The Trump Presidency: Part 17

[Norman Alexander]

Food for thought:

Children in cages: not a good enough reason for Mitch to stop Trump.

Working with hostile powers to subvert an election: not a good enough reason for Mitch to stop Trump.

Self-enrichment and inside dealing: not a good enough reason for Mitch to stop Trump.

Attacking Joe Biden: IMPEACH HIM NAO!

Democrats are a funny lot.

Except it was Mitch who was covering Donny's pasty great ass.

 

[phiwum]

It would be great if he actually had a *literal* primary opponent so we could see if he would similarly target an 'R.'

I suspect he would.

Obviously, I meant "primary opponent" as "one of the most important opponents" not "opponent in the primary." Both meanings are literal, near as I can tell.

 

[phiwum]

Then he sends his personal attorney off to do dirty work for him.

I agree that countries ethically unsound pressure to other countries all the time.

I'm not sure I know what that last sentence means. If you just mean that nations use unethical means to pressure one another regularly, yeah, I guess so. Military threats are usually an example, I guess.

But this is about selfish abuse of official power in international relations.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Except it was Mitch who was covering Donny's pasty great ass.

Mitch doesn't schedule votes in the House.

I'm pretty sure I'm on record already as being unimpressed with the "because the Senate won't convict" excuse.

I've heard no credible reason to think this situation has changed, and yet the light changed from red to green.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Congress is deeply disturbed that a President might attach conditionalities to American foreign policy.

1) "conditions" being attached to foreign aid/policy is the norm
2) those conditions being PERSONAL FAVORS, especially harm to a domestic political rival, is not just not the norm, but is ILLEGAL.

 

[newyorkguy]

Not only that but guess what blatant fact the news media hasn't quite registered? The corrupt prosecutor in question was not going after the company Hunter worked, he was protecting the associated Oligarch from UK sanctions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/...-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html
Ding ding ding...

Ironically, the article you linked, from almost four years ago is headlined," Joe Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch". The second paragraph -- remember this is from 2015, before Trump was in the White House, while Obama was still president -- reports on the problem with having vice president Joe Biden deliver the message.

The credibility of the vice president’s anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was Ukraine’s ecology minister under former President Viktor F. Yanukovych before he was forced into exile.

So there was, and sadly is, an issue with Biden and the Ukraine. Just not the one Trump is blathering about. Further down in the article you find this:

Edward C. Chow, who follows Ukrainian policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the involvement of the vice president’s son with Mr. Zlochevsky’s firm undermined the Obama administration’s anticorruption message in Ukraine. “Now you look at the Hunter Biden situation, and on the one hand you can credit the father for sending the anticorruption message,” Mr. Chow said. “But I think unfortunately it sends the message that a lot of foreign countries want to believe about America, that we are hypocritical about these issues.”

 

[WilliamSeger]

Other, even clearer instances of that exist. Which were not pursued this vigorously even after months-to-years of evidence piling up.

Sorry, I think this whistleblower thing is vapor thin right now compared to the other matters.

Obviously, not everyone agrees we you that the other things were even clearer instances of abuse of power, while this one is crystal clear. And if Trump's abuse of power results in reelection, a hell of lot of people besides the Bidens will be hurt. Furthermore, I fail to see your point, even if you think this is a trivial issue. Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back? You seem to be digging pretty deep to find something to criticize Democrats for.

Now I'm a Trump apologist?

Get ******.

Nope, I didn't say you were a Trump apologist. I was specifically thinking of the clowns on the morning shows, not one of whom would answer questions honestly. Why do you suppose that is?

ETA: Mods, I'm not the least bit offended by the "suggestion" at the end, and ask that you not remove the post.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Mitch doesn't schedule votes in the House.

I'm pretty sure I'm on record already as being unimpressed with the "because the Senate won't convict" excuse.

I've heard no credible reason to think this situation has changed, and yet the light changed from red to green.

Seriously?

It was precisely the prospect of having The Turtle kill everything dead that the Dems did not proceed previously. Why launch anything when it was going to be dead in the water going into the Senate anyway? Clearly a pointless exercise.

But the list of Donny's disgraces was building up nonetheless. More presidential misdemeanors, more evidence, more lies, more cover-ups, more and more of Mitch trying to keep his fingers in the dam. Mitch even told Donny to watch himself, to curb his enthusiasm, because Mitch could not keep covering for him forever. So the problem for Mitch is this Ukraine thing was one big hole more in that dam than he has fingers and toes. It's gotten somewhat out of his ability to kill it off.

