Exiled wrote:At least you didn't try and paint me as a 4chan'er for pushing back a little on the political orgy going on here.
Good point. There must be some dividing line between 4chan and say anything. Who says starting false fires to mask the gun smoke at the Trump artillery line will not work? Remember, the best defense is an unending barrage of offense and no one can be quite as offensive at Trump Republicans.
The complaints I saw about 4chan were directed at a poster who has Clown Pepe as his avatar and was posting /pol/ memes.
Here are some highlights from this article by Matthew Rozsa:
This is as good a place as any to examine the similarities and differences between Ford and Pence. Both men are Midwesterners (Ford from Michigan, Pence from Indiana) with extensive political experience and a reputation for being cool-headed and affable. Each one is definitely "establishment" in terms of their standing within the institutional Republican Party itself, and both have avoided developing too many deep personal enmities despite their extensive political careers.
On the other hand, Ford was an ideological moderate (arguably the last GOP president deserving of the term), while Pence was the most right-wing vice presidential nominee in 40 years when Trump picked him. Ford had a squeaky clean reputation, while Pence has a major corruption scandal in his own past and owes his very selection as Trump's vice president to the intervention of former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who has since been disgraced (Ford didn't even become Nixon's vice president until Nixon's initial vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned).
All of this means that, while Ford was well-poised to heal the nation upon inheriting power in 1974 (and his approval ratings were quite high until his controversial decision to pardon Nixon), Pence would likely face more of an uphill battle.
While I have no idea whether Pence, like Ford, believes that his boss is doomed, I suspect that he shares Ford's trepidation about being perceived as adding fuel to the fire of the president's scandals. The reason is obvious: He'd be the major beneficiary if Trump left the Oval Office.
Is Pence in the right for doing this? Maybe.
While it's valuable to not be viewed as a Machiavellian schemer, Pence risks swinging too far in the other direction and being perceived as part of the same set of problems that are being created by Trump and Trumpism. If Trump needs to resign, Americans will have to turn to Pence to restore faith in the American government. That will not be possible if Pence is viewed as an extension of the corruption that took down Trump, rather than an antidote to it.
Added to this is that if Trump is impeachable for what he did, Pence, who sycophantically supported and could be perceived as helping to enable Trump's misbehavior and corruption, might be held just as deserving of impeachment as Trump himself, which would make Nancy Pelosi the next in line for the Presidency. It's hard to imagine anything the Republicans wouldn't do to prevent that from happening!
Of course, another major difference, probably the most important one, is that in Nixon's case, both Republicans and Democrats agreed that he ought to be impeached.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gowdy, Graham and Gingrich all said in the past that what Trump is now doing is an impeachable offense.
But now that the culprit has an R after his name, suddenly it becomes nonsense to even think about impeaching.
"One of the hardest things for me to accept is the fact that Kevin Graham has blonde hair, blue eyes and an English last name. This ugly truth blows any arguments one might have for actual white supremacism out of the water. He's truly a disgrace." - Ajax
Since Mulvaney became Chief of Staff, 'Let Trump be Trump' has become the operating principle of the Trump White House.
I think it will spell his doom. Trump trapped in a viscous circle: The more he plays to his base, the more he alienates all the other voters. His base is becoming smaller and more shrill. But his base still controls the Republican Party.
The battleground impeachment voters are in districts with enough Democrat and Independent voters push hard against a Republican incumbent. More and more Republicans will find themselves stuck upon the horns of a dilemma: The ideological purity test necessary to win a Republican Primary could doom the candidate in a general election.
A Fox news poll now shows 51% of Americans favor not just an investigation, but the President's removal from office. These numbers spell huge problems for the President this early in the impeachment process. The President claims the impeachment process is illegitimate. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives. The more the President refuses to cooperate, the clearer it becomes that he wishes to ignore the Constitution. And as that dynamic plays out in public, I think you will see further erosion of support.
Will there be a moment of critical mass, where some piece of evidence or some tactic of Trump suddenly changes the game? It's a huge unknown variable. But even absent some bombshell, we are watching the oldest of Greek tragedies, where character equals destiny. Or perhaps the greatest example of the Peter Principle in American history.
As long as he was a celebrity game show host with a real estate empire, he could get away with his behavior, spinning an image that didn't hold up well under scrutiny. The Presidency of the United States requires different standards of behavior. The very idea of checks and balances is an anathema to the President. His claims about the power of the Executive Branch are becoming more and more extreme.
