Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Good one

[Dr. Strangelove]

NY Times has more from Bolton's book. One of these is almost certainly the Turkish bank Halkbank case, which was laundering money for Iran to beat sanctions

******************************

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/john-bolton-trump-book-barr.html

[iam416]

I'd probably suggest a majority of Americans think the economy has happened in spite of Trump instead of because of him. That the President really doesn't matter nearly as much as we thought. And if that's the case...why do we need to stick with the ranting jackass who spends half of every day watching tv or golfing? TV

[iam416]

And the idea that only criminal violations are impeachable is preposterous. However, that line does go to the point that the actions need to be serious. Whether a short delay in aid for no effect is serious enough is the question. Obviously, exercising your right of appeal is not and, frankly, is an abuse of Legislative power vis-a-vis our foundational concept of separation of power.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And the idea that only criminal violations are impeachable is preposterous. However, that line does go to the point that the actions need to be serious. Whether a short delay in aid for no effect is serious enough is the question. Obviously, exercising your right of appeal is not and, frankly, is an abuse of Legislative power vis-a-vis our foundational concept of separation of power.

My personal objection is not that they are seeking to appeal to the courts in regards to subpoenas but that the argument that DOJ is making in those cases annoys me.

There's probably less than 2% of voters that give a fuck but do not have your personal attorneys argue that only the courts can decide if a congressional subpoena is valid while having your DOJ argue (in court) that the courts are not the proper venue for congressional subpoena disputes!

[iam416]

Yeah, but nonetheless, appealing to the courts will never be obstruction in my book. Ever.

[AlabamAlum]

You all are insufferable.

[iam416]

Yes, but I'm the best at being insufferable. ADMIT IT!

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'll concede it's unlikely but not impossible that "political winds" properly shaped by an earlier and more aggressive pursuit of Trump's corrupt behaviors by House leadership could have sufficiently changed the facts on the ground in the Senate. And, you're right, the idolization of Trump by his supporters is, indeed, a big factor in that group's potential to be persuaded that Trump is corrupt and should be impeached.

There is a "them against us" sort of mentality that has developed between Trump supporters and the press suggesting that no matter the truth or logic of arguments against Trump, his supporters are not going to listen to it. I'd have to go down district by district in the Senate to determine what the voting split is among those 20 R Senators needed to flip for impeachment. But if it were accurate that the margin between Trump supporters, those that are on the fence and those who are against him, and are registered Rs was collectively less than 40%, I'd ask, are the Senators representing those districts actually representing their constituency?

If it is true that a minority of a Senator's constituency are actually supportive of Trump and the majority are not, there's a problem and that may very well be the case. IOW, it's a "partisan clown show" that is sadly unrepresentative of the will of the people. I think we are going to find in November the polling data that suggests Trump is re-electable when facing any of the potential D candidates is as wrong as it was when the polls predicted HRC was the overwhelming favorite to win the presidency over DJT.

[Ghengis Jon]

A secret ballot would eliminate much of the partisan paranoia.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Gadfly of Glasgow weighs in

Interesting legal argument playing over whether Trump may have waived privilege regarding any conversation with Bolton on Ukraine. If Trump is publicly and openly talking about the contents of that conversation and calling Bolton a liar, among other things, can he still assert privilege? Trump can blab about this "classified" material as much as he wants but Bolton can't say a word?

[Jeff Buchanan]

On Dershowitz ...... anyone with an untrained legal eye who has even taken a cursory look at US impeachment history knows Dershowitz is mistaken. There's no question that one of the legs of Trump's legal team's defense is that a crime has to be committed for impeachment to be considered by the House and therefore the articles forwarded by the House are invalid. It's a tempting argument to agree with and I think Dershowitz knows this despite his knowledge that he is out in left field on this one.

Another leg of the R's defense is that Trump did "nothing that was wrong or rises to the level of an impeachable offense." I listened on NPR Radio for about 30m yesterday evening to the live presentation of the R defense on the Senate floor. The speaker was Eric Herschamnn. The gist of his approach was that Trump was continuing an anti-corruption campaign that started with VP Joe Biden in 2014. The premise of that activity by the Obama administration was to insure that aid being provided to Ukraine was making it's way to proper authorities and not into the hands of corrupt oligarchs. On it's face, the argument made sense but it rests on a set of facts presented by Herschmann and an argument that is complex. I couldn't find a text of it. It's out there somewhere.

