--Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R?) complained that the whistleblower *should* testify, because Jordan wanted to see the person who started all this.
A male Democrat (Schiff?) chortled, and said he'd like to see the person who started it all, too, and that the president was welcome to come and testify. Laughter from the crowd.
--Friday, when the former ambassador was testifying, a questioner said that her experiences sounded like a bad reality-TV show...and that we all know who has experience in that area. (T.) Chuckle from the crowd.
I think that ultimately, this has been it all along, and it's remarkably resilient. "He's president, so he can do what he likes".
As I've said before, I think this line of argument appeals to Trump's base in the same way that his tax-dodging does. If they were in his position they'd do exactly the same thing and mark it up as a smart move on their part.
This translates into admiration for his chutzpah that outweighs any negative consequences for them. All the more so in that the negative consequences for them in this instance are seen as coming down to the elimination of a leading Democrat opponent, so they probably don't seem very negative to them; "good on him for doing everything he could to reveal the ugly truth about Biden".
Perhaps they should just burn the US Constitution as well? That attitude replaces the rule of law by the rule of Trump.
You may be right of course. Populism leads so easily to barbarism. And the GOP continue to rationalise this appalling behaviour. Reaching back into the McCarthy era. Joseph Welch's "have you no sense of decency?" question come to mind. It appears that, with a few exceptions, they have none.
And, so 45 wants to charge the South Koreans 500% more for keeping American Troops on Korean soil. The South Koreans are having none of it. While the majority of SK citizens still want to have American troops in their land, the vast majority are saying not a penny more.
I just have to wonder who is winning in this dust-up? The Chairman of the PROK? Some guy whose name begins with P and ends with n?
BTW--the Chairman of the PROK is also saying "No more pictures until the US gives a little."
And then there is the curious unscheduled trip to Walter Reed this weekend.
Whether the Ukrainian episode rises to criminal bribery or not, witness intimidation and obstruction of Congress rises to felonious levels. When the (presumed) president is tweeting out names, threats and dismissals in real time and the administration is refusing to release pertinent emails and other communications there is something rotten in (a proverbial low country on the Northern Sea).
Anytime I have been involved in a court issue one of the mantras my lawyer told me was to stay completely off any electronic media. Something 45 just cannot follow.
Anytime I have been involved in a court issue one of the mantras my lawyer told me was to stay completely off any electronic media. Something 45 just cannot follow.
One of the first things my wife does when she gets a new family law matter is check her client's social media, and the social media of their partner.
Now I want Fiona Hill for president and you all probably say she's not a U.S. citizen blahdy bla bla picky wicky.
{One thing she did say was that she never would have been able to have such a successful career in England because she grew up poor and had the wrong accent...don't be mad.}
For those who are interested today's testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee by NSC member Fiona Hill and Ukrainian Embassy staffer David Holmes is livestreaming here. Holmes is the one who claims to have overheard the phone conversation between Trump and Gordon Sondland the day after the phone call to Zelensky that alarmed "everyone".
I'm putting everyone in quotes there because although everyone who has testified so far who had direct or indirect knowledge of the call says they were alarmed it, only one person was alarmed enough to actually file a report about it to a relevant Inspector General. Everyone else seems to have only found their voices once the whistleblower report was made public and the subpœnas started flying.
As I was hearing Trump saying he hardly knew (Sonderland), I realized Sonderland is not going to get the annual Christmas box of chocolates this year. As Sonderland said, easy come--easy go
As I was hearing Trump saying he hardly knew (Sonderland), I realized Sonderland is not going to get the annual Christmas box of chocolates this year. As Sonderland said, easy come--easy go
A key point about Sondland: he's independently wealthy. He doesn't need wingnut welfare (gig at Fox, think tank, whatever). He can live comfortably unless he goes to jail. So his incentives very different from many others in this story.
I highlighted the key bit there.
He goes on to elaborate why even retiring Republican politicians seem unwilling to stand up to Trump:
Yes, that's my point. Anyone puzzled why Rs who are retiring still won't turn on Trump is being naive about what former Congresscritters, especially on the right, do for a living. For example, remember Dave Brat, Tea Party guy whose 2014 primary victory was a prelude to Trumpism, but who narrowly lost last year? What's he doing now? He's dean of the business school at Falwell's Liberty University.
The Republican network is a lot bigger than Republican elected officials, and being on the outside can be very costly for former apparatchiks.
