It's not a transcript.

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13923
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Joe Guy »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:You googled it, wesw!
Y0u didn't say he c0uldn't!!

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

All this is playing into Trump's hands. It's an odd-numbered Saturday so today I'm against impeachment. There is no way it will be successful, even if the Mitt Romneys of the world say the right things. Trump will be cleared by the Senate even if the Dems and a few others amass 55 or even 60 votes. Vindication! - he will shout.

Sanders' heart attack means that he won't get the the D nomination. No-one thinks any the less of him but why put up a candidate with such an obvious drawback? Biden is toast too: it may be unfair but the fact remains that his son got a dodgy megabucks job with no visible qualifications. Two of the anti-Trump talking points have to be his age and how he inserts his family into the business and even though those criteria might be worth only a point or two, we all know that could well be enough to sway an election.

And if Sanders is out, there are significant numbers among his supporters who just want someone who will tear up the rule book for politics as usual: that means they might find a home with Trump's caravan. All of this makes no sense, but we know that there is probably a minority of voters out there who make rational well thought out well informed decisions. And I am including in that probably more than a few who support Trump for comprehensible and understandable (but wrong IMO) reasons.

If not Biden or Sanders, then who? Warren? Much as I want to see a woman president, she might realistically lose 1% of voters who cannot countenance a woman president and another 1% for the Pocahontas thing. Again, that's more than enough to swing an election. Pete Buttigieg? Gay; and the South Bend shooting of Eric Logan won't bring him some support he might be counting on. Kamala Harris? The LA Times is reporting that in CA she is level pegging with Buttigieg.

We're really scraping the barrel now.

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

It's not a transcript.

Post by RayThom »

x-kA, that's a rather negative summary of the viable Democratic candidates. From my POV I get a sense that my fellow Dems are going to vote for whomever is the chosen nominee -- regardless how much they agree or disagree with the nom's basic platform. Issues are important, but dumping Trump and restoring a semblance of an unencumbered democracy takes priority.

Very few have gotten elected and then get things to go 100% in their favor. I fully expect that our legislators will reign in the unpopular issues and focus on the more moderate ones. By advancing doom and gloom predictions of the candidates may easily discourage those voters on the fence and give them a reason for not voting at all.

Sadly, there is a recent WaPo article that bolsters your feeling on the electability of the remaining candidates. I pray things will change for the better by 11/03/20.

Democrats are looking for electability in all the wrong places
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ong-places
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Maybe momentum is shifting. The Daily Mail comments (yes, yes, I know) which normally reflect complacent 'things are fine and Trump is just misunderstood' type thinking, are less predictable than they used to be. Yesterday's story about Rick Perry persuading a reluctant Trump to phone Ukrainian President Zelenskiy has this as its top comment: (1303 likes, 189 dislikes)
Trump excuses. Day 1: It never happened Day 2: Maybe it happened Day 3: It wasn't me Day 4: Yes, it was me, but it wasn't wrong Day 5: I'd do it again, and ask China, too Day 6: Rick Perry made me do it.


Someone added:
Day 7: I barely knew Rick Perry, I think he brought me coffee once
These are US readers. I think the N Koreans are hacking the DM comments. I can offer no other explanation.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

This was some truly cheering and hopeful news to start my morning with:
Majority in new poll supports impeachment inquiry; almost half back Trump's removal from office

A majority of respondents in a new poll supports the impeachment inquiry into President Trump while almost half back his removal from office.

The Washington Post-Schar School poll released early Tuesday found that 58 percent say the House was correct to launch the inquiry, compared to 38 percent who disagreed.

Almost half – 49 percent – said lawmakers in the lower chamber should impeach Trump and call for his removal from office.

Just 6 percent support the inquiry, but not Trump’s removal from office.

Pollsters found a partisan divide on the issue, with more than 8 in 10 Democrats endorsing the inquiry and about 7 in 10 Republicans saying they do not support the inquiry.

Nearly 8 in 10 Democrats favor a vote to recommend that Trump be removed from office, while almost one-fifth of Republicans agreed. [The fact that nearly one in five of those currently calling themselves Republicans already support not just an Impeachment inquiry but Trump's actual removal at this point in the process is very encouraging.]

More than half of independent voters – 57 percent – said they support the impeachment inquiry and 49 percent said the House should vote to remove Trump from office.

Support for an impeachment inquiry has risen among all three partisan groups since a July poll, with Democrat support rising 25 points from July, Republican support rising 21 points and independent support rising 20 points, based on the poll.

The Post noted that previous polls earlier this year found support for an impeachment inquiry between 37 and 41 percent.

The House launched an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower filed a complaint alleging Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -half-back
ImageImageImage

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by BoSoxGal »

Too late for the Kurds. :cry:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

Here's the really bad news...

The more he feels the noose tightening, the more he will lash out in reckless and irresponsible ways in a desperate effort to try to come up with something to save his ass...

