Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1979899100102

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 15
    No doubt Trump will pardon him to keep his mouth shut.

    Stone been pretty blatant about asking for one.
    And it appears Roger Stone knows he's going down on at least a couple of these charges, because Media Matters reports that he turned to his good friend Alex Jones to convey a message to the (so-called) President of the United States: Pardon me.

    “Roger Stone’s message is this: He expects to be convicted," said Jones. "He said only a miracle can save him now."

    Later Jones quoted Stone directly. "He said to me, ‘Alex, barring a miracle, I appeal to God and I appeal to your listeners for prayer, and I appeal to the president to pardon me because to do so would be an action that would show these corrupt courts that they’re not going to get away with persecuting people for their free speech or for the crime of getting the president elected.’”

    So far Trump has not pardoned any of the other five of his associates currently doing time for campaign- or administration-related crimes. For the record, if Stone lied in his Congressional testimony then Trump lied in writing to Robert Mueller about the same stuff.
    Twilight wrote: »
    I nominate Ambassador Yovanovitch for president.

    Unfortunately she's not qualified. She's a Canadian born naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. I'm sure various Trump supporters will take this as further proof that immigrants are out to get Dear Leader.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    I’m just surprised more Republicans aren’t upset. Trump is clearly inept and incapable of leading or directing American Foreign Policy. Given this, wouldn’t they want someone better? I know they don’t give a damn, for some reason, but really. The pictures described by Ambassador Yovanovitch and the others is quite bleak.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    And speaking of Congressional testimony, Roger Stone has just been convicted on all seven charges against him, including lying to Congress and witness intimidation.
    Republican operative Roger Stone was found guilty Friday of all seven counts against him, including witness tampering and making false statements.

    Prosecutors portrayed Stone, 67, as a serial liar who tried to bully witnesses into not cooperating with authorities. They charged Stone, a confidant of President Donald Trump, with making false statements, obstruction and witness tampering in a case that was an offshoot of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

    Stone is the sixth Trump aide or adviser to be convicted of charges brought as part of Mueller's probe.

    His sentencing was set for Feb. 6, and he faces up to 20 years in prison. The jury deliberated for two days.

    Stone was allegedly the Trump campaign's conduit to Wikileaks.

    So, what does 45 do this morning? He tries to intimidate a witness as she is testifying on the Hill. Even GOP leaders are at a loss on how to explain this except to say he has a right to defend himself.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    A reminder; here's Trump on his "perfect" call with Zelensky [PDF] discussing Yovanovitch:
    President Zelenskyy: It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

    The President: Well, she's going to go through some things.

    Sounds ominous. Then there was Yovanovitch's closed door testimony earlier. This was questioning by Rep Mitchell:
    Q: Also on page 4, at the top, President Trump said, "The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news, so I just want to let you know that." Do you see that?

    A: Yes.

    Q: What was your reaction when you saw that?

    A: Again, I hate to be repetitive, but I was shocked. I mean, I was very surprised that President Trump would -- first of all, that I would feature repeatedly in a Presidential phone ca11, but secondly, that the President would speak about me or any ambassador in that way to a foreign counterpart.

    Q: At the bottom of that same page, President Trump says, "WeI1 , she's going to go through some things." What did you understand that to mean?

    A: I didn't know what it meant. I was very concerned. I sti11 am.

    Q: Did you feel threatened?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Did you feel that you might be retaliated against?

    A: You know, there's a universe of what it could mean. I don't know.

    And later when being questioned by Rep. Goldman:
    Q: What did she say to you?

    A: Well, in the first call, which happened at quarter of 10 in the evening Kyiv time, she said that she was giving me a heads-up, that things were going wrong, kind of off the — off the track, and she wanted to give me a heads-up. She didn’t know what was happening, but there was a lot of nervousness on the seventh floor and up the street.

    Q: What did she mean by “up the street”?

    A: The White House.

    A: She called me about an hour later, so it’s now 1 a.m. in the Ukraine.

    Q: And what did she say to you then?

    A: She said that there was a lot of concern for me, that I needed to be on the next plane home to Washington. And I was like, what? What happened? And she said, I don’t know, but this is about your security. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next plane. And I said, physical security? I mean, is there something going on here in the Ukraine? Because sometimes Washington has intel or something else that we don't necessari1y know. And she said, no, I didn't get that impression, but you need to come back immediately.

    You know, when an ambassador gets a call at 1:00 am saying "you need to be on the next plane out" it's usually followed by something like " . . . because the rebels are less than a mile from the capital", not because the president* is having a conspiracy-theory driven shit fit. What exactly was the State Department worried would happen to her if she didn't get out of Ukraine post haste?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    No doubt Trump will pardon him to keep his mouth shut.

    Stone been pretty blatant about asking for one.
    And it appears Roger Stone knows he's going down on at least a couple of these charges, because Media Matters reports that he turned to his good friend Alex Jones to convey a message to the (so-called) President of the United States: Pardon me.

    “Roger Stone’s message is this: He expects to be convicted," said Jones. "He said only a miracle can save him now."

    Later Jones quoted Stone directly. "He said to me, ‘Alex, barring a miracle, I appeal to God and I appeal to your listeners for prayer, and I appeal to the president to pardon me because to do so would be an action that would show these corrupt courts that they’re not going to get away with persecuting people for their free speech or for the crime of getting the president elected.’”

