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

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Heh ya know, hadn't thought about that.  Now that I do, I'm actually surprised Trump and co. in their insanity haven't brought up Pelosi's line in the succession over the past two days.  Way to give em ideas.

That's why he closed his bs rambling today by saying she was no longer Speaker of the House?

And if it wasn't Pelosi who did it, it was Hillary -- remember CrowdStrike, that ghosting email server with all Hillary's sekrit satanic emails that's in Ukraine?

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/9/25/20883526/trump-transcript-ukraine-russia-manafort-crowdstrike

Quote

 

Trump seems to believe in a wacky conspiracy theory involve Ukraine and the DNC’s server

On Trump’s now-infamous phone phone call with Zelensky, Trump cryptically asked Zelensky about a computer server in Ukraine and the American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike.

“I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation,” he said.

It appears Trump was referring to a long-debunked conspiracy theory that the firm has covered up the fact that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in the 2016 election.

Give your head a second to stop spinning, and then read on.

CrowdStrike was hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to look into who hacked into their networks during the election. The firm determined that it was two Russian groups with Kremlin ties. Case closed, right? Not exactly.

Trump seems to believe — and has often mentioned — that a DNC server with the real information on it has gone missing, and that CrowdStrike (and the FBI) is somehow involved in its disappearance. He brought the issue up during his Helsinki meeting alongside Putin.

“You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server,” the president said during the July 2018 press conference. “Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?”

 

My. Gawd. They should have removed him right that minute.  And so many minutes previously and subsequently.

As well, it ain't lookin' good for Barr right now, is it?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

That's why he closed his bs rambling today by saying she was no longer Speaker of the House?

He did?  I couldn't make it through the whole thing, even with Nicole Wallace repeatedly interrupting him to make fun of his idiocy.

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

He did?  I couldn't make it through the whole thing, even with Nicole Wallace repeatedly interrupting him to make fun of his idiocy.

He did, the final lie he told before leaving the podium.

[DMC]

Just now, Zorral said:

He did, the final lie he told before leaving the podium.

Ah.  So he said she's no longer Speaker?  What?  I gotta find a clip of this...

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Kalbear - Are you really surprised that people will continue a heated argument that's already in progress? Given most of one side aren't even American I really don't think this is saying much about the American left. 

Honestly? Yes, I'm pretty surprised given the magnitude of this news. Impeachment inquiries have only happened 4 times in the entire history of the US, and each time it's led to some pretty serious things going down. Add to this that this appears to be about as cut and dried as you can possibly get - imagine Nixon being caught on tape asking England to dig up dirt on Goldwater or something like that in exchange for weapons that congress had already allocated - and it is a bit odd to have people debating the philosophical implications of joining an organization and what ethical values that entails. 

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly? Yes, I'm pretty surprised given the magnitude of this news. Impeachment inquiries have only happened 4 times in the entire history of the US, and each time it's led to some pretty serious things going down. Add to this that this appears to be about as cut and dried as you can possibly get - imagine Nixon being caught on tape asking England to dig up dirt on Goldwater or something like that in exchange for weapons that congress had already allocated - and it is a bit odd to have people debating the philosophical implications of joining an organization and what ethical values that entails. 

I'd say there's a healthy (or unhealthy) amount of cynicism diluting belief in how meaningful it is. Even with my prior statement about it being a good thing, I can't let myself hope that it's anything more than an important symbolic gesture because I don't believe for a second that the Republicans will move to get rid of him.

I also don't expect it to blow back electorally for the Dems so it doesn't seem like a gamble or anything.

Would love to be wrong on the first one though.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Would love to be wrong on the first one though.

And hope you're right on the second one!

