He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Hard to say. Yesterday Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan (two of Trump's most enthusiastic lackeys from the Oversight Committee) planted themselves in front of the press and declared that there was Nothing To See Here. Then the statement was released with all those (potentially) incriminating texts. That might have been the Committee chairs' way of telling Republican Congresscritters that if they take this approach they'll look like idiots or criminals.
This may not make a difference to folks like Jordan or Meadows, who make themselves look like idiots on a regular basis, but we'll see how it affects Republicans in the Senate. Of course, Jordan's ability to see wrongdoing has been notably deficient in the past.
Yep. Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed. Some will turn if the politics shifts - i.e. when Trump becomes a liability. Of course Trump's core base will support him no matter what; but there's another group - who have no idea how bad the Mueller report is, never mind this new stuff. They will turn against him and against any Senators that support him, if the Nixon impeachment enquiry is any guide.
I dunno. I recall that Trump supporters generally laud him for fiddling his taxes. It could prove hard to put the populist message that "entering high office is merely an opportunity to game the system to the max for personal benefit as everyone would" back in the bottle. It's fast becoming normalised head-of-state behaviour.
I dunno. I recall that Trump supporters generally laud him for fiddling his taxes. It could prove hard to put the populist message that "entering high office is merely an opportunity to game the system to the max for personal benefit as everyone would" back in the bottle. It's fast becoming normalised head-of-state behaviour.
Indeed. However, I don't think all of the people who voted for Trump fall into this category. How big each group is, that's a matter for debate but on current polling numbers, Trump doesn't have a realistic route to an electoral college victory. That's a little beside the point when talking impeachment, of course: the issue here is the constituencies of the senators in question.
Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed.
Twenty Republican Senators would need to vote to convict Trump in order for him to be removed from office following an impeachment.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
- U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6
The current Senate consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats (Angus King and Bernie Sanders). It takes at least 67 Senators to reach the threshold of two-thirds (there are no current vacancies in the U.S. Senate).
There is a possible work-around, but it's all kind of skeevy from a procedural point of view even if it is technically constitutional.
Art. I, § 3, cl. 6 specifies you only need "the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present" to convict. Art. I, § 5, cl. 1 specifies that a majority of members of each house must be present "to do Business", which means that you really only need 51 Senators to try an impeachment. This would require a significant number of Republican Senators to "take a dive" and abandon their Constitutional obligations to represent their states, but it's technically within Constitutional legitimacy. I'm also not sure history or their voters would make much of a distinction between voting to remove Trump and conspiring with Democrats to remove him without having to personally vote for it, other than to view the latter as a particularly rank form of cowardice.
For those who are interested in some actual Republican Senators, here's Marco Rubio talking to constituents in Florida and explaining that there's apparently an "owning the libs/press" exemption to the Constitution.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
He's gone sooooooooo far that it's politically much easier for the House to Impeach and he may have found what many of us thought didn't exist - the point at which the Senate might actually convict.
Hard to say. Yesterday Mark Meadows and Gym Jordan (two of Trump's most enthusiastic lackeys from the Oversight Committee) planted themselves in front of the press and declared that there was Nothing To See Here. Then the statement was released with all those (potentially) incriminating texts. That might have been the Committee chairs' way of telling Republican Congresscritters that if they take this approach they'll look like idiots or criminals.
This may not make a difference to folks like Jordan or Meadows, who make themselves look like idiots on a regular basis, but we'll see how it affects Republicans in the Senate. Of course, Jordan's ability to see wrongdoing has been notably deficient in the past.
Yep. Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed. Some will turn if the politics shifts - i.e. when Trump becomes a liability. Of course Trump's core base will support him no matter what; but there's another group - who have no idea how bad the Mueller report is, never mind this new stuff. They will turn against him and against any Senators that support him, if the Nixon impeachment enquiry is any guide.
AFZ
Only 20 Republicans would have to vote to convict--along with all the Democrats.
