Patterico's Pontifications

1/31/2020

Open Thread: The Coronation of Donald Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am



All indications are that the vote to hear no relevant evidence will pass today, quickly followed by the acquittal for lack of relevant evidence. The crowning of King Trump will follow later tonight and will be carried live by all networks.

All hail King Trump.

All those who say aye: say aye! I shall wait for the unanimous decision of the Republicans in the Senate.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

329 Responses to “Open Thread: The Coronation of Donald Trump”

  1. Way to insult Caligula, Patterico. He got his name from the special boot (caliga) he needed as a child because he also suffered from bone spurs (or something similar). Nonetheless, he marched along with his father’s army. A red mini-dress did not exempt him either — they all wore them back then.

    nk (1d9030)

  2. Kings, of course, reign until they die, or are deposed. Given that President Trump is unlikely to lose his crown the way King Richard III did, the Senate not being in Bosworth Field, we can note the obvious difference: even once he is acquitted by the Senate — a foregone conclusion — he will either lose his ‘crown’ on January 20, 2021, or January 20, 2025.

    Yes, I know: our host has said, “I still can’t bear the thought of four more years of Trump. It’s just too dangerous,” but, with The Washington Post’s release of the executive orders Senator Sanders is considering, ‘twould be a greater danger to our republic if a Democrat wins in November. (Shameless blog plug alert!)

    If President Trump is re-elected, he will still leave office on January 20, 2025. If a Democrat is elected, the damage he will cause this country will live on long beyond that date.

    The Dana from Kentucky (b49bca)

  3. All sides have covered themselves in infamy in this debacle.

    It is unutterably sad to behold.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  4. The GOP has an elephant, and the Dems a jacka$$. What does #NeverTrump have?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crying_Jordan?wprov=sfti1

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  5. Michael Bloomberg?

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  6. How come nobody studies the sources?

    Adam Schiff doesn’t have the chronology right.

    Sondland telling Ukraine of a link between military aid and investigations on Sept 1 in Warsaw is an error on Sondland’s part. Andriy Yermak says that’s not true. Sondland didn’t actually tell the Ukrainians until Sept 7. (He was telling other Americans of that link, treating it as afact but had to acknoledge under oath that he had guessed that might work)

    Trump was not “caught” after that. The news of the hold was already quite public after August 28. And the whistleblower did not allege a connection between the military aid and investigations. He did allege a connection between a White House visit and even a phone call and had Zelensky being willing to “play ball” in the period leading up to the July 25 phone call. (because the phone call happened)

    I think the whistleblower implies that afterwards, some people in the State Department (among whom he mistakenly includes Sondland and Volker) tried to get Zelensky to ignore Giuliani = backtrack on his agreement (reading between the lines of the whistleblower complaint.)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  7. The list of potential executive orders includes unilaterally allowing the United States to import prescription drugs from Canada,

    I wish! Everybody should wish! Big Pharma badly needs competition.

    directing the Justice Department to legalize marijuana,

    Like bigamy, drugs and alcohol are vices which are also their own punishment. As long as states are still free to lock up dopers who make their problems other people’s problems …. (not that that’s guaranteed, look at the mentally ill on the streets).

    and declaring climate change a national emergency while banning the exportation of crude oil.

    Ok, Bernie, you’ve lost me on that one.
    Other options cited in the document include canceling federal contracts for firms paying workers less than $15 an hour

    Would that be a lot?

    and reversing federal rules blocking U.S. funding to organizations that provide abortion counseling.

    Go back to Russia, Bernie! But, really, Trump talks pro-life but has he done one single thing to save one single baby’s life?

    nk (1d9030)

  8. My 7 is from Dana’s link at 2. You’ll also get Hoagie’s opinion if you go there.

    nk (1d9030)

  9. you’re confusing farce with satire. Leave satire to the babylon bee – you simply don’t do it well.

    jeff (4de066)

  10. In many ways, Mr. Trump the President, who only has three wives, was the Democrats’ consolation prize in 2016. He has been a 4-F on social issues and an enemy saboteur on fiscal issues. Sure, the Ponzi scheme which is Wall Street is booming, and that ungrateful Jeff Bezos should thank him for making him the richest man in the world, but why should anyone other than his rich jerkoff friends?

    nk (1d9030)

  11. nk wrote:

    Like bigamy, drugs and alcohol are vices which are also their own punishment. As long as states are still free to lock up dopers who make their problems other people’s problems

    The libertarian in me agrees, but the husband of a pediatric nurse in me does not. My wife has seen far, far, far too many child abuse cases — and they have to be pretty serious for her to have seen them, because she works in a hospital — and she has told me that she has never seen a child abuse case in which drugs and/or (usually and) alcohol were not involved.

    The vast majority of adults will have the responsibility of caring for children at some point in their lives; the legalization of recreational pharmaceuticals is more than an individual risk, but a societal danger.

    My nephew was an EMT in eastern Kentucky, and he has told me that over half of the calls to which he responded were drug related. That costs the taxpayers, not only for the immediate costs, but in people who cannot hold jobs.

    If the Lord were to come down from heaven and say to me, “I am giving you my power to perform one miracle,” I know exactly what I would do: I would render the human brain immune to all intoxicants. Think of the benefits to all society!

    The Dana from Kentucky (b49bca)

  12. https://www.newser.com/story/286336/2/trump-trial-could-end-at-3am.html

    Friday’s timetable. Politico reports that the Senate session will start at 1pm Friday, followed by an expected four hours of debate on calling new witnesses or requesting more documents. If the senators vote against more witnesses, there will be a vote on holding a final vote, which will most likely be followed by a final vote. Some senators predict the process might not be completed until as late as 3am or 4am.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  13. You and your wife are right, Dana. I glossed over the damage dopers and drunks do to other people.

    nk (1d9030)

  14. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/impeachment-hearings-first-day-transcript-bill-taylor-george-kent-testimony-transcript

    Bill Taylor: (31:25)

    Two days later, September 7th, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a sinking feeling after learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland, he was not asking for a quid pro quo, but President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself. Mr Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.

    Bill Taylor: (32:10)

    The following day on September 8th, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone. He confirmed that he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public. President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo. I believe this was the same conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump that Mr. Morrison had described to me on September 7th. Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. [Yermak 00:04:47] [sic] and had told them that although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. I understood a stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on CNN. Shortly after that call with Ambassador Sondland, I expressed my strong reservations in a text message to Ambassador Sondland stating that my nightmare is that they, the Ukrainians, give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians loved it and I quit and I was serious.

    In other words, Sondland interpreted what Trump said as meaning Ukraine announcing an investigation was a necessary but not necessarily a sufficient condition for lifting the hold.

    Sondland hoped it would work. Trump had hung up the phone before Sondland was finished talking to him.

    It was not a quid pro quo, but merely the right thing to do, in Trump’s view.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  15. Fracking has not only made the US an oil exporter instead of importer, it also has been a main reason that the US has reached CO2 target levels while Kyoto/Paris signees have not.
    _

    Can’t have that:


    kyle jones
    @KyleLovesBernie
    ·
    BREAKING: Bernie Sanders has Just introduced a Bill to Ban Fracking, Yet again Bernie Sanders Proves Through his Actions That he Always Stands on the Right Side of History.

    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  16. Congrats UK – BREXIT!

    harkin (d6cfee)

  17. Umm, don’t count your coronoations before they hatch:

    BREAKING: Romney Confirms Yes Vote On Witnesses, Issues Statement On What Decided It

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-romney-confirms-yes-vote-on-witnesses-issues-statement-on-what-decided-it

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  18. IF they ARE going to call witnesses, there needs to be real, live, cross-examination. Not this stupid CJ Roberts asks questions from a piece of paper.

    Bolton has been all over the map. Two hours by a good trial lawyer will set it straight.

    And bring on Joe Biden (not Hunter). That ought to be worth a few laughs, if the guy can even remember where he is.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  19. Democrats have 47 votes – all expected to be for witnesses. They need 3 or 4 more (3 if Roberts votes for witnesses)

    Susan Collins = Number 48

    Mitt Romney = Number 49

    Lisa Murkowski = Number 50?

    Could there be any surprises?

    There should be witnesses. It will get at the truth and diminish the number of people in the United States living in separate universes.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  20. If there are witnesses there will be closed door (but probably videotaped) depositions with questions by the House managers and Trump’s defense team. Then there may either be live testimony, or the closed door transcripts will be released and excerpts played in arguments. Schiff wants live testimony but said yesterday in one of his answers that he was willing to settle for depositions.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  21. And bring on Joe Biden (not Hunter). That ought to be worth a few laughs, if the guy can even remember where he is.

    Bring Trump in for cross-examination, and then we’ll really see idiocy and self-contradiction and perjury roll out.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  22. “There should be witnesses. It will get at the truth and diminish the number of people in the United States living in separate universes.”
    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:32 am

    LOL, Sammy.

    What over the past three years leads you to believe this?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  23. If the truth is really on Trump’s side, you’d think the GOP senators would be eager to have witnesses prove it to the world. Wouldn’t you?

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  24. “If the truth is really on Trump’s side, you’d think the GOP senators would be eager to have witnesses prove it to the world. Wouldn’t you?”
    Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:50 am

    You have your face of impeachment, Schiff, breathing life into the collusion hoax on the Senate floor. Yeah, truth matters. Let’s get those witnesses to set things straight. Those who haven’t been in a three year coma know how this works.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  25. Off topic: Someone not so crazy about the corona virus:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/opinion/coronavirus-prevention-tips.html

    But there was also a lot of irrational behavior: Entering a village on the way to a hike near the Great Wall, our car was stopped by locals who had set up a roadblock to check the temperature of all passengers. They used an oral thermometer that was only minimally cleaned after each use. What a great way to spread a virus.

    The International School of Beijing, where my children were students, was one of the few in the capital — perhaps the only one — that stayed open throughout the SARS outbreak, though the classes were emptier, since so many kids had departed to their home countries. It was a studied but brave move, since a parent at the school had gotten SARS at the very beginning of the outbreak on a flight back from Hong Kong. She recovered fine, but it was close to home and families were scared.

    The school instituted a bunch of simple precautionary policies: a stern note to parents reminding them not to send a child to school who was sick and warning them that students would be screened for fevers with ear thermometers at the school door. There was no sharing of food at lunch. The teacher led the kids in frequent hand washing throughout the day at classroom sinks, while singing a prolonged “hand washing song” to ensure they did more than a cursory pass under the faucet with water only.

    If a family left Beijing and came back, the child would have to stay at home for an extended period before returning to class to make sure they hadn’t caught SARS elsewhere.

    With those precautions in place, I observed something of a public health miracle: Not only did no child get SARS, but it seemed no student was sick with anything at all for months on end. No stomach bugs. No common colds. Attendance was more or less perfect.

    The corona virus is just another cold virus..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  26. There should be witnesses. It will get at the truth and diminish the number of people in the United States living in separate universes.”
    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:32 am

    22. Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:49 am

    What over the past three years leads you to believe this?

    The Kavanaugh hearings. A further FBI inquiry was authorized. As a result, they have largely stped talking about the accusations. Kavanaugh is treated with respect on the court..

    And I said “diminish” the number of people in the United States living in separate universes. Not “eliminate” that situation.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  27. GOP legislators are fearful of zealots in the Cult of Trump, probably more than they fear vindictive tweets by Trump himself.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  28. Let’s get those witnesses to set things straight.

    So why don’t the GOP senators want that to happen?

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  29. I think Lamar Alexander’s statement tells us what has bern going on in the GOP Senate. It suggests that the Trump position (that he did nothing wrong) was not convincing. Instead, the way the Senate leadership convinced the moderates was to acknowledge that Trump is guilty of every charge, but it is up to the electorate to decide if Trump stays or goes.

    This position helps the Senators believe they are not going to hurt the Senate by temporarily politicizing it. The Senate is politicized … but only until the next election and not permanently, which is my guess about how they sold this to the GOP Senators.

    I can understand this even if I disagree, but only if I was convinced the GOP Senate would do the same thing if the House flips in 2020, the Senate remains GOP, but a Democratic President is elected. If the Democratic President were impeached, would the GOP Senate do the same thing — refuse to convict and leave it to the electorate? IMO they never would.

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. Let’s get those witnesses to set things straight.

    The GOP senators can still vote against removal even if they allow witnesses. Then the voters might see that they were acting in good faith and that the case against Trump really was weak.

    The path that most of them prefer is trying to prevent more facts from emerging.
    People who look like they’re trying to hide something might very well have something to hide.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  31. Those who haven’t been in a three year coma know how this works.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:57 am

    You are really angry.

    DRJ (15874d)

  32. If the Democratic President were impeached, would the GOP Senate do the same thing — refuse to convict and leave it to the electorate? IMO they never would.

    Of course not. Take the same fact-set and apply to a Dem president, and the GOP would be nearly unanimous in decrying the great danger to the Republic in allowing a president to think he can do whatever he wants to get reelected.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  33. @32

    And the Dems would be excusing it by saying things like, “it’s only about sex.” (Or, here, it’s only about some corrupt Eastern European hellhole that was not a country until recently.)

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  34. Impeaching Obama was clearly a mistake.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  35. I agree with Bored Lawyer that if they did have witnesses, it should be open to both sides challenging the witnesses and asking openly whatever they like. More information, more accountability. The American people deserve to know the most accurate version of events as possible, and an adversarial process is a good way to get there. My understanding is that if they did allow Bolton, there would have been absurd restrictions, due to fear Bolton would have spoken of other tremendous acts of corruption that seem to surround all of trump’s bizarre foreign policy.

    But the corruption obviously is not limited to Trump. By all means grill Biden, the whistleblower, etc.

    I also agree with Bored Lawyer that if the parties were reversed, the same zeal the GOP shows to defend what was wrong would simply be conducted by the democrats. The problem isn’t just the GOP. It’s the lack of an alternative to these twin corrupt parties.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  36. ‘All hail King Trump.’

    “There are plenty of reasons to vote for him [Trump] that are arguably sensible: judges, immigration, taxes, and regulation come to mind. Anyone who recognizes that he is dishonest, ignorant, impulsive, narcissistic, and so forth, but supports him anyway as a better alternative to the Dems … that’s not someone I am going to mock or condemn. [Because, you know,] Just because I disagree with a policy doesn’t mean it’s not “arguably” sensible to support it.” -source, Patterico

    Rest easy: with his diet, the ‘Burger King’ will die in office.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. CBS just cut away and went back to regular programming. Says it will return when the president’s defense team begins its arguments against calling witnesses. NBC is continuing. Of the three old broadcast networks, CBS has been broadcasting live the least (it is continuing online)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  38. IF they ARE going to call witnesses, there needs to be real, live, cross-examination. Not this stupid CJ Roberts asks questions from a piece of paper.

    Bolton has been all over the map. Two hours by a good trial lawyer will set it straight.

    And bring on Joe Biden (not Hunter). That ought to be worth a few laughs, if the guy can even remember where he is.

    BL you’re on fire in this thread. I think I agree with everything you’ve said!

    Time123 (b0628d)

  39. IF they ARE going to call witnesses, there needs to be real, live, cross-examination. Not this stupid CJ Roberts asks questions from a piece of paper.

    I would add one stipulation. Severe repercussions for trying to introduce non-evidentiary material in the questioning. No grandstanding, no hyperbole, nothing. You can only ask about things the witness actually can speak on. I would love an all-out truth reveal, but we won’t get it at the Senate trial because it does not have the rules in place to prevent a circus.

    WaBlogLog (c0df72)

  40. Those who haven’t been in a three year coma know how this works.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/31/2020 @ 9:57 am

    You are really angry.

    Define “passive-aggressive”.

