US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Bolton’s book revelation not even being mentioned? Does that mean that, like me, you all think this smoking gun will mean as little to the GOP as any of the others? Grim times.

First of all, yes, I highly (highly) doubt this will move the needle at all for any GOP member.  More importantly, I'd like to wait to see exactly what Bolton says in the book.  The write-up I read on it was pretty vague and, as you suggested, not much different than what most of the other witnesses testified to back in November.

22 minutes ago, Ormond said:

In any event, I believe it's just wrong to say Reagan had diagnosable "Alzheimer's" before he left office. He MAY have been starting into what's called "Mild Cognitive Impairment" or MCI, which can be (but isn't always) a precursor to Alzheimer's, but the degree of impairment described even by those who want to think he was impaired doesn't rise to the level of a full blown Alzheimer's diagnosis.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest he was diagnosed during his tenure.  Just that most outside accounts (scholarly or any other credible source) highlight that the last few years of his presidency the WHO, and particularly his inner-circle, was clearly protecting him from the public, easing his workload, and ensuring his decision-making was not too complex.  All of which, one could argue, those around Trump already engage in!

[Maithanet]

"This is just to sell books" is a ridiculous line of argument though.  If there's any question about whether he's telling the truth, the getting him to testify under oath is the best possible solution available.  And yet the "he's just selling books" line is used instead to ensure that he doesn't testify. 

[Gaston de Foix]

54 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

There will be no change in anyone's position. 

This seems speculative and premature at best.  We have two senators who have more or less openly said that they would favor hearing from Bolton specifically.  Murkowski has also been willing to defy her party in the past, and can reasonably anticipate that any vote for witnesses would be buried under an eventual acquittal.  That already makes it 50-50.  Romney is also very close to Rob Portman who has spoken out against the President's conduct.  No wavering senator is likely to show their hand ahead of time and get barraged by MAGA nation.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

Well, I was talking about the general populace (its easy to track this with Trump's approval ratings, which I predict will stay steady).

If Collins is among those 2 senators, then I'm afraid I don't agree. She is the master of prevarication, threading the needle so she appears reasonable to both sides and doesnt get primaried or lose her precarious seat. I'm sure she made some noises about considering the possibility of allowing witnesses. When it comes down to a vote she will toe the party line.

[DMC]

While it's true both Romney and Collins have made pretty damn solid public statements in terms of position taking, I'm still very skeptical they'll get to 51 on Bolton or any other witness.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If Collins is among those 2 senators, then I'm afraid I don't agree. She is the master of prevarication, threading the needle so she appears reasonable to both sides and doesnt get primaried or lose her precarious seat. I'm sure she made some noises about considering the possibility of allowing witnesses. When it comes down to a vote she will toe the party line.

I understand where you're coming from on Collins, but it isn't true that she never bucks the Republican party.  She (along with Murkowski and McCain) voted against the Obamacare repeal, which was a very big deal.  She also voted against confirming Betsy Devos, even if the final pivotal vote was never found. 

While by no means certain, I expect that Collins, Murkowski and Romney will all vote for witnesses.  Finding that fourth vote to get to 51 is going to be a bigger ask though, I'm fairly pessimistic about that one.  If it's a 50/50 split, I'm not even totally sure what happens.  Does Roberts cast the tiebreaker?  I know Pence does not.  Or is it a motion which requires a majority to pass, and thus 50 votes is a failure?

[drawkcabi]

Gotta go back to Beau again, but his assessment of Bolton is one of his videos that is especially good, if in only an optimistic way.

Now it's in the title that he thinks Bolton has rendered the impeachment moot, so when he says "Trump is done" I'm pretty sure he means for re-election and maybe GOP Senators need to start thinking of Trump and the Republican party as two separate entities again or pay the consequences.

