Unfortunately that link isn't available in the UK or indeed most European countries. Can you summarise or maybe use the quotes function to quote a few extracts?
Sorry about that. The Chicago Tribune Article was published on 12 May 2019.
No it wasn't. The date on that article is January 1, 2018 - and it's from the Washington Post, not the Chicago Tribune. Check under the reporter's byline, not the frame at the top of the page. (Also, it talks about the 2018 elections as something happening in the future.)
I stand corrected. I had pulled the article through a search of Google News. Since it was the first article that came up, I had assumed it was the most recent article.
In the meantime, the man who presumes to be president is throwing a temper tantrum because the courts are ruling against him when it comes to financial disclosures and the increasing calls to impeach him.
Today, Pelosi is calling on his staff to do an intervention. Sounds like Pelosi is hoping the Cabinet will invoke section four of the 25th Amendment. Here
Edited to fix link. If a URL is being pasted in, it is necessary to delete the preloaded ‘http://’ first. BroJames. Purgatory Host
In a news release announcing the book deal, Mr. Trump, the president’s eldest son, said he would offer his views on the “great achievements” of his father’s administration, and his observations on “this significant time in history.” He said that he would also discuss his father’s supporters and detractors.
"Great achievements" indeed. Will it be in the Humo(u)r section?
In a news release announcing the book deal, Mr. Trump, the president’s eldest son, said he would offer his views on the “great achievements” of his father’s administration, and his observations on “this significant time in history.” He said that he would also discuss his father’s supporters and detractors.
"Great achievements" indeed. Will it be in the Humo(u)r section?
This is a good point. What's more problematic to me is the idea that Trump Jr has 'views' worthy of putting on the written page. I wish to note here that the Mueller report concluded that Trump Jr was Too Stupid to be guilty of conspiracy...
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban . . . solicitation of an illegal foreign-source contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign-source] contribution” . . . There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a “thing of value” within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e. with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation.
I hope the printers use soft, perforated two-ply and fragranced ink to produce the books.
However, I might just purchase one myself. I have a small collection of unusual items of political note. My prized object is a copy of the book, "The Lawyer and the Libertine", penned by a notoriously conservative High Court Judge. I really wanted to ask him to sign it, but he wasn't in Chambers when I visited Canberra.
Speaking of Trump writings, this seem to admit more than intended.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....
I am concerned that the focus on Trump and on what Trump tweets and what Trump says and what Trump did is obscuring something that Mueller emphasized at both the start and end of his comments, namely
Mueller began and ended his statement with a clear message to the nation. During the 2016 elections, America was under "concerted attack" by a foreign power.
Although he was careful to note that the indictments against Russian actors who attempted to influence the presidential election were "allegations" until proven in court, he described what he said were "sophisticated cyber techniques" to hack the computers and networks in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
He also noted the Russian social media efforts to sow discord in the US political process.
"That allegation deserves the attention of every American," Mueller said in the last full sentence of his appearance.
In that sense, Trump is accidentally partially correct in his tweet: discussion of Russia keeps disappearing because all the politicians and media want to do is talk about Trump and Impeachment instead of, you know, actually taking action to protect the integrity of American elections. Further from the BBC article linked above:
There have been efforts in Congress to pass new legislation protecting the US electoral system, but at least so far those attempts have been stymied by Republicans.
Mr Trump himself has repeatedly called into question whether Russia was behind the cyber-attacks of 2016, and his aides - like presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner - have dismissed the allegations as "a couple of Facebook ads".
Mueller clearly wants the public to know that, after two years of investigation, he takes the threat much more seriously.
Mueller may very well want us to know that he takes that more seriously, but does anybody in authority, or are they all too damn busy looking to their own political fortunes to care about the country?
Until the Repugnicans wake up to reality, nothing will be done.
What dismays me the most is that there doesn't seem to be any effort by those in Washington to take the Repugnicans aside, buttonhole them, and explain to them, "Look, face up to reality. This hopelessly corrupt individual is driving the country to ruin and we can't stop him without your help."
Maybe that **is** happening -- I don't know. There's certainly no evidence of it. The utterly despicable M*tch McC*nn*ll continues to exist in his do-nothing dream world.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....
As someone paid to look at what people have written and try to decide what they actually meant, I looked twice at this and decided that if it had been in any other context or by any other person, it would easily be ruled sloppy wording rather than even an unconscious admission of guilt.
Of course the media have picked it up but their doing so is, I think, an instance of their habit of being part of the problem.
Mueller may very well want us to know that he takes that more seriously, but does anybody in authority, or are they all too damn busy looking to their own political fortunes to care about the country?
The very first bill introduced in the newly Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was a package of voting reforms, including security from foreign interference, called the For the People Act. It was passed and sent to the Senate on March 14 but has languished ever since. The Senate doesn't seem to be doing much legislating at all, being referred to as a "legislative graveyard", focusing instead of approving judicial appointees.
Whether the For the People Act counts as taking the problem seriously or looking to their own political fortunes is debatable, though the question need not be an either/or.
Until the Repugnicans wake up to reality, nothing will be done.
What dismays me the most is that there doesn't seem to be any effort by those in Washington to take the Repugnicans aside, buttonhole them, and explain to them, "Look, face up to reality. This hopelessly corrupt individual is driving the country to ruin and we can't stop him without your help."
