U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

[Paladin of Ice]

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Anyway, particularly after Sondland's testimony, I understand the urge to force Giuliani/Pompeo/Mulvaney/Perry/Bolton to testify.  But thinking about it, is it really gonna matter?  They're gonna either stonewall or be thrown under the bus just like this current round.  Forcing Giuliani is the only exception there, because everyone else - even Pence - is just gonna point the finger at him like Sondland did.  Moreover, if the public/voters aren't moved by this point, what makes you think they will by those guys testifying?

I agree that Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Pence will simply do their best to stonewall their way through things and can't be relied on not to lie through their teeth.

Giuliani, I feel, would get on the stand and blow the entire administration to pieces while he thinks he's giving the perfect defense. Republicans might even agree to put him on because they think they can get him to be the fall guy all by himself.

It's tempting to get Bolton up there too, because I'm sure he has no loyalty to this admin, but if he actually wanted to testify and say anything meaningful he would have simply done it instead of asking the court to block it.

I know all the arguments for why one shouldn't investigate a prior administration criminally, but in this case I think an exception has to be made. When these guys are out of power, every single high ranking member of the Trump admin has to swing for their actions.

[Larry of the Lawn]

26 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

.

It's tempting to get Bolton up there too, because I'm sure he has no loyalty to this admin, but if he actually wanted to testify and say anything meaningful he would have simply done it instead of asking the court to block it.

 

Weird yesterday feeling "wow, Bolton, though likely a war criminal and total POS, isn't as terrible as others in the Trump show".

There's a Lindsay Graham clip for everything:

 

[Fez]

Congressional Republicans would absolutely turn on Trump, if they thought it would help them electorally. Which means they'll only turn if the base turns on Trump. That seems very unlikely for now, but its not a 0% chance of happening. The economy is still basically doing fine, if it tanked into a major recession all bets are off.

Point being, people are obsessing too much over the present and doing that logical fallacy (I forget the name) where they assume that whatever is currently happening is the way that things always have been and always will be.

[Altherion]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

We literally had him on video exclaiming in vulgar terms that he liked to sexually assault women and get away with it. AND HE GOT ELECTED AFTER THAT. 

That's why I said that at this point, it really has to be quite a lot. That particular video did hurt his standing, it just wasn't enough.

3 hours ago, DMC said:

They want to impeach by Christmas so the Senate trial is hopefully done by the Iowa Caucuses.  No presidential candidate wants this going on when they may be winning the primaries and becoming the standard bearer against Trump.  And Pelosi rightly doesn't want that to happen either.

I agree with you, but if this is true, then it tells us all we need to know about the nature of these proceedings as perceived by the Democrat leadership: this is nothing more than a political show and the time is coming to clear the stage so that a different political show can take place in January.

[maarsen]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Congressional Republicans would absolutely turn on Trump, if they thought it would help them electorally. Which means they'll only turn if the base turns on Trump. That seems very unlikely for now, but its not a 0% chance of happening. The economy is still basically doing fine, if it tanked into a major recession all bets are off.

Point being, people are obsessing too much over the present and doing that logical fallacy (I forget the name) where they assume that whatever is currently happening is the way that things always have been and always will be.

For the last numpteen years I have been calling it the 'set in cement fallacy'.

[Ormond]

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

Congressional Republicans would absolutely turn on Trump, if they thought it would help them electorally. Which means they'll only turn if the base turns on Trump. That seems very unlikely for now, but its not a 0% chance of happening. The economy is still basically doing fine, if it tanked into a major recession all bets are off.

Point being, people are obsessing too much over the present and doing that logical fallacy (I forget the name) where they assume that whatever is currently happening is the way that things always have been and always will be.

I don't think we have settled on just one term for that way of thinking. What you are referring to is related to the contrast between linear/analytic thinking vs. dialectical/holistic thinking, which is discussed in cross-cultural psychology, with American culture promoting the former and Chinese culture promoting the latter. There is research showing that Americans are more likely to expect present conditions to continue indefinitely into the future, while Chinese are more likely to expect reversals of present conditions to be coming soon. 

