Yesterday was December 7. It was a day
that many older Americans remember and many younger ones should learn
about. Some may feel it was a more innocent time, where events were
black and white, where Americans could stand up as one people and
respond to an attack on their country with one voice.
In case many of you have missed it,
there is currently just as serious an attack on the future of our
democracy. It was one that was envisioned by those who created the
United States of America. This isn't about party affiliation, or
shouldn't be. This is about standing up as one people and doing what
is right. Even if it means standing against those in our country who
seek to tear it apart for their own agenda.
Partisans or Patriots? Listen and you
shall hear.
43 comments:
"Listen and you shall hear."
You'll hear various things if you're listening closely.
Chuck Todd mentioned on Sunday morning that Republican congressmen were resigning (without a new political job to go to--just getting out) at a rate of three to one over Democratic congressmen. This repeats the ratio of resignations that preceded the drubbing the Republicans took in the 2018 mid-term elections. It's looking that bad for them once again.
A lot of them are "voting with their feet" as it's often called in other contexts--just getting out, looking for a new occupation besides Republican politician.
A lot of the rest, who used to be media hounds, are hard to find when the cameras and microphones come out. Mitt Romney issues written press statements, but generally avoids getting his face caught in the kleg lights. Marco Rubio does likewise; generally just doesn't want to be seen until this is all over. They hope to ride it out.
(Ted Cruz is still trying to successfully ride the tiger, and (somewhat surprisingly), Lindsey Graham has swung full circle, and now is playing sidekick to the new top dog, but a lot of Republicans who used to look for the lights and microphones are hiding from them these days. They're somewhat harder to hear than the crop of former second stringers who're the noisy champions of the New Republican Party these days.)
Soon enough we'll be able to hear the voices of some serious wing-nuts who'll be taking the places of those who're dropping out.
Apparently, after making such a stink about the process that Democrats are using, which from my understanding was how it has been done in the past, the White House is refusing to show up and go on the record defending Trump's actions. Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
"Apparently,…the White House is refusing to show up and go
on the record defending Trump's actions."
So far that's lookin' to be correct. The White House appears to be holding out for an attempt to turn the Senate impeachment trial into a public Republican "investigation" by innuendo into: 1; The faerie tale about Joe Biden seeking the dismissal of a Ukrainian national Prosecutor General, Viktor Shoken, in order to derail a non-existant investigation of his son Hunter, and… 2; The other faerie tale about the Ukrainians surreptitiously meddling in the 2016 election.
It's unclear whether Mitch McConnell will go along with that effort, or, if so, how far along. There is an outside possibility that such a diversionary attempt made in full view of the public might backfire as spectacularly as the 1954 McCarthy hearings did. (Sometimes the reactionary demagogues go a little too far.)
However, with FoxNews still functioning as the Republican national propaganda extension, I'd not put too much faith in that theory. There's little hint that the dedicated Trumpkins will consider anything to be "too far".
In fact, there are leaks from within the White House suggesting that Trump sees the impeachment proceedings to be an opportunity to whip his dedicated Trumpkins into a frenzy, raging against the "deep state" in general, and the Democrats and the non-FoxNews media more specifically. They're suggesting that Trump sees the next five/six weeks as an opportunity to go on an offensive against non-Trumpkin America.
I don't really get the wisdom of that. It's too early; the dedicated Trumpkins won't be able to sustain the frenzy until November; I'd think they'll be tired, maybe even exhausted by election time.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
I don't keep track of Trump's twitter feed, just check in when I'm curious as to whether or not he's had a public response to developments in his world. But Politico noted that he had himself a hell of spurt on Twitter on Sunday, tweeting and retweeting over 100 separate postings.
Could be the idea of going on the offensive excites him, gets him all fired up and ready to go, to plagiarize a previous resident of the White House.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Word's out that Connecticut U.S. Attorney, John Durham, Barr's handpicked surrogate to investigate the FBI, is going to come out soon with a report that disagrees with the official DoJ investigation into the FBI (Durham was selected for what might be described as an "alternative facts" investigation, just in case the FBI's Inspector General turned out to be insufficiently dedicated to Trump's conspiracy theories, which indeed appears to now be the case. No doubt the Republicans will be launching new investigations, as in the Benghazi incident; they'll just keep launching new investigations forever, or until Trump's safely retired at least. )
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
And the WashingtonPost thinks they have this generation's Pentagon Papers investigation to drop on us.