    PTw (894877)

  41. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-2h4XnKZ3g

    “It’s good to be the king.” – Mel Brooks

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. There you are, DCSCA. Could you please explain to our fellow commenters who think Trump is a conservative what I said in my comment 10 above:

    In many ways, Mr. Trump the President, who only has three wives, was the Democrats’ consolation prize in 2016. He has been a 4-F on social issues and an enemy saboteur on fiscal issues. Sure, the Ponzi scheme which is Wall Street is booming, and that ungrateful Jeff Bezos should thank him for making him the richest man in the world, but why should anyone other than his rich jerkoff friends?

    nk (1d9030)

  43. “Mr. Trump also repeatedly made national security decisions contrary to American interests, Mr. Bolton wrote, describing a pervasive sense of alarm among top advisers about the president’s choices.”

    Just another traitor from the Deep State trying to sell a book! Any decision made by Donald Trump must be, by definition, in the American interest.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  44. Radegunda wrote:

    Take the same fact-set and apply to a Dem president, and the GOP would be nearly unanimous in decrying the great danger to the Republic in allowing a president to think he can do whatever he wants to get reelected.

    That’s true enough, but you forgot the other half of it; the Democrats would be the ones saying it wasn’t nothing but a thing, let’s move on, there’s nothing to see here.

    Let’s face facts: this was a wholly partisan impeachment by the House, and the Senate is a wholly partisan jury. The Democrats couldn’t persuade even one Republican in the House to vote for impeachment, while in 1998, the GOP managed to get five House Democrats to vote for three of four proposed Articles of Impeachment. (The fourth Article, which was not approved by the House, got a single Democratic vote.)

    No partisan impeachment has ever succeeded, but bipartisan ones have. In 1974, there were a lot of Republicans who were going to vote for the Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon, and when Senators Hugh Scott and Barry Goldwater went to the White House and informed the President that he didn’t have enough Republican support in the Senate to stave off conviction, Mr Nixon resigned.

    This, like 1998/1999, was a wholly partisan effort, and has always been doomed to fail.

    The Dana from Kentucky (b49bca)

  45. Cocaine Mitch is going for the throat.

    He’s signaling that the hearing could extend to next Wednesday.

    Guess what’s happening Tuesday?

    Would Sanders, Kloberchar, and Warren pressure Schumer to try to push it earlier?

    whembly (51f28e)

  46. @42. ‘The Burger King’ says it best: “Hold his pickle; pay her lettuce; Executive Orders don’t upset us…”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. The “Mooch” comments to Bolton on how it is to be thrown under the Trump bus. I always thought Scaramochi was another wannabe guy hanging on Trump, but his comments are perceptive on how Donald throws away allies and potential loyal staff.

    Donald never had a boss except his father and never had to deal with others except to borrow money and that got reduced to Deutsche Bank and Russian Oligarchs. He can read the crowd and appear to respond to their desires, but there is no deep belief in any policy positions. The GOP senators are dragged to the ground by his threats and behaviors. Donald obviously hasn’t seen “Julius Caesar” in Shakespeare in the park lately.

    dirtyjobsguy (96cdc8)

  48. It would be very appropriate for the Senate to vote to acquit President Trump today, as it’s also #Brexit Day.

    Brexit occurs at 6:00 PM EST; could Senator McConnell from my home state arrange for the Senate vote to happen at the same time? 🙂

    The Dana from Kentucky (b49bca)

  49. This is sure to be a blow to those who had pre-decided Trump was guilty.

    David Longfellow (44fae2)

  50. 47, I also hope he hasnt seen Malcolm X (1992) and doesnt react if one Q-Anon attempts to pickpocket another Q-Anon and is audibly rebuffed.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  51. Breaking911
    @Breaking911
    The NYPD is increasing their presence in subways Friday after members of ANTIFA called for a mass protest against law enforcement and transit fares. The PBA issued a warning that New Yorker’s should “pay close attention”
    __ _

    G1bsonG1rl
    @G1bsonG1rl
    ·
    With bail reform they’ll be out (if even arrested) 30 minutes later to do even more. NY is lost.
    __ _

    All Knowing
    @AKnowing
    ·
    Gotta love Democrat’s ideas of justice.

    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  52. This is sure to be a blow to those who had pre-decided Trump was guilty.

    David Longfellow (44fae2) — 1/31/2020 @ 12:13 pm

    Oh yeah, the GOP conducted such a fair trial, unbiased, impartial, and now it’s clear Trump really was innocent after they heard all that evidence. Just devastating to his critics who claimed Trump represents a hopeless and corrupt GOP. Boy we sure got that one wrong.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  53. 55

    This is sure to be a blow to those who had pre-decided Trump was guilty.

    David Longfellow (44fae2) — 1/31/2020 @ 12:13 pm

    Oh yeah, the GOP conducted such a fair trial, unbiased, impartial, and now it’s clear Trump really was innocent after they heard all that evidence. Just devastating to his critics who claimed Trump represents a hopeless and corrupt GOP. Boy we sure got that one wrong.

    Dustin (b8d6d1) — 1/31/2020 @ 12:33 pm

    I would argue that the House need to start over. The House Democrats broke every standard of due process, transparency and fairness in their House Investigations.

    Asking the Senate, where the opposition party has the majority, to remedy these failures is pants-on stupid.

    Do better House Managers. If you believe the POTUS’ conduct is beyond the pale, then get to work with your subpoenas and enforce it. Give the POTUS’ counsel every right that has been afforded in the past. Even if the court litigation of subpoenas would extend beyond the election and even if Trump is re-elected. Only then, with an impeachment case done in good faith, should the Senate treat it with the same respect.

    Outside of that, it’s just partisan gamesmanship that’s really obvious to see.

    whembly (51f28e)

  54. Hi PTw,

    I am sure you know how to look up words so I view your comment as a subtle dig at my comment. Some might even call your comment passive-aggressive just as they would view your sullen disappearance after my last comment about Rex Tillerson. And, frankly, many view repetitive condescending sarcasm as another version of passive-aggressive conduct.

    But so what?

    I think Munroe is angry. It would be interesting to talk to him about that. I know many people who are angry about criticism of Trump. In general, they are very fearful about what will happen if a Democrat is elected, and Trump seems to be the only way to keep that from happening. I understand that view. I can even subscribe to it. I don’t think commenters on either side deserve anger just because they disagree.

    I try not to be hurtful but I can’t control how you take things. I can only control how I feel and I am not angry or trying to hurt you or Munroe. I try to make points that I care about or think are relevant.

    DRJ (15874d)

  55. Trump’s lawyers arguing; CBS broadcasting but not NBC or ABC. (I don;t think it’s intentional rotation, like I think was with Iran contra)

    Jay Sekulow says they heard from witnesses but did not have the opportunity to cross examine. Went through maybe ten of them one by one. Says that if there are witnesses he would recall some of these witnesses and cross examine them. This will take up more than one week.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  56. Sekulow said ouse investigates and the Senate deliberates. Schiff says that a trial takes place.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  57. Lisa Murkowski issued a statement earlier saying she would vote no on witneses because (regrettably) a fair trial is impossible anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  58. Cheer up #NeverTrump — there’s always those tax returns. Lawfare never rests.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  59. Trump stopped the investigation by refusing to let people testify. Going to court would take years, something Trump desired. The House gave us evidence — convincing evidence IMO — but the GOP Senate does not want to convict or does not think it is politically appropriate or palatable. That is their right but it looks bad.

    DRJ (15874d)

  60. I am not Never Trump and I am cheerful. This isn’t surprising. Mostly, I am glad I am no longer a Republican.

    DRJ (15874d)

  61. Schiff claims they did tr to get Bolton but Bolton says that he told them if subpoenaed they will sue. Says Bolton’s lawyer says they wanted a court to rule and say it’s OK. Says he said there’s the McGahn case a judge will rule on the issue of absolute immunity.

    Says don’t know why Bolton has changed his mind/ Suspects it was becaus it will be difficult to explain why he saved it for the book. [Bolton has said that he had to make a decision without a court ruling – no time left)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  62. There is an election coming up in november never trumsters! Primaries even sooner ;but the republican voters stand with trump not you free trade never trumpers and you know it. Free trade donor money can not buy love only rent it and you have been given an eviction. Now move out of g.o.p.!

    asset (1a981e)

  63. you forgot the other half of it; the Democrats would be the ones saying it wasn’t nothing but a thing, let’s move on, there’s nothing to see here

    I didn’t forget that half at all. I’m speaking to the point that Republicans right now are pretending to have Truth and Justice on their side, and accusing the Dems of being the only “partisan” actors in this show. And it’s total hogwash.

    There was a time when it was possible to say that Rs were more inclined to discipline their own, while Dems just circled the wagons. Right now, Rs care only about circling the wagons around a pathological narcissist and chronic liar who believes he can do no wrong, ever.

    I used to think it was Dems who had the most “win by any means necessary” attitude. Now, Trump’s legal team has come pretty close to making that into a legal defense.

    I’m not going to join the Dems in the foreseeable future, but I’m embarrassed and disgusted by what Repubs have become in the Age of Trump.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  64. Radegunda…

    Amain and amain. Not a Republican of several decades standing, but a true conservative here.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  65. There is an election coming up in november never trumsters! Primaries even sooner

    Hold on a sec — Other Trumpsters have been saying that primaries are of no importance whatsoever when there’s a GOP incumbent (or, when there’s one named Trump), and therefore it’s not only fully defensible but praiseworthy for state parties to have canceled their primaries so GOP voters can’t choose anyone other than Trump.

    But it would be unreasonable to expect intellectual consistency from Trumpsters.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  66. Adam Schiff just asked, “What is the point of having a trial” without witnesses. The real question is what was the point of having a trial at all, when the President’s acquittal was guaranteed?

    The point was simple: the Democrats wanted a circus that they hoped would hurt President Trump politically in the November elections. That’s all this ever was, because they knew that there was never any hope that the Senate would remove him from office.

    This was never a ‘trial,’ not in any real sense of the word. The ‘grand jury’ that ‘indicted’ the President was not 23 (purportedly) impartial citizens, operating without pre-conceptions, but 435 people, many of whom had secured their spots on the ‘grand jury’ by running for election with the campaign promise to impeach the President. The members of the ‘petit jury’ similarly ran for their positions in elections, many of whom supported the President and many virulently opposed. There are four members of that ‘jury’ who are actively running for President, saying that Donald Trump should be thrown out of office, along with a few more who had been doing so but dropped out.

    It always seemed strange to me that the same people who were celebrating a wholly political impeachment were concomitantly demanding a scrupulously fair and impartial trial.

    The Dana from Kentucky (b49bca)

  67. If chuck schumer were to go mad and kill 10 Republican senators, National Review and the Bulwalk would have a headline:

    10 Dead. Both Sides to Blame.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  68. Anger, anger anger here. I live in NY. I’m a registered Dem because I more often loathe Dem candidates and want to vote against them in the primary. I loathed Hillary so much that I voted for Bernie in the primary, and I loathe him. In the general election I voted for Trump. It was easy, since there really were no consequences – NY’s electoral votes were a foregone conclusion. But I’ve been happy with lots of things Trump has done as president, even if I don’t much care for him any more than I did 10 years or 20 years ago – the one exception being that many of his tweets have been sidesplittingly funny.

    But what amazes me is that every time I do the “I can’t believe I voted for a man who is a flaming asshole for president” I look at the other side and think “oh yes, any port in a storm is still sound thinking.”

    I’m actually enjoying the impeachment. Today is almost as much fun as being a Giants fan was in the last 8 minutes of the 2008 Super Bowl. The writers of this site hate Trump, I get that. But after voting for Eugene McCarthy in 1976 and the Libertarian candidate in 1980, I realized that third party votes don’t count and nobody cares, so voting against the candidate I loathe the most is good enough (my adopted daughter is from a country where they don’t get to vote at ALL). The same storm is in play this year as was in 2016, except the people on the other side are actually worse. Trump may actually be worse too. Here in New York? Whether Trump wins or loses, I want the other side to understand that enough people are against them that they voted against them.

    Lazlo Toth (cbb623)

  69. Open Thread: The Coronation of Donald Trump

    IOW: beating the rap[s]; a crowning achievement.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. I’m so sad this clown show shampeachment that was rushed through the House without any R witnesses being heard and without a single R vote, wasn’t given a fair trial. To imagine our noble Ukrainian allies waiting weeks for $millions they didn’t deserve, fills me with tears.

    You can be sure that FDR/Ike/LBJ/Nixon/JFK/Ford Would NEVER have treated a noble ally like that. Some were Putin smiles.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  71. Radegunda (0e8745) — 1/31/2020 @ 1:54 pm

    As stupid as many people think R voters are they’re capable of learning by example.

    frosty (f27e97)

  72. @69 You’re not seriously going to use the “If a Democrat shot someone” argument in the context of defending Trump against his critics, are you?

    Surely you remember very well that Trump himself used that exact image (“Fifth Avenue” rather than Senate floor) to boast of the blind loyalty and assured stupidity that he knew he could count on from his followers.

    Daren Jonescu (2f5857)

  73. IOW: beating the rap[s]; a crowning achievement.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/31/2020 @ 2:12 pm

    It’s not an achievement because Trump and his fans sorely needed this to be a legitimate vindication. Instead it’s clearly a cover-up. It’s embarrassing.

    The dishonest ‘oh Pelosi didn’t call those witnesses’ BS, the obstruction of which proves the second charge of the impeachment, is the best they’re going to be able to do, not to win over a single vote, but just to muddy the waters with whatabouts.

    We all know that Bolton knew what happened and wanted to testify against his own administration. We all know many from the administration have vouched for Bolton. The GOP went from saying ‘there’s no evidence’ to saying ‘oh abuse of power isn’t a big deal’.

    The democrats get to run against this mess in November. Trump’s fans act like 2016 was a landslide victory, but they started out in the hole, and you know the first rule of holes.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  74. He has never had to live by the rules like the rest of us. Senate votes 49 to 51 against witnesses and documents in his trial.

    And they think he is the one that can “drain the swamp”? I wish I could laugh.

    noel (4d3313)

  75. @75. =yawn= Stealing signs; under inflating the ball… a little Vaseline in the bill of your cap… a win is a win is a win.

    75%- 3 out of 4 Americans wanted witnesses; Senate Republicans overruled the desire of the people 51 to 49.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. BREXIT!

    Matador (0284e8)

  77. @76. It’s a little late in life to start trying to discipline a 73 year old man from Queens. ou gotta start when they’re younger– like with Bernie Madoff, another Queens man.

    He was disciplined. At 71.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. Trump beats rap, BREXIT…

    Putin ain’t just smiling–he’s beaming.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. his majesty mr king donald who is the king also known as trump is the best king of all kings who were ever kinged so there

    Dave (a206b3)

  80. @81. “The King Of Queens.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. “I have an Article Two a one-vote majority where I have the right do whatever I want as president.”

    Dave (a206b3)

  82. With a pillar of Truth like Schiff as the face of your cause, I can’t imagine why it fell short.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  83. When fat lady sing?

    nk (9651fb)

  84. OT: Anyone keeping apprised to the Coronavirus?

    At first, I thought this was some fear mongering, but lately a lot of respected scientists have been chiming in:

    @DrEricDing
    Replying to @DrEricDing
    9. BOTTOMLINE: 1) Seafood market not the source. 2) This RNA #coronavirus mutates really fast. 3) 🧬 has unusual middle segment never seen before in any coronavirus. 4) Not from recent mixing. 5) That mystery middle segment encodes protein responsible for entry into host cells.