 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Bolton and Trumpy rolling on the floor kicking and gouging and circle forms, noone wants to break up that fight lol.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I understand where you're coming from on Collins, but it isn't true that she never bucks the Republican party.  She (along with Murkowski and McCain) voted against the Obamacare repeal, which was a very big deal.  She also voted against confirming Betsy Devos, even if the final pivotal vote was never found. 

While by no means certain, I expect that Collins, Murkowski and Romney will all vote for witnesses.  Finding that fourth vote to get to 51 is going to be a bigger ask though, I'm fairly pessimistic about that one.  If it's a 50/50 split, I'm not even totally sure what happens.  Does Roberts cast the tiebreaker?  I know Pence does not.  Or is it a motion which requires a majority to pass, and thus 50 votes is a failure?

I'd be very surprised by a 51-49 vote in favor of witnesses. With the ACA repeal vote as one big exception (which McConnell knew he had to allow a vote on), generally the way these things go is either nothing happens after a lot of talk or so many GOP senators tell McConnell how they strongly they feel that he allows a jailbreak and most of the caucus votes with Democrats (or the vote is just cancelled if its something that would fail).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

While by no means certain, I expect that Collins, Murkowski and Romney will all vote for witnesses.  Finding that fourth vote to get to 51 is going to be a bigger ask though, I'm fairly pessimistic about that one.  If it's a 50/50 split, I'm not even totally sure what happens.  Does Roberts cast the tiebreaker?  I know Pence does not.  Or is it a motion which requires a majority to pass, and thus 50 votes is a failure? 

I think Lee might be the fourth.

Again, Utah is not Trump county. If Romney can break the party line, that could give Lee sufficient cover to follow suit. I don't see Collins breaking the party line tho. Unless she figures she's doomed either way. Vote with the Democrats and get outprimaried, or vote with the GOP and and get ousted during the election.

[Zorral]

There's been a lot of reporting around this issue of how, if not Bernie himself treats women, how the males who support him treat women.  It's been going on at least since the days of Hillary-yore.  It's heating up again.

OTOH, there are also a lot of reports, even on WNYC, of russian trolls creating a lot of these reports and / or behaviors.  It's hard to know.

As well, the mainstream establishment dominated of the DNC plays its own role to block the nomination by any and all means for someone who isn't hillary - biden.

One might think if AOC is so supportive of him, this stuff isn't true, but how do we know in this era when fake news, paid trolls, bots, lulz types and just plain lies dominate all the discourses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/bernie-sanderss-trump-like-campaign-is-disaster-democrats/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html

In a funny way its as though only Bloomberg is the honest candidate.  He's not campaigning -- i.e. spending millions upon millions of dollars -- so much to get himself the nomination but to inform the voters to BE AGAINST TRUMP WHO IS DESTROYING THE WORLD, ALL OF IT.

There is the theory that Bloomberg isn't really running,but is trying to establish himself as kingmaker

OTOH, the very wealthy and powerful played kingmaker for Hillary. I remember back in 2007, and then in 2015, some gatherings where I was present in NY, and in Texas, where most of those present were the states' multi-millionaire - and some billionaire -- DEM Donors. Most of them old family generationally wealthy types, though not all.  They all knew Hillary personally, and liked her personally, in terms of hanging out.  They had already chosen Hillary as their candidate, which meant their states' candidate. We see how well that worked out both times, right? Especially with the NY Times endorsing her last time before even the primary season started.

In the meantime Bloomberg is saying it everywhere and constantly what needs to be said. The Dems, certainly the DNC, is not.  Not that Mikey wants a 'socialist' to be the nom, that's certain.  But I am guessing he would be willing to go there if that's what it takes to run the demon and his supporters out of power.  Which is more than we can say for the DNC.
 

[Fragile Bird]

About Bolton’s book.

I have seen it reported that Bolton submitted his manuscript for clearance by the WH on Dec. 30. The book must have been immediately devoured by the WH legal team and a report given to Trump. Bolton, it’s reported, reveals the lies of Trump, Mulvaney and Pompeo, since he was at the meetings where statements were made and where Pompeo and Mulvaney denied being there. eta and Barr too!