In other words, we can expect that he's going to get even worse... (As difficult as that is to imagine)

His lies and smears (against individuals and institutions) are going to get worse, his treatment of those seeking refuge in this country will get worse, his embrace of bullshit conspiracy theories is going to get worse, his willingness to compromise the best interests of the United States is going to get even worse...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Sue U »

And in his flailing he's going to drag down as many people as possible with him. He's already thrown Mike Pence and Rick Perry under the bus, my bet is Pompeo will be the next to go. He thinks that implicating everyone else is going to save his orange ass.

GAH!

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

Just in case anybody thought that Wapo poll was an outlier:
Majority of Americans support impeachment inquiry into Trump, new NBC/WSJ poll says

Most Americans – including one in five Republicans – now back an impeachment inquiry or already believe Congress should remove President Donald Trump from office, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows.

The survey shows how public sentiment has moved amid the unfolding scandal over Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden. The share of Americans who say Congress should let Trump complete his term has dipped to 39%, from 50% in July.

At the same time, the proportion who say Congress should move to impeachment and removal has ticked up to 24% from 21%, while those who support an impeachment inquiry have swelled to 31% from 27%. Taken together, that 55% majority backing an impeachment inquiry at minimum is the highest the NBC/WSJ poll has shown this year.

That represents a gradual, not dramatic, shift in opinion. But it shows that, after the political hazards of the Trump-Russia investigation appeared to dissipate during the summer, the president faces new and potentially more-threatening trouble over Ukraine.

“What we’re seeing in this poll is an openness and willingness to listen to new information,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. His Democratic counterpart Peter Hart added, “There’s not a scintilla of good news for Donald Trump in this survey.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/majorit ... -poll.html
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

Another one of those, "Do I post it here, or in 'You can't make this shit up' thread" dilemmas...
In Deranged Quasi-legal Rant, Trump Calls Impeachment Unconstitutional

Advising President Donald Trump on the law, and formally expressing his views thereof, is a pitiable task. Trump’s worldview is almost wholly incompatible with the law. The latter is premised on neutral rules, mediated by precedent and constructed with the goal of some notion of abstract fairness. The latter is rooted in an entitlement to absolute domination regardless of circumstance.

The White House letter rejecting the House impeachment inquiry is an effort to reconcile the irreconcilable. At the level of tone, it reads like an extended Trumpian rally diatribe lightly edited by an attorney. At the level of substance, it is almost pure, uncut Trump. It repeats a series of immaterial, laughably false claims, surrounding the audacious thesis that impeaching Trump is literally illegal.

The letter’s most persistent argument revolves attacks on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. In one of the letter’s few concessions to legal propriety, it does manage to avoid calling him “pencil neck”, “shifty”, or “lil’ adam schiff.” Other than this, it hews closely to Trump’s methods of argument.

The letter charges that Schiff “chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript,” a “fact” that, it proceeds to assert, proves Trump did nothing wrong. The “fact” is also one of those bizarre implanted memories from the Fox News fever swamp. Schiff, in a hearing, paraphrased Trump’s call to Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky, saying “In not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates,” before going on to summarize Trump’s meaning. Trump and his allies have pretended this paraphrase, which Schiff openly billed as a paraphrase, was an attempt to concoct a falsified transcript of the call. It is unnerving to see this unhinged fantasy not only making its way into a formal White House legal document but playing a central role in its argument.

The letter also cites, by way of defending Trump, two additional pieces of evidence to establish his innocence. It notes that the Department of Justice reviewed the call and did not find a campaign finance violation — as if a campaign finance violation is the only, or even primary problem with extorting a foreign leader for dirt on domestic rivals, and as if Trump’s Attorney general is a remotely credible figure.

Even more comically, it notes that Zelensky has publicly stated, in Trump’s presence no less, that he was not pressured on the call — as if the leader of a country dependent on American support for its very existence, who has already been extorted, is in a position to undercut its president.


The presence of these vapid talking points in a putative legal document is tribute to the dearth of support for its shocking central claim: that the House has no right to impeach Trump. It calls the proceedings “illegal,” and one of Congress’ “unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process.” There is no remotely plausible constitutional theory to support this claim. The Constitution gives the House absolute right to conduct impeachment hearings in a manner determined by the House.

The letter complains that the House fails to grant Trump sufficient control over the impeachment agenda. Though there’s a reason for that — the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House — Trump could in theory try to negotiate for more Republican input into the process. In a briefing with reporters, a senior administration official was asked what changes Trump would need to cooperate. “A full halt” was the answer. That is, Trump will cooperate with an impeachment probe if Democrats stop the impeachment probe. :loon

Such Catch-22 absurdities give this administration no embarrassment. Since Democrats took control of the House last January, Trump has asserted it has no right to investigate him for crimes, no right to obtain his tax returns despite a law clearly authorizing exactly that, and that prosecutors can neither charge nor even investigate his criminal activity. He has claimed the right to start or stop any federal legal proceeding. Some of his positions grow out of the extreme unitary executive theory that figures like William Barr have developed for years, though only for Republican presidents.