Maybe that **is** happening -- I don't know. There's certainly no evidence of it. The utterly despicable M*tch McC*nn*ll continues to exist in his do-nothing dream world.
We have accounts that Barack Obama approached the Republican leadership in the fall of 2016 with what he knew about Russian efforts to ratfuck* the presidential election. Obama suggested a joint statement by the leadership of both parties condemning the attacks and working to stop them. McConnell's alleged reaction was to tell Obama to pound sand and say that if Obama went public on his own McConnell condemn it as a political stunt to subvert the Republican candidate. I'm not sure the result would be any different this time around.
*A political term-of-art dating back to Watergate.
What's really frustrating to me is the ongoing and relentless over-optimistic belief that if someone just explained to Republicans about the Russian election interference that's been the subject of intense news coverage then they'd do something about it. They know. They act as if they consider it not only okay but a key component of future Republican electoral successes, which itself seems like a very interesting assumption for them to have made. If any Congressional Republican was going to have a problem with this they already would. For the most part they don't. Ignoring this painfully obvious (and obviously painful) reality to take one more spin on the merry-go-round of if someone just explained it clearly enough, slowly and using small words, then the Republicans in Congress would surely do the right thing is an exercise in futility, but apparently a popular one.
Mueller may very well want us to know that he takes that more seriously, but does anybody in authority, or are they all too damn busy looking to their own political fortunes to care about the country?
This is really close to the fault on both sides fallacy. There are two reasons why the vital measures to protect the democracy from future attacks haven't been taken:
Donald Trump.
The GOP.
Essentially it comes down to an incredible insecurity of the President. He (and his band of idiotic and/or cynical followers in Congess) cannot abide anything that even gets close to the legitimacy of his presidency. How often has he claimed he actually won the popular vote? The inaugural crowd? 'Your favourite president' Tweets...? Etc.
In order to protect the Republic from future attack he/they have to acknowledge that such an attack took place already. They simply won't do that.
To suggest that the Dems are acting for personal political gain is unhelpful. They might be, but when the right course of action entirely coincides with what is to one's own advantage, it's the one time that motivation doesn't matter.
I posted this on the Hell thread yesterday, but I meant to put it here. It's a better fit in Purg:
Mueller's public statement summed up the Four most important points of his report:
There was a concerted effort by the Russian government to interfere with, and affect the result of, the 2016 election
The Trump campaign welcomed and expected to benefit from this intervention but there wasn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate criminal conspiracy
There is a large amount of evidence to support a conviction for Obstruction of Justice
Mueller has handed it on to Congress to pursue, in line with the Constitution
I have no doubt that, politics aside, this is way beyond the threshold for impeachment.
As I have noted before, the Mueller Report is dynamite. Trump's only hope is that Barr's spin hides this from the American people and the Republican Senate keeps protecting him.
Arizona Representative Greg Stanton, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, has just called for an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. His statement here.
Republicans . . . act as if they consider it not only okay but a key component of future Republican electoral successes.
And then there's the voters.
Republicans seem to be working their hardest to remove or minimize the influence of voters. Part of this is due to the fact that Republican policy priorities are not that popular and the Republican reluctance to adopt more popular positions. So Republican commitment to representative democracy, at least at the national level, is nominal at best.
The documents cited in the Thursday court filing includes an unpublished August 2015 analysis by Mr. Hofeller, who was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet financially backed by Paul Singer, a billionaire New York hedge fund manager and major Republican donor. Mr. Hofeller’s charge was to assess the impact of drawing political maps that were not based on a state’s total population — the current practice virtually everywhere in the nation — but on a slice of that population: American citizens of voting age.
At the time, the study’s sponsor was considering whether to finance a lawsuit by conservative legal advocates that argued that counting voting-age citizens was not merely acceptable, but required by the Constitution.
Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.
The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count. That would force Democratic districts to expand to meet the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement. In turn, that would translate into fewer districts in traditionally Democratic areas, and a new opportunity for Republican mapmakers to create even stronger gerrymanders.
And they're willing to perjure themselves about it.
Roughly 16 months later, as President-elect Trump prepared to take office, Mr. Hofeller urged Mr. Trump’s transition team to consider adding a citizenship question to the census, the transition official responsible for census issues, Mark Neuman, said last year in a deposition in the Manhattan census lawsuit.
Mr. Neuman testified that Mr. Hofeller told him that using citizenship data from the census to enforce the Voting Rights Act would increase Latino political representation — the opposite of what Mr. Hofeller’s study had concluded months earlier.
Court records show that Mr. Neuman, a decades-long friend of Mr. Hofeller’s, later became an informal adviser on census issues to Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. By that summer, a top aide to Mr. Ross was pressing the Justice Department to say that it required detailed data from a census citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
The court filing on Thursday describes two instances in which Mr. Hofeller’s digital fingerprints are clearly visible on Justice Department actions.
<snip>
The filing also says flatly that Mr. Gore [ the assistant attorney general for civil rights and the Justice Department’s chief overseer of voting rights issues ] and Mr. Neuman “falsely testified” under oath about the Justice Department’s actions on the citizenship question.