They seem to think they've got the goods on the Bush and the Obama administrations for lying to the American people for years about the prospects and the progress of the war in Afghanistan.
This is liable to get lost in the current dust-up over impeachment, but it's likely to be a big deal on down the road, and I think it'd be good to get some familiarity with the subject now. This one may have legs once it's able to crawl out from under the shadow of the impeachment.
In fact, there are leaks from within the White House suggesting that Trump sees the impeachment proceedings to be an opportunity to whip his dedicated Trumpkins into a frenzy, raging against the "deep state" in general, and the Democrats and the non-FoxNews media more specifically.
I was talking to someone recently who believed that the country has been on the wrong track since the Great Depression, due to the Democrat's policies. Policy on immigration was also high on the list of mistakes made. Apparently we have been spending too much money on them.
Personally, anything done in the past does not excuse wrongdoing by Trump in the past, present or future.
They seem to think they've got the goods on the Bush and the Obama administrations for lying to the American people for years about the prospects and the progress of the war in Afghanistan.
I saw something regarding that in my paper this morning. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. It certainly wouldn't surprise me. This whole extremist ideology, whether you are talking AQ or Daesh, isn't something that will be defeated easily. Or maybe I should say, put to rest. It will probably always be percolating under the surface.
Afghanistan was the perfect nesting place for AQ, with the Taliban.
"I was talking to someone recently who believed that the
country has been on the wrong track since the Great
Depression, due to the Democrat's policies."
Yeah, there still are a few of those out there, not quite so many as there were during the Reagan years (…"government is the problem"…), but enough still around that you'll run across one every now and again. (At least a couple of 'em appear to be sitting on the Supreme Court, but that concentration (at least two among the nine) has not come about by accident.)
"Apparently we have been spending too much money on [immigrants]."
No doubt he'd rather spend $3 per head for California lettuce and $5 per pound for broiler chickens.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
In a related vein: AG Bill Barr (another member of the Federalist Society) said today that even though the Inspector General's report cleared the FBI of "bad faith" in opening the investigation into Trump/Russia collusion, a close and critical reading nevertheless "leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith" by the FBI at some unspecified time later in the investigation (e.g. for not closing the investigation down before they finally managed to tie Trump personally to the collusion with the Russians, thereby obliging him to lie about that to the public, on Trump's behalf). Politico
So the AG has retreated from his first anti-FBI position and as a backup battle position he has now admitted that he's actively looking for reasons to continue to rip into the federal investigative agency that's been placed under his charge.
(It would probably come as a surprise to Bill Barr that anybody would label that an "admission"; he probably figures it's his solemn duty to gut the FBI if he can find a way. Destroying the government we have and replacing it with an autocracy, is the point for many of these people (although Mr. Barr appears to personally prefer an outright dictatorship) .)
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
The Democrats are going with a 'minimalist' charge sheet for their resolution of impeachment.
I generally approve of this decision.
(I am open to considering that maybe sending the resolution to the Senate might wait; it could be dropped on Mitch McConnell's plate at some time later in the year; perhaps some other time might be less convenient for those Republican Senators who're already eager to whitewash Trump and move on. However, at this point I do still think the best thing to do is to indulge their eagerness to whitewash Trump and move on from it, not let them wait out the Republican primaries before they're obliged to commit to it, but I'm open to considering the alternative.)
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Andrew Yang has qualified for the December Democratic Presidential debate.
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
I suppose the Trump administration will tell us it's mere coincidence that right after the Democrats unveiled their proposed Articles of Impeachment against Trump he had a "closed door" meeting at the White House with the Russian Ambassador.
Catholics for Trump!
It ain't just the Protestant Evangelicals; it seems that Trump is also exceptionally popular with pious American Catholics. His approval rating with American Catholics (across the board) runs at 53%, 10% higher than the national average. So says an EWTN News poll (ETWN is the acronym for "Eternal Word Television News")
Yeah, I saw the typo, but too late….