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
Moscow Mitch wouldn't be running the trial though. John Roberts would, assuming such a thing happens. Roberts will have to do it according to Senate rules though, which represent Moscow Mitch's real venue for meddling.
And because the Trump era has destroyed Friday happy hour for the Washington press corps, we now have the House Oversight Committee (in cooperation with Intelligence and Foreign Affairs) requesting a bunch of documents from Mike Pence. (Letter here [PDF]). They gave him the same deadline as they gave Pompeo last week (October 15). I don't think they included a subpœna (though I've only had a chance to skim this), though they do say failure to comply will be construed as obstruction of the investigation. Unlike the Pompeo letter this one publicly lists the documents they seek.
[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me
Nothing says "no quid pro quo" like suggesting switching to a method of communication that won't leave a transcript when asked about a quid pro quo.
[9/9/19, 12:41:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.
If text messaging allowed you do an over-obvious, mugging wink I'm pretty sure Sondland would have done so. It also seems that by early September the various alleged conspirators had moved to the ass-covering stage of the operation.
For those who are interested in some actual Republican Senators, here's Marco Rubio talking to constituents in Florida and explaining that there's apparently an "owning the libs/press" exemption to the Constitution.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
@Crœsos those two links are to the same tweet.
BroJames
Purgatory Host
ROMNEY THROWS DOWN: TRUMP’S BIDEN COMMENTS ‘WRONG AND APPALLING’
The headline is accompanied by a really good pic of Mitt Romney...looking very presidential. My inquiring mind wants to know: Is he simply commenting, or is he somehow planning to run--or be drafted to run?
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
Moscow Mitch wouldn't be running the trial though. John Roberts would, assuming such a thing happens. Roberts will have to do it according to Senate rules though, which represent Moscow Mitch's real venue for meddling.
And because the Trump era has destroyed Friday happy hour for the Washington press corps, we now have the House Oversight Committee (in cooperation with Intelligence and Foreign Affairs) requesting a bunch of documents from Mike Pence. (Letter here [PDF]). They gave him the same deadline as they gave Pompeo last week (October 15). I don't think they included a subpœna (though I've only had a chance to skim this), though they do say failure to comply will be construed as obstruction of the investigation. Unlike the Pompeo letter this one publicly lists the documents they seek.
Yes, John Roberts, as the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, will be presiding; but Senate procedural rules permit any Senator making a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges and that motion is voted on by the Senate. Roberts cannot rule from the chair. Impeachment court and trial courts are horses of different colours.
So I was watching "Democracy Now" on our local PBS station (KQED). For those unfamiliar with it, DN is quietly kick-ass, and more towards the left wing of American politics.
I saw part of it. Good interview with the director. Clips from the film included Watergate footage. (It was nice to see and hear Congresswoman Barbara Jordan again. Such a great voice and way of speaking.)
“Watergate - Or: How We Learned To Stop An Out Of Control President."
ROMNEY THROWS DOWN: TRUMP’S BIDEN COMMENTS ‘WRONG AND APPALLING’
The headline is accompanied by a really good pic of Mitt Romney...looking very presidential. My inquiring mind wants to know: Is he simply commenting, or is he somehow planning to run--or be drafted to run?
This link takes me to an entirely different story (about Boris Johnson)
Yeah, that was a link to how the top of the front page was "right now", not directly to the story. I was trying to save on number of links in my post. Currently, there is this link in that top section:
For those who are interested in some actual Republican Senators, here's Marco Rubio talking to constituents in Florida and explaining that there's apparently an "owning the libs/press" exemption to the Constitution.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
@Crœsos those two links are to the same tweet.
BroJames
Purgatory Host
The headline is accompanied by a really good pic of Mitt Romney...looking very presidential. My inquiring mind wants to know: Is he simply commenting, or is he somehow planning to run--or be drafted to run?
Mitt Romney's sole political principle is the bedrock belief that Mitt Romney should be president. He has accumulated quite the collection of furrowed brows and statements of concern about Donald Trump, but has done very little about it. He's got a "Trump score*" of 79.2%, which is low for a Republican Senator but 7.4 percentage points higher than would be predicted by his state's Trump vote margin in 2016. Fellow Utah Senator Mike Lee has a Trump score of 52.5% for the 116th Congress (i.e. the same period of time Romney has been a Senator).