[DanteGabriel]

On the topic of forcing testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton et al, a Talking Points Memo reader and former DOJ lawyer makes an interesting argument that the Dems might be able to do so during the Senate trial, by counting on John Roberts to be at least somewhat non-corrupt:

Quote

I’m a former federal corruption AUSA and also a former DOJ attorney. Let me tell you why I think the House isn’t going to court over the failure of Bolton, Pompeo, etc. to appear for testimony.

If the House were to go to the District Court, any ruling would eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court. The earliest any decision would come is next spring or early summer.

If the House impeaches the president, the impeachment will be conducted no later than January, and occur under the Senate’s impeachment rules.

The rules provide that the House managers can issue subpoenas to anyone, presumably including Bolton and Mulvaney. A senator could object that the testimony is irrelevant or covered by privilege. Rule VII provides that a ruling on such questions will usually be made by the Presiding Officer – the Chief Justice, unless he refers the decision to the full Senate. The Chief Justice would likely decide, in the first instance, claims of executive privilege or attorney-client privilege. He would also likely decide questions such as the crime/fraud exception and the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, as well as questions of waiver of any privilege. Finally, he would rule on subpoenas for the production of documents.

I think it is likely that testimony from Mulvaney would be compelled – at least as far as his public statements, and that Bolton and others would be ordered to testify – at least as to some matters. Additional documentary evidence would likely be compelled, as well.

While a majority of the Senate could vote to overturn the Chief Justice’s ruling, any evidentiary/privilege ruling by him would have a presumption that it was correct. As a political matter, it would be difficult for many Republican senators to vote to overturn an evidentiary ruling by the Chief that is based on the law. (That is different than a motion to dismiss because the evidence is insufficient, where it is the senators’ role to evaluate the weight of the evidence.) Only a handful of Republican senators would have to vote to uphold the Chief Justice’s ruling for a majority to sustain the ruling that testimony or documents should be compelled.

Chief Justice Roberts will make straight rulings on the evidence and the power of the Senate to compel testimony. That’s the best outcome the House can want. (If he didn’t agree with the House Managers on any point during the trial, the Chief would be unlikely to provide a fifth vote in the Court before the trial to compel the same evidence.)

Thus, by moving directly to impeachment, the House gets its best chance of winning the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, and others, and doing so in a timely fashion. The House likely won’t be able to depose witnesses or examine all the documents in advance, but that’s a small price to pay for obtaining the evidence at the trial.

In addition, a favorable decision can’t be hung up in the courts. The decision of the Senate on procedural rulings, whether by the Presiding Officer or if reviewed, by the full Senate, is final, and not subject to court review. See Nixon v. United States (involving the impeachment of Judge Nixon, not Richard Nixon).

My guess is Speaker Pelosi is aware of this approach, based on her comments today at her presser that the House won’t go to court now to obtain testimony of Pompeo, Maloney, and Bolton. She noted, however, that the information may be available to the Senate.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/read-this-11

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

So did Hillary's in 2008.  Why did Obama win in 2008 and Hillary didn't in 2016?  Because of their, and their respective campaigns, own merits - on top of, of course, environmental factors.  The data on prolonged or particularly competitive presidential primaries affecting that party's general election nominee is decidedly inconclusive, or null.  And many people have tried (myself included) - the reason you can't find many, if any, studies on this isn't publication bias, it's because the results don't tell us shit.

There have been many efforts to operationalize this apparent roll/factor, and none of them have borne fruit.

I’m not sure that’s a great comparison, because Hillary was still a part of the establishment and her supporters were always going to come around. That’s not the same with Sanders’ supporters.  They were the outsiders and had no reason to uphold party loyalties.

That said, I’m not surprised the data is inconclusive, but that’s because this is more about theory than statistics.