Given this background it's not that surprising Congressional Republicans aren't up in arms about Russian interference in American democracy. They're not really fans of democracy these days.
Mueller may very well want us to know that he takes that more seriously, but does anybody in authority, or are they all too damn busy looking to their own political fortunes to care about the country?
This is really close to the fault on both sides fallacy. There are two reasons why the vital measures to protect the democracy from future attacks haven't been taken:
Donald Trump.
The GOP.
Essentially it comes down to an incredible insecurity of the President. He (and his band of idiotic and/or cynical followers in Congress) cannot abide anything that even gets close to the legitimacy of his presidency. How often has he claimed he actually won the popular vote? The inaugural crowd? 'Your favourite president' Tweets...? Etc.
In order to protect the Republic from future attack he/they have to acknowledge that such an attack took place already. They simply won't do that.
To suggest that the Dems are acting for personal political gain is unhelpful. They might be, but when the right course of action entirely coincides with what is to one's own advantage, it's the one time that motivation doesn't matter.
Except that impeaching Trump will not do a damn thing about Russian interference in our elections. But impeaching Trump is where all the discussion is directed these days.
@Crœsos pointed out that the House has passed legislation to address the interference issue but that it has gone nowhere in the Senate. Why is that not the talking point of Democrats? I understand that the media is likely prompting them with questions about impeachment (because for the media that is a juicy topic), but these are trained politicians. They know how to turn a question on to the talking point they want. "Do you think Trump should be impeached?" "The more serious question, [insert familiar name of reporter], is the assault on our Democracy that was done by the Russians in the last election. We drafted legislation to address this assault, but it is being blocked by the Republicans in the Senate? What are they blocking common sense reforms to protect Our Democracy from such interference...blah blah"
You speak of the fallacy of "fault on both sides," but there is an equally bad fallacy: the fallacy that, because one side is more at fault than the other, then the other is completely blameless.
You speak of the fallacy of "fault on both sides," but there is an equally bad fallacy: the fallacy that, because one side is more at fault than the other, then the other is completely blameless.
Seriously? You're going to "bothsides" different fallacies? That's very meta of you.
Until the Repugnicans wake up to reality, nothing will be done.
What dismays me the most is that there doesn't seem to be any effort by those in Washington to take the Repugnicans aside, buttonhole them, and explain to them, "Look, face up to reality. This hopelessly corrupt individual is driving the country to ruin and we can't stop him without your help."
Maybe that **is** happening -- I don't know. There's certainly no evidence of it. The utterly despicable M*tch McC*nn*ll continues to exist in his do-nothing dream world.
Republicans waking up. They've been asleep mostly since the 1950s. Nixon. Bush #1 . Reagan. Not that your Democratic bunch are lovely either. They all are in bed with your military and responsible for alot of death.
What's really frustrating to me is the ongoing and relentless over-optimistic belief that if someone just explained to Republicans about the Russian election interference that's been the subject of intense news coverage then they'd do something about it. They know. They act as if they consider it not only okay but a key component of future Republican electoral successes, which itself seems like a very interesting assumption for them to have made. If any Congressional Republican was going to have a problem with this they already would. For the most part they don't. Ignoring this painfully obvious (and obviously painful) reality to take one more spin on the merry-go-round of if someone just explained it clearly enough, slowly and using small words, then the Republicans in Congress would surely do the right thing is an exercise in futility, but apparently a popular one.
Is this at least partly because Trump doesn't want anything done and Republican members of congress who do or say something Trump doesn't like get pounded?
I think Amanda is right: the problem lies ultimately at the feet of people who still vote Republican. They are the people who could turn this around, and the gerrymander is in their favor.
In terms of what can be done, am I right in thinking that tackling election security is primarily a matter for each state, or perhaps at first instance a matter for each state?
Except that impeaching Trump will not do a damn thing about Russian interference in our elections. But impeaching Trump is where all the discussion is directed these days.
Because T is actually president, and shouldn't be, and isn't fit to serve, and is doing great harm--and giving the US a much worse name than it already has.
Keeping Russia and other countries from ever interfering again is vital. (As is keeping the US from interfering elsewhere again.)
I'm not sure they're exactly mutually exclusive. If a sewage pipe bursts in your yard, you need to stop it right away, and do a whole lot of cleaning up. You also need to find out how and why it burst, repair/replace it, and try to make sure it never bursts again. If the "why" is a nearby factory secretly directed its own sewage into the neighborhood's pipes, then you've also got to deal with the factory.
Except that impeaching Trump will not do a damn thing about Russian interference in our elections. But impeaching Trump is where all the discussion is directed these days.
Because T is actually president, and shouldn't be, and isn't fit to serve, and is doing great harm--and giving the US a much worse name than it already has.
Agreed he is president. Agreed he shouldn't be. Agreed he isn't fit to serve. Agreed he is doing great harm. But impeachment won't do a damn thing. Oh, I accept that articles of impeachment could possibly get through the House, but that won't remove him from office. There would then be a trial in the Senate and it requires a two-thirds majority to convict. Which Republicans do you think will turn on Trump and give their own political party a black eye by voting guilty? Will it be enough to get to two-thirds of the Senate? Considering how tightly they have closed ranks around Trump and spat out the same talking points word-for-word on every other issue involving Trump, who amongst the Republicans do you expect to suddenly turn on him?