    2,652
    10:15 PM – Jan 27, 2020

    @ARanganathan72
    Replying to @ARanganathan72
    Oh my god. Indian scientists have just found HIV (AIDS) virus-like insertions in the 2019-nCov virus that are not found in any other coronavirus. They hint at the possibility that this Chinese virus was designed [“not fortuitous’]. Scary if true. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf

    whembly (c30c83)

  85. So is 1619 still the year America was really born or is it now 2020 because he’s King and Don Jr is the Dauphin?

    harkin (d6cfee)

  86. DCSCA wrote:

    @75. =yawn= Stealing signs; under inflating the ball… a little Vaseline in the bill of your cap… a win is a win is a win.

    Yup, that’s exactly right! What did Hillary Clinton win for second place in the Electoral College?

    Way back in medieval times, when I was a student at the University of Kentucky, Professor Malcolm Jewell defined politics as the profession of putting your policy preferences into governing power.

    I look at the Libertarian Party as a great example: it doesn’t matter how many of their positions I happen to like — and I like many of them — if you can’t ever win, none of it matters.

    The UK graduate Dana (b49bca)

  87. It’s only Jennifer Rubin, of course

    Roberts has seen just how power-hungry and intellectually dishonest the administration is and how it has played the courts (e.g. claiming in court that Congress can only enforce subpoenas through impeachment while making the opposite argument in the Senate). We hope that when cases centering on exaggerated claims of executive immunity reach the high court, Roberts will lead the justices with a strong majority to reject and discredit Trump’s dangerous views on executive power.
    The public should understand fully that the Republican Party has become the authoritarian party. Instead of limited government, separation of powers and self-rule, Republicans embrace — when it suits their fancy — unlimited executive power, executive domination of the other branches and selling our democracy to the highest foreign bidder. They have mutilated the Constitution so they can claim its broken remains. They have been willing to sacrifice an ally to Russian domination, a signal to the Kremlin and others that we are feckless friends. Voters should be forewarned that neither the legislative branch nor executive branch can be entrusted to this crowd.
    Americans who actually adhere to conservative beliefs should give up the fantasy that the GOP can be rescued. In not only electing and defending Trump but also shredding long-held constitutional principles, it poses a threat to the rule of law, equal justice under the law and the American creed (“All men …”). Their energies are best spent in the short run trying to nominate and help elect a centrist Democrat and then creating a principled center-right party from the ground up.
    The country needs to have a robust discussion about the electoral college, the Senate filibuster, the defects in the impeachment process, firewalls between the White House and the Justice Department, the power to indict sitting presidents, the War Powers Act, statutory emergency powers (which Trump has abused) and voting rights. (When Republicans hear that presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has a long list of executive orders ready to go, perhaps they will reflect on the path to tyranny they have paved.)

    Kishnevi (86e9bc)

  88. mr. president trump, who has no independent existence outside hillary, is the third president to be impeached

    that’s just not fair

    he deserves first place

    nk (9651fb)

  89. Ford carried California and Carter carried Texas in 1976. Party labels come and go and so do phoney-baloney politicians scrambling to get and keep their phoney-baloney jobs.

    nk (9651fb)

  90. Sally Kohn
    @sallykohn

    Straightforward from here:

    1. Impeach Trump & Pence
    2. Constitutional crisis
    3. Call special election
    4. Ryan v Clinton
    5. President Clinton

    Feb 15, 2017
    __ _

    Democracy foiled.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  91. Looks like one of Trump’s most loyal legal defenders might be a bit corrupt. Birds of a feather?

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  92. harkin (d6cfee) — 1/31/2020 @ 5:34 pm

    A thing that didn’t happen. Reality world exists, phantasy world does not.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  93. This utter failure by the House Democrats all goes back to Pelosi, for making the strategically stupid mistake of not incorporating obstruction of justice from the Mueller report in the articles of impeachment, and perhaps also for illegally not reporting his hush-money payments to Ms. Daniels. There was plenty of time to present all those cases instead of hearing all the repetition that we did over the past week.
    Had they done so, they would’ve have had all the witness and documents that proved obstruction (along with Cohen’s guilty verdict to the hush-money scheme) and they could have parlayed Trump’s Ukraine mischief into an overall pattern of illegal abusive and obstructive behavior by Trump, that he’s a multi-offending criminal who moves from one crime to the next and so must be removed.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  94. From Politico. Bolding is mine.

    The Senate impeachment trial for Donald Trump will drag into next week, with a vote set for Wednesday afternoon on two articles of impeachment against the president, according to a bipartisan resolution negotiated by party leaders.

    Before agreeing to the delay, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) phoned Trump to get the president’s approval, according to a source familiar with the conversation. Trump then signed off on the decision.

    Kishnevi (803f72)

  95. Mr Montagu: The Constitution specifies impeachable offenses as “Treason, Bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House impeached on abuse of power for President Trump allegedly bribing Ukraine by withholding aid, but didn’t bother to specify him as having broken the actual statutes on bribery. Is that stupid, or what?

    Really, the question has to be asked: were the House Democrats actually serious about impeachment, or were they simply playing for political theater all along?

    The Dana in Kentucky (b49bca)

  96. This utter failure by the House Democrats all goes back to Pelosi

    I might be attributing three-dimensional chess abilities to Pelosi that she doesn’t have, but Pelosi knew impeachment would fail in the Senate. Perhaps she figured a weak impeachment attempt would stall the momentum of the AOC caucus.

    I don’t think the lack charges based on the Mueller report would make any difference. The Senate GOP would adopt the Alexander line that the evidence supports the charges, but the charges don’t rise to the level of being “impeachable”.

    Kishnevi (803f72)

  97. “ A thing that didn’t happen. Reality world exists, phantasy world does not.”

    You really needed a sarc tag on that?

    harkin (d6cfee)

  98. Randeguda at 93, that must really grate on the Trumpablicans selling their souls for $187,000 a year.

    nk (9651fb)

  99. @95 If you’ve watched Pelosi for any length of time, you know she’s pretty good at politics. I think she has taken a calculated risk. Three options. 1. Trump removed, Dem win (really unlikely) 2. Trump not removed, witnesses and evidence dirty up the R party, Dem win (less unlikely, but still unlikely) 3. Trump not removed, no witnesses, Rs look like they are covering crimes up with a sham trial, Dems win (most likely). Any way you slice it the Dems win. The Rs had only one chance to win and that would only have worked if it had been a nothingburger railroad and the Rs had hard evidence or any argument at all to expose that. It wasn’t and they didn’t.

    Nic (896fdf)

  100. Kishnevi, Trump was going to get acquitted no matter what, but Pelosi left 10 or 11 bullets in the chamber and could have further validated the Special Counsel investigation. It was a terrible strategic move. There was plenty of time to present all the cases and would have established a years long pattern of corruption.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  101. The real question is what was the point of having a trial at all, when the President’s acquittal was guaranteed?

    Because, at some moments in history, it’s good to have every single member of Congress on record, and this was one of those moments. The undying elected supporters of Trump have just been indelibly marked.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  102. Garry Kasparov
    @Kasparov63
    The difference with a Soviet show trial is GOP members pathetically trying to explain why there will be no justice and how it’s not their fault instead of bluntly admitting the Leader and the Party are always right. It’s not an improvement.
    __ _

    𝐉𝐚𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭
    @JayCostTWS
    Another difference is that the “jurors” stand for election periodically.
    __ _

    j
    @jamejonson
    ·
    Plus, the ‘jurors’ can have an open conflict of interest such as campaigning to replace the accused.
    __ _

    Fed Dept of No Sh*t
    @NoSh*tDept
    ·
    They followed the COTUS to a tee. Are you new here?.
    __ _

    Jack Bristow
    @JackBristow9802
    ·
    Leave it to Twitter to expose our heroes as morons.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  103. mr president trump’s second and third and fourth terms are too important to risk on a fair election and every tax dollar we have to pay the russians and you-cranes and even the dirty chinesers to make sure everything works out for the best is a tax dollar well spent

    Dave (1bb933)

  104. Jack Bristow
    @JackBristow9802
    ·
    Leave it to Twitter to expose our heroes [its users] as morons.
    _

    I think I fixed it.

    felipe (023cc9)

  105. Dave (1bb933) — 1/31/2020 @ 11:39 pm

    Not a bad Happyfeet impersonation, Dave – much better than I could affect. But I think there are too many words. nk could you rewrite that for us? Think of it as conducting a master class.

    felipe (023cc9)

  106. Oh, and Happy Saturday to everyone.

    felipe (023cc9)

  107. The Democrat party has endorsed Clinton’s crimes for their entire careers. During the House shampeachment hearings not ONE Republican witness was called by schiff or nadler. The articles were voted out of the house without a single R vote. It was 228 D’s voting in lockstep – just like always do. when they vote on wednesday at least 44 of the 47 D’s will vote to impeach, despite the charges not being “high crimes”.

    SOme of these D’s were around in 1998 voting “Not GUilty” -shameful. No morals at all – like most D’s. Just win baby, just win.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  108. old men farts and sweat
    senate reeks of corruption
    putin smirks smugly

    nk (9651fb)

  109. Mr Montagu wrote:

    The real question is what was the point of having a trial at all, when the President’s acquittal was guaranteed?

    Because, at some moments in history, it’s good to have every single member of Congress on record, and this was one of those moments. The undying elected supporters of Trump have just been indelibly marked.

    With what? Beyond the 2020 election, which is close, this will be mostly forgotten, save by the strong partisans whose votes were never going to be changed in the first place.

    Either President Trump will be re-elected, in which case the Democrats, if they retain control of the House, will once again try some cockamamie impeachment plan, which will lose support because, hey, we’ve already tried and failed on this before, or some wild-eyed leftist will be elected, in which case the country will be on a not-so-slow slide into chaos and poverty. By 2024, this will be mostly forgotten.

    Just how long did the “impeached and disgraced President Clinton” meme last?

    The Dana in Kentucky (b49bca)

  110. Impeachment will be remembered for how oh so principled #NeverTrump, seekers of Truth, hitched their cause to a bunch of unprincipled low life Dem liars like Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  111. Trump still has four days in which to blow it. And for Trump, that’s three days, 23 hours, and 45 minutes more than he needs.

    nk (9651fb)

  112. Keep hope alive!

    nk (9651fb)

  113. 112.

    Impeachment will be remembered for how oh so principled #NeverTrump Trump humpers, seekers arbiters of Truth, hitched their cause to a bunch of unprincipled low life Dem Republican liars…

    Gryph (08c844)

  114. Like Trump, our host engages in angry hyperbole. Perhaps more truth, perhaps not.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  115. Beyond the 2020 election, which is close, this will be mostly forgotten…

    Like the Clinton impeachment was forgotten? Pffft.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  116. Trump still has four days in which to blow it.

    And Bolton has roughly that same amount of time to tell his whole story before the final vote.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  117. #115:

    So, you assert that the Democrats’ drive to impeach Trump was the result of honest, God-fearing, good men and women aghast at Donald Trump and his undermining of common American principles?

    Here’s what the same impeachment supporters said in 1998:

    https://youtu.be/ta7O0e0p-Eo?t=15

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  118. So, you assert that the Democrats’ drive to impeach Trump was the result of honest, God-fearing, good men and women aghast at Donald Trump and his undermining of common American principles?

    Nothing in #115 asserts or even implies that.
    It clearly points to the absurdity — and hypocrisy — of pretending to be morally offended by “low-life liars” while reflexively defending the most prolific liar who has held the presidency in anyone’s memory.

    Trump defenders are quick to trash the character of anyone who criticizes Trump — or even suggests that a trial ought to have witnesses. Then they’ll ridicule the old-fashioned notion that a president named Trump should be judged on character.
    #112 did those two things in the same breath, with a sarcastic reference to “principle” (something routinely disdained by Trumpsters) followed by a completely earnest jab out “low-lifes.”

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  119. #119 — also, pointing to the sins of Dems doesn’t excuse the Repubs from making an effort to show some integrity. They are not even trying.

    Radegunda (0e8745)

  120. Mr Montagu wrote:

    Like the Clinton impeachment was forgotten? Pffft.

    Yeah, it practically has been. The Democrats still fete him, and even nominated his wife to run for President in 2016. He finished his term with high approval ratings, and if he could have run for a third term, he would have won.

    Nobody really cares about the Clinton impeachment anymore.

    The Dana in Kentucky (b49bca)

  121. ‘It clearly points to the absurdity — and hypocrisy — of pretending to be morally offended by “low-life liars” while reflexively defending the most prolific liar who has held the presidency in anyone’s memory.‘
    Radegunda (0e8745) — 2/1/2020 @ 9:31 am

    The difference of course is that whereas Trump’s lies get acknowledged by his supporters (you know, those big crucial lies of significance— like whether Melania got to know Kim, the weather map, a tussle with an NPR reporter), #NeverTrump wipes the slate clean for any low life that joins their cause.

    Schiff’s lies about collusion, “heads on a pike”, Steele, the Nunes memo, are actually resume enhancers with #NeverTrump, or they get expunged like a traffic ticket. They shall not be mentioned. They never happened.

    Munroe (dd4ac5)

  122. I am really glad you want to acknowledge Trump’s lies, Munroe. Since impeachment is in the news, we can start with his lie that the House never asked Bolton to testify.

    Also, Trump’s lie that Soleimani posed an imminent threat against 4 embassies in order to justify his death — a good result — but a death that violated international law if it was not justified by facts. Then, we can discuss if we want to abide by international rules because they protect our personnel, or if we think international rules are not worthwhile. I think that is a debate worth having, but lying about our actions is just another example of Deep State politics that everyone outside the Beltway criticizes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  123. I am also happy to discuss and condemn liberal, media, and anti-Trump lies. Lying is for children and insecure adults.

    DRJ (15874d)

  124. Nobody really cares about the Clinton impeachment anymore.

    Bill Clinton’s impeachment taint clung to Hillary so bad that she couldn’t beat a blank-slate freshman Senator in 2008 and couldn’t beat a carnival-barking lightweight in 2016.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  125. 89. We hope that when cases centering on exaggerated claims of executive immunity reach the high court, Roberts will lead the justices with a strong majority to reject and discredit Trump’s dangerous views on executive power.

    This is exactly why Schiff ran and hid when a judge got a hand on one of his phony Subpoenas. Democrats do not want a judge to rule one way or another. Obama denied documents and testimony to congress at a staggering rate. These were oversight subpoenas. Obama lost on most of those Art.III rulings. Again, Oversight.
    In this case, the claim was impeachment and oversight. Yes universal. All things to all courts. Schiffs subpoenas carried more power (in his mind) than any Subpoena ever. Schiff could not allow a ruling on this bit of hubris and slight of hand to be exposed to an actual ruling citing actual law, and constitutional interpretation.

    Democrats do not want what they claim they want. Someday, in 5 or 13 years, a Democrat will be President, and then congress will conduct oversight on that President. No Democrat wants congress to have free access to executive communications.

    Quick lesson.
    The House has the soul power to conduct investigation into impeachment. That power also includes the power to subpoena.
    The House has that power. To exercise that power, “The House” would have to issue each Subpoena. Or, “The House” can delegate that power to an appropriate committee. If the House does not conduct a vote to delegate that power, the committee does not have that power.

    iowan2 (1c4a14)

  126. DRJ, you had a golden opportunity to denounce Schiff’s lie about “heads on a pike” in the other thread where you specifically mentioned it (as a dig against Trump, of course) and it seemed not worth your while.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  127. As for the “heads on a pike” story (you know, where Trump reportedly threatened Senators to stay on the Trump train during impeachment … or else?), maybe it isn’t true. Trump makes many threats but the Senators deny that Trump has tried to threaten or intimidate them and that is an important point.

    On the other hand, from the WSJ:

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, aided by White House liaisons, exercised a behind-the-scenes campaign in the chamber to keep his members from panicking and breaking en masse from Mr. Trump. Mr. McConnell’s office even advised the president’s legal team throughout the process on which arguments were important to be made on the floor to resonate with certain undecided senators.”