[Maithanet]

23 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

On the topic of forcing testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton et al, a Talking Points Memo reader and former DOJ lawyer makes an interesting argument that the Dems might be able to do so during the Senate trial, by counting on John Roberts to be at least somewhat non-corrupt:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/read-this-11

Wow.  That could potentially be big.  I am pessimistic that it will actually play out like that (I personally doubt we'll see Mulvaney and Bolton under oath), but it's good that there's some hope anyway. 

[Kalbear]

I dont think dems have any interest in compelling testimony. They aren't particularly interested in actually getting the truth either. That's probably a politically good thing for them.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

 

I agree with you, but if this is true, then it tells us all we need to know about the nature of these proceedings as perceived by the Democrat leadership: this is nothing more than a political show and the time is coming to clear the stage so that a different political show can take place in January.

Nonsense. Every single person who is issued a subpoena has the right to appeal that subpoena. A court ruling, even a SCOTUS ruling, won’t take away that right. That means that all of the people on the witness wish list, all of the people with the actual direct dealings with Trump that the Republicans demand from witnesses, can appeal their subpoenas. And will appeal their subpoenas. There may be a ruling on one appeal on Monday, but so what, it will be appealed to the next level. That’s why the Democrats are going to make Trump’s orders to witnesses to refuse to respond to subpoenas one of the articles of impeachment instead.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Congressional Republicans would absolutely turn on Trump, if they thought it would help them electorally. Which means they'll only turn if the base turns on Trump. That seems very unlikely for now, but its not a 0% chance of happening. The economy is still basically doing fine, if it tanked into a major recession all bets are off. 

Yes, you're right. As soon as they can use trump to blame and it is vaguely politically expedient to do so, they will. Note that most of that expediency doesnt come from any kind of truth or information - it comes from either people hating the economy or it comes from right wing media telling people they should think that way. 

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Point being, people are obsessing too much over the present and doing that logical fallacy (I forget the name) where they assume that whatever is currently happening is the way that things always have been and always will be.

Point of fact I'm not. I'm looking at it as a trend. 40 years ago it took an actual recording of the potus specifically ordering an illegal act in order to get information on a political rival and the dismissal of the investigators.  Before that, the general consensus from Republicans was literally that things were fine. 

And that was when we had significantly less partisanship and the ability to work across the isle. 

I'm not saying that things are always going to be this way or that they always have been. I'm saying that they used to be better, they've gotten worse, and they're going to get worse yet. In my mind the only thing that will change things is a massive disruption that makes everyone realize what is actually going on. That was what needed to happen for FDR to come into play. Until that happens, the US will simply keep increasing the temperature in that pot and we will keep getting more and more used to the corruption and graft and authoritarianism. 

But the idea that people will turn on trump? Sure, if the us goes into a deep depression or he goes and kills another Koch brother. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

I have to say that right now the outlook doesnt look rosy (albeit not without hope). To summarize, none of the three top contenders on the D side are particularly well liked, the swing states are still competitive, and the impeachment proceedings appear to be slowly losing popularity (while Trump's approval, while not having slid that much is showing slight signs of recovery). In other words, there doesnt appear to be a magic bullet and the outcome of the elections still look to be up in the air.

I dont hope for a recession either, since that is horrible for a lot of people, but a sluggish economy that peels away just enough voters is probably the bet outcome.

[Fragile Bird]

33 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

and the impeachment proceedings appear to be slowly losing popularity (while Trump's approval, while not having slid that much is showing slight signs of recovery).

You know what? I think that, like Trump, most Americans don’t give a shit about Ukrainians or Ukraine. While Democrats and other commentators have said Trump’s actions are much worse than Nixon’s because Nixon’s offenses were all domestic,  dirty tricks in Europe don’t really bother them.

[Lykos]

Despair or disparage or both.  Jimmy Kimmel Lie Witness News

 

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Weird yesterday feeling "wow, Bolton, though likely a war criminal and total POS, isn't as terrible as others in the Trump show".