And this is assuming that McConnell even allows the trial to go forward. He has stopped other things in their tracks by simply not bringing it to the floor. I'd like to think he doesn't have the power to stop the trial, but it wouldn't be the first time he announced a new "Senate rule" just for the occasion.
But even if the trial goes forward in the Senate and even if a miracle happens and enough Republicans turn on him to convict and even if he is removed from office, all that does is make Pence president--and a far as I can see his policies are the same as Trump's, so the harm remains even with Trump gone.
So, no, impeaching Trump doesn't do a damn thing. The way to remove him from office is to vote him out. And at least part of the necessary actions to take to do that is to make sure that Russian interference is blocked. That is by far the more important step to take right now.
I'm changing my view on impeachment. I've been convinced by the argument that Croesus has been putting for ages: There is a moral imperative in the face of Trump's law-breaking for Congress to perform its constitutional role and impeach the President. It's the duty of the House to perform their part of the process. The Senate won't convict on its current composition, but they should be put to the question. A number of prominent Democrats take this view.
I wonder whether the Democratic leadership are going to impeach, and are wondering whether it might be better for those hearings to happen during the election campaign, as distinct from going through the process now, and having the senate acquit Trump prior to the date of the election. Also, if they delay and if Trump is re-elected, the new senate might be more favorably disposed to his removal.
Obviously both the legalities and the relevant campaign considerations are utterly beyond my ken.
There is nothing Mitch could do to stop a Senate Trial. If the House Impeaches then there will be a Senate Trial.
As things stand, a Senate Conviction remains very unlikely but things would change during the House hearings. The craven and cynical behaviour of most of the GOP is deeply troubling in any democracy, never mind one so powerful but the evidence from Nixon (and what other precedent is there to look at?) Is that the level of support for the President in the country changed dramatically as a result of the Congressional hearings.
There is a large constituency of Americans who would turn on Trump if they knew and took in the contents of the Mueller report (see my summary above). They are not going to read it but even Fox News would carry the hearings and that would change minds. This may not mean that he'll be convicted by the Senate but that to me is not a compelling argument not to impeach.
All this matters way beyond Trump himself (may he rot in prison*) because if there are no consequences for Trump's behaviour, what happens when a smart criminal comes along to emulate him?
Well, he's out of the US next week and coming this side of the pond to embarrass us. Tea with Prince Charles (who will have to bite his tongue), dinner with the Queen, a chat with Mrs May. There could be some interesting conversations, followed no doubt by indiscreet tweets. The US Embassy staff must be praying for it to be over.
A member of the US embassy staff was interviewed this morning and was asked how they would handle indiscreet tweets and/or a demand to meet Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. They said that those were the concerns of the advisers over with President Trump. They would advise that favouring individual candidates involved in internal political matters would be unwise, but were uncertain that would be effective.
There is nothing Mitch could do to stop a Senate Trial. If the House Impeaches then there will be a Senate Trial.
As far as I know there is nothing that would force Mitch McConnell to put an impeachment trial on the Senate calendar aside from public opinion, and McConnell has been notoriously indifferent to public opinion.
I would point out that the big thing that's been missing from various Trump scandals, including but not limited to the 2016 election and related obstruction of justice, is televised public hearings. During Republican control of both houses of Congress anyone connected to Trump was allowed to testify behind closed doors, if they had to offer testimony at all.
For reference, Donald Trump's approval rating right now is where Richard Nixon's was six months into the Congressional Watergate inquiry. So a fairly exhaustive and public inquiry by various House committees might be able to reach some people like this.
Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.
“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."
I don't know exactly how this would play out in public opinion. The last time the U.S. impeached a president eligible to run again was in 1868, a political context so different from 2019 it's impossible to draw any useful analogies. Still, I don't think anyone is best served by sweeping all Trump's alleged malfeasances under the rug. If the Republican Senate is willing to acquit a criminal president that's something the public should be crystal clear on, by running the experiment if necessary.
There is nothing Mitch could do to stop a Senate Trial. If the House Impeaches then there will be a Senate Trial.
As far as I know there is nothing that would force Mitch McConnell to put an impeachment trial on the Senate calendar aside from public opinion, and McConnell has been notoriously indifferent to public opinion.
You appear to be correct. Having read about the constitutional arrangements around impeachment I had assumed that the Senate would have to try anyone impeached by the House. That is no real doubt that was the intent of the framers but it appears there is some room for nefarious manoeuvring by Mitch, that I hadn't appreciated.
I would point out that the big thing that's been missing from various Trump scandals, including but not limited to the 2016 election and related obstruction of justice, is televised public hearings. During Republican control of both houses of Congress anyone connected to Trump was allowed to testify behind closed doors, if they had to offer testimony at all.
For reference, Donald Trump's approval rating right now is where Richard Nixon's was six months into the Congressional Watergate inquiry. So a fairly exhaustive and public inquiry by various House committees might be able to reach some people like this.
Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.
“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."
This is very much my point. Public hearings in the House have the potential to shift public opinion quite considerably. One of the things that I've come to realise about politics in the UK is that the lack of political engagement by most of us is why many people vote for things I think are unconscionable. Or rather people vote for things I know they hate and find unconscionable, not because they are stupid but because with the mendacity of certain people in power and the myriad failings of much of our media, there is no way that people who are not as deeply engaged in politics as sad geeks like me will not be misled and misinformed.