As I was hearing Trump saying he hardly knew (Sonderland), I realized Sonderland is not going to get the annual Christmas box of chocolates this year. As Sonderland said, easy come--easy go
If he were to receive the annual Christmas box of chocolates -- or any food item -- he would be wise to dispose of them uneaten.
As I was hearing Trump saying he hardly knew (Sonderland), I realized Sonderland is not going to get the annual Christmas box of chocolates this year. As Sonderland said, easy come--easy go
If he were to receive the annual Christmas box of chocolates -- or any food item -- he would be wise to dispose of them uneaten.
But all those tasty flavor combinations! Novichok nougat. Polonium truffle. Ricin crunch. And, of course, spring surprise.
Anyone, on either side, who asks a question and then interrupts the person while they are answering, will not get my nomination for president.
Oh, there is sometimes good reason to do that, like when the witness is avoiding the question. What sometimes gets my goat is people trying to mold the testimony to their agenda by doing stuff like "yes or no sir. Yes or no."
On Hill, I understand that tertiary education was effectively free to UK students in the 1980's, as it was here in Australia. But I'm not surprised that the US was a land of opportunity for a smart Englishwoman like her.
Many talk-show hosts do that--even with a guest they admire and respect. (Pet peeve.)
When it comes to Congress, their questions often don't have anything to do with actually finding anything out. On those occasions, they're showing off for the voting folks back home; or pleasing their party; or sending a message; or trying to lead a witness to the Right & Proper Response.
I think there were some Congressfolk today who didn't even ask questions. They just "speechified".
IAIUI, it used to be the case that members of Congress could give speeches to the empty chambers of Congress. CSPAN (and maybe other networks) would broadcast the speeches, but not the non-audience. I don't know if that's still the case. Given the ubiquity of cell phones with cameras, might not be much point. Someone could film the empty chamber, and send it to an opponent's constituents--or put in on social media.
I hate hate hate the way interviewers frame their questions these days, making small speeches as they frame it. I also really dislike those sorts of interruptions unless the subject is avoiding the question.
It’s also almost unimaginable that Trump would appoint anyone other than a wealthy white man (though he might pick a woman if she was rich and white enough).
And good-looking.
and utterly obedient
Ooops - my feed only took me to page 56 ... so about a year late. But I decided not to delete it because, well, nothing has changed.
After Fiona Hill demolished counter arguments from the GOP committee members, they stopped asking questions and used their time for polemics.
The case that Trump misused the power of his office is proven. It will not lead to the removal of Trump from office.
As a fellow North Easterner with a similar poor working class background, I related to Fiona Hill. She struck me as principled, highly intelligent and of good, strong character. And completely unafraid.
She made the self serving politicians on that committee look very small.
After Fiona Hill demolished counter arguments from the GOP committee members, they stopped asking questions and used their time for polemics.
The case that Trump misused the power of his office is proven. It will not lead to the removal of Trump from office.
As a fellow North Easterner with a similar poor working class background, I related to Fiona Hill. She struck me as principled, highly intelligent and of good, strong character. And completely unafraid.
She made the self serving politicians on that committee look very small.
Agree with the bolded conclusion.
And yes, to me Fiona Hill has all the wonderful qualities you mention, and when I left my radio and turned on the TV to see what she looked like she was exactly as I pictured her, the quintessential Englishwoman, very slim and fine boned, porcelain skin, thin lips and painfully tidy hair.
I've been glued to the Impeachment Show this week and I've found it surprisingly uplifting. I really enjoyed listening to some true public servants talking about their jobs. It was no real surprise to learn that Trump and Giuliani act like Mafia thugs, but I was often reminded of Mr. Rogers telling his audience of children that when bad things happen in the news, there are always good people around and we should focus on them.
Someone on CNN described her as a "Helen Mirren" character - I guess they were thinking D I Tennison from "Prime Suspect"?
One interesting aside. To my ears, the flat vowels of her North Eastern background are very apparent, as are her roots in that part of the UK. "Quintessential English", to my ears and probably hers, is normally reserved for someone a lot more middle class.
CNN broadcast a critical tweet from some idiot describing her as speaking "like Prince Andrew" which showed how tone deaf he was to the variations in English accents. As well as throwing in an obnoxious "guilt by association". The tweeter also mentioned Vindman and Yovanovitch and their origins, and asked when the committee would hear from "some real Americans".