Don't fool yourselves (also, he's saving it for his book!) -- and there's this, which analyzes the priorities of both Hill and Bolton, using this to push their own war hawk foreign policy agendas -- and look at what happened during that short time Bolton was in favor, particularly the entire destabilization of most of the Latin America and much of the Caribbean.

https://www.thenation.com/article/fiona-hill-impeachment-testimony/

 

[dornishpen]

So the Republicans are using dual loyalty smears against Vindman (a Jew whose family fled the USSR because of Soviet antisemitism) apparently without either self-awareness or with the utter shamelessness and hypocrisy that this canard is just as antisemitic when they use it as it is when Omar does, though considering Trump used it for most American Jews earlier this year this is not surprising. Unfortunately the media is not picking this up much from what I can tell, not as much as when it was Ilhan Omar. I think this is probably more serious because Vindman and his family have had to be protected by the military, and there's another level where many in the conservative media are tying this into antisemitic conspiracy theories about Soros.

[Ran]

I wouldn't call it "war hawk" tendencies, re: Hill. The Ukrainian revolution in 2014 was triggered by a belief that the government at the time was backpeddling away from the popular desire to tie Ukraine closer to the West, particular the EU and the US, and instead was backsliding into becoming more closely tied to Russia. The fact that Ukraine doesn't want to be subject to Russian influence and aggression, wants instead to reform and join a Western alliance of liberal democracies, should pretty obviously be something the U.S. should support especially in light of the concerted attacks Russia has made on the U.S. contemporaeously. The Trumpian "Eh, they can have Crimea and whatever else they want" is a capitulation to their malign influence.

And we have, in any case, a treaty obligation related to security assurances when Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons (at the time, it was the third largest nuclear power thanks to all the Soviet ICBMs based there that it retained). 

The general point that national security and foreign policy experts can be nonpartisan but political is fair enough, as is the fact that we shouldn't just fawn over people who can be uncowed by Congress and can speak with intelligence and authority. Kind of says a lot about today's world.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, dornishpen said:

So the Republicans are using dual loyalty smears against Vindman (a Jew whose family fled the USSR because of Soviet antisemitism) apparently without either self-awareness or with the utter shamelessness and hypocrisy that this canard is just as antisemitic when they use it as it is when Omar does, though considering Trump used it for most American Jews earlier this year this is not surprising. Unfortunately the media is not picking this up much from what I can tell, not as much as when it was Ilhan Omar. I think this is probably more serious because Vindman and his family have had to be protected by the military, and there's another level where many in the conservative media are tying this into antisemitic conspiracy theories about Soros.

Us Jews in America have known for a long time that Trump is anti-Semitic, as is most of the right wing. Omar is my Congresswoman and I am way less offended with what she said, because in a way she wasn’t wrong, but she articulated her point very poorly. Also, we all know that a black Muslim is going to get more blow back than white Christian when fumbling around issues that are important to the Jewish community.

[dornishpen]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Us Jews in America have known for a long time that Trump is anti-Semitic, as is most of the right wing. Omar is my Congresswoman and I am way less offended with what she said, because in a way she wasn’t wrong, but she articulated her point very poorly. Also, we all know that a black Muslim is going to get more blow back than white Christian when fumbling around issues that are important to the Jewish community.

I think what she said was antisemitic (which was part of a pattern, not a single incident), but a lot of the response to her (and Tlaib) was islamophobic and racist. There are a lot of right wing Jews, orthodox (big overlap), Israel hawks who are otherwise liberal domestically who are willing to overlook Trump's antisemitism because they like that he moved the embassy, recognized the Golan annexation, said West Bank settlements are legal and so on. Actually there is even some flat out denial of antisemitism, usually with arguments about his daughter and son-in-law.

My family is orthodox, but I'm left wing and most of my friends are left-wing secular Jews, so I feel like that gives me a broad perspective on the views of much of the American Jewish community.