    “Mr. Trump stayed largely on the sidelines, heeding advice he had received directly from Mr. McConnell to give fence-sitting Republican senators — who were wary both of crossing the president and appearing browbeaten by him — the space to make their own decisions. But he engaged in some political saber-rattling with tweets about the need for a speedy trial resolution and criticism of Mr. Bolton, which was amplified by conservative allies in the media.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  128. I did not denounce the story because I am not convinced it was a lie. Trump questioned whether Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination and portrayed his wife as a hag, yet he has browbeaten Cruz into supporting him. Trump is a master manipulator … for his own benefit.

    DRJ (15874d)

  129. @127 We, us out here who are not in government, should, in fact, hope that the Supreme court rejects claims of far too broad executive power, whoever is making them because we, us out here who are not in government have an ongoing interested in no branch getting too much power, especially the executive.

    Nic (896fdf)

  130. DRJ, you had a golden opportunity to denounce Schiff’s lie about “heads on a pike”

    Could you explain how it’s a lie to say “X has reported Y; I don’t know whether it’s true” when X has, in fact, reported Y, and the speaker does not, in fact, know whether it’s true?

    If you wanted to bring to bring the fact that X reported Y to someone’s attention, and you had no personal knowledge as to whether Y was true, what would be an objective, non-lying way to phrase it?

    Dave (1bb933)

  131. I denounce Schiff for antagonizing his jurors instead of giving them something, anything, that they could take back to their constituents to justify their vote to remove Trump.

    nk (9651fb)

  132. Impeachment will be remembered for how oh so principled #NeverTrump, seekers of Truth, hitched their cause to a bunch of unprincipled low life Dem liars like Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi.

    Its not clear what the “The Never-Trumper” principles are at this point – other than “Destroy Trump”. As for their “conservatism”, who knows what that means anymore. George Will now says its an “attitude”, Boot says he “Fooled himself” into being one, Goldberg talks about it constantly, but refuses to give it a precise meaning with policy implications, French seems to think its whatever French believes. And Kristol and Williamson say they aren’t “Conservative” anymore. Never trumper principles and conservativism is like a cheap hot dog, you don’t know what’s in it, and you doubt its good for you.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  133. ‘Could you explain how it’s a lie to say “X has reported Y; I don’t know whether it’s true” when X has, in fact, reported Y, and the speaker does not, in fact, know whether it’s true?’
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/1/2020 @ 12:15 pm

    Maybe present a relevant hypothetical. I agree your example isn’t a lie. Therefore, what?

    After the Senators involved repudiated it, (meaning Schiff knew it wasn’t true) Schiff repeated the accusation in interviews. Could you explain why that isn’t a lie?

    So, it seems that had Schiff checked with the Senators beforehand, he likely would’ve put the lie out there anyway. Seriously, are you surprised by this? Or, do we blind ourselves to Schiff’s history because tribe?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  134. felipe (023cc9) — 2/1/2020 @ 4:47 am

    there aren’t enough words to describe the greatness of our president donald but he does his level best under the circumstances

    Dave (1bb933)

  135. After the Senators involved repudiated it, (meaning Schiff knew it wasn’t true) Schiff repeated the accusation in interviews. Could you explain why that isn’t a lie?

    Yes I can; in fact you’ve made it very easy with the phrasing of your question (the bolded part in particular).

    Don’t you think your assertion that Schiff should accept the word of every Republican senator as fact is a bit … problematic?

    Particularly in a matter where the senators have a vested interest and their objectivity is in doubt?

    It would be reasonable and honest to treat the media report with skepticism, and the denials with skepticism.

    Both are consistent with saying (and maintaining) “X reported Y; I don’t know whether it’s true”.

    Dave (1bb933)

  136. Its not clear what the “The Never-Trumper” principles are at this point – other than “Destroy Trump”

    Well then, as a card-carrying Never-Trumper, let me help you out:

    “Republicans should not behave like Democrats.”

    There you go. Any more questions?

    Dave (1bb933)

  137. “Don’t you think your assertion that Schiff should accept the word of every Republican senator as fact is a bit … problematic?”
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/1/2020 @ 12:45 pm

    Actually Dave, I would think that the lead impeachment manager doubting the word of all swing Senators involved would be highly problematic. What do you think?

    “I thought he was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on a pike. That’s where he lost me,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

    But, let’s weigh a media report against those Senators. Gee, who to believe? I’ve noticed how you’ve brought similar skepticism to the other false claims in Schiff’s history that I noted.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  138. With the new dispensation (“I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president”), it seems like our principle going forward will need to be:

    “Oppose whoever controls the White House, regardless of party”

    Dave (1bb933)

  139. “Republicans should not behave like Democrats.”
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/1/2020 @ 12:52 pm

    I’d say that sums it up pretty well.

    As a creed, it’s as deep and meaningful as “Red Sox should not behave like Yankees.”

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  140. Rcocean:

    Do you think “conservatism” means something different in 2020 than it did in 2014?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  141. @138 In the thirty or so years I’ve been paying attention (which, yes, I know it isn’t that long in the grand scheme of things) I haven’t noticed any particular difference in tactics between Rs and Ds. Differences in goals, yes, but party tactics? Not really. “The world will end, the country will fracture, it will be the end of constitutional law as we know it, Not My Guy is the anti-christ. Group-of-People-You-Don’t-Like will take over the country. etc etc.” Refuse to confirm judges. Investigate petty things. All the same tactics.

    Nic (896fdf)

  142. I haven’t noticed any particular difference in tactics between Rs and Ds.

    Rs used to tell the truth a lot more than Ds.

    Lately not so much.

    Dave (1bb933)

  143. I’m a conservative, I know precisely what that means, and…independent of all that…I could never support Duh Donald in the past, present, or future (while also giving him credit where it is due).

    It’s all about principles. Some here obviously cannot relate.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  144. @144 One of my first distinct political memories was watching Ollie North lie to Congress on AFN. (Armed Forces Network broadcast the Iran-Contra investigation everyday between when I got home from school and CNN headline news. It was the only US TV station we had, so it was almost always on in the background.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  145. Give me a better major-party candidate than Donald Trump (who is as dumb as a sack of hammers), and I will vote for him or her. I do have a few qualifications though.

    1. Supports the 2nd Amendment and will appoint judges who support the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments which, contrary to most pundits, have been the province of the right of late.

    2. Opposes “Medicare for All” or any other form of nationalized health care. Even Medicare today has private options — that would go in any Democrat plan.

    3. Opposes the Nude Green Eel. I do not need the government to come tell me I have to rebuild my house, no doubt with union labor.

    4. Understands the difference between “citizen”, “immigrant” and “squatter” and believes that government should benefit folks in that order.

    5. Understands the the way to reduce homelessness does not start with “I have lots of money, but only for homeless people.”

    Since all the Democrats actively fail at these things, I will vote for the corrupt sack of hammers.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  146. One of my first distinct political memories was watching Ollie North lie to Congress on AFN.

    Except North had immunity from prosecution and told the truth in his testimony.

    Dave (1bb933)

  147. @148 You ever been around a bunch of military people who knew how the system worked? He lied about a number of things. Everyone knew he was lying. Like a rug. Like a used car salesman. Like a beat down tired dog. The amount of derisive laughter in my general vicinity regarding the idea that Ollie North was telling “the whole truth” was extreme. There was a lot of debate on whether he tried to fall on the grenade and succeeded or tried to fall on it and failed.

    Nic (896fdf)

  148. He lied about a number of things.

    Such as?

    Clearly he wasn’t forthcoming in the sense of being eager to reveal all he could have.

    Dave (2c186f)

  149. @150 Basically he claimed he had way more responsibility and independence than he could possibly have had.

    Nic (896fdf)

  150. I should probably explain that if you are a base/post commander at Col or Gen level, you have a fair amount of latitude, but once you are at any kind of command or joint command post, an ltc is basically a glorified fetch and carry boy. And DC is the ultimate joint command.

    Nic (896fdf)

  151. Mr Montagu wrote:

    Bill Clinton’s impeachment taint clung to Hillary so bad that she couldn’t beat a blank-slate freshman Senator in 2008 and couldn’t beat a carnival-barking lightweight in 2016.

    Uhhh, it wasn’t the impeachment taint, but the fact she is as dull as dishwater, and both Barack Hussein Obama and Donald Trump have charisma by the truckload.

    One of the best characterizations of Mrs Clinton I ever heard was that she reminded every guy of his mother-in-law or his first wife.

    The amused Dana (b49bca)

  152. Except North had immunity from prosecution and told the truth in his testimony.

    And then was prosecuted anyway. His conviction was vacated due to immunity.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  153. Or his first wife’s mother.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  154. Dave wrote:

    Its not clear what the “The Never-Trumper” principles are at this point – other than “Destroy Trump”

    Well then, as a card-carrying Never-Trumper, let me help you out:

    “Republicans should not behave like Democrats.”

    I have to ask: which is more important, getting rid of a President you say behaves like Democrats, or avoiding having a President who has policies like Democrats?

    President Trump’s personal life and his scheming and his venality are certainly not admirable, but they affect very few people. His policies, on the other hand, affect every American. I disapprove of some of his policies, but he has been good on immigration, on judicial nominations, on reducing — though not enough — our foreign military entanglements, on reducing regulations, on dumping the ridiculous Paris climate agreement, on reversing the cockamamie Title IX rules President Obama put in place, and some — not all — of his trade policies have worked.

    If you look at the policy proposals of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and even Joe Biden, you’ll see just how much worse things can be.

    The realistic Dana (b49bca)

  155. Munroe 128,

    As I said last week, i thought then and still think that Trump’s threats were directed at the Senators in red states who might care about principles but will instead use their influence to convince the moderates not to jump ship. I thought Trump might be pressuring Senators like Cruz, Cornyn, Paul, Scott, etc., and maybe he was, but the red state Senator who has the most influence and the most to lose is … McConnell:

    Meanwhile, soon after dividing on the question of witnesses, the new moderate power center in the 53-member GOP caucus was back at it.

    As Senate Republicans tried to figure out how to wind down Trump’s trial Friday afternoon, McConnell privately met with a familiar foursome: Murkowski, Collins, Romney and Alexander.

    DRJ (15874d)

  156. If you look at the policy proposals of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and even Joe Biden, you’ll see just how much worse things can be.

    Which makes the GOP’s sacrifice of its credibility and integrity on the Altar of Trump all the more disastrous for the country.

    With that said, I think the country would be better off after 4 years of incrementally higher taxes and welfare spending under a nominally sane Democrat than it would it would after 4 more years of the deranged, sociopathic imbecile currently occupying the White House.

    Dave (1bb933)

  157. i agree mr. Dave but senate republicans do not have the requisite two “articles” in their “constitutions”

    nk (9651fb)

  158. 70. Lazlo Toth (cbb623) — 1/31/2020 @ 2:11 pm

    . I loathed Hillary so much that I voted for Bernie in the primary, and I loathe him.

    I did more than that. I voted for 3 Clinton delegates and 3 Bernie delegates. Because the system was that the vote for president determined how the delegates were apportioned, but then for each candidate, who got to go to the covention was determined by which delegate got the most votes. So I could put in my two cents worth as to who was better or not.

    In 1980, I attended a caucus after the primary where they chose the actual Ted Kennedy delegates. Not that I had too much to go on n choosing among these people.

    In both cases the idea was to put my tiny tiny weight on the side of another alternative, bt aaist the worst.

    Whether Trump wins or loses, I want the other side to understand that enough people are against them that they voted against them.

    Some votes for a third party candidate can send that message too, without the risk of being mistaken for an endorsement.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  159. DRJ (15874d) — 2/1/2020 @ 4:38 pm

    Yep, Cruz for example was so brow beaten that he found himself unwittingly mocking Pelosi’s clap.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7955835/Ted-Cruz-appears-mock-Nancy-Pelosis-famous-handclap-Republicans-vote-against-witnesses.html

    Cruz accepted Trump’s primary victory and moved on. It’s called being an adult.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  160. It’s called being an adult.

    Thank you, Don Lemon.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  161. 72. rcocean (1a839e) — 1/31/2020 @ 2:17 pm

    Some were Putin smiles.

    No, he doesn’t. Look what happened: Now both major political parties are heavily committed to military and other help for Ukrainian independence.

    Vladimir Putin invested a lot of time and money trying to get Russian disinformation into the White House where it could affect policy, and succeeded…but all he got for it was a pause in U.S. aid commitments to Ukraine for about 84 days that did not affect anything on the ground.

    Of course the Democrats aren’t interested in following this line of inquiry, * because it doesn’t make Donald Trump look like an evil mastermind who sent Giuliani to Ukraine to “dig up dirt”, but instead makes him look like a potentially dangerous fool. If they did that, Trump might possibly even admit he might have blundered, and confess error, and how would that help them?

    ———————
    * Just follow the money that paid Giuliani’s expenses and look into his sources. Also try to find out what Trump heard about Ukraine from Vladimir Putin on May 3 in a telephone call, and from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on May 13 during a White House visit.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  162. “Thank you, Don Lemon.”
    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/1/2020 @ 6:40 pm

    Thank you, Pierre Delecto.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  163. What an excellent example of the Trump Toady is Marilyn Monroe!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  164. 85.

    When fat lady sing?

    Next Wednesday, February 5, at 4 pm. One day after the state of the Union message. Three days after the competing Superbowl ads by Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump, and also the halftime interview by Donald Trump.

    Mitch McConnell needs to allocate time for more speeches by Schiff and Sekulow, or others on their teams. (Sekulow mostly acts as an MC) and also for Senators.

    There might be more leaks about what’s supposed to be in Bolton’s book.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  165. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/1/2020 @ 6:51 pm

    Wow. Memories of 3rd grade recess come rushing back.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  166. It’s called being an adult.

    No, it’s called “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

    I guess sometimes you just have to kiss the fat orange ass of the man who slandered your dad and told America your wife is ugly.

    Anything to keep the career alive. I guess Ted figures if costs him his dignity, that means it’s free.

    Dave (1bb933)

  167. Wow. Memories of 3rd grade recess come rushing back.

    You mean from Monday…?

    You’re the one who attacked those who disagree with you as immature, just like Lemon and his panel attacked Trump voters a “rubes”.

    Both are stupid, false generalizations.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  168. DRJ, you had a golden opportunity to denounce Schiff’s lie about “heads on a pike” in the other thread where you specifically mentioned it (as a dig against Trump, of course) and it seemed not worth your while.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/1/2020 @ 11:45 am

    Munroe, please stop lying that you have some secret proof that this ‘heads on a pike’ threat didn’t happen. I believe it did happen. It’s hugely consistent with how the GOP is behaving, and how Trump threatens people. He, like all weak men in power, acts like a pathetic bully when he can get away with it, and like a bowl of cold milk when he cannot.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  169. @Nic 150 152

    He {Oliver North] lied [in his televised Iran contra testimony] about a number of things…

    Basically he claimed he had way more responsibility and independence than he could possibly have had.

    What he did might have been unauthorized, except by National Security Adviser John Poindexter but that might have bene enough for him to go rogue.

    I don’t remember it all too well, but one thing he seems to have lied about is where he got the money to pay for a car. It came from a little tin box that a little tin key unlocks or something like that. (something a little more modern by the 1980s – I think a home safe)

    https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm

    North testified that he had $15,000 in cash in a metal box bolted to a closet floor in his home, saved from pocket change and a decades-old insurance settlement.46 This, North said, was the source of funds for a car he bought in October 1985. North could not explain why he paid for the car in two cash payments — the second after North had visited Secord. He said he could not recall the October 1985 payment.

    No, it was a box, not a safe, but maybe not made of tin.

    https://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/fiorello/littletinbox.htm

    Nobody noted the parallel in 1987.