In what should come as a surprise to nobody, it looks like Mitch McConnell is winning the battle of wills with Trump, and they'll have a "short" impeachment proceeding in the Senate, dispose of the House Articles of Impeachment fairly quickly, and get back to the business of confirming more judges. Reuters (It will likewise come as no surprise to anybody when Trump tries, unsuccessfully, to reneg on this agreement later on, and then bitches 'bout it interminably.)
The Democrats are going with a 'minimalist' charge sheet for their resolution of impeachment. I generally approve of this decision.
I tend to agree. Keep it simple. If you go too far in depth you lose people.
I suppose the Trump administration will tell us it's mere coincidence that right after the Democrats unveiled their proposed Articles of Impeachment against Trump he had a "closed door" meeting at the White House with the Russian Ambassador.
I hadn't heard that.
it seems that Trump is also exceptionally popular with pious American Catholics.
I guess I'm not pious.
Word's out this morning that Mitch McConnell is looking to get to a quick vote of acquittal on the Articles of Impeachment, if possible without even holding a "trial"; just vote an acquittal and move on to the next thing. This is an even more emphatic disposition of the impeachment than I was thinking about when I first mentioned above that McConnell wasn't having any of Trump's argument to make it into a spectacle (Wed Dec 11, 05:44:00 pm ↑↑).
It looks to me like a really risky move for Republicans facing the 2020 general election. No defense at all, just, "We're okay with this; no defense necessary; it's all good." Then they go to face the public in the general election, with that on their record.
There's an old rule about not interrupting your opponent when he's busy making a mistake; so….
Trump's had himself another 100 tweet day, and the day's not over yet.
I'm lookin' at the results of the British elections this morning and trying to make sense of it.
I don't have a really good handle on what's likely to happen now on account of I don't have much of a handle on the major players in the game. Most of them were third sting politicians just a couple of years ago. But the two major British political parties have bleed themselves out over the last two years. Their first stringers blew their assignments and let the reactionaries get the Brexit vote in the first place, and then turned it over to the second stringers, who couldn't make the mess they'd inherited into something workable.
So, the third stringers step up and we've got Boris Johnson winning over that Corbin fella, who actually made Johnson look like a somewhat reasonable choice (not an easy thing there, but he managed it).
My guess is that what it all means is that Johnson will indeed "Get Brexit Done", probably by "crashing" out of the EU without any agreement with the EU for handling the inevitable resultant conflicts.
And then we'll see if that's as bad a thing as the "Remainers" have been saying all along.
The "mini" trade deal that the Trump administration announced yesterday included the supposed promise by China to make massive purchases of American Farm Products (emphasis by Trump). This is the third time that same Chinese concession has been announced (maybe the fourth time--I'm starting to lose track of how many times they've used that one).
The Chinese government today repeated the announcement of the "mini" trade deal, but pointedly refused under direct questioning to confirm the supposed promise to increase purchases of American Farm Products (emphasis by Trump), either massively or otherwise. Politico So, we should probably expect that increase in purchases of American Farm Products (emphasis by Trump) to be announced once again as a new Chinese concession at yet another point, some time in the future. (Long as the farmers keep buyin' it Trump'll keep sellin' it to 'em.)
I'm lookin' at the results of the British elections this morning and trying to make sense of it.
Indeed. I'm starting to wonder if they aren't all just crazy.
My guess is that what it all means is that Johnson will indeed "Get Brexit Done", probably by "crashing" out of the EU without any agreement with the EU for handling the inevitable resultant conflicts.
And then we'll see if that's as bad a thing as the "Remainers" have been saying all along.
Not really looking forward to that.
(Long as the farmers keep buyin' it Trump'll keep sellin' it to 'em.)
Probably related to those people in the UK who re-elected Boris Johnson.
"Probably related to those people in the UK…"
I ain't gonna go there. I'll probably wind up sayin' somethin'll have the white supremacists howling that I'm the racist.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
They do seem to be working on getting an "agreement" on the Brexit that doesn't actually settle anything except that they all agreed to pretend they agreed to something (which, technically, I guess…). The point of this exercise appears to be to enable a claim that they didn't "crash out" because they picked the spot where the crash would occur. (No brakes; they still hit the wall; pickin' a spot on the wall to aim for don't change anything that matters.)
In open court in the federal discovery cases (arising from Trump's vow to resist all congressional requests for evidence) lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee have admitted that the Committee is going to go forward with additional impeachment investigations regardless of the Senate's dismissal of the two counts that're going to be sent to them in January.