This is even true of the USA. Because I have always had an interest in US politics and because of big concerns about Trump in particular, I am following this quite closely in various ways. And I have read up on the Impeachment process and listened to various podcasts. I have even read large sections of the Mueller report (not all of it yet). So the oddity is that as a Brit, I am probably much better informed about Trump and his legal jeopardy that over 80% of Americans....
But Watergate showed that the public hearings changed public opinion dramatically as more and more came out about Tricky Dicky's misbehaviour.
I don't know exactly how this would play out in public opinion. The last time the U.S. impeached a president eligible to run again was in 1868, a political context so different from 2019 it's impossible to draw any useful analogies. Still, I don't think anyone is best served by sweeping all Trump's alleged malfeasances under the rug. If the Republican Senate is willing to acquit a criminal president that's something the public should be crystal clear on, by running the experiment if necessary.
Andrew Johnson's Impeachment was undoubtedly political and legally dubious - even more than Clinton's - so yes, it's not likely to be relevant. Conversely I think your final sentence is really apt. Let the House Impeach and then let this Senate before the American People and History acquit a president so clearly guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A key factor which may force the Senate to find him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors will be the American pocketbooks. He has now decided to impose tariffs on everything coming from Mexico. Not only avocados and tequila but also auto parts. All American cars have auto parts made in Mexico. He says these tariffs will increase until Mexico stops illegal immigration. Wall Street took a pretty big hit with this announcement.
When things get too expensive and investments stop, people will get restless, as if they are not already restless.
BTW I put a meme on my FB page yesterday that said to the effect once he is convicted of a crime, instead of a land-based prison, he should spend his time in the brig on the USS John McCain. Only it was not my own page where I thought I had posted it. It when on an Idaho History page. The administrators took it down, but I heard before they did I got crucified. Oh well.
Getting Trump impeached would be quite simple: somebody must goad him into attacking Mitch McTurtle. Doing that may prove less simple.
In order to convince people that the fatally flawed Boeing 737 Max 8 was actually safe, the Trump administration decided that a good publicity stunt would be to have Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao (a.k.a. Mrs. Mitch McConnell) take a flight on one. I think it was only twenty-four hours later that the FAA decided the plane was too unsafe to fly. If that didn't arouse McConnell's ire, I'm not sure what would.
According to a report from CNBC, White House advisor and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has accepted an invitation to attend the secretive Bilderberg meetings this week at a time when the president is embroiled in battles with Europe’s leaders.
The report states Kushner will be in Montreux, Switzerland, for the meetings on Thursday, describing the conference — long the subject of conspiracy theories — as, “Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting was designed to foster warmer relations between the United States and Europe. The annual talk-fest is considered secretive as guests are not allowed to reveal who said what at the meeting.”
As CNBC, reports, “The clandestine nature of the Bilderberg Meeting regularly sparks conspiracy theories and accusations of a ‘secret world order’ but organizers say the restricted gathering with rules on reporting simply allows more freedom within discussions.”
Well, he's out of the US next week and coming this side of the pond to embarrass us. Tea with Prince Charles (who will have to bite his tongue), dinner with the Queen, a chat with Mrs May. There could be some interesting conversations, followed no doubt by indiscreet tweets. The US Embassy staff must be praying for it to be over.
Well, he's out of the US next week and coming this side of the pond to embarrass us. Tea with Prince Charles (who will have to bite his tongue), dinner with the Queen, a chat with Mrs May. There could be some interesting conversations, followed no doubt by indiscreet tweets. The US Embassy staff must be praying for it to be over.
Getting Trump impeached would be quite simple: somebody must goad him into attacking Mitch McTurtle. Doing that may prove less simple.
In order to convince people that the fatally flawed Boeing 737 Max 8 was actually safe, the Trump administration decided that a good publicity stunt would be to have Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao (a.k.a. Mrs. Mitch McConnell) take a flight on one. I think it was only twenty-four hours later that the FAA decided the plane was too unsafe to fly. If that didn't arouse McConnell's ire, I'm not sure what would.
According to a report from CNBC, White House advisor and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has accepted an invitation to attend the secretive Bilderberg meetings this week at a time when the president is embroiled in battles with Europe’s leaders.
The report states Kushner will be in Montreux, Switzerland, for the meetings on Thursday, describing the conference — long the subject of conspiracy theories — as, “Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting was designed to foster warmer relations between the United States and Europe. The annual talk-fest is considered secretive as guests are not allowed to reveal who said what at the meeting.”
As CNBC, reports, “The clandestine nature of the Bilderberg Meeting regularly sparks conspiracy theories and accusations of a ‘secret world order’ but organizers say the restricted gathering with rules on reporting simply allows more freedom within discussions.”
It's funny how the guys who go into a tizzy about Bilderberg, Trilateral etc holding secret meetings don't worry as much about(for example) grad seminars at the Kennedy School Of Government, which are also held in private and where ideas about the governance of the world are discussed, by people who will soon be in a position to implement them.
Hey, have you been wondering what's been happening with Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort? No? Well, I'm going to inflict that information on you anyway.