    The implication of the question to Oliver North was that he got it from the profit made on the sale of arms to Iran, but on the other hand I thought that was all accounted for: It did not go to the contras but was deposited in the wrong numbered bank account, and the money was lost that way.

    Or there’s something wrong with that story?

    White House Chief of Staff Don Regan was of the opinion (in his book) that John Poindexter and company intended to abscond with the money on January 20, 1989 (= money that nobody would know existed!). He wrote he was familiar with possibilities from his career on Wall Street. So that was his thought.

    I thought they were patriotic and just feared Saddam Hussein more than Ayatollah Khomeini. The U.S. had some insight into what Iran would do, and it was also a less severe dictatorship than Iran maybe easier to envision it falling and Iran did not have nuclear program at the time. I never thought Poindexter and North were motivated by a desire to help the contras (I mean they might have noticed that the contras weren’t getting any help from them) or to free the hostages (it was too much of a longshot.)

    I think they wanted to help Iran win the war. There would be one problem instead of two, and maybe the easier to handle one. And this was not something they could get Ronald Reagan to agree to. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, on the other hand, wanted Iraq to hold out. (Reagan wantes strict neutrality – he didn’t want to pick a side.)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  170. Trump voters are rubes. And they’re also jealous of Pierre Delecto because he had a dinner date with Carolin Gallego and they didn’t.

    nk (9651fb)

  171. * it was also a less severe dictatorship than Iraq maybe easier to envision it falling

    Still getting into trouble with the single letter difference after all these years.. I knew I meant Iraq was the more tightly controlled dictatorship.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  172. Cruz could’ve easily pouted and stammered the past three years, but he didn’t. I fault his parents.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  173. Grilled with sriracha sauce, maybe.

    nk (9651fb)

  174. @171 I was in jr high, which will probably tell you how high-detail my memory for the trials is. 😛 But my impression at the time was that also nobody thought Ollie was particularly intelligent (some of the people in my vicinity actually knew the man).

    Nic (896fdf)

  175. 178.

    @171 I was in jr high, which will probably tell you how high-detail my memory for the trials is.

    I heard about the car, purchased with funds that came out of a metal box, from the Iran-contra hearings. I don’t think the trial was televised. I suppose this came up in the trial too.

    Oliver North and John Poindexter were writing electronic mail on some kind of internal system to each other. Note: I looked it up. It was an IBM application called PROFS (PRofessional OFfice System). It wasn’t for microcomputers, although one could be used as a terminal. The NSC had had it since 1982.

    Oliver North deleted his emails, but John Poindexter said he didn’t delete it the right way. But he, John Poindexter, knew how to delete it and did that with his copies. He actually said that in public testimony. I suppose this was like the way MS-DOS files are deleted. The first letter of the file name is changed – nothing actually is deleted. It can be recovered immediately with the right software. It also can be overwritten after that.

    No, wait = correction – they were still in a back-up computer system that temporarily stored deleted emails. So maybe more like Windows’ Recycle bin. Oliver North didn’t know this detail.

    Here is an article that tries to explain this:

    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-10-fi-58-story.html

    It was also backup magnetic tapes.

    More:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/16/us/5000-files-erased-from-poindexter-s-computer.html

    Two prosecution witnesses in John M. Poindexter’s trial testified today that more than 5,000 computer messages were deleted from Mr. Poindexter’s personal computer in late November 1986 after investigators began combing the National Security Council files for Iran-contra documents.

    The deletions were discovered by White House computer experts only a few days later. They were found in a back-up computer system that temporarily stored deleted messages as a safeguard, a former White House computer official testified today.

    The recovered files were printed out.

    Former Texas Senator John Tower said he was amazed at how much they wrote. They wrote everything down. Of course, they didn’t really – it was email, which Oliver North thought was evanescent. I don’t think John Tower understood what was going on. They didn’t really write letters to each other. They had never originally been printed out. And it took no, or little effort, and was easier, and more certain than trying to call someone up on the telephone.

    If they had worked ten years before, there wouldn’t have been this copious record of many many little things they did.

    They were convicted of destroying public records (they also shredded a lot) and maybe of other things (maybe North on;y had the destruction of records counts) but their convictions were overturned by the way, is spite of the fact that some prosecutors had been isolated, because the court ruled that their testimony to Congress under “use immunity” had nevertheless had way to affect what others heard. As a result of that, “use immunity” is pretty much regarded as equal to full immunity. The court in effect ruled that it’s basically not possible to offer “use immunity.”

    One effect of all of this is that Congressional committes have ended to defer to prosecutors and let them go first. That was one reason that Adam Schiff here never called for any kid of special counsel. hat was the last thing they wanted.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  176. I was in jr high, which will probably tell you how high-detail my memory for the trials is.

    I was in graduate school, and followed it closely.

    North’s testimony was explosive precisely because it was truthful. He more or less admitted everything he was accused of doing.

    But my impression at the time was that also nobody thought Ollie was particularly intelligent

    Too clever by half, I would say.

    I think he came across as intelligent and well-spoken in his testimony.

    At the same time, his view of the world was strongly shaped, and in some ways limited, by his experiences. He was raised in a military family, he was leading men into combat on the front lines in Vietnam by the time he was 25, and he remained in the military until he was 45 years old.

    Dave (1bb933)

  177. Grilled with sriracha sauce, maybe.

    …in an orange reduction.

    Dave (1bb933)

  178. Oliver North’s testimony had to be consistent with all the email he had sent or received, and his immunity wouldn’t apply if he lied.

    Now if he had an unreported source of income, that could cost him money – he had no immunity from taxes, interest, and civil penalties and maybe there could be some trouble over the money itself, but he had no reason to lie (except maybe about his motives) in connection with other things.

    I think Nic found something very wrong with Oliver North acting like he had legitimate authority. He clearly didn’t since he deleted or tried to delete, much email. And, at that stage, it was the chain of command leading up the president that he was hiding things from.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  179. @180 North would not have been able to independently do some of the things he took independent responsibility for.

    I’m talking about people who had personal knowledge of him, regardless of how he came off. We were at a different command but people went back and forth from DC a lot and the social group the parents moved in was O3s to O7s (captains to brigadiers).

    As for North’s very shaped world view… My gr grand was a cavalry officer in WWI. My grandfather served in WWII and died in Korea, and my father, the AF officer who retired only when he aged out for his rank, having served more than 23 years, thought North was a lying criminal.

    @182 I don’t think he could have fooled anyone into thinking he had legitimate authority unless his chain of command was fully backing him or he was acting under orders. I think he did a good job of making it look like he was hiding things form them.

    Nic (896fdf)

  180. @180 North would not have been able to independently do some of the things he took independent responsibility for.

    He didn’t take independent responsibility. McFarlane and then Poindexter were in charge, and it was their authority that made what North did possible.

    North’s actions were extensively investigated by the Tower Commission and by Congress, and later by an Independent Counsel, and there is little doubt about what transpired.

    Dave (1bb933)

  181. So, Bill Kristol says “We are all Democrats now.” I wonder who the “we” is there?

    https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/02/01/ffs-bill-kristol-says-we-are-all-democrats-now-and-people-have-thoughts/

    Maybe he should start a magazine for the group. Jennifer Rubin would subscribe.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  182. I guess sometimes you just have to kiss the fat orange ass of the man who slandered your dad and told America your wife is ugly.

    Anything to keep the career alive. I guess Ted figures if costs him his dignity, that means it’s free.

    Ted got a whole bunch of Federalist Society judges for his soul. What did the others get?

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  183. Anything to keep the career alive.

    And again, it’s easy for armchair critics to claim that politicians should throw away their careers in order to make a “futile and stupid gesture.” Good thing that political acquiescence of that sort never happens in, say, academe or bureaucracies.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  184. Ted got a whole bunch of Federalist Society judges for his soul.

    Why don’t you walk us through that mechanism, because from my POV that doesn’t begin to compute. Plus, there’s that whole “Man For All Seasons” quote…or two.

    What did the others get?

    Which others? Plus, see above allusion to “soul”.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  185. ‘Which others? Plus, see above allusion to “soul”.’
    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/2/2020 @ 7:49 am

    How neat and tidy the principled world is when it’s someone else’s head on the block.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  186. How neat and tidy the principled world is when it’s someone else’s head on the block.

    Every person who elects to live by principle pays a price for it every day. Obviously, this is news to some here.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  187. Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 2/2/2020 @ 7:10 am

    Trump is the ultimate “futile and stupid gesture” – the cake labelled “Eat Me” in the Homecoming parade – and 98% of the elected Republicans in Washington have thrown away their careers and reputations on his behalf.

    Dave (1bb933)

  188. Trump’s success in turning a large majority of Republicans into people who argue: “Only do the right thing when it’s easy for you” is one of the best reasons to oppose him.

    Dave (1bb933)

  189. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/2/2020 @ 8:06 am

    In this case, it looks like England survived.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  190. Dave (1bb933) — 2/2/2020 @ 8:26 am

    Well obviously, we should let #NeverTrump decide what the right thing is, and shield them from the cost. Duh.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  191. In this case, it looks like England survived.

    Not some of the best of it. That was killed off.

    It would be as apt to say that Germany survived.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  192. Well obviously, we should let #NeverTrump decide what the right thing is, and shield them from the cost. Duh.

    Nobody suggested that, or wants it.

    You appear unable to do this intelligently and without resorting to straw man fallacy.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  193. “Not some of the best of it. That was killed off.”
    Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/2/2020 @ 9:01 am

    Maybe we need a “Man for all Seasons” prequel.

    You do realize that Thomas More, this paragon of principle, presided over torture and execution of heretics, don’t you?

    This man of principle got what he gave out — and, yes, he’s fitting of #NeverTrump hagiography.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  194. You appear unable to do this intelligently and without resorting to straw man fallacy.

    I guess we should have introduced you to Munroe.

    Dave (1bb933)

  195. You do realize that Thomas More, this paragon of principle, presided over torture and execution of heretics, don’t you?

    There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. You think our country is so innocent?

    Dave (1bb933)

  196. To know Munroe’s straw men is to know Dave.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  197. If we really want a check (as in “balance” not as in “Pay to”) tonTrump, we need to vote those 23 dung beetles out.

    nk (9651fb)

  198. If we really want a check (as in “balance” not as in “Pay to”) to Trump, we need to vote those 23 dung beetles out.

    nk (9651fb)

  199. I misgoofed, and put a response meant for this thread on the weekend open thread. My bad.

    The Dana in Kentucky (b49bca)

  200. “You do realize that Thomas More, this paragon of principle, presided over torture and execution of heretics, don’t you?

    This man of principle got what he gave out — and, yes, he’s fitting of #NeverTrump hagiography.”

    He was a highly principled man of his time, NOT our time.

    The point…intentionally lost to you…was that he lived and died holding to his principles, contra Cruz and several others. Some of More’s time sold out for power. Just as now.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  201. Ragspierre (d9bec9) — 2/2/2020 @ 10:11 am

    Thomas Cranmer also died for his principles. One of those principles involved the execution of More. Had More lived, his principles would’ve led him to support Bloody Mary.

    Maybe all that could’ve been avoided had there been elections, so that differences over principles could be settled. But, I’m guessing neither More nor Cranmer would’ve accepted the results, appointing dueling special prosecutors to wage lawfare.

    Fortunately, we’re above all that in OUR time.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  202. “He was a highly principled man of his time, NOT our time.”

    LOL. He was a Man for all Seasons.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  203. Thomas More has only been ths=is hero maybe for about 50 to 60 years.

    A Man for All Seasons is a play by Robert Bolt was originally a play on BBC radio in 1954, then a one-hour live television show on the BBC in 1957, then a stage play that debuted in the he Globe Theatre n London in 1960 (not that Globe theatre) then a Broadway play in 1961 and finally a movie in 1966 (made in Great Britain)

    The play has been revived a few times, and even the radio play, and a made for TV movie was produced in 1988.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  204. Had More lived, his principles would’ve led him to support Bloody Mary.

    More was no stranger to the burning of Protestants prior to the Divorce.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  205. Of course, Henry was no stranger to mass executions, either.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  206. And Trump has principles, too! They just center around Trump, but we all have our foibles.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  207. @184 Maybe they finally dug everything out in the end in the late 80s/early 90s, but in 86/87, he was a lying liar.

    @205 “had More lived, his principles would’ve led him to support Bloody Mary.”

    Given the times, what would have been so egregious about that? Henry had supporters, Edward had supporters, Elizabeth had supporters and ain’t none of them were saints. They all had numbers of people viciously killed.

    Nic (896fdf)

  208. Given the times, what would have been so egregious about that? Henry had supporters, Edward had supporters, Elizabeth had supporters and ain’t none of them were saints. They all had numbers of people viciously killed.

    Ironically, had Henry stayed faithful to his first wife, as More counseled, Mary would have still become Queen, and England might have avoided centuries of religious strife altogether, as well as a war with Spain.

    Of course, a Catholic England would have changed history dramatically, likely not for the better in many ways. But given that Henry had no sympathy for Protestantism, and excellent relations with Rome, until his carnal impulses pushed him in the opposite direction, More’s position was arguably the wisest at the time.

    (It’s also possible that a later monarch would have broken with Rome for other reasons – the huge pile of gold sitting there waiting to be plundered would have always presented a temptation…)

    Dave (1bb933)

  209. Saint Thomas More in the ages of throuples and same sex couples. That’s like so quaint that I just can’t even.

    nk (9651fb)

  210. “age” not “ages”

    nk (9651fb)

  211. 211

    Henry had supporters, Edward had supporters, Elizabeth had supporters and ain’t none of them were saints. They all had numbers of people viciously killed

    That sort of thing, and, after the mid-1600s, even things not so serious, is the background for the First Amendment.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  212. Saint Thomas More in the ages of throuples and same sex couples. That’s like so quaint that I just can’t even.

    And a Nazarene carpenter … ?

    Dave (1bb933)

  213. He advises me to not answer you except with kindness.

    nk (9651fb)

  214. Showing forbearance in the age of Trump. That’s like so quaint that I just can’t even.

    Dave (1bb933)

  215. Heh! Thanks for pointing out that today’s date is a palindrome, BTW.

    nk (9651fb)

  216. Lots of Never-Trumper emotionalism with few facts. Sounds like Bill Kristol posts here. People have “Sold their souls for federal judges”. LOL! what does that mean, precisely? So, we have “political souls”? If I worship Jonah Goldberg will I go heaven? Haha

    Politics – in the real world – is quite simple. You want policy A passed or policy B stopped/prevented. You elect Pols to do that. You never get 100% you want, and no Politician is perfect, so you often have to settle. Perfection is not an option – it doesn’t exist.

    Its obvious that most Never-Trumpers are globalists or social liberals with a libertarian streak in economics. Hence the dislike of Trump and his popular nationalism. And since the policy positions are unpopular in the Republcian party SOME of them – especially Kristol and Rev. French hide behind all this hysterical language (Dictator) and blather about “Character“.

    Its quite amusing.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  217. 220. Most Nevertrumpers, huh? THanks for explaining to me what I believe and why, douchebag.

    Gryph (e7fa19)

  218. Its obvious that most Never-Trumpers are globalists or social liberals with a libertarian streak in economics.

    What’s obvious is that you…like your little orange god…don’t know your ass from a cypress stump when it comes to

    1. liberty

    2. economics or
    3. people who disagree with you

    There isn’t a nickel’s difference between Sanders and Duh Donald on trade policy, for instance. Both are BIG GOVERNMENT FANS of central planning. Both know what’s good for you, and are going to give it to you…good and hard.

    Many Americans prefer to make our own choices.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  219. Proverbs 26.4 (KJV)
    Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    Lest thou also be like unto him.

    Proverbs 26.5 (KJV)
    Answer a fool according to his folly,
    Lest he be wise in his own conceit.