Trump must have been livid. The bombing that took out Soleimani’s life happened on Jan 3. You can go back and re-read the comments about the timing in the relevant US Politics thread, like distracting from impeachment stuff, but it seems more likely it was ordered in a fit of towering, incandescent rage.

I hope the Iranians pick up that and tell their people that the devils dwelling in the Great Satan, the USA, are attacking each other, rolling on the floor with their hands on each other’s throats, much to the amusement of Satan himself.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by commentators, the timing of the leak of the manuscript is in itself fascinating. The Bolton camp swears it did not leak it, so did someone in the WH leak it? The story has come out after Trump’s defense team already outlined it’s core defense, including the denial of facts that Bolton has confirmed as true because HE WAS THERE. So the question is, have Trump’s defense team seen the Bolton manuscript or the summary, so they have lied in front of the Senate, or have Trump and the DoJ WH lawyers withheld it from the defense team lawyers ie lied to the defense team. Any decent lawyer who has been told that great big a lie would have to resign. I have not heard of any resignations so I assume they are just lying to the Senate.

The WH has to release any comments they have by Feb. 13, so you can see why Moscow Mitch wants the trial wrapped up by then.

God almighty, I am so looking forward to Bloomberg’s ads on this one!

[aceluby]

Trump defense team has zero issues with lying during the 'trial'.  They've already lied numerous times that are easily verifiable, and that's since Saturday.  I'd put money on them sticking to their guns, truth be damned.

[Maithanet]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'd be very surprised by a 51-49 vote in favor of witnesses. With the ACA repeal vote as one big exception (which McConnell knew he had to allow a vote on), generally the way these things go is either nothing happens after a lot of talk or so many GOP senators tell McConnell how they strongly they feel that he allows a jailbreak and most of the caucus votes with Democrats (or the vote is just cancelled if its something that would fail).

But this isn't a typical situation.  Wasn't the dickering prior to the start of the Senate trial about whether there'd be a vote on witnesses?  And wasn't the final resolution that in order to get Romney et al on board that McConnell agreed to have an up/down vote on whether there would be witnesses?  I'm not 100% sure, but that was my understanding.  And thus, if a vote is coming that McConnell has little control over, then the usual rules don't really apply.  Now, a 51-49 vote is going to look bad for the Republican party and for the four rogue senators.  I think that 51-49 to have witnesses might actually be McConnell's least preferred option.  Thus if McConnell can't get the 50 votes needed to stop witnesses from happening, he might encourage everyone to vote yes on witnesses so that he can at least get the PR win that Republicans want to "get to the bottom of this".  After all, these should be incredibly Trump friendly witnesses, we're talking about guys like Bolton and Mulvaney.  It might end up more like the Kavanaugh hearings, where Republicans wanted to avoid any testimony, but in the end that testimony only helped increase partisanship. 

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But this isn't a typical situation.  Wasn't the dickering prior to the start of the Senate trial about whether there'd be a vote on witnesses?  And wasn't the final resolution that in order to get Romney et al on board that McConnell agreed to have an up/down vote on whether there would be witnesses?  I'm not 100% sure, but that was my understanding.  And thus, if a vote is coming that McConnell has little control over, then the usual rules don't really apply.  Now, a 51-49 vote is going to look bad for the Republican party and for the four rogue senators.  I think that 51-49 to have witnesses might actually be McConnell's least preferred option.  Thus if McConnell can't get the 50 votes needed to stop witnesses from happening, he might encourage everyone to vote yes on witnesses so that he can at least get the PR win that Republicans want to "get to the bottom of this".  After all, these should be incredibly Trump friendly witnesses, we're talking about guys like Bolton and Mulvaney.  It might end up more like the Kavanaugh hearings, where Republicans wanted to avoid any testimony, but in the end that testimony only helped increase partisanship. 