And I thought of the Statue of Liberty and asked myself just how deeply this obnoxious brainwashing has penetrated the understanding of millions of Americans. It's racist, xenophobic, and doesn't give a shit about facts. All those who are sowing this wind and seeking to benefit from it will reap a terrible whirlwind.
CNN broadcast a critical tweet from some idiot describing her as speaking "like Prince Andrew" which showed how tone deaf he was to the variations in English accents. As well as throwing in an obnoxious "guilt by association". The tweeter also mentioned Vindman and Yovanovitch and their origins, and asked when the committee would hear from "some real Americans".
And I thought of the Statue of Liberty and asked myself just how deeply this obnoxious brainwashing has penetrated the understanding of millions of Americans. It's racist, xenophobic, and doesn't give a shit about facts. All those who are sowing this wind and seeking to benefit from it will reap a terrible whirlwind.
Re the last paragraph:
Kind of like an underlying health problem exacerbated into a raging, sociological epidemic.
And/or everything escaping from Pandora's box. Hope survived, but she seems to be missing in action.
And gaaaa! re someone associating Ms. Yovanovitch with Pr. Andrew at this time! (I've heard bits of news. I don't know what he did or didn't do, and don't want to dig into the details. But. at best. the comparison is horrendous timing on the part of the tweeter.)
45 is well known for his transactional approach to foreign affairs. Over the past few weeks both houses of Congress have passed a bill condemning the police brutality that has been seen in Hong Kong. There was only one vote against the bill--in other words, the bill has been practically unanimously passed by both houses--a rare event indeed.
What does 45 do? He says that he wants to stand with the Hong Kong protesters but he also wants to stand with Chairman Chi, a very good friend of his. He says he might veto the bill because it may interfere with the "greatest" trade deal the world has ever seen with China (it is really a minor trade deal by all accounts. So, he is looking at dollars rather than civil rights of a people?
Continuing: vaping has now been proven to have a severe impact on people's health. 45 promises he will limit vaping. What happens? The vaping industry convinces him back off because it would affect many people employed in the vaping industry. Apparently, the general health of the population does not matter. Well, I guess it will also keep some health care providers and even undertakers in business too.
Why is it the Republicans continue to insist it was the Ukrainians who were interfering with the 2016 elections. in spite of all the evidence that the Russians want us to blame the Ukrainians.
As I was typing this all out, we just got a call from our daughter. Our granddaughter's boyfriend has been forced to return to Mexico. Turns out his family was undocumented. I am not sure if they were deported. This is very traumatic for our family because our son-in-law was almost deported to the Philipines when he overstayed his visa several years ago.
So sorry to hear of the problems for your family, @Gramps49, 🕯, I truly despair!
Thank you. I do feel sorry for what my granddaughter is experiencing. It is traumatic to lose a boyfriend even under normal circumstances, but this is much more so.
We need to get him and his ilk out of office ASAP.
Why is it the Republicans continue to insist it was the Ukrainians who were interfering with the 2016 elections. in spite of all the evidence that the Russians want us to blame the Ukrainians.
The "stupid or evil?" question is always tough to parse with politicians. Are they acting a certain way because they're true believers, or because they see some kind of political advantage?
Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.
The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.
The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.
U.S. support for Ukraine — which continues to face armed Russian aggression — has been politicized.
The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country — to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.
I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.
So when Devin Nunes (to pick one prominent example) goes on to repeat falsehoods spread by Russian security services designed to exonerate themselves and to harm a current adversary does he do so because he's a dupe who sincerely believes it, because he sees some immediate political advantage for himself, or because he's secretly sympathetic to Russian aims? Beyond a certain point it doesn't really matter. Nunes' motives matter less than his actions.
A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani tells CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.
The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.
"Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December," said Bondy.
So, is Rep. Nunes (allegedly) subverting American democracy because he truly believes that Hunter and/or Joe Biden is truly nefarious or is Nunes (allegedly) subverting American democracy because he believes his party cannot win a fair election? At a certain point Nunes' motives (stupid or evil?) don't matter as much as his actions (the alleged ratfucking of the upcoming presidential election).
Yes, I found both of those segments from the testimony compelling. I also agree with you re motivations and actions.
I suppose they cannot afford to acknowledge Fiona Hill's central truth, that it really didn't matter whether Trump or Clinton won, the disinformation damaged whoever won and therefore both fomented division and weakened democracy. The disinformation strategy won either way.