    You gotta know your fools. A 26.4 fool you cannot educate; a 26.5 fool you might.

    nk (1d9030)

  220. rcocean (1a839e) — 2/2/2020 @ 3:28 pm

    You’re wrong. Character is fundamental.
    If a politician is dishonest, corrupt, or just plain hungry for power, he will eventually betray you on policies he promised to you. Exhibit A: the GOP in recent years. The whole triumph of Trump in the GOP came about because GOP politicians betrayed their policy promises, and that was because they had no character.

    Yet here you are advocating for a politician (Trump) who is openly dishonest, corrupt, and hungry for power, and who systematically betrays his promises.

    Kishnevi (5bd7eb)

  221. The whole triumph of Trump in the GOP came about because GOP politicians betrayed their policy promises, and that was because they had no character.

    I think this is a Trumpist fable. What politicians and policy promises are you referring too?

    Dave (1bb933)

  222. I can’t speak for kishnevi but I view the Tea Party as a movement that came about because the GOP was not reliable. To me, the rise of Trump and Cruz was a direct result of that. People wanted new voices and Trump had the loudest voice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  223. I can’t speak for kishnevi but I view the Tea Party as a movement that came about because the GOP was not reliable.

    The Tea Party was surely a response to Obama and his policies (the TEA originally stood for “Taxed Enough Already”), and once they had the votes (after the 2010 election), the GOP was very effective in keeping Obama’s taxing and spending in check. See Figure 1 in this excellent article by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

    Trump talked essentially not at all about cutting taxation or spending during the election campaign (and to the extent he did, it was risible nonsense that even his cultists couldn’t swallow about eliminating the $20T national debt in eight years).

    Trump’s signature issue was illegal immigration, and the previous GOP president, with a GOP Congress, had more than doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, leading to an almost 10-fold decrease in successful illegal crossings between points of entry by 2016.

    Dave (1bb933)

  224. “the previous GOP president, with a GOP Congress, had more than doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, leading to an almost 10-fold decrease in successful illegal crossings between points of entry by 2016.”
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/2/2020 @ 8:14 pm

    How does an increase in agents lead to a Great Recession?

    Munroe (dd4ac5)

  225. I both disagree and agree with DRJ on the Tea Party. I think it quickly became an astroturfed movement behind which the GOP establishment could conveniently hide. But I think it is clear that the GOP establishment made plenty of promises that were useful to them for electioneering but on which they took few if any steps to bring to fruition.

    Kishnevi (5bd7eb)

  226. England might have avoided centuries of religious strife altogether, as well as a war with Spain.

    England was already burning heretics, and the rest of Europe would still have been as bloody. But maybe the English Renaissance might have never happened. No Newton, John Locke or Adam Smith. Or America.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  227. Dave is right as far as he goes about the TEAs, but the two major parties were agreed that they had to go — the Dems hated them and the GOP was done using them. By the 2012 election they were spent as a force. But the desire for reform hadn’t died, just been pent up. Enter Trump.

    Populism is NOT a failure of democracy, it is its reaffirmation.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  228. How does an increase in agents lead to a Great Recession?

    I don’t read that in what Dave said. But I do wonder how GWBush gets credit for decreased border crossings in Obama’s last year of office. [Or was that simply a typo?]

    Kishnevi (5bd7eb)

  229. The establishment always hates populism, but it’s the establishment’s neglect and self-dealing that ends up prying Joe from his six-pack and getting him out to vote.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  230. decreased border crossings in Obama’s last year of office.

    Juking the stats. Please to call them “refugees”

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  231. I don’t read that in what Dave said. But I do wonder how GWBush gets credit for decreased border crossings in Obama’s last year of office. [Or was that simply a typo?]

    The increase in BP agents and other border security measures Dubya and the GOP congress put in place in 2006 did not happen instantaneously.

    This figure shows that clearly.

    My point is that claims the previous GOP administration broke any promises to crack down on illegal immigration are provably false.

    Dave (1bb933)

  232. Kevin M (8ae2cb) — 2/2/2020 @ 8:22 pm

    England’s relations with the Papacy were generally frosty from the early Plantagenets on, and Protestant influences were strong in England even when Henry tried to suppress them. But a speculative history in which Henry did not divorce Catherine of Aragon would have deal with whomever Henry would have married after Catherine’s death, and what children they did or did not have, and what route the succession to the throne would have taken. Remember that after the death of Henry’s actual children, the succession went to James of Scotland via his mother, whose first husband was the King of France. It would take only a few speculative twists for Mary Stuart’s child from that marriage [offspring who of course did not exist in real history] to be monarch of three kingdoms: France, Scotland, and, after the Tudors died off, England.

    Kishnevi (5bd7eb)

  233. England was already burning heretics, and the rest of Europe would still have been as bloody. But maybe the English Renaissance might have never happened. No Newton, John Locke or Adam Smith. Or America.

    Which is why I said: “Of course, a Catholic England would have changed history dramatically, likely not for the better in many ways.”

    England’s relations with the Papacy were generally frosty from the early Plantagenets on, and Protestant influences were strong in England even when Henry tried to suppress them.

    Early in his reign, Henry wrote (the extent of More’s assistance in the project is still debated) a full-throated defense of Catholicism against Luther, which earned him the title “Defender of the Faith” from a grateful Pope Leo.

    It’s certainly true that Protestantism was in the air all across northern Europe at the time, but Henry was extremely popular (and secure) in England.

    But a speculative history in which Henry did not divorce Catherine of Aragon would have deal with whomever Henry would have married after Catherine’s death, and what children they did or did not have, and what route the succession to the throne would have taken. Remember that after the death of Henry’s actual children, the succession went to James of Scotland via his mother, whose first husband was the King of France. It would take only a few speculative twists for Mary Stuart’s child from that marriage [offspring who of course did not exist in real history] to be monarch of three kingdoms: France, Scotland, and, after the Tudors died off, England.

    Prior to the divorce, there were plans to wed Catherine and Henry’s daughter Mary to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Despite both being Catholics, Charles and Francis, the King of France, were not on friendly terms, and before Henry turned heretic, each sought his help against the other.

    Interesting to speculate, but of course we can never know…

    Dave (1bb933)

  234. IMO the Tea Party movement was about the GOP:

    GARCIA-NAVARRO: The Tea Party – capital T, capital P – was, on its face, a reaction to President Obama’s moves to stop the 2009 economic crisis, some of which were continuations of Bush administration policies. What did you see the Tea Party as at the time?

    DONOVAN: At the time, it was a very high-minded – you know, certainly driven by the energy of populism of some of the grievance related to some of the things that were seen as being bailouts for other people but not for conservatives. But it was definitely dressed up in sort of high-minded ideology. And part of it was a reformation against the sense that Republicans had lost their way and that was why they lost in 2008. And so it was very much a matter of purity and being the most conservative.

    I don’t agree with the tone but the point is right. There were 87 new Republicans elected because of the Tea Party movement. That wasn’t just because they objected to Obama’s actions and policies. That was about Republicans’ actions and policies.

    DRJ (15874d)

  235. Bush cared more about comprehensive immigration reform than border security. I think he was sincere and committed in his beliefs but security was more to placate his base, not his agenda. Plus the 2006 Secure Fence Act wasn’t fully funded.

    DRJ (15874d)

  236. There were 87 new Republicans elected because of the Tea Party movement. That wasn’t just because they objected to Obama’s actions and policies. That was about Republicans’ actions and policies.

    Then it should be easy to identify what those Republican actions and policies were. But nobody seems able to do so.

    The Tea Party wasn’t an anti-War-on-Terror movement. It consciously stayed away from social issues. At its core, it was about limited government and fiscal conservatism, in reaction to Obama’s Porkulus and Affordable Care Act.

    I think

    The whole triumph of Trump in the GOP came about because GOP politicians betrayed their policy promises, and that was because they had no character.

    is frankly slander that originated with Trump cultists and is now being parroted by smart people who should know better.

    The fact is that between 2009 and 2015, before Trump crawled out of his sewer to “save” the party, the GOP gained over 1000 seats nationwide in congressional, state legislature and governor’s races. Yet by some sleight-of-hand, somehow we’re supposed to believe this is evidence of a party *losing* its support…

    The Republican Party was doing just fine before Trump, until Trump and his shills found it useful to re-write history.

    Dave (1bb933)

  237. Ok. Try this and this and maybe this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  238. Short version here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  239. DRJ wrote:

    I don’t agree with the tone but the point is right. There were 87 new Republicans elected because of the Tea Party movement. That wasn’t just because they objected to Obama’s actions and policies. That was about Republicans’ actions and policies.

    I keep pointing this out to the libertarians, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. The Libertarian Party has never elected a single congressman or senator, governor or state senator. Do as Ron and Rand Paul have done, enter Republican primaries and actually win something, get a greater libertarian influence in the GOP, the way the TEA Party did.

    But, noooo! Stuck in their ideological purity, why the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats to them. They’ll point to having elected a few city councilmen and dog catchers and tax commissioners, and say, “See? We can win!”

    The libertarian Dana (b49bca)

  240. Interesting to speculate, but of course we can never know…

    We do know! The great men of history have left their marks indelibly on the world. Ford two-doors changed history exponentially more than any Tudor king.

    The “for want of a nail … a kingdom was lost” theory of causality was probably invented by farriers and blacksmiths, and picked up by sci-fi/fantasy hacks. “If it made no difference, it would have never made a difference” is the natural law.

    nk (1d9030)

  241. https://therightscoop.com/amazing-speech-by-bill-whittle-at-beverly-hills-tea-party/

    I thought the Whittle speech was as good a summation of the TEA party impulse as any.

    It was never a homogeneous “party”, but it did have an important impact on American politics for a few happy years.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  242. Dave wrote:

    The fact is that between 2009 and 2015, before Trump crawled out of his sewer to “save” the party, the GOP gained over 1000 seats nationwide in congressional, state legislature and governor’s races. Yet by some sleight-of-hand, somehow we’re supposed to believe this is evidence of a party *losing* its support…

    The Republican Party was doing just fine before Trump, until Trump and his shills found it useful to re-write history.

    You wrote as though Donald Trump somehow cheated to win the nomination. No, while he had money that the others did not, he entered the Republican primaries just like sixteen other candidates did, and Republican primary voters chose him.

    We had sixteen mostly conventional candidates, saying mostly the same things, and Mr Trump, saying something very different, and behaving very differently.

    It wasn’t as though the other candidates weren’t pointing this out, Carly Fiorina most notably among them, but Ted Cruz and John Kasich were as well.

    By the time the Pennsylvania primary rolled around, only Senator Cruz and Governor Kasich remained as the alternatives to Mr Trump, and though I voted for Mr Cruz in that election, he got stomped in Pennsylvania, 56.6% to 21.6%, with Mr Kasich taking 19.4%.

    To me, that meant something. Mr Cruz was not exactly well liked, as he was the strongest and most vociferous conservative in the race . . . and the personal favorite of our host. Mr Trump was something completely different, saying mostly conservative things but concentrating heavily on immigration. Between the two of them, the far ends of the Republican candidates took 78.2% of the vote, while the remaining ‘traditional’ Republican, Mr Kasich, got less than a fifth of the vote.

    GOP primary voters wanted change, not just change from Barack Hussein Obama, but change from the way Republicans had been doing things. Mr Cruz was a radical change, but Mr Trump even more so.

    The Republican Dana (b49bca)

  243. “Grievance-mongering and race-hustling. It’s not just for Jesse Jackson anymore.” — Sponsored by the Florida Orange Country Club Owners’ Association

    nk (1d9030)

  244. nk wrote:

    The “for want of a nail … a kingdom was lost” theory of causality was probably invented by farriers and blacksmiths, and picked up by sci-fi/fantasy hacks

    .

    The poem, perhaps, but had Marshall Ney brought a handful of nails with him, to spike the British guns when he could have done so, Napoleon would have won the Battle of Waterloo.

    The historian Dana (b49bca)

  245. Republican Dana, you may be right, I may be wrong, but my view of the 14 million or so who gave Trump the primary is that 1) they are racists who 2) want the government largess going to brown people to go to them instead, 3) they are nothing more than that, and 4) they themselves lie as much as their orange leader about themselves, about Trump, and about his opponents.

    nk (1d9030)

  246. “Way to insult Caligula, Patterico.”

    Trump hasn’t lived up to my sterling example yet, several reps and Senators could easily be replaced with horses, cows, or some sort of farm animal to nothing but the good of the nation.

    Good Guy Caligula (643072)

  247. 220. Most Nevertrumpers, huh? THanks for explaining to me what I believe and why, douchebag.

    Sounds like a direct persona insult, and not allowed on this blog. But whatever. I always consider the source. As long as the leftwing trolls don’t dirty the place up too much.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  248. Dave (1bb933) — 2/2/2020 @ 8:38 pm

    claims the previous GOP administration broke any promises to crack down on illegal immigration are provably false.

    They were opnly cracking down on new illegal immigration.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  249. Trump, on the other hsand was saying crazy things.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  250. You wrote as though Donald Trump somehow cheated to win the nomination.

    No, the Russians cheated for him.

    What Trump did to win the nomination was lie. Bigly.

    Dave (1bb933)

  251. Morning, folks.

    nk, I am genuinely curious. Is there a candidate you would have preferred over HRC? I mean, I hated having DJT as the nominee. But who would have a better choice, in your view?

    I hate this new reality where we have to support an awful candidate because we believe (or have been taught to believe) the opposition candidate is so much worse.

    I to see decent choices. And we aren’t getting them.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  252. No, the Russians cheated for him.

    The sign of “not a serious person”. But it’s ok, so long as you espouse the politically correct viewpoint as appreciated in these parts.

    PTw (894877)

  253. Is there a candidate you would have preferred over HRC?

    Just about anybody in the phone book, and I’m saying that because I’m sure Trump has an unlisted number. Hillary got Trump elected President. The 14 million or so Deplorables only got him the Republican primary.

    nk (1d9030)

  254. I wish I could pin that on the GOP, but 16,000 or so primary voters got AOC the nomination in a safe Democratic district of nominally 731,000 people (hers is more), so that particular evil is inherent in both parties.

    nk (1d9030)

  255. With all due respect DRJ, I don’t see anything in those links that justifies the charge that

    “GOP politicians betrayed their policy promises, and that was because they had no character.”

    The first link, to FoxNews, mentions balancing the budget and shrinking the size of government. Dubya had the deficit down to a tiny 1.1% of GDP in 2007 – a level lower than we may ever see again in our lifetimes, thanks to Donald Trump.

    To the extent there was friction between the newly elected Republicans and the “establishment”, it was over tactics and messaging, not goals. Clearly, the tactics actually used were effective, because after the GOP took the House in 2010, the deficit fell from 9.8% of GDP in 2009 to 2.4% of GDP in 2015, with a Democrat in the White House – a phenomenal success. We may never even see a level *that* low again in our lifetimes.

    Your “short version” link points to some differences of opinion between self-identified Tea Party and non-Tea Party Republicans. The fact that somebody holds an opinion doesn’t make it true, obviously. Even so, there is nothing about “betrayed policy promises” or lack of character.

    In fact, many of the “Tea Party” positions are diametrically opposite those of Donald Trump. For example:

    “What’s More Important, Reducing the Debt or Maintaining Medicare/Social Security Benefits?”

    Tea Party: Reduce the Debt: 73% / Maintain Benefits: 15%
    non Tea Party: Reduce the Debt: 44% / Maintain Benefits: 46%

    Dave (1bb933)

  256. PTw (894877) — 2/3/2020 @ 8:05 am

    That the Russians illegally intervened in the 2016 election on Donald Trump’s behalf is the consensus of the military, law-enforcement and intelligence communities.