It's also worth noting that thanks to Mr Manafort, the Mueller investigation is running at a significant profit. The confiscations were already greater than the costs of the investigation but I heard this week that an apartment of his valued at $45m dollars was seized...
This is mostly noteworthy because Mr Trump likes to tweet about the obscene waste of money that the investigation has been.
It's not true anyway - the integrity of elections is absolutely vital to a functioning democracy and hence the cost is irrelevant, but it does amuse me that the even the gross cost (ignoring the confiscated funds) of the investigation is significantly less than the cost of Trump's golf games. It amuses me even more that the investigation actually turned a profit.
It amuses me even more that the investigation actually turned a profit.
It shouldn't do. Judicial investigations are supposed to be about serving justice, not making a profit.
The specialist court for prosecuting organised crime in France regularly tries cases that in my estimation are well beyond its designed remit thanks to inflated charges at the start of the investigation (frequently downgraded by the time the case actually comes to trial).
During the investigation (when the accused are supposed to be presumed innocent) it regularly confiscates assets including homes: good luck getting any of those back whatever the outcome.
At the inauguration ceremony of the previous senior prosecutor in my jurisdiction, the presiding magistrate of the court proudly announced the amount of money the court had netted in the past year as though he was a CFO and turning a profit was its main aim.
The less like institutionalised racketeering the justice system looks the better, to my mind, regardless of who is being convicted.
By all accounts Manafort very definitely deserves to go to jail, but his punishment is supposed to be his jail sentence, not the conditions in which it is served or ongoing public humiliation. I'm with Michelle Obama on this: aim high.
Well, as someone duly convicted in a court of law and sentenced to seven and a half years of imprisonment I'd say . . . yes? I get that the American justice system isn't supposed to be this punitive to white males who can afford their own ostrich skin jackets and who can repeatedly get banks to front them seven- and eight-figure loans, but the sentence has been passed.
Comments
I stand corrected. I had pulled the article through a search of Google News. Since it was the first article that came up, I had assumed it was the most recent article.
In the meantime, the man who presumes to be president is throwing a temper tantrum because the courts are ruling against him when it comes to financial disclosures and the increasing calls to impeach him.
Today, Pelosi is calling on his staff to do an intervention. Sounds like Pelosi is hoping the Cabinet will invoke section four of the 25th Amendment. Here
Edited to fix link. If a URL is being pasted in, it is necessary to delete the preloaded ‘http://’ first. BroJames. Purgatory Host
Donald Trump Jr. Gets a Book Deal -- a few days old but I'm catching up...
"Great achievements" indeed. Will it be in the Humo(u)r section?
This is a good point. What's more problematic to me is the idea that Trump Jr has 'views' worthy of putting on the written page. I wish to note here that the Mueller report concluded that Trump Jr was Too Stupid to be guilty of conspiracy...
(Emphasis mine)
AFZ
I hope the printers use soft, perforated two-ply and fragranced ink to produce the books.
However, I might just purchase one myself. I have a small collection of unusual items of political note. My prized object is a copy of the book, "The Lawyer and the Libertine", penned by a notoriously conservative High Court Judge. I really wanted to ask him to sign it, but he wasn't in Chambers when I visited Canberra.
I put the notable part in bold, in case you missed it. Later, of course, he tried to stuff this admission down the memory hole.
What dismays me the most is that there doesn't seem to be any effort by those in Washington to take the Repugnicans aside, buttonhole them, and explain to them, "Look, face up to reality. This hopelessly corrupt individual is driving the country to ruin and we can't stop him without your help."
Maybe that **is** happening -- I don't know. There's certainly no evidence of it. The utterly despicable M*tch McC*nn*ll continues to exist in his do-nothing dream world.
As someone paid to look at what people have written and try to decide what they actually meant, I looked twice at this and decided that if it had been in any other context or by any other person, it would easily be ruled sloppy wording rather than even an unconscious admission of guilt.
Of course the media have picked it up but their doing so is, I think, an instance of their habit of being part of the problem.
The very first bill introduced in the newly Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was a package of voting reforms, including security from foreign interference, called the For the People Act. It was passed and sent to the Senate on March 14 but has languished ever since. The Senate doesn't seem to be doing much legislating at all, being referred to as a "legislative graveyard", focusing instead of approving judicial appointees.
Whether the For the People Act counts as taking the problem seriously or looking to their own political fortunes is debatable, though the question need not be an either/or.
We have accounts that Barack Obama approached the Republican leadership in the fall of 2016 with what he knew about Russian efforts to ratfuck* the presidential election. Obama suggested a joint statement by the leadership of both parties condemning the attacks and working to stop them. McConnell's alleged reaction was to tell Obama to pound sand and say that if Obama went public on his own McConnell condemn it as a political stunt to subvert the Republican candidate. I'm not sure the result would be any different this time around.
*A political term-of-art dating back to Watergate.
This is really close to the fault on both sides fallacy. There are two reasons why the vital measures to protect the democracy from future attacks haven't been taken:
Donald Trump.
The GOP.
Essentially it comes down to an incredible insecurity of the President. He (and his band of idiotic and/or cynical followers in Congess) cannot abide anything that even gets close to the legitimacy of his presidency. How often has he claimed he actually won the popular vote? The inaugural crowd? 'Your favourite president' Tweets...? Etc.