Not-so-fun historical fact: Jordan's one day as temporary acting Governor of Texas still represents 100% of the amount of time an African-American woman has been governor of an American state.
* The "Trump Score" is the percentage of times a legislator votes the way Trump favors. In the 116th Congress Republican Trump scores range from 95.7% (Shelley Moore Capito) to 33.3% (Susan Collins). Democratic Trump scores range from 4.2% (Jon Tester) to 29.2% (Joe Manchin).
Genuine question - I think I've missed something - what are Mr. Biden and his son supposed to have done to make Trump want foreign countries to investigate them?
This is a drama unfolding on two levels. One is familiar to students of Watergate and other Washington scandals: a river of leaks, subpoenas, transcripts, whistleblowers and closed door committee hearings. The other is something alien: a commander-in-chief who does not deny wrongdoing because he does not see the wrong, but rather recommits in broad daylight, confounding his defenders as if hellbent on self-impeachment.
I wonder if, subconsciously, this is what tRump is doing?
I think some part of T is shouting, "STOP ME BEFORE I PRESIDENT AGAIN". And I think he's been doing that for a long time.
Consciously or not, he must be in a personal hell. Besides all his damage and baggage, and whatever health problems (e.g., dementia) he may have...he didn't want to be president, and didn't expect to win. He wanted to leverage the publicity to get a better contract for hosting his various "Apprentice" TV series. And he wanted to get back at Obama for embarrassing him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. (I do think O is partly responsible for sparking this mess.)
Then he "won". He had to step out of the world he'd made and tailored to his needs. His need to be the all-out winner in every situation (because he'd been taught that was the only way to be worth being loved) got a paradoxical twist: he's getting more attention than ever; but people expect much more of him, and won't let him alone. He's not necessarily any more loved than he was before--and has attracted a whole lot of anger and hate.
I think he'd save himself a whole lot of pain and trouble if he'd resign and leave. Leave an "I quit!" note on the desk in the Oval Office, and tweet that out, too. (I figure a signed note on paper might be necessary to be official.)
Personally, I'm not looking to put him in prison--just get him out of office, legally and non-violently. Put him in a good psych facility and/or sanitarium in the countryside. One that has nice, high walls, so he'll feel safe--and so will everyone else.
I know you mean your chiding of Obama gently, GK. I can't help but defend him. He was sore provoked and the evisceration of Trump was artful and done with panache.
I know you mean your chiding of Obama gently, GK. I can't help but defend him. He was sore provoked and the evisceration of Trump was artful and done with panache.
It was undoubtedly deserved. Whether it's part of the chain of events is a different question.
Genuine question - I think I've missed something - what are Mr. Biden and his son supposed to have done to make Trump want foreign countries to investigate them?
Short answer: Joe Biden is the Democratic presidential primary front runner and as a straight white male is the only one Trump considers a legitimate challenger.
Slightly longer answer: Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas corporation. Joe Biden was the Obama administration point man on convincing Ukraine to fire its Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. This Obama-era policy did not originate with Joe Biden and was shared by other non-American entities (the IMF, the EU, various other nations, etc.), but Biden was the American point-of-contact. The claim is that Biden wanted Viktor Shokin sacked because he would have investigated Burisma (where Hunter Biden was on the board). Shokin was actually (in)famous for not prosecuting large corporations and letting corruption slide, so this accusation never really made sense. The Washington Post (paywall) and The Intercept (free) have more in-depth explanations as to why the accusations are no more honest than anything else Trump says.
Unlike all the other Ukraine scandals, this Biden conspiracy didn't spring from the right-wing fever swamps, nor did Rudy Giuliani "uncover it" as he likes to brag he did. This one was a professional hit job carried out by the same team that brought you "Clinton Cash," the book about the Clinton Foundation that formed the basis of the "Crooked Hillary" campaign.