    So far Trump has not pardoned any of the other five of his associates currently doing time for campaign- or administration-related crimes. For the record, if Stone lied in his Congressional testimony then Trump lied in writing to Robert Mueller about the same stuff.
    Twilight wrote: »
    I nominate Ambassador Yovanovitch for president.

    Unfortunately she's not qualified. She's a Canadian born naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. I'm sure various Trump supporters will take this as further proof that immigrants are out to get Dear Leader.

    Trump is happy to throw anybody and everybody under the bus. The Trump is for the Trump.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Trump is happy to throw anybody and everybody under the bus. The Trump is for the Trump.

    Yes, but sometimes Trump needs to be reminded of conversations he's had with people. Here's Rudy Giuliani giving Trump an oblique reminder:
    In a telephone interview with the Guardian, in response to a question about whether he was nervous that Trump might “throw him under a bus” in the impeachment crisis, Giuliani said, with a slight laugh: “I’m not, but I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid.”

    Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, who was also on the call, then interjected: “He’s joking.”

    The boss is forgetful and sometimes needs to be reminded of things.

    Stone is in a different position than Giuliani since anything he knows is either already public by virtue of the trial or would additionally incriminate him and be considered "disloyalty" if he revealed it.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    No doubt Trump will pardon him to keep his mouth shut.

    Stone been pretty blatant about asking for one.
    And it appears Roger Stone knows he's going down on at least a couple of these charges, because Media Matters reports that he turned to his good friend Alex Jones to convey a message to the (so-called) President of the United States: Pardon me.

    “Roger Stone’s message is this: He expects to be convicted," said Jones. "He said only a miracle can save him now."

    Later Jones quoted Stone directly. "He said to me, ‘Alex, barring a miracle, I appeal to God and I appeal to your listeners for prayer, and I appeal to the president to pardon me because to do so would be an action that would show these corrupt courts that they’re not going to get away with persecuting people for their free speech or for the crime of getting the president elected.’”

    So far Trump has not pardoned any of the other five of his associates currently doing time for campaign- or administration-related crimes. For the record, if Stone lied in his Congressional testimony then Trump lied in writing to Robert Mueller about the same stuff.
    Twilight wrote: »
    I nominate Ambassador Yovanovitch for president.

    Unfortunately she's not qualified. She's a Canadian born naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. I'm sure various Trump supporters will take this as further proof that immigrants are out to get Dear Leader.

    Trump is happy to throw anybody and everybody under the bus. The Trump is for the Trump.

    Unless that person may have dirt on him

    Giuliani was quoted today saying he did not think T will dump him because he has "insurance." Now, I wonder what that might be.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    David Holmes looks as though he has the smoking gun. And he's one of at least 3 witnesses to what Trump said over the phone.

    The GOP defence can now only be 'so what'? But I think Trump's tweet attacks on the Ambassador today have revealed just what an ugly apology for a human being he is. No shame. No decency.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    ABC Evening News just claimed that White House personnel were blindsided by TweedleDump's tweet-attack on the Ambassador. If true (or "true," or *true,* or even #true#), it doesn't recommend said personnel's perspicacity. The estimate 14 million Americans watching this could probably have predicted this down to within 7 minutes of its launch.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    I nominate Ambassador Yovanovitch for president.

    She was born in Canada, so she can't be POTUS.

    :cry:
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited November 16
    Her family fled Ukraine to Nazi Germany... getting shades of Chrystia Freeland here.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited November 16
    I thought Ambassador Yovanovitch was entirely credible. And very dignified.

    By contrast, Sondand has demonstrated the difference between an experienced diplomat and an out of depth amateur. He showed off to diplomatic aides by phoning the President from a restaurant(!) and holding a cellphone away from his ears so they could hear the President's voice. The content of the call (the familiarity) and his crude observations after the call tell you all you need to know. 'Look at me. I've got Trump's ear!'

    There is of course no way that Yovanovitch would commit such glaring indiscretions. But then she knows what she is doing.

  • --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.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    The GOP defence can now only be 'so what'?
    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".

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    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.
  • He's really kicking up dust huh. I wouldn't put it past the bastard to fake a heart attack to steal a headline or two.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    He's really kicking up dust huh. I wouldn't put it past the bastard to fake a heart attack to steal a headline or two.

    It’s his get out clause I think.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    For those who want to watch, Ambassador Sondland's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee is livestreaming here.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I'd say the GOP lawyer is floundering, desperately trying to find wriggle room for POTUS. Nunes has just been awful.
  • 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.
  • One word: impunity.
  • 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.} ;)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    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

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    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

    Paul Krugman makes a useful to remember point about Sondland:
    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.
  • Anyone, on either side, who asks a question and then interrupts the person while they are answering, will not get my nomination for president.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    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.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    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.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    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.
  • Re interrupting:

    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.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    edited November 22
    Wesley J wrote: »
    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.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    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.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    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.
  • that Mr Rogers had something, huh. Nice post Twilight.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited November 22
    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.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    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.)


  • unfortunately the rest of us suffer from their ignorance too, those windy ones.
  • This is crazy.

    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.
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    So sorry to hear of the problems for your family, @Gramps49, 🕯, I truly despair!
  • Doone wrote: »
    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.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    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?

    From Fiona Hill's opening statement [PDF]:
    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.

    Speaking of which:
    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).
  • ((Gramps and his family))
  • Ditto.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Croesos

    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).
  • Thank you all for your concern about my granddaughter. We will be with her this Thanksgiving. I will let you know how she is doing.

    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.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    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.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.