The emetic and stupid Nunes is now implicated not just in irresponsible credulity but doing his own dirt digging in Ukraine. Probably not immediately, but I think he's toast. However there seem to be plenty of others around to carry the torch (and the can, if necessary).
There is now talk that Nunes will face a Congressional Ethics Investigation.
It should be noted that the full name of the House Intelligence Committee is "The U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence" (HPSCI). I've emphasized the key word there. Because it's a select committee rather than a standing committee it's within the discretion of Speaker Pelosi to remove Devin Nunes from the committee on her own initiative and without needing permission from anyone else. Having the ranking member of the HPSCI implicated in a matter under investigation would seem to be sufficient grounds to do so. Of course none of the evidence hinted at in various news accounts has been made public yet so this is all speculative at this point, at least to those of us without security clearances.
Hmm. In other times the House Minority Leader would have just tapped Nunes on the shoulder and told him to stand down pending an investigation. Not Kevin McCarthy of course. No chance.
In other times (e.g., August 9, 1974 most notably) someone* would -- and did -- tap the POTUS on the shoulder and tell him to resign and save himself and the country the pain of an impeachment.
*Those "someones" were all Republicans -- two Senators and one member of the House. (And I'm proud to say, Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative John Rhodes were both from Arizona, though I didn't live here at the time.)
In other times (e.g., August 9, 1974 most notably) someone* would -- and did -- tap the POTUS on the shoulder and tell him to resign and save himself and the country the pain of an impeachment.
*Those "someones" were all Republicans -- two Senators and one member of the House. (And I'm proud to say, Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative John Rhodes were both from Arizona, though I didn't live here at the time.)
It should be noted that the primary motivation of these someones was not to save either Nixon or the country but to save themselves from having to take a vote on Nixon's impeachment or trial.
And it looks like Giuliani Partners, Rudolf Giuliani's consulting firm, just received a subpœna from federal prosecutors. Possible charges being investigated include obstruction of justice, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., making false statements to federal investigators, failure to register as a foreign agent, hiding foreign campaign donations, straw man campaign donations, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Those last five sound a lot like the charges from the Parnas and Fruman indictments.
After weeks of complaining he has not been able to defend himself, T has decided not to allow his lawyers to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearings. Is that because there is no defense?
For those who like long government documents in PDF format (and who doesn't like long government documents in PDF format?) the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment report* is now available for download [PDF]. It is exactly 300 pages long. The executive summary is only 22 pages long (pp. 12-33) and the key findings of fact fit on 4 pages (pp. 34-37).
* The full title is THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT: Report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pursuant to H. Res. 660 in Consultation with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
I reckon my podcast will have it up soon if you don't feel like reading. They do straight reads of docs, no commentary. The guy's name is Dan Williams and the podcast is Government Unfiltered. There's alot of stuff relating to impeachment up there, but the Report isn't there yet. I reckon Dan has a day job.
Comments
A male Democrat (Schiff?) chortled, and said he'd like to see the person who started it all, too, and that the president was welcome to come and testify. Laughter from the crowd.
--Friday, when the former ambassador was testifying, a questioner said that her experiences sounded like a bad reality-TV show...and that we all know who has experience in that area. (T.) Chuckle from the crowd.
As I've said before, I think this line of argument appeals to Trump's base in the same way that his tax-dodging does. If they were in his position they'd do exactly the same thing and mark it up as a smart move on their part.
This translates into admiration for his chutzpah that outweighs any negative consequences for them. All the more so in that the negative consequences for them in this instance are seen as coming down to the elimination of a leading Democrat opponent, so they probably don't seem very negative to them; "good on him for doing everything he could to reveal the ugly truth about Biden".
You may be right of course. Populism leads so easily to barbarism. And the GOP continue to rationalise this appalling behaviour. Reaching back into the McCarthy era. Joseph Welch's "have you no sense of decency?" question come to mind. It appears that, with a few exceptions, they have none.
I just have to wonder who is winning in this dust-up? The Chairman of the PROK? Some guy whose name begins with P and ends with n?
BTW--the Chairman of the PROK is also saying "No more pictures until the US gives a little."
And then there is the curious unscheduled trip to Walter Reed this weekend.
It’s his get out clause I think.
Anytime I have been involved in a court issue one of the mantras my lawyer told me was to stay completely off any electronic media. Something 45 just cannot follow.