This time it was a book called "Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends," by "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer, who is now an editor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit he founded with Steve Bannon and right-wing billionaire Rebekah Mercer. Its purpose is clear enough: To launder far-right smears and dirty tricks.
I wrote about this gang back in 2015 for Salon when Schweizer gulled the New York Times and the Washington Post into partnering with him on the Clinton story, apparently convincing them that the man who wrote "Architects of Ruin: How Big Government Liberals Ruined the Global Economy and Will Do It Again if We Don't Stop Them" was a straight journalist just looking for a little accountability. The book was a huge success at what it set out to do: Tar Hillary Clinton as a corrupt criminal. Why not do it again with Joe Biden, who everyone knew was likely to run against Trump in 2020?
This time, with the notable exception of a couple of dubious stories in the New York Times, the media didn't bite on the Biden story with quite the same eagerness. Bloomberg's Joshua Green points out in this article on the subject that while it didn't catch on in the mainstream press, it was huge in the conservative media, which apparently bothered Bannon a great deal. After all, the GAI was formed to push its smears into the mainstream. Stories that exist only in the conservative bubble simply don't have the same power to move the broader electorate.
Green notes that because Trump mainlines conservative media, he saw the story as very beneficial to his cause, adding that "what differentiates Trump from other power-consumers of conservative media is that he’s the president and was willing to use his governmental powers to attack a political rival."
I think there's not been quite enough analysis on what it means to have a Fox News true believer in power. This was always the problem with right wing media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sinclair, hate radio, etc.). The first generation (Newt Gingrich and company) cynically employed it to rile up their voters, not realizing (or possibly just not caring) that their successors (Gym Jordan, Devin Nunes) would grow up actually believing this stuff. Now we've got a president* who, while not young enough to have "grown up" with the stuff, is pretty much your stereotypical angry "Fox News Grampa".
... Put him in a good psych facility and/or sanitarium in the countryside. One that has nice, high walls, so he'll feel safe--and so will everyone else.
And please, put a "moot" around it, filled with snakes or alligators.
Apparently a second intelligence* whistleblower is now ready to come forward. This person claims (through his/her attorney) to have firsthand knowledge of Trump's Ukrainian shenanigans.
*There is also a whistleblower alleging there's something funny going on with the legally-required audits of Trump's tax returns. This whistleblower is probably from the Treasury Department or the IRS, not the intelligence community.
I think there's not been quite enough analysis on what it means to have a Fox News true believer in power. This was always the problem with right wing media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sinclair, hate radio, etc.). The first generation (Newt Gingrich and company) cynically employed it to rile up their voters, not realizing (or possibly just not caring) that their successors (Gym Jordan, Devin Nunes) would grow up actually believing this stuff. Now we've got a president* who, while not young enough to have "grown up" with the stuff, is pretty much your stereotypical angry "Fox News Grampa".
A number of TV critics have written about having a different insight into the Trump presidency than their political reporter colleagues, because of seeing him through the lens of reality television. In Trump's world you win by stirring up drama against other "contestants" and avoiding consequences however possible.
James Poniewozik's new book is about Trump and the evolution of TV, and looks to be really good. I have it on hold at the library but haven't gotten it yet.
The most hopeful spin I can put on that article is that it's Pat Robertson setting up his rationale for explaining Trump's imminent downfall to the 700 Club.
Meanwhile, that Trump quote about his own "great and unmatched wisdom" sounds more like the Antichrist than a mandate of heaven to me.
Maybe, re 700 Club. Might also be that he's waking up (a bit), and remembering all those Bible passages about false prophets/messiahs, the End Times, and "deceiving (if it were possible) the very elect".
Also: It's been a long time since I read the Armageddon passage(s), but I think Syria comes into the story. Might be where the valley of Megiddo was/is supposed to be.
“Mandate of Heaven...” interesting choice of words.
I am a little skeptical as to whether Pat Robinson and friends would really regard the Christians in Syria as Christians. I would guess the objection more comes from Zionism and whatever weird apocalyptic theory he has in mind.