    The “sign of a not serious person” is aping Donald Trump’s treasonous attempts to aid and abet this attack on the United States by covering the trail of his Russian benefactors, in the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence.

    Dave (1bb933)

  257. That Trump peed on a bed in Moscow is also the consensus of the same convergence of communities and non serious people.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  258. happyfeet (2f8176) — 2/3/2020 @ 8:26 am

    Well, there it is.

    Dave (1bb933)

  259. That Trump peed on a bed in Moscow is also the consensus of the same convergence of communities and non serious people.

    No it’s not. Stop posting things that you know are untrue.

    Dave (1bb933)

  260. Cool vid featuring Jeffery Jones – one of the founding members of a possible “white guy a-hole supporting actor antagonist” Hall of Fame, along with Gary Cole, William Fichter, and Tony Goldwyn.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  261. is frankly slander that originated with Trump cultists and is now being parroted by smart people who should know better.

    I disagree. Evidence: The complaints about RINOS and GOPe were appearing on this blog long before Trump. And the people who said they were holding their noses to vote for McCain and Romney, or not voting for them at all, were certainly there well before Trump descended on his gold escalator and said “I’m here!”

    the deficit fell from 9.8% of GDP in 2009 to 2.4% of GDP in 2015

    to be truly useful, that statistic would need to parse out the slow recovery from the Recession and spending from Obama’s Stimulus. And it’s now back to 4.6% of GDP.

    the GOP gained over 1000 seats nationwide in congressional, state legislature and governor’s races.

    GOP candidates made promises they didn’t end up keeping, and they took advantage of the anti-Democratic backlash. But don’t think voters didn’t notice that the GOP’s gestures at repealing and replacing Obamacare were only symbolic votes that everyone knew would end with no changes in the real world.

    kishnevi (496414)

  262. Dave,

    My point is that the Tea Party arose as much because of the Republicans than Obama and the Democrats. Its members did not generally believe the GOP was working toward the same goals — primarily fiscal goals but also on immigration.

    Some people thought the GOP had betrayed promises and lacked character. Others thought the GOP leadership was simply moving in a different direction. But I think the common factor was dissatisfaction with what was then known as the GOP Establishment, and that led to Cruz thinking he could successfully run for President (and Trump running on the same immigration policies that Cruz had been touting for years).

    DRJ (15874d)

  263. ..forgot William Atherton

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  264. The libertarian Dana suggests

    Do as Ron and Rand Paul have done, enter Republican primaries and actually win something, get a greater libertarian influence in the GOP, the way the TEA Party did.

    what libertarian influence? It’s been banished from the GOP by Trump and his minions. There’s a reason the folks at Reason criticize Trump for almost everything he does.

    And Rand Paul is quite content to carry water for Trump on everything except Syria and Iran.

    kishnevi (496414)

  265. and that led to Cruz thinking he could successfully run for President (and Trump running on the same immigration policies that Cruz had been touting for years)

    Trump exploited the disbelief that a part-Cuban spouse of a big bank executive could actually pull those off.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  266. As kishnevi said, the GOPe establishment had been a topic of conversation and complaint for years at conservative blogs, including this one: here and here and here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  267. True, urbanleftbehind. Much better to trust the husband of an immigrant. And I am not being sarcastic. Legal immigrants often don’t like illegal immigration.

    DRJ (15874d)

  268. “No it’s not. Stop posting things that you know are untrue.”
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 8:46 am

    Sure thing, as soon as such untrue things are presented as evidence in a surveillance warrant, and such bogus warrants aren’t cheered on by you Dave.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  269. president trump’s the butter on your biscuits he’s the chockit chips on your cannoli he’s the cherry on your sundae he’s the marshmallows in your cocoa

    Way too easy an opening, happyfeet.

    nk (1d9030)

  270. @273: such untrue things aren’t presented

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  271. That Trump peed on a bed in Moscow is also the consensus

    A familiar Trumpkin tactic. Alter the story just enough to give it deniability. Trump is probably peeing a lot in beds when his Depends leaks, but what happened in Moscow is he got a couple of Russian hookers to pee on him in bed, the pervy poofter.

    nk (1d9030)

  272. The Libertarian Party has never elected a single congressman or senator, governor or state senator.

    This is untrue. They have elected plenty. All of them Democrats.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  273. But who would have a better choice, in your view?

    The Trump wing says only their man could win by attracting blue-collar Democrats. But Trump repelled many suburban whites and upper-middle-class voters who held their nose and voted for Hillary. #NeverTrump was not an insignificant vote. Even if they didn’t vote for the Democrat, they didn’t vote for Trump.

    Cruz/Fiorino would have got every last GOP vote, save for the life-long Republicans who always vote Democrat. Probably Rubio as well. Sure there were other choices that would have done worse than Trump, but it was hard to do badly against Hideous Hillary.

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  274. Its members did not generally believe the GOP was working toward the same goals — primarily fiscal goals but also on immigration.

    And to the extent they believed that, they were misinformed, or misled, as I’ve documented specifically for those two issues.

    GOP candidates made promises they didn’t end up keeping, and they took advantage of the anti-Democratic backlash.

    They promised to reduce the deficit, and they did – massively.

    The number of BP agents on the Mexican border doubled. The number of successful illegal crossings between points of entry fell about ten-fold.

    But don’t think voters didn’t notice that the GOP’s gestures at repealing and replacing Obamacare were only symbolic votes that everyone knew would end with no changes in the real world.

    I think that’s hardly a reasonable description of what happened. Of course, the votes during the Obama administration *were* symbolic. That was obvious. It’s one thing to express that you oppose something. It’s another to come up with a concrete plan to replace it.

    Obama was replaced in White House by a nominally Republican president with no understanding or interest in the details of health insurance, and no plan of any kind to deal with Obamacare (he had promised to replace it with something that would cover more people, cover them better, and “at a tiny fraction of the cost” – self-evident lies to anyone not drunk on the Kool-Aid).

    Obamacare was passed by democratic supermajorities. By contrast, the GOP had only bare majorities in both houses of congress. The filibuster greatly limited what was possible, and under reconciliation there was no way to make enough people happy. It was a handful of members in both houses who balked at details of the legislation – not the entire party repudiating its goals. In that environment, presidential leadership was the only hope (from more recent events, it’s clear that Trump can have his way when he tries), but it was completely absent.

    In short, if the GOP voters really wanted Obamacare repealed, they nominated and elected the wrong president.

    Dave (1bb933)

  275. Sure thing, as soon as such untrue things are presented as evidence in a surveillance warrant, and such bogus warrants aren’t cheered on by you Dave.

    The pee-pee story played no part in the surveillance warrant application, obviously.

    You know this, but you insist on lying anyway.

    Dave (1bb933)

  276. nk (1d9030) — 2/3/2020 @ 9:07 am

    You may be right, nk, but I can never be sure which version Dave got sold on.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  277. But Trump repelled many suburban whites and upper-middle-class voters who held their nose and voted for Hillary. #NeverTrump was not an insignificant vote. Even if they didn’t vote for the Democrat, they didn’t vote for Trump.

    And I am one of them. I would have voted for any of the other GOP candidates in 2016. Instead I voted for Gary Johnson.

    kishnevi (496414)

  278. @280, Munroe lies constantly. He knows it and doesn’t care. He justifies his lies by claiming other people lied first. If you want to argue with a troll go ahead. But since he doesn’t believe what he’s saying there’s no chance to persuade him to based on evidence. Just something to keep in mind.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  279. And I am one of them. I would have voted for any of the other GOP candidates in 2016. Instead I voted for Gary Johnson.

    #metoo

    (Except I voted for McMullin)

    Dave (1bb933)

  280. Time123, it sounds like your reaction to Dave’s appeal to authority @261 is to grab your pom poms, as usual.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  281. Dave (1bb933) — 2/2/2020 @ 8:38 pm

    My point is that claims the previous GOP administration broke any promises to crack down on illegal immigration are provably false.

    he promise they allegedly broke was made in 1986. Simpson Mazzoli was going to eliminate illegal immigration. Of course, it didn’t.

    254. Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 7:55 am

    What Trump did to win the nomination was lie. Bigly.

    That wasn’t the problem. The problem was that nobody running for the Republican nomination was willing to argue with and contradict his lies, especially about the underlying merits of his proposals, nor were they willing to join in with his lies..

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  282. @285, I didn’t read 261. I just know that you’re usually being dishonest and wanted to point that out. Are you actually not wrong here?

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  283. Read 261. Dave’s correct that the Russian government interfered in our election. Specifically through the hacking of the DNC server. It’s been documented extensively. Looks like assuming you were being dishonest again was the right call.

    Time123 (235fc4)

  284. Time123, it sounds like your reaction to Dave’s appeal to authority @261 is to grab your pom poms, as usual.

    For someone who regularly employs various fallacies, you should at least know that there was no “appeal to authority” fallacy used by Dave.

    You can look it up.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  285. Time123 (235fc4) — 2/3/2020 @ 9:46 am

    “documented extensively”. Oh… well, ok. LOL

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  286. Mr. Delecto, I’m sorry I burst your bubble about Thomas More superhero.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  287. Sorry, Marilyn. Trolls don’t have much effect on me.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  288. 279. Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 9:22 am

    Obama was replaced in White House by a nominally Republican president with no understanding or interest in the details of health insurance, /blockquote> Here the problem was that nobody else had any idea what to do about health insurance, either!

    Trump would have signed any bill (within reason) that passed the Republican Congress and he would not have demanded very many specifics. He was strong on nobody much being hurt by any change, I think. No American citizens anyway.

    Now they were all committed to against Obamacare. Trump joined in with any lawsuit, at least after awhile, after a lobby that was in contact with voters noticed.

    Awhile ago Mike Bloomberg was running a commercial saying that Trump wold take away preexisting conditioos. Trump tweeted (in so clear a way as this) that while he was president the individual mandate of Obamacare had been repealed, and he hadn’t gotten rid of any provisions about pre-existing conditions.

    Mike Bloomberg tweeted in response that he was glad Trump noticed his ad but then his Justice Department is suing to abolish the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and why doesn’t he tell to drop out of that lawsuit, although, he conceded, maybe Trump doesn’t know about that lawsuit because of his limited executive abilities (not at all in those words, but that was more or less what the tweet said. I could look it up.

    Obamacare was passed by democratic supermajorities. By contrast, the GOP had only bare majorities in both houses of congress. The filibuster greatly limited what was possible, and under reconciliation there was no way to make enough people happy.

    Reconciliation meant no general law reforming Obamacare could be passed. On;y provisions affecting taxes and spending could be passed.

    But nobody put anything even on the table.

    Repealing the individual mandate (technically, reducing the tax to $0.00 per person) was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as saving money, so the temptation was very strong to include it in the 2017 tax bill, which was passed under reconciliation.

    It was a handful of members in both houses who balked at details of the legislation

    What details? There never were any.

    In short, if the GOP voters really wanted Obamacare repealed, they nominated and elected the wrong president.

    That is true.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  289. Dave’s appeal to authority @261

    LOL.

    Is Trump’s own Director of the CIA, in sworn testimony, not authoritative?

    “In January of 2017, the [Senate Intelligence Committee] issued a joint report on the Russia involvement in the 2016 elections. Do you agree with the findings of that report?” Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine asked Haspel.

    “Senator, I do,” Haspel responded.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report in January 2017 that detailed Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

    “We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the senators on the intelligence committee wrote in January 2017.

    The senators found Russia attempted to sway the election in favor of Trump, especially after it became apparent to the Kremlin that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely win the election.

    “We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency,” the senators wrote.

    At the time of her nomination, His Majesty Himself tweeted:

    “My highly respected nominee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, has come under fire because she was too tough on Terrorists. Think of that, in these very dangerous times, we have the most qualified person, a woman, who Democrats want OUT because she is too tough on terror. Win Gina!”

    So my question to you, Munroe, is this:

    Why do you hate America?

    Dave (1bb933)

  290. 262. Munroe (dd6b64) — 2/3/2020 @ 8:41 am

    That Trump peed on a bed in Moscow is also the consensus of the same convergence of communities and non serious people.

    Actually, it isn’t. That’s what Comey chose to tell Donald Trump about the Steele dossier. And it also wasn’t Trump who was supposed to have soiled the bed, but two prostitutes he hired to do that because he supposedly hated Obama very much. And Obama supposedly had slept in it.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  291. “Actually, it isn’t. That’s what Comey chose to tell Donald Trump about the Steele dossier.”
    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:05 am

    … many months after the dossier was used as evidence in a surveillance warrant, Sammy.

    And, whether Trump peed or someone else did makes no difference as to what #NeverTrump wants to believe. Like Schiff and the nude pics prank.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  292. (The article cited misinterprets “IC” in the question as “Intelligence Committee” rather than “Intelligence Community”, but nevertheless Haspel agreed with the assessments quoted).

    Dave (1bb933)

  293. “many months” = “about 10 weeks”

    Dave (1bb933)

  294. 296. Other parts of the dossier that Comey didn’t mention to Trump were used as supportng evidence for the FISA warrant on Carter Page (who was robably selected precisely because he had no conection to the campaign at that time)

    I wouldn’t call Adam Schiff #NeverTrump but rather #AntiTrump or better yet #PartisanDemocrat Not everybody is ready to believe virtually any accusation against Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  295. ‘ “many months” = “about 10 weeks” ‘
    Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 10:18 am

    LOL. October to January. But, as if that makes a difference, like whether Trump or the prostitutes peed. Let’s nail that down.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  296. who was probably selected precisely because he had no connection to the campaign at that time

    He was selected because they had Russian spies on tape talking about recruiting him.

    Dave (1bb933)

  297. And Page had previously admitted, under questioning by the FBI, to passing information to people he knew to be Russian spies.

    (Page felt the information in question was innocuous).

    Dave (1bb933)

  298. That the Russians illegally intervened in the 2016 election on Donald Trump’s behalf is the consensus of the military, law-enforcement and intelligence communities.

    That you think any of that is of significance is, again, a sign of a not serious person. It’s like the illegitimate child of the butterfly effect fallacy and the single cause fallacy. What makes DJT’s election so unpalatable to the establishment types is that deep down inside they know that as unlikable as DJT was, people still dislike the establishment types even more. That’s the part that really burns and what puts the absolute NEVER in NeverTrump. Which is why, no matter how much people who support DJT’s policies and such insist that they don’t care for his personal behaviors or styles, you insist that such denials simply cannot be true. We’re all Tumphumpers and Trumpaloos and whatever childish epithets you so enjoy. The name calling soothes your egos as you simply will not allow yourselves to believe otherwise.

    PTw (894877)

  299. @303, what does any of that have to do with the Russians hacking the DNC server and releasing the information to harm HRC?

    Whether the impact of the crime was large or small it was a serious crime and should be treated as such.

    You claim to be an American but I can’t understand how little you seem to care that foreign nation attempted to interfere in an election like that.

    Time123 (235fc4)

  300. @304 At the time I cared about the foreign interference but that was quickly overshadowed by the ridiculous assertions that the public was supposed to ignore the content because of the source. It was, and still is, clear that a lot of people claiming to be worried about foreign interference aren’t either. They’re upset about the content and the effect it had. Wrapping themselves in the flag is just an attempt to change the subject.

    frosty (f27e97)

  301. what does any of that have to do with the Russians hacking the DNC server and releasing the information to harm HRC?

    Well, that’s what that election was about. Foreigner Russians doing the work the American’s at the FBI didn’t want to do. /sarc

    The crime was no different than what the Russians have always done. And the Israelis and the Brits and the French. The real crime, if one cares so much about such things especially in the context of caring about America, is that the DNC and especially HRC were so lax about security not just as far as the political party of the DNC goes, but HRC’s blatant disregard for such things when she was SoS.

