonable about attending to their constitutional duty.
McConnell never shows the pressure, but he's gotta be feelin' it. His history is as highly risk-averse; he can't be likin' his position here.
So far I don't see any real risks in Pelosi's current position.
That doesn't mean she can wait forever, but it does perhaps mean that she can wait longer than McConnell.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Congrats on the Vikings' win. Although I probably would have been sympathetic to the Saints if I'd known they were playing yesterday. (Just 'cause they're AFC.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I think we're going to have to admit to ourselves that history has presented us with a question for which we currently do not have an answer. I.e: "Can the President of the United States just up and kill whomever he wants to kill and get away with it, simply by chanting the magic incantation ‛National Security’?"
Our current Orange POTUS seems to be growing frustrated these past few days with the growing suggestions that this is not so.
Back on the subject of somebody getting a ‛wild hair’ (or, in this case perhaps, somebody morphing into a wild hare)….
John Bolton has issued a public statement saying, in relevant part, that: "[I]f the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."
Bolton did not indicate what would happen if the House impeachment committee issues a subpoena now for him to show up for the deposition he declined to attend while the Democratic House was trying to decide on articles of impeachment. NewYorkTimes
Trump's habit of upping the stakes elsewhere to distract from his domestic political troubles has produced another stunner today. This one stands a chance of knocking the news about John Bolton bolting off the top headlines of the day.
Reuters: HeadlineU.S.-led coalition says it will withdraw from Iraq: letter
"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States-led military
coalition against Islamic State said on Monday that it was
pulling out of Iraq and would be repositioning forces over the
next few days and weeks."
Now the Pentagon is saying the "withdraw from Iraq" letter went out by accident, ain't real--never mind the letter. (Still gonna steal some headlines with the lesser withdrawal that Trump hasn't actually announced yet, but likely will announce soon.)
I think CentCom was broadly hinting that whackin' Suliemani was not their recommended option back there.
I suspect you are right.
I think we're going to have to admit to ourselves that history has presented us with a question for which we currently do not have an answer. I.e: "Can the President of the United States just up and kill whomever he wants to kill and get away with it, simply by chanting the magic incantation ‛National Security’?"
Especially as that President has been known to lie. And given the fact that the action taken has increased the threat level to our military, how has this done anything to help with our national security?
John Bolton has issued a public statement saying, in relevant part, that: "[I]f the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."
I could see where this ultimately may be the most critical event.
Looks like the orange POTUS is losing it.
"Senior administration officials have begun drafting
sanctions against Iraq…"
WashingtonPostĻ
That's not a typo; that's IRAQ, with a 'Q', not IRAN.
Politico is suggesting that news of the bolting of John Bolton has been assimilated among the Republican Senators and that the "moderate" Republican Senators have taken stock of the risks to their status within what's now the Party of Trump and are coming to the conclusion that they will be most safe if they are not confronted by unfortunate evidence. Ergo: No witnesses.
Most folks will see this as a win for McConnell. I think it may be otherwise in the end. I think probably otherwise in the end.
I think now the House will almost certainly subpoena John Bolton. (It's a toss-up whether or not he'll honor that subpoena.) Either way, the spreading House investigations of Trump will move forward in tandem with the campaign for control of the Senate. And that's liable to not be a good look for the Republican Senators up for reƫlection this cycle (23 of them--only 12 Democrats).
My view, that this is probably good for the Democrats (and likely just what Pelosi wanted), is a minority view just now. Nevertheless, I think she'll now "buckle" (supposedly) and send over the Articles of Impeachment this week, after some of the "moderate" Republicans publicly weigh in against the calls for witnesses at trial. I think this is pretty close to what she's been looking to achieve with the delay, and I think she'll grab it before it can get away.
"Senior administration officials have begun drafting
sanctions against Iraq…"
No, unfortunately, it isn't a typo. What can I say, Trump..WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
Politico is suggesting that news of the bolting of John Bolton has been assimilated among the Republican Senators and that the "moderate" Republican Senators have taken stock of the risks to their status within what's now the Party of Trump and are coming to the conclusion that they will be most safe if they are not confronted by unfortunate evidence. Ergo: No witnesses.