Also: It's been a long time since I read the Armageddon passage(s), but I think Syria comes into the story. Might be where the valley of Megiddo was/is supposed to be.
Mediggo is in Israel, some pretty cool ruins from memory.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I wonder. It's early days but maybe there is a scurrying of rats. Preparing to leave the sinking ship? Not getting my hopes up too far. But that "great and unmatched wisdom" quote might wake a few people up. The unchaining of Trump (via resignations) releases a mad and dangerous demagogue. About time the GOP woke up publicly to the fact that there is a lot more going on than electoral calculations.
that "great and unmatched wisdom" quote might wake a few people up.
His base will see it as self-deprecatory irony.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Sure. He could walk down the street and shoot someone and most in the base would still believe in him. But not all. Look out for what happens to the defection rate.
Slate et al are saying stuff like "Trump invites a new Killing Field".
Which seems to me raises the question as to what the fuck Turkey is still doing as a member of the supposedly democratic NATO. Did no one notice until now that they are the kind of country capable of doing the sorta stuff the Khmer Rouge did?
The Committee found that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin. The Committee found that the IRA targeted not only Hillary Clinton, but also Republican candidates during the presidential primaries. For example, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were targeted and denigrated, as was Jeb Bush. As Clint Watts, a former FBI Agent and expert in social media weaponization, testified to the Committee, "Russia's overt media outlets and covert trolls sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the Kremlin." IRA operators sought to impact primaries for both major parties and "may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed."
Bad week to be pushing the idea that it was all really the Ukrainians. So apparently Trump was Russia's favored candidate as far back as the primaries and the Russian campaign to get him elected seems more extensive than previously suspected.
Remember that this comes out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently controlled by Republicans.
Do you mean that it doesn’t matter because other people do it too? Or do you mean that it doesn’t matter because it’s just the USA getting a taste of its own medicine? Or is my irony meter giving false readings and you genuinely meant your last sentence to be a wholly ingenuous assertion?
Comments
Yep. Depressingly, whilst Impeachment is theoretically a legal process, it is of course a political one too. Ultimately the question is whether enough Republican Senators will vote to convict. I can't quite remember the Senate numbers but it's about 30 that's needed. Some will turn if the politics shifts - i.e. when Trump becomes a liability. Of course Trump's core base will support him no matter what; but there's another group - who have no idea how bad the Mueller report is, never mind this new stuff. They will turn against him and against any Senators that support him, if the Nixon impeachment enquiry is any guide.
AFZ
Indeed. However, I don't think all of the people who voted for Trump fall into this category. How big each group is, that's a matter for debate but on current polling numbers, Trump doesn't have a realistic route to an electoral college victory. That's a little beside the point when talking impeachment, of course: the issue here is the constituencies of the senators in question.
AFZ
Twenty Republican Senators would need to vote to convict Trump in order for him to be removed from office following an impeachment.
The current Senate consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats (Angus King and Bernie Sanders). It takes at least 67 Senators to reach the threshold of two-thirds (there are no current vacancies in the U.S. Senate).
There is a possible work-around, but it's all kind of skeevy from a procedural point of view even if it is technically constitutional.
Art. I, § 3, cl. 6 specifies you only need "the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present" to convict. Art. I, § 5, cl. 1 specifies that a majority of members of each house must be present "to do Business", which means that you really only need 51 Senators to try an impeachment. This would require a significant number of Republican Senators to "take a dive" and abandon their Constitutional obligations to represent their states, but it's technically within Constitutional legitimacy. I'm also not sure history or their voters would make much of a distinction between voting to remove Trump and conspiring with Democrats to remove him without having to personally vote for it, other than to view the latter as a particularly rank form of cowardice.
Thx for that.
Joni Ernst is getting questions in Iowa, to which she provides a non-answer. (Ernst's answers start around 1:50 on that video.)
Only 20 Republicans would have to vote to convict--along with all the Democrats.
The bet is Mitch will bring the impeachment to the Senate and after a show trial move to dismiss the charges. I think he would only need a simple majority to dismiss the charges.
