U.S. Politics: Dirt From Ukrainians, Bombs for Iranians, Shut Down Your Brainiums...

[Mexal]

7 minutes ago, Raja said:

Yeah, that seems to be the red line the administration seems to have drawn in this conversation. Curious to see if it'll stick.

Yea, that's going to be the talking point. It's a pretty dumb argument for a number of reasons, not withstanding, Trump freezing appropriated aid because he needed to make sure Ukraine has a handle on its corruption issues (he already stated this) which, as judged by his conversation, is entirely based around Biden and his son and the "I need a favor though" immediately following Zelensky's "thanks for helping with defense and we're almost ready to buy more weapons". It's heavily implied as all of these situations are. Ukraine knows the aid was withheld and knows Trump's only interest in the phone call was the Bidens. They can put 2 and 2 together.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, sologdin said:

giuliani as backchannel diplomacy, likely--especially if authorized by the president?  that'd be consistent with art. II, as interpreted by curtiss wright export (299 US 304), probably.  is there a suggestion that perhaps the logan act is unconstitutional, either as fallen into desuetude or void for vagueness?

I agree with your assessment that since Guiliani was authorized by the president, that alone does not violate the text of the Logan Act:

Quote

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

However - maybe I'm confused here - but I'm curious why you think the US v Curtiss Wright decision may render the Logan Act unconstitutional?  My understanding is the decision simply affirms the president's broad scope in conducting foreign affairs.  I don't see how that contradicts a law preventing individuals from negotiating with foreign governments without authorization.

Anyway, I don't think Trump being taken down by the Logan Act is on anyone's radar.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yea, that's going to be the talking point. It's a pretty dumb argument for a number of reasons, not withstanding, Trump freezing appropriated aid because he needed to make sure Ukraine has a handle on its corruption issues (he already stated this) which, as judged by his conversation, is entirely based around Biden and his son and the "I need a favor though" immediately following Zelensky's "thanks for helping with defense and we're almost ready to buy more weapons". It's heavily implied as all of these situations are. Ukraine knows the aid was withheld and knows Trump's only interest in the phone call was the Bidens. They can put 2 and 2 together.

If these guys were mobsters, and Trump were offering something in exchange for something illegal, the WH statement alone would be enough to convict.  Yet I've no doubt that Republicans will claim that we (and presumably Ukraine) are incapable of making any inferences of any kind. 

I agree with other posters that there is no way this is a trap.  That's not to say this won't blow up in Democrats faces, but right now the WH is scrambling in disarray. 

[Fragile Bird]

Reporters on CNN who regular deal with Washington insiders and off-the-record with politicians said the WH called Republicans yesterday and warned them there would be ‘troubling aspects’ in the text they were going to release.

[Fragile Bird]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And that is certainly a point of view.  If my wife and I refuse to pay taxes to protest ongoing military conflicts who will care for my children?  

This entire discussion brings to mind Emerson’s quote:

I value consistency it shows a degree of integrity and intellectual honesty.  That said it can be taken too far.  I think condemning every member of the American Military as a murderer for actions they may not have directly contributed to is too much.

I would point out I said if you don’t speak up about what the military does essentially you are complicit. During the Vietnam War there was no social media, no Facebook, to publicly state a position. You could protest, you could withhold taxes and get arrested. Those who speak against the egregious actions of the US government and the military today are making their positions pretty clear. You post all the time about government actions you disagree with. Others do it by political support. But as I also said many shrug their shoulders, they don’t care what the government does, they just want to live their lives, while of course many support the government either because they agree with what the government does or because they are blind to what the government does. Surely that makes them ultimately complicit?

After all, whose taxpayers are complicit otherwise? The French? The Germans? Canadians? Peruvians? Blame Mexico?

[Zorral]

That bedbug called Pelosi yesterday and offered to make a deal fascinates me -- and that he was stunned that she repelled him his inquiry that wasn't there something they could work out for her to make this go away: "You can obey the law."

It shows, as we NYers have always known, that he's probably the worst deal maker in history.  Beyond that I'm rather obsessively baffled as to just what in hell he thought he could offer Pelosi to stop her announcing that the Congress was starting impeachment proceedings.  Nor is it beyond imagining that he actually thought she would be the one to offer - ask him in return to not impeach.

The other big take-away is how desperate he is now -- running scared, all the way. Otherwise he'd never have offered, right?

This part of the story begins at about 3:00 into the video, the first talking head in their group of commentator - sources

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/sources-pelosi-says-trump-called-her-today-wanting-to-work-something-out-about-whistleblower-complaint-69786693879?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

Quote

Pelosi says Trump called her today trying to 'figure something out' about whistleblower complaint - 

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, MSNBC's Heidi Przybyla joins Ari Melber on The Beat to share reporting about a phone call between the ...