It looks like they are jumping on the McConnell plan for the rules of a trial and will wait until after it actually begins to decide on witnesses.
My view, that this is probably good for the Democrats (and likely just what Pelosi wanted), is a minority view just now. Nevertheless, I think she'll now "buckle" (supposedly) and send over the Articles of Impeachment this week, after some of the "moderate" Republicans publicly weigh in against the calls for witnesses at trial.
I don't know. I will have to wait and see. I have no confidence in Americans to realize what the Republicans are doing. Or, like you have said in the past, the loyal Trumpkins are okay with everything they do.
"It looks like they are jumping on the McConnell plan…"
Yeah, I saw that; didn't take long:
By noon (CST) the Republicans had compared notes and decided they were going to move ahead with the impeachment without calling witnesses to testify. And it does look like they'll hold a vote formalizing that decision only after Pelosi sends the Articles of Impeachment over; technically, it would be a surrender by Pelosi to send them before she has a commitment one way or another on the witness question, but that's a mere technicality; McConnell's taken his count and says he's got the votes and Senate Democrats have agreed--McConnell's got the votes he needs. WashingtonPost (Technically, they could still decide to call witnesses later, but that's highly unlikely to happen.) The so-called "moderate" Republican Senators had it explained to them that they were going to take the blame if dragging this thing out produced even more bad news for Trump.
So, Pelosi's got her whitewash just almost locked down (almost), McConnell might allow Senators Susan Collins and/or Lisa Murkowski to vote in favor of witnesses later to help save their own reputations back home. (Depends on what Mitt Romney decides to do whether or not McConnell can let them vote their own way; Collins, whatever else she may pretend to be, is always there to vote with McConnell when he needs her, although he lets her vote against him when he doesn't need her vote--it's deal they've worked out that works for her.)
And they're just gonna keep on comin'…
"NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged a
major donor to President Donald Trump’s inaugural
committee with obstructing a federal investigation into
whether foreign nationals unlawfully contributed to the
inaugural celebrations.
The donor, Imaad Zuberi, recently pleaded guilty in a separate
case in Los Angeles to campaign finance violations, tax evasion
and failing to register as a foreign agent."
AssociatedPress (via the Washington Post
A dozen or so missiles which may or may not have done significant damage is likely not the sum total of Iraq's reply to the hit on Suleimani.
Iran has shown it can hit us if they choose to, we knew they were bringing out the missiles and did nothing to prevent it, and they have managed to shut up Trump for the night. There is a slight hope that maybe we can scrape through this without all out war. Maybe...
No word on US casualties, but there may be Iraqi.
"[W]e knew they were bringing out the missiles and did
nothing to prevent it…"
I think preventing it would have required striking into Iran. Looks like Trump wasn't quite willing to go there. (And I still guess this would be just Iraq's first round; more comin'.)
…Iran's first round… (muscle memory; the fingers want to type the "q" after they hit the first three letters.)
"I still guess this would be just Iraq's first round; more comin'."
Lee C. @ Tue Jan 07, 09:37:00 pm ↑↑
Looks like I guessed that one wrong. Statements coming out of Iran overnight, from the Revolutionary Guard as well as from the civilian government, indicate that the Iranian response to the hit on Suleimani has "concluded", that they're willing to call off the retaliatory strikes with (apparently) no American fatalities and fairly minimal property damage to American bases in Iraq.
We seem to have gotten lucky, so far. However, Trump's an unpredictable element, as always. He may not be content with having been lucky. But, for now…
While I'm on the subject of guessing wrong…
Pelosi's showing no signs of sending the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate until McConnell actually holds that vote to begin the trial without committing to witnesses. May well be that she's decided to hold out against what I earlier called a "technical" surrender (Lee C. @ Tue Jan 07, 01:45:00 pm)
McConnell says he's got the votes. Trump is getting antsy. Pelosi may be content to wait for McConnell to hold that vote, or to at least wait out the week, in spite of some Senate Democrats wanting to get on with it.
Speculation is rife that Iran shot down the plane that crashed near Tehran by mistake. I wouldn't be surprised. That's one of the problems when you start this kind of tit for tat, people get jumpy.