But yeah I think it's good to point out that most (all?) of us don't expect it to lead to his removal, so that's gonna sap interest.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, the electors are chosen by state, so in this fantasy of him refusing to step down after a decisive loss and being backed up institutionally, it'd be the governors and each state's secretary of state he'd be relying upon.  The secretary of state to refuse to certify a clear loss and/or the governor to refuse to prepare the Certificate of Ascertainment that details which electors will be representing the state.  Casting a wide net, there's about 11 states that could be tipping points.  In MI, MN, MC, NV, PA, VA, and WI none of this matters since both the SoS and governor are Dems.  In Arizona, Ducey (R) is governor but he's got a Dem SoS.  Considering he wants a political future I can't see him refusing to sign the CoA if the SoS certified a Dem victory.  Ohio has both a GOP governor and SoS, but DeWine doesn't owe Trump shit - plus I have a hard time seeing Trump losing Ohio anyway.  So, that means the only states where this really has any possibility is down to Iowa and, of course, Florida.

If you're talking about recounts and such, good luck taking that to court if both the governor and SoS have certified the results.  Now, if we're talking about legitimately contested results like Florida in 2000, then yeah, Trump has the advantage in court.  Congress can object in their joint session counting the EV, but a state's certificate of vote can only be rejected if both chambers of Congress accept the objection.  So, keeping the House is important there too.

DMC - with all due respect, you seem to keep making the mistake that Trump is a rational actor who will abide by the law.  

 

I have no difficulty envisioning Trump as attempting annul or ignore an unfavorable election - claiming victory despite a clear or marginal loss.   Trump and his confederates, though are so incompetent that such an attempted coup would fail.  (Take a peek at Zorral's post)

  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

DMC - with all due respect, you seem to keep making the mistake that Trump is a rational actor who will abide by the law.  

 

I have no difficulty envisioning Trump as attempting annul or ignore an unfavorable election - claiming victory despite a clear or marginal loss.   Trump and his confederates, though are so incompetent that such an attempted coup would fail. 

See the first sentence of my post - "and being backed up institutionally."  That's what I was looking at there.

[Kalbear]

I don't know how to feel about this one, but this rationale - that Trump et al wanted to get back at Mueller and help Manafort - feels very truthy.

 

[karaddin]

@DMC You were the one asking if Trump really said Pelosi isn't the speaker anymore right? In case you hadn't seen it yet, and for anyone else that hasn't

Apologies if it had already been posted, pretty sure that conversation was at 2am for me.

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't know how to feel about this one, but this rationale - that Trump et al wanted to get back at Mueller and help Manafort - feels very truthy.

 

What a creepy photo. I gotta admit I forgot all about inmate 45343. Good to be reminded of him, actually.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You were the one asking if Trump really said Pelosi isn't the speaker anymore right? In case you hadn't seen it yet, and for anyone else that hasn't

Thanks - so he was just being a dick.  I was hoping for some Trump-crazy explanation as to why.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

President Donald Trump’s freeze of military aid for Ukraine landed this summer at a Pentagon in turmoil, led by its third acting secretary in just a few weeks — with no leader at the top with the stature to quash the move.

The leadership vacuum at the top of the Defense Department is just one element in the chain of decisions on the nearly $390 million in Ukraine aid, a freeze that set the stage for a grave political crisis for Trump after POLITICO published the first report on the holdup Aug. 28. It’s also an example of the erosion of institutional checks on the Trump administration, which has installed acting or temporary leaders in a host of crucial leadership positions.

Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, by contrast, had a reputation for pushing back on Trump — and when the president ordered U.S. troops withdrawn from Syria in December, overriding his commanders, Mattis rebuked him with a resignation that stunned his allies in Congress.

Trump has said he’s fine with the shortage of Senate-confirmed leaders, remarking last month that “acting gives you great flexibility that you don't have with permanent.” But a Cabinet-level department with an acting secretary also has much weakened leverage to assert its views against those of the president’s staff, as people with experience in senior Pentagon positions noted in interviews with POLITICO.

 

Trump’s Ukraine holdup hit a rudderless Pentagon
The Defense Department was cycling through a series of acting secretaries when the White House put a freeze on hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Kiev.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-military-aid-pentagon-000679

[karaddin]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thanks - so he was just being a dick.  I was hoping for some Trump-crazy explanation as to why.