I keep going back to a line from Trump's inaugural speech:
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America. Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
Donald Trump conflates personal loyalty with loyalty to the country. Ultimately the choice will be Trump or the Constitution.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
It's nice knowing that there are at least a few Republicans who actually have intelligence, values, and the balls to stand up for what is right. A great example is the group "Checks & Balances," which is composed of a group of high-powered conservative lawyers. Today they issued the following press release:
Statement from co-founders and additional members of Checks & Balances:
In the past several weeks, it has become clear to any observer of current events that the president is abusing the office of the presidency for personal political objectives. Although new facts are being revealed on a daily basis, the following are undisputed, to date:
1) In a July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine – a summary of which has been released by the White House – the president requested “a favor” in the context of a discussion of Ukrainian security matters. Specifically, immediately after President Zelensky thanked the president “in the area of defense” and indicated a readiness to buy additional armaments consistent with a U.S. defense proposal, President Trump asked for “a favor.” The favor was to investigate a baseless theory relating to the 2016 investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. The U.S. president further requested that the Ukrainian president coordinate the requested investigation with both his personal attorney and the Attorney General of the United States, presenting both a blurring of lines between personal legal representation and official U.S. government business, and, the appearance of inappropriate politicization of the Office of the Attorney General. He then requested, additionally, that the Ukrainian government look into allegations relating to his Democratic presidential opponent, Joe Biden, saying “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”
2) Between July and September 2019, the Acting Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, the (former) State Department Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and the Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, exchanged a series of telephone calls and text messages revealing that U.S. diplomats were involved in negotiating an exchange involving a White House meeting and foreign aid on one hand, and a Ukrainian investigation into a meritless allegation involving former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand. The text messages reveal that U.S. diplomats were seeking from President Zelensky an assurance that “he will help [the] investigation” while concurrently negotiating a “visit to Washington” and “security assistance.” These circumstances led career Ambassador Taylor to communicate that in his judgment it was “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” These facts are derived from text messages provided to the House of Representatives in connection with the deposition of former Special Envoy Volker and have been released publicly.
3) On October 3, 2019, the president stood in front of U.S. press cameras outside the White House and said, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.” The president’s statement was broadcast widely.
A president takes the following oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” These acts, based on what has been revealed to date, are a legitimate basis for an expeditious impeachment investigation, vote in the House of Representatives and potential trial in the Senate. Additional evidence that was detailed in the Special Counsel’s Report, related matters of foreign emoluments, and persistent obstructive activities should also inform these proceedings. In addition, given that some of the critical facts under consideration by the Congress have been facilitated by a complaint presented to the Inspector General of the U.S. Intelligence Community, any efforts by U.S. government personnel to inappropriately pressure, intimidate or expose the whistleblower or future whistleblowers who follow the procedures provided by law are contrary to the norms of a society that adheres to the rule of law.
As we said in an April 2019 statement, “free and fair elections, without foreign interference, are at the heart of a healthy democracy.” The Special Counsel’s report revealed, among other things, that the Trump 2016 campaign was open to and enthusiastic about receiving Russian government-facilitated assistance to gain an advantage in the previous election. The report was not only an exposition, it was a warning. The present circumstances are materially worse: we have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections. These activities, which are factually undisputed, undermine the integrity of our elections, endanger global U.S. security and defense partnerships, and threaten our democracy.
Jonathan H. Adler Donald B. Ayer George T. Conway III Carrie F. Cordero Charles Fried Stuart M. Gerson Peter D. Keisler Orin S. Kerr Marisa C. Maleck Trevor Potter Alan Charles Raul Jonathan C. Rose Paul Rosenzweig Andrew Sagor Jaime D. Sneider J.W. Verret
Each of us speaks and acts solely in our individual capacities, and our views should not be attributed to any organization with which we may be affiliated.
George T. Conway III, of course, declined a Trump nomination to serve as Assistant Attorney General a couple of years ago, and I don't need to mention to whom he is married. He and his wife would be too-good-to-be-true characters on a T.V. drama about life in Washington D.C.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Gunnar wrote:Besides that, given Trump's history of getting away with past peccadillos, refusal to listen to anyone's advice other than his own, and tendency to "push the envelope" to ever greater extremes after every time he perceives a victory, there is little doubt in my mind that before the next election, he will pull something so outrageous and extreme that even the current crop of Republican Senators will feel they have no choice but to agree to his impeachment and removal from office, if they hope to save their own political careers.