    You claim to be an American but I can’t understand how little you seem to care that foreign nation attempted to interfere in an election like that someone so lacking in security processes and procedures came so very, very close to becoming POTUS. Not to mention the many, many other problems with HRC. If security is such a concern, I hope you voted for whichever candidate would best keep HRC away from our nation’s secrets.

    PTw (894877)

  302. Also, what frosty said.

    PTw (894877)

  303. “That’s the part that really burns and what puts the absolute NEVER in NeverTrump.”

    Well, no. The many, many things that put me solidly in the cadre that could never vote for Duh Donald are the same things that would never allow me to vote for Hellery.

    There are certainly those who richly earn the names some of us attach to them, and they are not hard to identify (as here). But that does not apply (speaking for mahsef) to all Trump voters by any means. A lot of people voted their conscience in voting for Trump, just as a lot of us refrained from supporting someone unsupportable.

    From your comment, it would seem that you don’t afford others the same courtesy. I hope you were overstating your actual feelings.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  304. @304

    @303, what does any of that have to do with the Russians hacking the DNC server and releasing the information to harm HRC?

    Whether the impact of the crime was large or small it was a serious crime and should be treated as such.

    You claim to be an American but I can’t understand how little you seem to care that foreign nation attempted to interfere in an election like that.

    Time123 (235fc4) — 2/3/2020 @ 11:37 am

    I’d accept that Russia did try to influence the elections, but what’s not clear is if for Trump’s benefit. The simplest and easiest answer is that Russia wanted to foment chaos, regardless who wins the election and that we really don’t know if they made any impact. Furthermore, Russia isn’t the only countries that tries to meddle with our elections.

    However, with respect to the hacked DNC server, the one thing that burns my craw is that the FBI didn’t do the forensic investigation. The DNC hired Crowstrike to do the analysis and only published
    a report. The FBI were denied access to the server (and image files) to confirm it. But, what we do know, is that the server was likely hacked via email phishing. But that leak harmed the DNC committee more than Clinton as the leaked email proved that the DNC tried (or did?) put their thumb on the scale in favor of Clinton over Sanders.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  305. I’d accept that Russia did try to influence the elections, but what’s not clear is if for Trump’s benefit. The simplest and easiest answer is that Russia wanted to foment chaos, regardless who wins the election and that we really don’t know if they made any impact. Furthermore, Russia isn’t the only countries that tries to meddle with our elections.

    However, with respect to the hacked DNC server, the one thing that burns my craw is that the FBI didn’t do the forensic investigation. The DNC hired Crowstrike to do the analysis and only published
    a report. The FBI were denied access to the server (and image files) to confirm it. But, what we do know, is that the server was likely hacked via email phishing. But that leak harmed the DNC committee more than Clinton as the leaked email proved that the DNC tried (or did?) put their thumb on the scale in favor of Clinton over Sanders.

    From what I read at the time the FBI was given access to the server images.

    There has been testimony from the FBI that they were able to do thorough investigation.

    I don’t care if they attacked the election to help Trump/Hurt Hillary/Sow Chaos/or just for the LoLz. They did it. I’m not OK with with.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  306. @304 At the time I cared about the foreign interference but that was quickly overshadowed by the ridiculous assertions that the public was supposed to ignore the content because of the source. It was, and still is, clear that a lot of people claiming to be worried about foreign interference aren’t either. They’re upset about the content and the effect it had. Wrapping themselves in the flag is just an attempt to change the subject.

    So now crimes against one of our political parties is OK with you because you don’t like some other people’s reaction? What a callow stance.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  307. The crime was no different than what the Russians have always done. And the Israelis and the Brits and the French. The real crime, if one cares so much about such things especially in the context of caring about America, is that the DNC and especially HRC were so lax about security not just as far as the political party of the DNC goes, but HRC’s blatant disregard for such things when she was SoS.

    You claim to be an American but I can’t understand how little you seem to care that foreign nation attempted to interfere in an election like that someone so lacking in security processes and procedures came so very, very close to becoming POTUS. Not to mention the many, many other problems with HRC. If security is such a concern, I hope you voted for whichever candidate would best keep HRC away from our nation’s secrets.

    You’re ignorantly wrong on the facts of what other’s have done. Why don’t you provide some examples of other major powers infiltrating a political campaign and releasing the information to hard one of our major candidates. It’s sad that people like you put your party over your country.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  308. Patterico’s former compatriot at Red State (Erick Erickson) says this:

    No, we are not a monarchy now. No, the constitution is not in shambles. No, the President is not a dictator. No, the confederacy is not complicit in protecting the President.

    Y’all are a bunch of insane clowns is what y’all are. This hysteria is just too much and too insane.

    The GOP needs to be burned down because it refused to toss the guy you didn’t vote for?

    The constitution no longer has any weight, merit, or meaning because you lost a political fight?

    Stop being stupid. All your talking points have been as stupid as the Republican talking points. The President has turned you people into what you think he is.

    Calm Down Hysterical Ninnies

    Kevin M (8ae2cb)

  309. No, the President is not a dictator.

    Erickson may want to consult Duh Donald on that score…

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  310. Erickson falls back on the good old:

    Let the voters decide in November

    But see, Mr. Erickson, the President was caught red-handed using foreign aid appropriated from the treasury to bribe a foreign government into tampering with that election in November, on his behalf. He also publicly invited China to do the same.

    And his best buddy and man-crush, the dictator of Russia, was caught red-handed tampering with the last election his behalf. He publicly invited them, too, and his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager secretly met with them in an attempt to facilitate further interference. And the president tried to cover up the whole thing afterward, and still denies it to this day.

    So maybe you can understand why “let the voters decide” rings a little hollow at this point, given that president’s idea of the way an election should be run resembles a professional wrestling match, complete with shady managers clubbing the opponent with a tire iron while the ref is distracted.

    Dave (1bb933)

  311. @310

    From what I read at the time the FBI was given access to the server images.

    There has been testimony from the FBI that they were able to do thorough investigation.

    I don’t care if they attacked the election to help Trump/Hurt Hillary/Sow Chaos/or just for the LoLz. They did it. I’m not OK with with.

    Time123 (a7a01b) — 2/3/2020 @ 12:34 pm

    There’s testimonies that the FBI did NOT see the image nor the original server.
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html
    …to wit:

    U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
    Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  312. From the Mueller Report, footnote #135:

    As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs.

    Dave (1bb933)

  313. Dave,

    Is it fair to say that your position is that the interests of the Tea Party and the Republican Party were aligned on fiscal and immigration interests during the Bush and Obama years, and any divergence was due to a misunderstanding of the GOP’s policies or actions?

    DRJ (15874d)

  314. I don’t have time to look up the testimony right now, but the fbi testified they were able to perform an investigation and reach a conclusion. I’ll dig it up later

    Time123 (a7d1a8)

  315. @Dave, footnote 135 is:
    Yates 8/15/17 302, at 3; McCord 7/17/17 302, at 4.

    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

    Where did you see that?

    whembly (fd57f6)

  316. @319

    I don’t have time to look up the testimony right now, but the fbi testified they were able to perform an investigation and reach a conclusion. I’ll dig it up later

    Time123 (a7d1a8) — 2/3/2020 @ 2:08 pm

    Of course the FBI reach conclusions… they had to use a 3rd party source of a redacted report.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  317. Is it fair to say that your position is that the interests of the Tea Party and the Republican Party were aligned on fiscal and immigration interests during the Bush and Obama years, and any divergence was due to a misunderstanding of the GOP’s policies or actions?

    Almost. The first part, I think is pretty accurate.

    As to the second part “…any divergence…” there were certainly real differences of tone and tactics. The Tea Party wanted to pursue the most aggressive and confrontational methods in all cases. Compromise became a dirty word: even in a country divided 51/49, we can’t settle for less than 100% of what we want. And (this gets back to the misunderstanding part) minor disagreements over methods and tactics were demagogued into accusations of disloyalty or worse. Agreeing 90 or 95% of the time wasn’t enough for some who later eagerly fell in line with Trump.

    We still see that today – Susan Collins, who is about twice as far from the center as the most moderate Democratic senator (Manchin), and has voted for 99% (really) of the judges nominated by Republican presidents during her time in the Senate, but is still reviled by Trump loyalists.

    So I think impatience and unrealistic expectations are important factors.

    And in those two areas, Trump definitely gave people everything they wanted to hear. There was a simple, painless (for you, my supporters) solution to everything; he was going to do the impossible and it would be done so fast and effortlessly that you might miss it if you blinked. And best of all, it would be done with maximum contempt and disrespect for the “other” half of the country. “Believe me.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  318. Where did you see that?

    Here:
    https://themuellerreport.com/

    Mine is in Volume 1, yours is in Volume 2…

    Dave (1bb933)

  319. Ok, thanks. I don’t agree but I understand your position.

    DRJ (15874d)

  320. @323… ah, thanks Dave!

    But, I’m not seeing any FBI analysis on that, other than what Mueller report says.

    Also, my IT-radar is pinging here… when was that image created? Because, you can open an image up and scrub/stage the snapshot that is favorable to your client. (it’s common to do that in real-world disaster recovery strategy…for instance, you can take a clinical server image, pull the database containing PHI information, or even restore the database to a different backup date than the image date).

    In other words, there’s more that need to be reported here and I still reserve skeptism to that fact that the FBI was initially denied access to the image/logs. That, in itself, was very bizarre and honestly I doubt we’d ever get a satisfactory explanation.

    whembly (c30c83)

  321. whembly, I confess I don’t see where you’re going with this.

    Do you think the DNC staged the hacking themselves, and released the damaging emails to gain sympathy?

    The Mueller Report, and the indictments of the Russian front organizations (which I think are the equivalent of sworn statements under penalty of perjury), go into minute detail about what happened.

    Also, although I think this has been concealed for security reasons, the level of detail suggests that they have a binary log of the data that went back and forth to the hacked server.

    Dave (1bb933)

  322. #326

    whembly, I confess I don’t see where you’re going with this.

    I’ll try to elucidate. 😉

    Do you think the DNC staged the hacking themselves, and released the damaging emails to gain sympathy?

    No. They were obviously phished (meaning, someone clicked a compromise link that looked like their email system asking the enduser to reset their account/password). Someone was able to use that to compromise the leak the DNC server’s email data to wikileak.

    The Mueller Report, and the indictments of the Russian front organizations (which I think are the equivalent of sworn statements under penalty of perjury), go into minute detail about what happened.

    It’s convenient that most of the Russian fronts will not contest these allegations (we have no way of capturing these GRU officials). Sidebar: there was a Russian company who was indicted where that company’s attornies showed up to court…much to the surprise of the Mueller team as they didn’t expect them to defend the allegations in court.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/thomasfrank/a-russian-company-that-mueller-has-accused-of-election
    Make what you will of that, but to me, that speaks volume that the Mueller team wanted some “notches” on the belt to justify the special counsel, rather a good faith investigation.

    When you read the allegations, it’s written in a narrative to “tell a story”. But the Mueller report doesn’t offer a whole lot of proof. Much of it are additional footnote information and assumes they’re connected. When you combine that with the fact that the Mueller team comprises of the most partisan anti-Trump officials from the previous administrations…its far too easy to question the motives of the Mueller team. Of course, it’s also reasonable to believe that the Mueller team *do* have strong evidence, but couldn’t release it as it would compromise sources & methods.

    Basically, we’re asked that everything that the Mueller team did, was on the “up and up”. I have reasons to doubt that, so I’m not taking everything they say at face value. Nor should you.

    Now, I’m *NOT* saying that Russian didn’t try to meddle with our elections (as we resonably assume that they’ve always done so). But, I do think its a stretch to believe that Trump and his orbit willingly colluded with Russia to win a tainted election. Occam’s Razor suggests that Russia/Putin wanted to sow chaos, to weaken the US government was the end goal, so that Russia can proceed their agendas unheeded.

    Also, although I think this has been concealed for security reasons, the level of detail suggests that they have a binary log of the data that went back and forth to the hacked server.

    Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 3:43 pm

    It’s not binary. Binary is 1’s and 0’s.

    The logs would show the ack/nack communications between the endpoint handshakes. Remember, it was a successful phishing exploit. Get someone’s userID/password, then you can start from there. The logs would show things likeow… source/destination IP addresses (hostname translation), file transfers and the like. But, it’s just a log file that can be changed or simply purged by standard system settings. Yes, those actions can leave metadata evidence that would substantiate that, but you’d have to gain access to the server as soon as possible to catch that.

    My issue, is that Crowdstrike provided the analysis and had access to the original logs and image of the events for months. Crowdstrike (or some other specialist) have opportunities (being that they had the source files) and means (they’re being paid by the DNC) to tailor the report and files to provide “cover” for their clients (the DNC) in the least embarrassing way possible. Think if it as a taint team a court sometimes sets up to process evidences pertaining to the case. The FBI couldn’t force the issue as the DNC were the victims here, so their hands were tied. In the most consequential election in recent memory, it’d behoove the DNC to have such contingencies on hand (which is not unusual in the private sector).

    whembly (c30c83)

  323. But, I do think its a stretch to believe that Trump and his orbit willingly colluded with Russia to win a tainted election.

    We have known incidents that show Trump family members met with Russians in an attempt to further Trump’s campaign, and Manafort gave polling data to a Russian agent. It’s not likely Trump knew about the latter, but it’s highly unlikely he did not know about the former.

    So thinking he and his willingly colluded with Russia is fact based.

    Kishnevi (5acb5b)

  324. We have known incidents that show Trump family members met with Russians in an attempt to further Trump’s campaign, and Manafort gave polling data to a Russian agent. It’s not likely Trump knew about the latter, but it’s highly unlikely he did not know about the former.

    So thinking he and his willingly colluded with Russia is fact based.

    Further, his actions after the Russian tampering on his behalf emerged are damning, regardless of whether he knew about or encouraged it ahead of time.

    He has publicly and repeatedly attempted to cover for the Russians who illegally helped him because it would be too much for his fragile, planet-sized, ego to accept and admit the truth. In so doing, he is being disloyal to our country and violating his oath.

    Even worse, he has privately (Ukraine, that we know about for sure, and likely others) and publicly (China) solicited further illegal assistance from foreign governments in his election campaign. (GOP reaction: collective shrug)

    And there’s every reason to expect he’ll turn a blind eye to whatever the Russians do this year. He has lied about it for so long now that he will have to keep lying, no matter what happens going forward. And the rest of the party will have to continue to lie with him (in both the literal and biblical senses…).

    Dave (1bb933)

  325. Dave (1bb933) — 2/3/2020 @ 4:54 pm

    he has privately (Ukraine, that we know about for sure, and likely others) and publicly (China) solicited further illegal assistance from foreign governments in his election campaign. (GOP reaction: collective shrug)

    It’s ot illegal, it’s not necessarily assistance, and calling it assistance dresses it up, and Xi Jinpin s more likely to investigate his hadling of the corona virus (and the earlier pig disease) than he is to investigate himself – because he was already in charge of China then – over the attempt to bild corrupt personal relationships with politicians in power. That was just Trump rhetorically saing there was something wrong going on with Joe and Hunter Biden with regard to China, too. Of course, I think he garbled some facts.

    And there’s every reason to expect he’ll turn a blind eye to whatever the Russians do this year.

    Any investigation would start at a lower level.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  326. Time123 (a7a01b) — 2/3/2020 @ 12:35 pm

    So now crimes against one of our political parties is OK with you because you don’t like some other people’s reaction? What a callow stance.

    I didn’t say it was ok. What I said was some people are deflecting and being hypocrites. Not being ok with the hack doesn’t require some sort of willful blindness to the information released.

    There is more than one issue here and it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    frosty (f27e97)

  327. Any investigation would start at a lower level.

    But as in 2016, any meetings with Russian agents in Trump Tower would start at a higher level.

    Dave (1bb933)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2361 secs.