In other words, the investigations ain't over just 'cause the dedicated Trumpkins don't care that Trump committed the currently named offenses. Politico
May take a few days yet, but the folks over at FoxNews're gonna figure this one out before too long.
And I probably oughta point out that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment applies only to criminal matters. It does not apply to impeachments. When the Republican Senators start whining that the Democrats in the House should have waited and sent them a better case, the Democrats can point out that the Republicans can simply reopen the impeachment for another vote.
"…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…"
Article V, US Constitution
Don't say squat about impeachment and removal from office bein' a one-shot opportunity.
Is there a chance that there may still be fireworks in the Senate? Maybe not removal but still some interesting developments.
You know, I have to say that it would be rather amusing if after spending so much time trashing Biden it ends up being someone else who is the Democratic nominee running against Trump.
"Is there a chance that there may still be fireworks in the
Senate?"
Sixty-six million years ago, late on a warm Tuesday afternoon, the dinosaurs on the Yucatán Peninsula, in what is now Mexico, looked up in surprise at an unanticipated orange glow spreading across the sky, and…
Three years ago, late on a Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton won the general election by almost three million votes only to see an orange spectre slide through an historical quirk in the election process and…
So, yeah, there's a chance there may still be fireworks in the Senate. But Mitch McConnell is working hard to see to it that doesn't happen, and Mitch is better at planning for and excluding undesired anomalies than were either the dinosaurs or Hillary Clinton.
POST SCRIPT:
"Is there a chance that there may still be fireworks in the
Senate?"
Mitch McConnell just fired a broadside on FoxNews against Chuck Schumer's open letter demanding the Senate subpoena John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Michael Duffey, and Robert Blair.
(What Schumer was doing with that letter was letting McConnell know what was gonna be coming at 'im if the McConnell indulges Trump's desire to turn this into a public show trial of Joe Biden. Schumer was signaling that the Senate Democrats were willing to fight that one in public. That's risky 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. McConnell's safest bet is to shut the impeachment down at his earliest opportunity. And that's what Schumer was trying to push him towards--so the Democrats can then go ahead with the continuing investigations in the House with the Republican Senators already tied in as accomplices to Trump's crimes.)
Typo there: "…at 'im if the McConnell…"
A brief observation on the morning of Trump's impeachment in the House:
The Republicans have almost entirely ceased making the argument that what Trump did was wrong, but that it wasn't a serious enough wrong to warrant impeachment. (There are those who'll mock the idea of impeaching Trump "over this" or some similar euphemism, but they've ceased to describe "this" as anything less than perfect. Maybe just won't describe it at all, but whatever the dodge they employ at that point, they refuse to describe it as anything less than "perfect", Trump's chosen description for asking for foreign assistance in the upcoming 2020 election.)
To suggest that Trump was perhaps wrong to solicit a foreign nation begin an investigation into his leading Democratic challenger for the presidency is asking for an angry TrumpTweet directed to the offending Republican, and none of them appear strong enough to brave such weather.
Got a chance to watch some of the impeachment proceedings today.
The most striking thing about it was the anger and rage that seemed to dominate the Republicans, one after another after another. The dominant theme with them was rage.
Noticed an interesting tidbit from history this morning. On 3 November 2016, five days before Trump's long-shot win in that year's presidential election, House Republicans were already preparing to open impeachment proceedings against President Hillary Clinton. WashingtonPost, dateline 3 Nov. 2016
(Obviously, that never actually happened, but I do remember those same House Republicans spreading rage and outrage onstage yesterday about the Democrats supposedly contemplating the impeachment of Trump prematurely.)
And people can't quite figure out why some may consider them not too bright if they are supporting the Republican Party and Donald Trump. The sleaze and hypocrisy runs deep.
Biden got through the debate without making any really "cringeworthy" remarks. For Biden that counts as a good debate.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense looking at it written down on the page, but that's been enough, so far, to keep him in the lead in the Democratic primary.
Seems like a hell of low bar, but that's how it's been working.
Amy Klobuchar is still on the debate stage. I wasn't sure she would make it this far. It sounds like she didn't do too badly either. However, I think she is still polling low.