You're right that it isn't a usual situation, since the vote will definitely be happening. But the issue around the final resolution wasn't to get 4 senators on board, it was to get a rumored 15-20 senators on board. Do Romney/Collins/Murkowski/and a rumored 4th feel so much stronger than the other 15 senators or so that they'll vote for witnesses in defiance of the whole party? Maybe, but I have my doubts.

So that's why I think there's either a lot of yes votes or no more than two. I don't know what happens in a 50-50 tie in this case.

[James Arryn]

45 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

About Bolton’s book.

I have seen it reported that Bolton submitted his manuscript for clearance by the WH on Dec. 30. The book must have been immediately devoured by the WH legal team and a report given to Trump. Bolton, it’s reported, reveals the lies of Trump, Mulvaney and Pompeo, since he was at the meetings where statements were made and where Pompeo and Mulvaney denied being there. eta and Barr too!

Trump must have been livid. The bombing that took out Soleimani’s life happened on Jan 3. You can go back and re-read the comments about the timing in the relevant US Politics thread, like distracting from impeachment stuff, but it seems more likely it was ordered in a fit of towering, incandescent rage.

I hope the Iranians pick up that and tell their people that the devils dwelling in the Great Satan, the USA, are attacking each other, rolling on the floor with their hands on each other’s throats, much to the amusement of Satan himself.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by commentators, the timing of the leak of the manuscript is in itself fascinating. The Bolton camp swears it did not leak it, so did someone in the WH leak it? The story has come out after Trump’s defense team already outlined it’s core defense, including the denial of facts that Bolton has confirmed as true because HE WAS THERE. So the question is, have Trump’s defense team seen the Bolton manuscript or the summary, so they have lied in front of the Senate, or have Trump and the DoJ WH lawyers withheld it from the defense team lawyers ie lied to the defense team. Any decent lawyer who has been told that great big a lie would have to resign. I have not heard of any resignations so I assume they are just lying to the Senate.

The WH has to release any comments they have by Feb. 13, so you can see why Moscow Mitch wants the trial wrapped up by then.

God almighty, I am so looking forward to Bloomberg’s ads on this one!

Rage is one possibility. It’s interesting, though, that of all possible outlets for rage, he chooses going down the one the path Bolton has been begging to go down since his senior prom. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

An interesting read from Vox on the Bernie Brogan scandal.

I'm not a big fan of Vox, but I found this to be a bit less reactionary than many of the takes I've seen. For the record, I abhor Rogan and his (massive) cult. But the issue is more complicated than people make it out to be.

[IheartIheartTesla]

58 minutes ago, Fez said:

So that's why I think there's either a lot of yes votes or no more than two. I don't know what happens in a 50-50 tie in this case.

I've read somewhere that it might be Robert's call in that case, but I've also read that McConnell could simply call it a loss and move on. I think in short nobody knows.

The best play at this time would be for people From Gardner/Collins/McSallys' constituencies to jam up their phone lines.

[Maithanet]

38 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

An interesting read from Vox on the Bernie Brogan scandal.

I'm not a big fan of Vox, but I found this to be a bit less reactionary than many of the takes I've seen. For the record, I abhor Rogan and his (massive) cult. But the issue is more complicated than people make it out to be.

That is a good article. Deontological vs consequentialist thinking - it's like a Good Place episode.

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

That is a good article. Deontological vs consequentialist thinking - it's like a Good Place episode.

I'm reading it now.  Confession, I haven't known who Rogan is / was.  I pay just about zero attention to such people's existence.  I've always known Rush Limbaugh though -- he's seems to have been around since before I was born or something, and he was always on the car radio, like some others.  But most of these clowns emerging out of the slime and scum of the national landfill that passes for a national intelligence these days, aren't even names I recognize.  I'm so mainstream when it comes to news!