Moscow Mitch wouldn't be running the trial though. John Roberts would, assuming such a thing happens. Roberts will have to do it according to Senate rules though, which represent Moscow Mitch's real venue for meddling.
And because the Trump era has destroyed Friday happy hour for the Washington press corps, we now have the House Oversight Committee (in cooperation with Intelligence and Foreign Affairs) requesting a bunch of documents from Mike Pence. (Letter here [PDF]). They gave him the same deadline as they gave Pompeo last week (October 15). I don't think they included a subpœna (though I've only had a chance to skim this), though they do say failure to comply will be construed as obstruction of the investigation. Unlike the Pompeo letter this one publicly lists the documents they seek.
And in between subverting the Constitution and using his office to enrich himself Trump signed an executive order today that contains a lot of what used to be Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing (and then looting) Medicare. I guess that's a way of reminding Congressional Republicans why they support him.
@Crœsos those two links are to the same tweet.
BroJames
Purgatory Host
The headline is accompanied by a really good pic of Mitt Romney...looking very presidential. My inquiring mind wants to know: Is he simply commenting, or is he somehow planning to run--or be drafted to run?
Yes, John Roberts, as the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, will be presiding; but Senate procedural rules permit any Senator making a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges and that motion is voted on by the Senate. Roberts cannot rule from the chair. Impeachment court and trial courts are horses of different colours.
So I was watching "Democracy Now" on our local PBS station (KQED). For those unfamiliar with it, DN is quietly kick-ass, and more towards the left wing of American politics.
Today's episode is From Trump to Nixon: “Watergate” Film Explains “How We Learned to Stop an Out of Control President”. (Has video/audio of the whole episode, and a "rush" preliminary view of the transcript.)
I saw part of it. Good interview with the director. Clips from the film included Watergate footage. (It was nice to see and hear Congresswoman Barbara Jordan again. Such a great voice and way of speaking.)
“Watergate - Or: How We Learned To Stop An Out Of Control President."
Oh, my my my...
"Mitt Romney Calls Trump’s Ukraine Call, China Comments ‘Brazen And Unprecedented’" (HuffPost).
Sorry. C&P error. Here is Marco Rubio. Here is Joni Ernst.
Mitt Romney's sole political principle is the bedrock belief that Mitt Romney should be president. He has accumulated quite the collection of furrowed brows and statements of concern about Donald Trump, but has done very little about it. He's got a "Trump score*" of 79.2%, which is low for a Republican Senator but 7.4 percentage points higher than would be predicted by his state's Trump vote margin in 2016. Fellow Utah Senator Mike Lee has a Trump score of 52.5% for the 116th Congress (i.e. the same period of time Romney has been a Senator).
Fun historical fact: Barbara Jordan was Governor of Texas for one day when both the governor and lieutenant governor were unavailable to fulfill their duties.
Not-so-fun historical fact: Jordan's one day as temporary acting Governor of Texas still represents 100% of the amount of time an African-American woman has been governor of an American state.
* The "Trump Score" is the percentage of times a legislator votes the way Trump favors. In the 116th Congress Republican Trump scores range from 95.7% (Shelley Moore Capito) to 33.3% (Susan Collins). Democratic Trump scores range from 4.2% (Jon Tester) to 29.2% (Joe Manchin).
I say good enough given he's probably trolling through a language barrier.
I wonder if, subconsciously, this is what tRump is doing?
Consciously or not, he must be in a personal hell. Besides all his damage and baggage, and whatever health problems (e.g., dementia) he may have...he didn't want to be president, and didn't expect to win. He wanted to leverage the publicity to get a better contract for hosting his various "Apprentice" TV series. And he wanted to get back at Obama for embarrassing him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. (I do think O is partly responsible for sparking this mess.)
Then he "won". He had to step out of the world he'd made and tailored to his needs. His need to be the all-out winner in every situation (because he'd been taught that was the only way to be worth being loved) got a paradoxical twist: he's getting more attention than ever; but people expect much more of him, and won't let him alone. He's not necessarily any more loved than he was before--and has attracted a whole lot of anger and hate.