Yeah, the "as far as I'm concerned" changes it from genuinely thinking he can do it to just being the kind of asshole he has been his entire life.

[felice]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly? Yes, I'm pretty surprised given the magnitude of this news. Impeachment inquiries have only happened 4 times in the entire history of the US, and each time it's led to some pretty serious things going down. Add to this that this appears to be about as cut and dried as you can possibly get

When something is completely cut and dried, there's not much to discuss! And the wider topic of impeachment has been an ongoing thing since before he was even elected, so while significant, the latest news isn't that much of an immediate game-changer for the conversation.

[ants]

On the military discussion, I find it a little bit incredible that some don't believe that joining an organisation will usually give you some level of culpability for its actions, and that voting for a representative who votes on your behalf for things like illegal wars in Iraq doesn't make those voters partially culpable as well (in a democracy).  The level of culpability will vary significantly, from the therapist helping ex-servicemen with PTSD (little) to someone serving in Iraq (high), but the idea that you can say I'm not culpable on the basis that you joined for other reasons, is frankly weird.  

13 hours ago, Mexal said:

It’s the Hillary Clinton playbook. Warren is next.

The Hillary Clinton playbook worked because the Republicans played it for many years, and many of Hilary's actions (or Bill's) helped support it.  From her emails, lies about being sick, her wall street speeches, she dug an awful lot of holes for herself.  I don't think a 6-12 month campaign aimed at Biden/Warren/etc. will have anywhere near the same traction.  

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

House votes 421-0 to back the release of the whistleblower complaint.

Does that at least signal that Republicans don't feel comfortable with any appearance of impeding this?  I mean, maybe a handful are taking the "White House is trying to just put it out there, so follow their lead," but I still would have guessed given the partisan potential of this issue to see this vote.  

The fact that the Republicans voted for this, and the Senate vote, invites some curious theorising about how they would go in an impeachment vote.  It makes you wonder if some things might actually be blatant enough that they would vote against Trump. 

[James Arryn]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, he's going to point out (possibly correctly) that elections were tampered with, he has proof, and point out to the states to not hold their EC meeting until they've gotten to the bottom of it. And he'll sue to make sure that happens (or more likely, simply have his pet DoJ do it for him). SCOTUS won't say that he can cancel elections, but they will say that this isn't a constitutional matter and executive power broadly does cover this. And why shouldn't it? The alternative is that we ratify an election that was tampered with by outside forces, and I don't think anyone wants that as a possibility either. 

One thing to consider in this is that I still very firmly believe that Russia is going to go after the election again, and do so with far more force. The easiest way to do so is to attack the registration information, which is on the internet and is not particularly secure. Simply forcing a whole lot of people to not be registered at the time of the election would cause massive chaos. This could even be a problem in mail ballot states like Washington, where on the night or prior night of elections ballots all get flagged as 'not a registered voter' and are all discarded or set aside. (I am a ballot observer there, and this is one of the few vulnerabilities the system has). Other states have it far worse, since you only have to have an attack succeed on the day of the actual election. 

 

Honestly, nobody talks about this, but the absolute best move for Russia at this point would be to clumsily manipulate the election favouring the Dems. 

[karaddin]

58 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Honestly, nobody talks about this, but the absolute best move for Russia at this point would be to clumsily manipulate the election favouring the Dems. 

I think that's because its both scarily possible and leads to an absolute cluster fuck that no one can deal with thinking about it. Easier to focus on the option that Putin decides Trump as a patsy serves his interests better than attempting to just collapse the system entirely.

[ants]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think that's because its both scarily possible and leads to an absolute cluster fuck that no one can deal with thinking about it. Easier to focus on the option that Putin decides Trump as a patsy serves his interests better than attempting to just collapse the system entirely.

Agreed.  It is an absolutely realistic and absolutely scary proposition.  It is why the Dems have to keep on hammering to increase money/protection spent on the election, so they can say that any issues arose due to Republicans.