In order to protect the Republic from future attack he/they have to acknowledge that such an attack took place already. They simply won't do that.
To suggest that the Dems are acting for personal political gain is unhelpful. They might be, but when the right course of action entirely coincides with what is to one's own advantage, it's the one time that motivation doesn't matter.
AFZ
Mueller's public statement summed up the Four most important points of his report:
I have no doubt that, politics aside, this is way beyond the threshold for impeachment.
As I have noted before, the Mueller Report is dynamite. Trump's only hope is that Barr's spin hides this from the American people and the Republican Senate keeps protecting him.
AFZ
Republicans seem to be working their hardest to remove or minimize the influence of voters. Part of this is due to the fact that Republican policy priorities are not that popular and the Republican reluctance to adopt more popular positions. So Republican commitment to representative democracy, at least at the national level, is nominal at best.
And they're willing to perjure themselves about it.
Given this background it's not that surprising Congressional Republicans aren't up in arms about Russian interference in American democracy. They're not really fans of democracy these days.
@Crœsos pointed out that the House has passed legislation to address the interference issue but that it has gone nowhere in the Senate. Why is that not the talking point of Democrats? I understand that the media is likely prompting them with questions about impeachment (because for the media that is a juicy topic), but these are trained politicians. They know how to turn a question on to the talking point they want. "Do you think Trump should be impeached?" "The more serious question, [insert familiar name of reporter], is the assault on our Democracy that was done by the Russians in the last election. We drafted legislation to address this assault, but it is being blocked by the Republicans in the Senate? What are they blocking common sense reforms to protect Our Democracy from such interference...blah blah"
You speak of the fallacy of "fault on both sides," but there is an equally bad fallacy: the fallacy that, because one side is more at fault than the other, then the other is completely blameless.
Seriously? You're going to "bothsides" different fallacies? That's very meta of you.
Republicans waking up. They've been asleep mostly since the 1950s. Nixon. Bush #1 . Reagan. Not that your Democratic bunch are lovely either. They all are in bed with your military and responsible for alot of death.
Is this at least partly because Trump doesn't want anything done and Republican members of congress who do or say something Trump doesn't like get pounded?
I think Amanda is right: the problem lies ultimately at the feet of people who still vote Republican. They are the people who could turn this around, and the gerrymander is in their favor.
In terms of what can be done, am I right in thinking that tackling election security is primarily a matter for each state, or perhaps at first instance a matter for each state?
Because T is actually president, and shouldn't be, and isn't fit to serve, and is doing great harm--and giving the US a much worse name than it already has.
Keeping Russia and other countries from ever interfering again is vital. (As is keeping the US from interfering elsewhere again.)
I'm not sure they're exactly mutually exclusive. If a sewage pipe bursts in your yard, you need to stop it right away, and do a whole lot of cleaning up. You also need to find out how and why it burst, repair/replace it, and try to make sure it never bursts again. If the "why" is a nearby factory secretly directed its own sewage into the neighborhood's pipes, then you've also got to deal with the factory.
And this is assuming that McConnell even allows the trial to go forward. He has stopped other things in their tracks by simply not bringing it to the floor. I'd like to think he doesn't have the power to stop the trial, but it wouldn't be the first time he announced a new "Senate rule" just for the occasion.
But even if the trial goes forward in the Senate and even if a miracle happens and enough Republicans turn on him to convict and even if he is removed from office, all that does is make Pence president--and a far as I can see his policies are the same as Trump's, so the harm remains even with Trump gone.
So, no, impeaching Trump doesn't do a damn thing. The way to remove him from office is to vote him out. And at least part of the necessary actions to take to do that is to make sure that Russian interference is blocked. That is by far the more important step to take right now.
I wonder whether the Democratic leadership are going to impeach, and are wondering whether it might be better for those hearings to happen during the election campaign, as distinct from going through the process now, and having the senate acquit Trump prior to the date of the election. Also, if they delay and if Trump is re-elected, the new senate might be more favorably disposed to his removal.
Obviously both the legalities and the relevant campaign considerations are utterly beyond my ken.
As things stand, a Senate Conviction remains very unlikely but things would change during the House hearings. The craven and cynical behaviour of most of the GOP is deeply troubling in any democracy, never mind one so powerful but the evidence from Nixon (and what other precedent is there to look at?) Is that the level of support for the President in the country changed dramatically as a result of the Congressional hearings.
There is a large constituency of Americans who would turn on Trump if they knew and took in the contents of the Mueller report (see my summary above). They are not going to read it but even Fox News would carry the hearings and that would change minds. This may not mean that he'll be convicted by the Senate but that to me is not a compelling argument not to impeach.
All this matters way beyond Trump himself (may he rot in prison*) because if there are no consequences for Trump's behaviour, what happens when a smart criminal comes along to emulate him?
AFZ
*After due process.
As far as I know there is nothing that would force Mitch McConnell to put an impeachment trial on the Senate calendar aside from public opinion, and McConnell has been notoriously indifferent to public opinion.
I would point out that the big thing that's been missing from various Trump scandals, including but not limited to the 2016 election and related obstruction of justice, is televised public hearings. During Republican control of both houses of Congress anyone connected to Trump was allowed to testify behind closed doors, if they had to offer testimony at all.