One of the first things my wife does when she gets a new family law matter is check her client's social media, and the social media of their partner.
{One thing she did say was that she never would have been able to have such a successful career in England because she grew up poor and had the wrong accent...don't be mad.}
I'm putting everyone in quotes there because although everyone who has testified so far who had direct or indirect knowledge of the call says they were alarmed it, only one person was alarmed enough to actually file a report about it to a relevant Inspector General. Everyone else seems to have only found their voices once the whistleblower report was made public and the subpœnas started flying.
Paul Krugman makes a useful to remember point about Sondland:
I highlighted the key bit there.
He goes on to elaborate why even retiring Republican politicians seem unwilling to stand up to Trump:
The Republican network is a lot bigger than Republican elected officials, and being on the outside can be very costly for former apparatchiks.
But all those tasty flavor combinations! Novichok nougat. Polonium truffle. Ricin crunch. And, of course, spring surprise.
Oh, there is sometimes good reason to do that, like when the witness is avoiding the question. What sometimes gets my goat is people trying to mold the testimony to their agenda by doing stuff like "yes or no sir. Yes or no."
On Hill, I understand that tertiary education was effectively free to UK students in the 1980's, as it was here in Australia. But I'm not surprised that the US was a land of opportunity for a smart Englishwoman like her.
Many talk-show hosts do that--even with a guest they admire and respect. (Pet peeve.)
When it comes to Congress, their questions often don't have anything to do with actually finding anything out. On those occasions, they're showing off for the voting folks back home; or pleasing their party; or sending a message; or trying to lead a witness to the Right & Proper Response.
I think there were some Congressfolk today who didn't even ask questions. They just "speechified".
IAIUI, it used to be the case that members of Congress could give speeches to the empty chambers of Congress. CSPAN (and maybe other networks) would broadcast the speeches, but not the non-audience. I don't know if that's still the case. Given the ubiquity of cell phones with cameras, might not be much point. Someone could film the empty chamber, and send it to an opponent's constituents--or put in on social media.
and utterly obedient
Ooops - my feed only took me to page 56 ... so about a year late. But I decided not to delete it because, well, nothing has changed.
The case that Trump misused the power of his office is proven. It will not lead to the removal of Trump from office.
As a fellow North Easterner with a similar poor working class background, I related to Fiona Hill. She struck me as principled, highly intelligent and of good, strong character. And completely unafraid.
She made the self serving politicians on that committee look very small.
Agree with the bolded conclusion.
And yes, to me Fiona Hill has all the wonderful qualities you mention, and when I left my radio and turned on the TV to see what she looked like she was exactly as I pictured her, the quintessential Englishwoman, very slim and fine boned, porcelain skin, thin lips and painfully tidy hair.
I've been glued to the Impeachment Show this week and I've found it surprisingly uplifting. I really enjoyed listening to some true public servants talking about their jobs. It was no real surprise to learn that Trump and Giuliani act like Mafia thugs, but I was often reminded of Mr. Rogers telling his audience of children that when bad things happen in the news, there are always good people around and we should focus on them.
One interesting aside. To my ears, the flat vowels of her North Eastern background are very apparent, as are her roots in that part of the UK. "Quintessential English", to my ears and probably hers, is normally reserved for someone a lot more middle class.
CNN broadcast a critical tweet from some idiot describing her as speaking "like Prince Andrew" which showed how tone deaf he was to the variations in English accents. As well as throwing in an obnoxious "guilt by association". The tweeter also mentioned Vindman and Yovanovitch and their origins, and asked when the committee would hear from "some real Americans".
And I thought of the Statue of Liberty and asked myself just how deeply this obnoxious brainwashing has penetrated the understanding of millions of Americans. It's racist, xenophobic, and doesn't give a shit about facts. All those who are sowing this wind and seeking to benefit from it will reap a terrible whirlwind.
Re the last paragraph:
Kind of like an underlying health problem exacerbated into a raging, sociological epidemic.
And/or everything escaping from Pandora's box. Hope survived, but she seems to be missing in action.
And gaaaa! re someone associating Ms. Yovanovitch with Pr. Andrew at this time! (I've heard bits of news. I don't know what he did or didn't do, and don't want to dig into the details. But. at best. the comparison is horrendous timing on the part of the tweeter.)