I think he'd save himself a whole lot of pain and trouble if he'd resign and leave. Leave an "I quit!" note on the desk in the Oval Office, and tweet that out, too. (I figure a signed note on paper might be necessary to be official.)
Personally, I'm not looking to put him in prison--just get him out of office, legally and non-violently. Put him in a good psych facility and/or sanitarium in the countryside. One that has nice, high walls, so he'll feel safe--and so will everyone else.
It was undoubtedly deserved. Whether it's part of the chain of events is a different question.
AFZ
Short answer: Joe Biden is the Democratic presidential primary front runner and as a straight white male is the only one Trump considers a legitimate challenger.
Slightly longer answer: Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas corporation. Joe Biden was the Obama administration point man on convincing Ukraine to fire its Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. This Obama-era policy did not originate with Joe Biden and was shared by other non-American entities (the IMF, the EU, various other nations, etc.), but Biden was the American point-of-contact. The claim is that Biden wanted Viktor Shokin sacked because he would have investigated Burisma (where Hunter Biden was on the board). Shokin was actually (in)famous for not prosecuting large corporations and letting corruption slide, so this accusation never really made sense. The Washington Post (paywall) and The Intercept (free) have more in-depth explanations as to why the accusations are no more honest than anything else Trump says.
Interestingly this Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory seems to have been deliberately manufactured rather than growing organically.
I think there's not been quite enough analysis on what it means to have a Fox News true believer in power. This was always the problem with right wing media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sinclair, hate radio, etc.). The first generation (Newt Gingrich and company) cynically employed it to rile up their voters, not realizing (or possibly just not caring) that their successors (Gym Jordan, Devin Nunes) would grow up actually believing this stuff. Now we've got a president* who, while not young enough to have "grown up" with the stuff, is pretty much your stereotypical angry "Fox News Grampa".
Trump also has a new excuse for his apparently impeachable Ukrainian call: The Devil Rick Perry made me do it. I've always thought "can be outwitted by Rick Perry" to be sufficient grounds for invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
*There is also a whistleblower alleging there's something funny going on with the legally-required audits of Trump's tax returns. This whistleblower is probably from the Treasury Department or the IRS, not the intelligence community.
A number of TV critics have written about having a different insight into the Trump presidency than their political reporter colleagues, because of seeing him through the lens of reality television. In Trump's world you win by stirring up drama against other "contestants" and avoiding consequences however possible.
James Poniewozik's new book is about Trump and the evolution of TV, and looks to be really good. I have it on hold at the library but haven't gotten it yet.
I think a few weeks ago Rep Ilhan Omar and a few others aired the idea of reasserting Congress’ right to declare war.
"Pat Robertson: Trump Will Lose His ‘Mandate of Heaven’ if He Pulls Out of Syria" (Daily Beast).
Meanwhile, that Trump quote about his own "great and unmatched wisdom" sounds more like the Antichrist than a mandate of heaven to me.
I am a little skeptical as to whether Pat Robinson and friends would really regard the Christians in Syria as Christians. I would guess the objection more comes from Zionism and whatever weird apocalyptic theory he has in mind.
Mediggo is in Israel, some pretty cool ruins from memory.
His base will see it as self-deprecatory irony.
May I introduce you to President Supervillain, a twitter feed that takes Trump quotes and puts them in comics featuring Marvel's Red Skull?
Here's a still of the "great and unmatched wisdom" tweet.
Which seems to me raises the question as to what the fuck Turkey is still doing as a member of the supposedly democratic NATO. Did no one notice until now that they are the kind of country capable of doing the sorta stuff the Khmer Rouge did?
Ooh, lovely!
Bad week to be pushing the idea that it was all really the Ukrainians. So apparently Trump was Russia's favored candidate as far back as the primaries and the Russian campaign to get him elected seems more extensive than previously suspected.
Remember that this comes out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently controlled by Republicans.