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-trump-impeachment-pelosi-art-of-the-deal-republicans-schiff-20190925-ys5rsp5pdbddpnxr2xok5emwlm-story.html

Quote

‘Can we work something out?’ Trump desperately pleaded with Nancy Pelosi to avoid impeachment — and was stunned to find out he failed

It's also hilarious -- and entirely expected -- the WH's position now is, "Giuliani did it!"

There's nothing I'd love more than bedbug and rudy both incarcerated in Guantánamo, without cell phones.

[Maithanet]

I think that Democrats really ought to be hammering much harder that this is a Trump admin transcript, and the Trump admin is not credible.  If their manicured version of events looks this bad, then we should assume that Trump was much more explicit in the actual phone call.  Good chance there was either an actual quid pro quo offer or Trump brought up Biden again and again to make sure there wasn't any confusion.  All speculation at this point, but I think that's a point worth making. 

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That bedbug called Pelosi yesterday and offered to make a deal fascinates me -- and that he was stunned that she repelled him his inquiry that wasn't there something they could work out for her to make this go away: "You can obey the law."

It shows, as we NYers have always known, that he's probably the worst deal maker in history.  Beyond that I'm rather obsessively baffled as to just what in hell he thought he could offer Pelosi to stop her announcing that the Congress was starting impeachment proceedings.  Nor is it beyond imagining that he actually thought she would be the one to offer - ask him in return to not impeach.

The other big take-away is how desperate he is now -- running scared, all the way. Otherwise he'd never have offered, right?

This part of the story begins at about 3:00 into the video, the first talking head in their group of commentator - sources

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/sources-pelosi-says-trump-called-her-today-wanting-to-work-something-out-about-whistleblower-complaint-69786693879?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-trump-impeachment-pelosi-art-of-the-deal-republicans-schiff-20190925-ys5rsp5pdbddpnxr2xok5emwlm-story.html

It's also hilarious -- and entirely expected -- the WH's position now is, "Giuliani did it!"

There's nothing I'd love more than bedbug and rudy both incarcerated in Guantánamo, without cell phones.

Differences aside, that is indeed fascinating. I can't wait for Kate McKinnon to earn an Oscar based off that scene alone in her turn to drama.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that Democrats really ought to be hammering much harder that this is a Trump admin transcript, and the Trump admin is not credible.  If their manicured version of events looks this bad, then we should assume that Trump was much more explicit in the actual phone call.

Yup.  These would be my talking points.

[TrueMetis]

29 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You're not holding people accountable for their actions, you're assigning a motive to everyone who joins the military. Including those in non-combat positions.

And I forget, how many generals voted for the invasion of Iraq? Can you remind me? How many Sergeants and Lieutenants voted to fly a plane into the World Trade Center buildings? How many of them make deployment decisions? Which members of the Joint Chiefs are campaigning in public for a war with Iran? Which ones are up for election in 2020? 

If you actually read then you would know there are many militaries throughout history that controlled political happenings and ours isn't one of them.

You misspelled 'all' or else this is way behind the conversation.

What the fuck are you on about? I haven't said a damn thing about motives. I've talked about nothing but responsibility. And your responsibility for an action has shit all to do with your motives or intent.

And you've got a bizarrely narrow view of what politics is. If you really think the only way for the military to be political is to control the government, then I've now idea what to tell you. Everything the military does is political, from who they buy their gear from, to who they recruit and whether or not to target a specific demographic.

[Zorral]

15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Differences aside, that is indeed fascinating. I can't wait for Kate McKinnon to earn an Oscar based off that scene alone in her turn to drama.

It would be mesmerizing, no doubt!

Addendum to Guantánamo incarceration for life -- not only no fones, no tv!  Appropriate punishing punishment!

As well, for more pie in the blue sky, if he should go down to prison, he may well take Pence out too, which if it happened before the election, would make Pelosi ... yes, indeed, President.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I haven't said a damn thing about motives. I've talked about nothing but responsibility. And your responsibility for an action has shit all to do with your motives or intent.

Moral responsibility has nothing to do with intent?  Well, I'm sure plenty of philosophy students are happy you've solved that one for them.  Not sure how those convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide feel about the implications of that though.

[TrueMetis]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Moral responsibility has nothing to do with intent?  Well, I'm sure plenty of philosophy students are happy you've solved that one for them.  Not sure how those convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide feel about the implications of that though.

Yeah, manslaughter and negligent homicide. Great examples about how not meaning to kill someone totally absolves you of all responsibility.

[Jace, Extat]

7 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Sure, Canadian, British, etc forces too. Much like it would be entirely fair to say that in WW1 and WW2 you were volunteering to help kill Germans and Japanese.