45 is well known for his transactional approach to foreign affairs. Over the past few weeks both houses of Congress have passed a bill condemning the police brutality that has been seen in Hong Kong. There was only one vote against the bill--in other words, the bill has been practically unanimously passed by both houses--a rare event indeed.
What does 45 do? He says that he wants to stand with the Hong Kong protesters but he also wants to stand with Chairman Chi, a very good friend of his. He says he might veto the bill because it may interfere with the "greatest" trade deal the world has ever seen with China (it is really a minor trade deal by all accounts. So, he is looking at dollars rather than civil rights of a people?
Continuing: vaping has now been proven to have a severe impact on people's health. 45 promises he will limit vaping. What happens? The vaping industry convinces him back off because it would affect many people employed in the vaping industry. Apparently, the general health of the population does not matter. Well, I guess it will also keep some health care providers and even undertakers in business too.
Why is it the Republicans continue to insist it was the Ukrainians who were interfering with the 2016 elections. in spite of all the evidence that the Russians want us to blame the Ukrainians.
As I was typing this all out, we just got a call from our daughter. Our granddaughter's boyfriend has been forced to return to Mexico. Turns out his family was undocumented. I am not sure if they were deported. This is very traumatic for our family because our son-in-law was almost deported to the Philipines when he overstayed his visa several years ago.
This is crazy.
Thank you. I do feel sorry for what my granddaughter is experiencing. It is traumatic to lose a boyfriend even under normal circumstances, but this is much more so.
We need to get him and his ilk out of office ASAP.
The "stupid or evil?" question is always tough to parse with politicians. Are they acting a certain way because they're true believers, or because they see some kind of political advantage?
From Fiona Hill's opening statement [PDF]:
So when Devin Nunes (to pick one prominent example) goes on to repeat falsehoods spread by Russian security services designed to exonerate themselves and to harm a current adversary does he do so because he's a dupe who sincerely believes it, because he sees some immediate political advantage for himself, or because he's secretly sympathetic to Russian aims? Beyond a certain point it doesn't really matter. Nunes' motives matter less than his actions.
Speaking of which:
So, is Rep. Nunes (allegedly) subverting American democracy because he truly believes that Hunter and/or Joe Biden is truly nefarious or is Nunes (allegedly) subverting American democracy because he believes his party cannot win a fair election? At a certain point Nunes' motives (stupid or evil?) don't matter as much as his actions (the alleged ratfucking of the upcoming presidential election).
Yes, I found both of those segments from the testimony compelling. I also agree with you re motivations and actions.
I suppose they cannot afford to acknowledge Fiona Hill's central truth, that it really didn't matter whether Trump or Clinton won, the disinformation damaged whoever won and therefore both fomented division and weakened democracy. The disinformation strategy won either way.
The emetic and stupid Nunes is now implicated not just in irresponsible credulity but doing his own dirt digging in Ukraine. Probably not immediately, but I think he's toast. However there seem to be plenty of others around to carry the torch (and the can, if necessary).
Regarding Nunes: CNN reports that Nunes also met with the former Ukrainian Attorney General to get dirt on Biden and his son, Hunter.
There is now talk that Nunes will face a Congressional Ethics Investigation.
It should be noted that the full name of the House Intelligence Committee is "The U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence" (HPSCI). I've emphasized the key word there. Because it's a select committee rather than a standing committee it's within the discretion of Speaker Pelosi to remove Devin Nunes from the committee on her own initiative and without needing permission from anyone else. Having the ranking member of the HPSCI implicated in a matter under investigation would seem to be sufficient grounds to do so. Of course none of the evidence hinted at in various news accounts has been made public yet so this is all speculative at this point, at least to those of us without security clearances.
*Those "someones" were all Republicans -- two Senators and one member of the House. (And I'm proud to say, Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative John Rhodes were both from Arizona, though I didn't live here at the time.)
It should be noted that the primary motivation of these someones was not to save either Nixon or the country but to save themselves from having to take a vote on Nixon's impeachment or trial.
This one always reminds me of The Firm.
I assume you mean the book or the movie, not the exercise videos.
And also "Arlington Road"--which is very well done AND extremely disturbing. NOT one of my favorite films, but it gets some points across.
[killing me emote]
And, finally, after three years of silence, Lisa Page has decided to speak out.
* The full title is THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT: Report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pursuant to H. Res. 660 in Consultation with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
But it might give you nightmares.