But it is, in the main, an expression of Trump’s idiosyncratic convictions. This is a president who asserted his “absolute right” to investigate any person he wants, for any reason even while facing impeachment for abuse of power. He has no conception of the law, except as a tool to compel his opponents to submit to him. His every response to impeachment proves its necessity.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/ ... ional.html
ImageImageImage

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Good piece. I'll just point out that there is a tiny error in the first paragraph:
The latter is rooted in an entitlement to absolute domination regardless of circumstance.
Latter should read former here. I see they've fixed the original.

Last night on PBS (I think) they were telling us that the rules in the House, which they are allowed to decide for themselves, have changed and a vote for the impeachment inquiry is no longer needed. This is just more of Trump's approach to justice, which can be summarized as "He who shouts the loudest must be right."

Trump's defenders complain that he has no right to call or cross examine witnesses. Yes: not unlike a grand jury.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

Despite all the deflections, distractions, groundless smears, and shameless lies, the beat goes on:
Fox News Poll: Record support for Trump impeachment

Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.

A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.

Since July, support for impeachment increased among voters of all stripes: up 11 points among Democrats, 5 points among Republicans and 3 among independents. Support also went up among some of Trump’s key constituencies, including white evangelical Christians (+5 points), white men without a college degree (+8), and rural whites (+10).

Among voters in swing counties (where Hillary Clinton and Trump were within 10 points in 2016), support for impeachment increased to 52 percent, up from 42 percent in July.


By a 66-25 percent margin, voters say it is generally inappropriate for Trump to ask foreign leaders to investigate political rivals.[That 25% represents the true hardcore "5th Avenue Trumper" support level]

When asked about Trump’s phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, 17 percent believe it was appropriate. Most either describe it as an impeachable offense (43 percent) or as inappropriate but not impeachable (27 percent).

Trump has called the Ukraine phone call “perfect.” Even some Republicans aren’t convinced: 9 percent say it was an impeachable offense, 38 percent inappropriate but not impeachable,[That shows that a healthy chunk of GOP voters are persuadable] and 36 percent appropriate.

Overall, by an 11-point margin, more voters believe Trump is “getting what he deserves” rather than that the impeachment inquiry is driven by “people out to get him.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-ne ... mpeachment

The man behind the curtain keeps trying his same old tricks, pulling the levers as fast as he can in an effort to create as much smoke and noise as possible, but it doesn't look like it's working this time...
ImageImageImage

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

One of the first Americanisms I ever learned in business was: When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's easy to forget that your first objective was to drain the swamp."

Four more of those alligators have been indicted. We're getting ever closer to the big one with the orange hair.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

Image
ImageImageImage

Burning Petard
Posts: 4048
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Burning Petard »

I love the 8 page letter from the White House legal eagle on this. I will remember it if I am ever a suspect in a crime. I will insist it is all just a phony fake investigation unless I or my representative is permitted to be present every time the cops interview a witness.

snailgate

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by BoSoxGal »

That letter was actually shocking, because White House counsel represents the institution of the Presidency, not DJT - and any attorney who has passed Con Law (every attorney with a pulse and Bar admission) knows better than to argue impeachment is unconstitutional. That attorney is a stain on the profession and having penned and signed that letter rather than resign the job, he doesn’t deserve to ever have another job practicing law.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Vox is reporting, based on a WSJ report which I can't get to, that two of these clowns were stopped at Dulles with one way tickets when they were on their way out of the country. Hours earlier they had had lunch with someone called Rudy Giuliani. It is not known whether their lunch date is related to the President's personal lawyer.

I'm curious: the indictment was issued by a SD NY Grand Jury. I'm aware that there is no cross examination or defense witnesses at a Grand Jury. Would defendants or their attorneys even necessarily know of the existence of a GJ or would the indictments come as a total surprise?

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Time to lawyer up, Rudy. I hear Michael Cohen is available.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

It would truly be a tragedy if Rudy were to wind up in the clink...

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: It's not a transcript.

Post by Lord Jim »

liberty wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Maybe Boris can did up some dirt on Elizabeth Warren, and then Trump will have diplomatic immunity waived...

That's the way US foreign policy is conducted these days...
She is running for office if someone has dirt on her it is their duty to share it with the world. When one runs for public office one is no longer a private person. Her entire life should be investigated.
(You posted this in another thread lib, but I think more apropos for the discussion in this one so I'm quoting it and responding to it here)

So I take it from that that you are completely on the side of the whistle blowers who have shared the "dirt" (well, facts actually) about a President who betrayed his oath of office by seeking foreign intervention on behalf of his re-election and used withholding military aid authorized by the Congress to do it...

Or are you just fine with "Arms For Dirt"? (A beautifully pithy and succinct characterization which I heard today, and I hope catches on...very easy for the average person to grasp that...)
ImageImageImage

Post Reply