It is looking more and more like this is what will finally doom Trump's Presidency. He seems convinced that he is entirely invincible and beyond the law, and can get away with anything that enters his mind to do to augment his wealth and power without limit, no matter how outrageous and unlawful. He is ultimately his own worst enemy!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
So far, a direct confrontation between the branches of government has been avoided because the House is focussing on the Ukraine scandal and many executive branch witnesses have complied with Congressional subpoenas. Trump has been losing in the courts over his attempts to ignore Congressional subpoenas, and it remains to be seen whether he will respect the authority of the judicial branch more than he does the legislative branch.
There is evidence that the crisis will come to a head -- perhaps soon. Trump told Congressional Republicans that they need to get tough with the Democrats. And today we saw the start of that. A group of House Republicans invaded a secure facility that they were not authorized to enter to prevent the deposition of a witness in the impeachment inquiry.
The House Republicans have been blowing a ton of smoke about the impeachment inquiry, so a little history review is in order. Once upon a time, both houses of congress had rules that protected the ability of the minority party to subpoena documents and witnesses during a committee or subcommittee investigation. The Senate still has them.
During the Obama administration, House Republicans decided to change the rules. They delegated the subpoena power for many committees directly to the chairperson or to a majority of the committee members. Because the Republicans held the majority in the house, that meant that those committees could conduct investigations with only the Republicans on the committees having the power to subpoena documents and witnesses. Democrats, frozen out of the investigation process, strenuously objected. Republicans mumbled something about elections having consequences and gave the Democrats the single fingered salute.
The impeachment inquiry is an investigation by three House Committees. This investigation is being conducted under the exact rules that the Republicans enacted when they were in power. The Democrats are playing by the Republicans own rules, which the Republicans loved until they lost the House.
The process of impeachment is similar to a criminal prosecution. The first step is investigation. In the investigation stage, the targets of the investigation have no rights to participate in the process. They aren't entitled to confront witnesses or even know who the witnesses are. In the past, Clinton and Nixon cases, special prosecutors were appointed to conduct the investigations. And those investigations were conducted in private until the commencement of impeachment hearings. In Trump's case, the Department of Justice refused to even open an investigation, and there is no independent or special prosecutor statue that could be used to appoint a prosecutor. That leaves the House Committees to conduct the investigation.
The committees are conducting the investigations and depositions in private, just as a special prosecutor would. They can't be completely private, as the identity of the witnesses is known and their opening statements are released. But it is critical to examine each witness separately so that the other witnesses don't know the details of the others' testimony. As there is some evidence of an actual conspiracy in this case, it is critical to make it as difficult as possible for the conspirators to mutually craft a cover story that hides the truth. That's why the committees are not at this point releasing the deposition transcripts. I expect they will at the end of the investigation phase.
All of the objections asserted by the Republicans to this state of the process are just partisans blowing smoke. There are Republicans on each of the investigative committees who can and do attend the depositions. Although they complain about their inability to subpoena witnesses, they haven't mentioned any witnesses that they want to depose and that the Democrats have refused to subpoena. No ones rights are being denied. No court is being held. It's an investigation being properly conducted.
The second stage will be the process of deciding whether to have a trial. In a criminal case, that's done by grand jury indictment or a hearing in front of a judge. The proposed defendants have no right to participate. In this case, however, the president's defenders will have a right to participate, including the right to call witnesses. There will be public hearings. And then the House will vote on whether to impeach -- to send the matter to the Senate for trial.
The Senate trial is similar to a criminal trial. A House Manager appointed by the Democrats will act as prosecutor. One by the Republicans will act as defense attorney. Only at this stage is the President entitled to confront his accusers and receive a fair process. Both sides can call witnesses, introduce evidence, etc. The Chief Justice presides over the proceeding. At the end, the Senate votes on removal.
The disruption of the investigative phase by House Republicans is a Constitutional Crisis because, in part, it is being done at the request of the Executive Branch. Trump does not respect the authority of the legislative branch, and has enlisted his supporters to interfere with the Constitutional power of impeachment given to the House. It is also a crisis because the House Republicans are sabotaging the Constitutional power and duty of the House to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors by the President. The Constitution gives the House the power to set its own rules. It has done so, and the Republicans were happy to abide by them when they were in power. Now they are ignoring those rules that are supported by the Constitution.
Will the Speaker attempt to punish this conduct? Will it have any effect? Or will those sworn to uphold the Constitution continue to disregard it?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
This is the kind of post people need to read. Please post this across multiple platforms.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:This is the kind of post people need to read. Please post this across multiple platforms.
- Doc
Thanks for the kinds words, Doc. I don't really post anywhere else. Please feel free to post it anywhere you think it might do some good.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Ok, but Imma pull a Peterson and not give you credit.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.