If you hold a motivational bias, like some here do, that Trump is irrevocably corrupt in the broadest sense of that term, not persuadable, you'll reject, off-hand, the kinds of defense of Trump's activity regarding Zelensky and Ukraine. You have to want to listen to the arguments first and then try to understand them. I doubt that is happening among some Senators, not all, but the history that Herschmann offers that describes Trump's political activity re Ukraine as a logical follow-on from previous administrations (and the IMF) in dealing with Ukraine and the context it places that activity in, to me anyway, the singular activity that is embodied in the first article of impeachment does not constitute an impeachable offense.

This just an excerpt from an ABC News report on yesterday evening's defense of Trump on the Senate floor from Eric Herschmann:



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=68560105

[iam416]

I'll concede it's unlikely but not impossible that "political winds" properly shaped by an earlier and more aggressive pursuit of Trump's corrupt behaviors by House leadership could have sufficiently changed the facts on the ground in the Senate

It's not just "unlikely" -- it's pure poppycock.

There are 2 Republican Senators each from the follow states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alaska, Indiana, Mississippi, Utah and Kansas. There is one each from West Virginia, Alabama and Montana. That's 37 Senators. In States PDJT won in 2016 BY A LANDSLIDE -- 15+ points, I think, for every one. Most over 20. These are all states he'll win again in 2020. By a landslide. It's absolutely 100% clear that the Senators in this states are representing their respective constituencies.

That leaves you needing 20 out of the remaining 16 Senators. LOL.

Welp, there are 4 from the following two states: Texas, Iowa. PDJT won this States in 2016 by 9-10 points. He's almost certainly going to win these states again (he's polling ahead of every D in Iowa as we speak).

Then you have R states with 2 Senators that were relatively close for PDJT -- Georgia, Florida, North Carolina. You need to flip all 6.

Then you have split Senator States that are legitimately purplish -- Arizona, Ohio (almost red, but Sherrod is hugely popular), Maine, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado. Of that group, Ohio was 8 points for PDJT. The others, of course, were close or went against him.

Realistically, of the 53 R Senators, I think 42 (counting Iowa and Ohio) represent states that will vote for PDJT in 2020. So, yeah. Poppycock.

that "political winds" properly shaped by an earlier and more aggressive pursuit of Trump's corrupt behaviors by House leadership

This is worth highlighting because I really don't know what part of the last 3+ years you've been watching, but the Ds, the House and the Media have been going after PDJT with full motherfucking force from day 1 -- check that -- before day 1 -- since November of 2016. I mean, come the fuck on.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Despite Talent's relentless praise of Boris the Bold, he raises a middle finger to the United States

Trump and his allies have repeatedly said that a free trade deal with the UK would be threatened if Boris had anything to do with Huawei. It would seem old Boris screamed God Bless George III, good riddance to Meghan, and Ni hao Comrade Xi.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-k-chooses-china-s-huawei-build-parts-its-5g-n1124471

https://www.axios.com/huawei-5g-trump-boris-johnson-china-05338af0-00a9-4950-80b6-21ddd0a44d50.html

[iam416]

Interesting legal argument playing over whether Trump may have waived privilege regarding any conversation with Bolton on Ukraine

So, there are two points to privilege waiver. One, whatever you make public or that is disclosed to a third party is no longer protected. In this regard, I doubt PDJT has disclosed anything he'd consider privileged. It's mostly high level bluster. Two, if you're actually under oath or in a court proceeding, there's subject matter waiver. You can waive for the whole subject matter if you attempt to use the subject matter, in any part, as a defense. So, PDJT's legal team can't selectively use conversations in front of the Senate without, presumably, waiving others.

So, I don't find it that interesting at all. As it currently stands, it seems like an extremely easy decision -- to the extent the privilege exists in the first instance.