The Iranians have long held a grudge against the United States for shooting down Iran Air #665 in August of 1988 (end of Regan's second term).
Of course the Iranians are denying the possibility of their shooting down the plane. But they were really, really quick in cleaning up the crash site.
I get the impression that the Trump administration doesn't quite understand that the ability of Moscow Mitch and his Republican Senate majority to give cover to Trump doesn't extend past America's borders. E.g:
"WASHINGTON — The State Department on Friday rebuffed
the Iraqi government’s request to begin discussions on pulling
out troops, saying that any American officials going to
Baghdad during a state of heightened tensions would not
discuss a “troop withdrawal,” as the Iraqi prime minister had
requested. ***
“There does, however, need to be a conversation between the
U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but
about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership,”
she said. “We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign,
prosperous, and stable Iraq.”"
NYTimes
Word's been leaking out of the White House that the President's top advisors have learned to follow what the ‛opinionators’ on FoxNews are saying about federal policies (both foreign and domestic) so they can conform their advice for Trump to what he's watching on FoxNews. (Luckily the FoxNews stable of talking heads were pretty much in agreement this past week that Trump should avoid a real war with Iran, if possible.) Politico
Scary thought that our government is forming policies by the opinion of Fox News anchors. However, at least they are not stupid enough to want to jump into another war.
It looks like Iran has come clean and admitted to shooting down the civilian aircraft, mistaking it for a cruise missile. It sounds like while their technology has improved their personnel skills are still questionable.
This has caused some rather intense anger from the Iranian public. I'm guessing some of those people killed were friends and relatives of local Iranians.
The Iranians are attempting to shift some of the blame to the US because of Trump's rather volatile foreign policy choice. In some respects they are correct, but you can also go back farther to the idea that if Soleimani wasn't conducting clandestine operations against the US he wouldn't have then been a target. I think there is enough blame to go around and both sides should stand back and let emotions cool.
Well, as was inevitable I suppose, the Vikings lost to the 49'ers.
I didn't have my hopes up, so I wasn't really disappointed.
Green Bay, on the other hand, won their playoff game. They are our number one rival.
"This has caused some rather intense anger from the
Iranian public."
We probably should remember that the Iranian people were already pretty fed up with the Iranian government. There were serious public protests against the government (and perhaps crucially, against the diversion of funds and attention to the foreign adventures of the Iranian government) before the assassination of Suleimani diverted Iranian public attention and anger back to the United States. (Not one of Trump's smarter moves as against Iran in particular.)
But, it didn't take much to remind them that they were up in arms about foreign policy just a few days ago.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I didn't have my hopes up, so I wasn't really disappointed."
Ah well, so it goes; too bad anyway.
Iran has apologized. Trying to gain the high road.
The thing is, is that everyone is at fault. And it goes back years. Until people can...er..."let it go" we will continue to be at each other's throats.
You look at what happened during Soleimani's funeral as well, people were trampled to death. I think the count was 56. He wasn't worth their deaths.
Huh! Apparently Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman can't win the Presidency. Personally I'd give Amy Klobuchar a shot. But then that's just me...
"Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman can't win
the Presidency."
I s'pect that subject will come up in tonight's Democratic debate.
Sanders has denied the charge, but Warren issued a public statement last night confirming the comment was made. So, the CNN moderators will be eager to go there and get ratings.
The initial, and subsequently confirmed, "leak" against Sanders would seem to indicate a breakdown of the so-far-still-mostly-holding non-aggression pact between Sanders and Warren. The extent of the breakdown has yet to be fully exposed, but it certainly seems the agreement has frayed some. (It's probably relevant that this information is coming out after Warren started slipping in the polls as against Sanders. There have been other hints at the breakdown as well.)
Anyway, this is a tempest in a teapot. Too easy to explain away, and besides, Amy Klobuchar has already made a big deal on the debate stage about how female Democratic Presidential contenders are held to a higher standard than their male counterparts (re: Buttigieg being higher in the polls than she). That's Sanders' get-out-of-jail-free card, right there.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
And, yeah, I think Klobuchar could win against Trump. I think she'd probably have an even better chance in the general than does Sanders, although she has less chance of winning the Democrats' primary, and that's a necessary first step.