For reference, Donald Trump's approval rating right now is where Richard Nixon's was six months into the Congressional Watergate inquiry. So a fairly exhaustive and public inquiry by various House committees might be able to reach some people like this.
I don't know exactly how this would play out in public opinion. The last time the U.S. impeached a president eligible to run again was in 1868, a political context so different from 2019 it's impossible to draw any useful analogies. Still, I don't think anyone is best served by sweeping all Trump's alleged malfeasances under the rug. If the Republican Senate is willing to acquit a criminal president that's something the public should be crystal clear on, by running the experiment if necessary.
You appear to be correct. Having read about the constitutional arrangements around impeachment I had assumed that the Senate would have to try anyone impeached by the House. That is no real doubt that was the intent of the framers but it appears there is some room for nefarious manoeuvring by Mitch, that I hadn't appreciated.
This is very much my point. Public hearings in the House have the potential to shift public opinion quite considerably. One of the things that I've come to realise about politics in the UK is that the lack of political engagement by most of us is why many people vote for things I think are unconscionable. Or rather people vote for things I know they hate and find unconscionable, not because they are stupid but because with the mendacity of certain people in power and the myriad failings of much of our media, there is no way that people who are not as deeply engaged in politics as sad geeks like me will not be misled and misinformed.
This is even true of the USA. Because I have always had an interest in US politics and because of big concerns about Trump in particular, I am following this quite closely in various ways. And I have read up on the Impeachment process and listened to various podcasts. I have even read large sections of the Mueller report (not all of it yet). So the oddity is that as a Brit, I am probably much better informed about Trump and his legal jeopardy that over 80% of Americans....
But Watergate showed that the public hearings changed public opinion dramatically as more and more came out about Tricky Dicky's misbehaviour.
Andrew Johnson's Impeachment was undoubtedly political and legally dubious - even more than Clinton's - so yes, it's not likely to be relevant. Conversely I think your final sentence is really apt. Let the House Impeach and then let this Senate before the American People and History acquit a president so clearly guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
AFZ
When things get too expensive and investments stop, people will get restless, as if they are not already restless.
BTW I put a meme on my FB page yesterday that said to the effect once he is convicted of a crime, instead of a land-based prison, he should spend his time in the brig on the USS John McCain. Only it was not my own page where I thought I had posted it. It when on an Idaho History page. The administrators took it down, but I heard before they did I got crucified. Oh well.
In order to convince people that the fatally flawed Boeing 737 Max 8 was actually safe, the Trump administration decided that a good publicity stunt would be to have Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao (a.k.a. Mrs. Mitch McConnell) take a flight on one. I think it was only twenty-four hours later that the FAA decided the plane was too unsafe to fly. If that didn't arouse McConnell's ire, I'm not sure what would.
Cue up the conspiracy theorists!
The first rule of Bilderberg is you do not talk about Bilderberg!
Charles should keep a milkshake on the sideboard.
:killing me:
It's funny how the guys who go into a tizzy about Bilderberg, Trilateral etc holding secret meetings don't worry as much about(for example) grad seminars at the Kennedy School Of Government, which are also held in private and where ideas about the governance of the world are discussed, by people who will soon be in a position to implement them.
[ETA in other words, they are explicitly not "off the record" in the restricted sense of the term]
Manafort (a.k.a. inmate #35207-016), who was convicted of various federal offenses like bank fraud, witness tampering, and conspiracy against the United States, looks like he's going to be getting out of federal prison fairly soon . . . and sent to the New York state prison on Riker's Island while he awaits trial for "16 state felonies, including residential mortgage fraud, and . . . a yearlong scheme in which he allegedly falsified business records to obtain millions of dollars in loans". So I guess it's kind of a good news/bad news situation from Manafort's perspective.
As a reminder, the presidential pardon power does not extend to convictions in state court.
This is mostly noteworthy because Mr Trump likes to tweet about the obscene waste of money that the investigation has been.
It's not true anyway - the integrity of elections is absolutely vital to a functioning democracy and hence the cost is irrelevant, but it does amuse me that the even the gross cost (ignoring the confiscated funds) of the investigation is significantly less than the cost of Trump's golf games. It amuses me even more that the investigation actually turned a profit.
AFZ
It shouldn't do. Judicial investigations are supposed to be about serving justice, not making a profit.
The specialist court for prosecuting organised crime in France regularly tries cases that in my estimation are well beyond its designed remit thanks to inflated charges at the start of the investigation (frequently downgraded by the time the case actually comes to trial).
During the investigation (when the accused are supposed to be presumed innocent) it regularly confiscates assets including homes: good luck getting any of those back whatever the outcome.
At the inauguration ceremony of the previous senior prosecutor in my jurisdiction, the presiding magistrate of the court proudly announced the amount of money the court had netted in the past year as though he was a CFO and turning a profit was its main aim.
The less like institutionalised racketeering the justice system looks the better, to my mind, regardless of who is being convicted.
Well, as someone duly convicted in a court of law and sentenced to seven and a half years of imprisonment I'd say . . . yes? I get that the American justice system isn't supposed to be this punitive to white males who can afford their own ostrich skin jackets and who can repeatedly get banks to front them seven- and eight-figure loans, but the sentence has been passed.