Look, I don't really give a shit how indoctrinated Americans are. That doesn't give them a pass. We didn't look at the fucking Germans after World War Two and go "well fuck, they bought into the propaganda, guess they aren't responsible for the shit they did." Not realizing what you volunteered for doesn't change what you volunteered for. A German Soldier in WW2 would probably tell you they volunteered to protect their country and return it to greatness, but they volunteered to help commit genocide and invade other countries.

How is saying "they volunteered to ______" not assigning motive? You are drawing a direct line. "They volunteered to kill people" or "they volunteered to commit genocides" that's just not a supportable statement! Sure, there are fucking monsters walking around and times of war sure seem to get them excited. But to assert that Tywin's cousin volunteered to kill people is flatly absurd. I've never been arguing about responsibility. Read the damn thread. This all started with an OG Bonnot post claiming that Buttigege joined the army to kill people. He does not have a fucking shred of evidence to support that statement and when Scot called him out you and others started down this path of  madness for the sake of your own moral aggrandizement. We settled this. Scot, DMC, Karradin, and I. We all agreed that responsibility for a body's actions are shared by the entirety of the persons compositing it. That conversation was settled. And then you felt the need to impress upon everyone that 'NO, EVERYBODY WHO JOINS THE MILITARY WANTS TO BE A KILLER. I JOINED TO BE A KILLER AND I'LL MAKE SURE EVERYONE I TRAIN WANTS TO BE A KILLER' (paraphrasing) which is just wrong. Your position has not been Karradin's reasoned 'joining the military, one should understand their complicity in killing' (paraphrased), but rather that joining the military in any way is volunteering to kill people. Which is not true. A JAG officer will under almost no conceivable circumstance be put into a position to use deadly force, so if they were volunteering to kill people then they made a big goddamn mistake in job selection. This is not semantics, it's refutation of a stupid and narrow understanding of how human beings make decisions.

 

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

It would be mesmerizing, no doubt!

Addendum to Guantánamo incarceration for life -- not only no fones, no tv!  Appropriate punishing punishment!

And no being on TV. That's the real punishment.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, TrueMetis said:

Great examples about how not meaning to kill someone totally absolves you of all responsibility.

Um, who said anything about absolving anybody of all responsibility?  You're arguing all members of the armed forces share the same collective responsibility for the killing/deaths of muslims, and now claiming intent is irrelevant to each member's responsibility.  By that logic, you are thus arguing that the military cook stationed in San Diego shares the same moral responsibility for a combat troop killing 8 Afghani civilians as that combat troop - because intent apparently doesn't matter.  Sorry San Diego cook, you "volunteered to help kill muslims."  Seems to be a ludicrously stupid standard to me, but to each his own.

[Zorral]

From:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/

Quote

 

September 25, 2019

4:00 PM EDT

President Trump Participates in a Press Conference

New York, NY

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

I'm not making a prediction or anything, I think nothing comes out of this mess in the end. Or nothing good for Democrats. But it does occur to me that Trump is the type of man who would just resign out of the blue if he thought the job wasn't worth it. He's so childish and undisciplined that if the thought popped into his head he could conceivably just convince himself he's taking his ball and going home.

Now I don't think that'll happen, but I suppose there's an actual chance it could. Anyone else have a thought on that? His speech at the U.N. is what got me thinking along those lines. 

Again, not a prediction. Not even saying there's a 5% chance. But there's a 0% chance of him resigning from shame, while I feel like resigning 'cause it's too hard and not fun no more is actually somehow not that hard to imagine.

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm not making a prediction or anything, I think nothing comes out of this mess in the end. Or nothing good for Democrats. But it does occur to me that Trump is the type of man who would just resign out of the blue if he thought the job wasn't worth it. He's so childish and undisciplined that if the thought popped into his head he could conceivably just convince himself he's taking his ball and going home.

Now I don't think that'll happen, but I suppose there's an actual chance it could. Anyone else have a thought on that? His speech at the U.N. is what got me thinking along those lines. 

Again, not a prediction. Not even saying there's a 5% chance. But there's a 0% chance of him resigning from shame, while I feel like resigning 'cause it's too hard and not fun no more is actually somehow not that hard to imagine.

No he's not. He's a narcissist. His ego would never let him resign.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Anyone else have a thought on that?

I think his ego will always trump his laziness.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No he's not. He's a narcissist. His ego would never let him resign.

 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think his ego will always trump his laziness.

I definitely agree as a practical matter, and maybe it's the 5 hours of sleep since Saturday talking, but I can imagine him actually believing that he's punishing the rest of us and particularly his followers/Republicans by walking away. 

Trying to get inside the man's head leads to strange, strange, places.