So it sounds like Mitch McConnell was looking to "stage" a trial in the Senate with a predetermined outcome. Nancy Pelosi is digging in her heels and not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate until the workings of the trial can be settled. Some people are questioning whether or not Trump was actually impeached until she sends the articles to the Senate. Others are saying he definitely was impeached. I am of the last mindset.
The plot thickens...
"It sounds like she [Klobuchar] didn't do too badly either."
Her best debate to date I'd say. But I don't know that it'll make much difference. Wait and see I guess. Sure didn't hurt her.
Buttigieg had a good night too. (Conventional wisdom seems otherwise; he was pounded on by nearly all the other participants. However, he stood up under it and he punched back; he did not stagger. Folks'll be thinking about that later.)
"Some people are questioning whether or not Trump was
actually impeached…"
So, does he get some sort of prize or advantage if the impeachment is "actually" waiting on Pelosi's next move to be official? Is there any chance she's going to be impeded, that she's not going to send it to the Senate at a time of her own choosing?
(Hint: Answer to both questions is "No".)
A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
The Pentagon and the intelligence "community" are bracing for a test of a North Korean ICBM capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States mainland in the coming days. NewYorkTimes
Trump has done his very best to ignore the total failure of his outreach to Dictator Kim. This may be beyond his capacity for studied ignorance. He may have to try to blame this on the impeachment. FoxNews will assist in that endeavor, of course.
WashingtonPost Headline: How a Putin ally is aiding Giuliani in Ukraine Short and to the point. Ends with:
"In short, Mr. Giuliani’s mudslinging campaign against Mr.
Biden is not only being encouraged by Mr. Trump; it is getting a
substantial push from Mr. Putin’s close Ukrainian allies. Once
again, the president and the Russian ruler have a common
cause."
It's sometimes noted that Guiliani is working for Trump "without pay". It appears from this article that Putin's Kremlin gang is picking up the slack there.
According to a recent CNN Poll Trump is closing the gap with Democrats when it comes to the 2020 election. People are apparently only looking at how the economy is going for them.
If that is the only thing that matters to people it is a sad day for America.
It's sometimes noted that Guiliani is working for Trump "without pay". It appears from this article that Putin's Kremlin gang is picking up the slack there.
Yes, well, I think they always have.
"People are apparently only looking at how the economy is
going for them."
It is historically true that the average voter gives the sitting President too much credit for an economy doing well and too much blame for an economy doing poorly.
It's unfortunate that so many have so little understanding of macro-economics. However, that didn't begin with Trump, and it won't end with him either.
According to FoxNews, Republican congressmen are "fuming" at the prospect that the Democrats might find other Articles of Impeachment along the way (and presumably Republican congresswomen are likewise "fuming", although there's only a few of that latter group). FoxNews:
"GOP lawmakers reacted with stunned disbelief."
Perhaps they should be reading my posts. (Lee C. @ Mon Dec 16, 08:15:00 pm ↑↑; Lee C. @ Sat Nov 23, 10:25:00 am, prior thread)
"People are apparently only looking at how the economy is
going for them."
I went back and looked through the data I could find. It seems to me that Trump's getting a bump from the announcement of the NAFTA 2.0 agreement (he calls it something else), and from the announcement of a "phase one" trade agreement with the Chinese. Both of those are public relations agreements; neither amount to much (although the new NAFTA does impose some environmental regulations on the Mexicans as well as some higher labor standards). Basically what we've got here is that Trump got squat except that he quit making up more problems along the way and the Chinese and the Mexicans have agreed to allow him to call it a tremendous Trump victory that he's not still makin' things worse than they already were. Nothing new about that either.
Since neither agreement is of much economic substance, I would expect the bounce from the announcements to dissipate well before the election season gets underway.
I would expect the bounce from the announcements to dissipate well before the election season gets underway.
Possibly so. I still wonder about those who have not benefited at all from Trump's policies who yet still support him. Reasoning with them doesn't seem to be an option. What was that quote Zeyad had at the top of his blog? "You cannot reason a man out of what he has not been reasoned into." Or something like that.
Yeah, something like that.
Trump offers the Trumpkins what they want most; he gives them feel-goods. He screams insults at their enemies; they like that; it makes them feel good.
testing link
here
Post a Comment