I still think she's running for the Veep pick, or for a chance to run again next time with a credible showing this time on her rƩsumƩ.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
I notice that Attorney General William Barr has entered the field on the controversial story about the late General Suleimani being an "imminent threat" to our personnel and installations abroad. He has declared the entire story to date, all ten days of it, to be a "red herring". Now they're going to have a different story, all shiny and new, but going in a totally different direction. I suppose this is a concession to reality; the old story just wasn't passing the laugh test, no matter how hard the dedicated Trumpkins tried to pretend to believe it (and they tried hard as anyone keeping track of Hannity will know). But, it just wasn't workin'; they couldn't pretend hard enough to keep a straight face on that one. So, now we get a whole new story, and the old story is now a ‛red herring’. No longer is the State Department (Mike Pompeo) in charge the story about military intelligence (instead of the Defense Department); now it's the Justice Department taking over. And a whole new story this time.
Dedicated Trumpkins and Republican Stalwarts alike will need to take note of that last part about the whole new story. (Probably best if they ignore the part about the Justice Department jumping into this and rescuing Trump with an entirely new story.)
Yes, I agree Amy has an uphill fight to come out on top in the primary. VP is a real possibility.
There is a Frontline special on tonight on TPT on the "Great Divide" from Obama to Trump. It is in two parts, both 2 hours long. I know I won't manage both in one night, but hopefully they will be online later. The first one starts at 7:00.
I may end up flipping between the Frontline special and the debate, depending which is the most interesting.
Morning news about last night's debate is not about Biden. That means he won another debate by not noticeably screwing up, and not getting skewered successfully by any of the challengers, who apparently went after one another to the extent they went after anybody.
Biden keeps "winning" these debates merely by not losing too badly, on account of he goes in the frontrunner and then nothing happens to change that.
"There is a Frontline special on tonight on TPT on the 'Great
Divide' from Obama to Trump."
I'm guessing we can expect some more from Frontline over the course of the next year. Just the new revelations about Guiliani and his Ukrainian henchmen from the past couple of days will probably give them at least an hour's worth of stuff. Plus there's the hacking attempts on that natural gas company, Burisma.
I watched most of the first part. They started with Obama's presidency and its effect on the country, in particular the Republican Party. They mentioned that the Republican leadership got together and discussed what they could do to undermine Obama's presidency. I remember you had talked about that at the time.
They also talked about the original person who dealt in "alternative" truths, Sarah Palin.
"Republican leadership got together and discussed what they
could do to undermine Obama's presidency."
Trump routinely whines about not getting a "honeymoon" from the press after he took office (it's about a 10-15 minute spiel in his arena shows), which press he denounced in his inaugural address as "the enemy of the people"; kind of a honeymoon killer, that.
But, it goes back further than the opening of the Obama Presidency. The "movement" Republicans ( once the Republican "right-wingers"; now their ‛base’) have been working on a long-term project to make our society and our nation ungovernable since the days of Ronald Reagan. They're still working on that project.
Reagan famously said in his first Inaugural address, 21 January 1981: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." (About the 7 minute mark) They've pretty much held fast to that belief in the decades that followed. And they've been persistant and committed to eventually solving that problem.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The text of the U.S.-China agreement has yet to be made
public, and according to an administration official, will not be
released until after Wednesday’s formal signing.
"But the Trump administration said China has agreed to
purchase billions in U.S. agricultural products and end its
practice of forced technology transfer for foreign companies
that do business in China."
ABCNews (emphasis added)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(We may be a week ahead here. PBS was already showing the second part by the time you mentioned it.)
WashingtonPost: The GAO (Government Accountability Office) has determined that the Trump administration did indeed violate the law by impounding and withholding assistance funds (roughly $400 million) appropriated for the Ukraine's defense.
This is marginally relevant because the Trump administration, and specifically the Great Orange himself, have been carryin' on 'bout how there "was no crime", as Trump tweets it.
I doubt anyone will really listen, let alone hold that against him.
Post a Comment