Even so, there's STILL no reason to believe the Senate will convict if Congress does proceed with impeachment, even now. For exactly the reason of Mitch. Unless he has managed to get his own excuses in line and is beating a tactical retreat, leaving Donny to face the music alone.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Seriously?

It was precisely the prospect of having The Turtle kill everything dead that the Dems did not proceed previously. Why launch anything when it was going to be dead in the water going into the Senate anyway? Clearly a pointless exercise.

But the list of Donny's disgraces was building up nonetheless. More presidential misdemeanors, more evidence, more lies, more cover-ups, more and more of Mitch trying to keep his fingers in the dam. Mitch even told Donny to watch himself, to curb his enthusiasm, because Mitch could not keep covering for him forever. So the problem for Mitch is this Ukraine thing was one big hole more in that dam than he has fingers and toes. It's gotten somewhat out of his ability to kill it off.

Even so, there's STILL no reason to believe the Senate will convict if Congress does proceed with impeachment, even now. For exactly the reason of Mitch. Unless he has managed to get his own excuses in line and is beating a tactical retreat, leaving Donny to face the music alone.

The Democrats, meanwhile, actually have been undergoing a shift in attitude upon returning from August recess where they had collected a number of fleas in their ears by the time they came back. The cool posture to appease the concerns of frontline districts could no longer keep the party from a revolt, especially once a number of frontliner "don't impeach" camp members dropped an op-ed switching their positions a few weeks ago.

Personally, I was hoping this would put the focus on the escalating subpoenas with the aim of developing one of the already heavily-vetted matters of concern to launch into an inquiry.

Then this "squirrel!" runs across the desk and we're chasing half-cocked after a story with a lot of convoluted twists and turns.

(are there really? not so much. does that matter? depressingly, yes.)

I'm sorry, a lot of Americans are overwhelmed and in a state where a story about government process and procedures where the term "botched investigation" is used (regardless of which side) and they are not going to put any of the information you tell them in any kind of high priority area of memory.

After all the mud is slung both ways on this one, what will stick through by next November is that one of these candidates is a **** sandwich and the other is a pile of horse manure.

To many Americans, that would make it an entirely unremarkable election.

 

[newyorkguy]

It would be great if he actually had a *literal* primary opponent so we could see if he would similarly target an 'R.' I suspect he would.

Suspect he would? Seriously? The guy who in 2016 reacted to Ted Cruz surging in the GOP primaries by accusing his father of being involved in the JFK assassination.

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it. I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.” Link

That's way worse than what he has accused Biden of. Multitudes worse.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The Democrats, meanwhile, actually have been undergoing a shift in attitude upon returning from August recess where they had collected a number of fleas in their ears by the time they came back. The cool posture to appease the concerns of frontline districts could no longer keep the party from a revolt, especially once a number of frontliner "don't impeach" camp members dropped an op-ed switching their positions a few weeks ago.

Personally, I was hoping this would put the focus on the escalating subpoenas with the aim of developing one of the already heavily-vetted matters of concern to launch into an inquiry.

Then this "squirrel!" runs across the desk and we're chasing half-cocked after a story with a lot of convoluted twists and turns.

(are there really? not so much. does that matter? depressingly, yes.)

Not so much a squirrel as the first Jenga block out to make the tower start wobbling. All the other stuff will come up soon enough - it's probably not going to be abandoned at all.

I'm sorry, a lot of Americans are overwhelmed and in a state where a story about government process and procedures where the term "botched investigation" is used (regardless of which side) and they are not going to put any of the information you tell them in any kind of high priority area of memory.

After all the mud is slung both ways on this one, what will stick through by next November is that one of these candidates is a **** sandwich and the other is a pile of horse manure.

To many Americans, that would make it an entirely unremarkable election.

So BAU. Every single election has been like that as far back as I can recall. The choice between two least worst candidates. What's the old saying? No matter who you vote for, you always get a politician.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The difference between Ukraine and all the other stuff Trump has done that should have him impeached is this:

There is one single piece of evidence (the transcript), officially released by the White House, which on its own shows a textbook abuse of power.

Unless you have blinders on, it is such unambiguous, unimpeachable evidence in the absence of any "angry Democrats and Deep State".
The only thing Dems can be accused of here is to have done their job of oversight.

It is not a question of severity, it is one of clarity:
Trump, on his own, thinking no one was listening behaves like a dictator, putting personal political power over National Interests.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The main question is, why aren't the Republicans?

I think we all know that answer to that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'll also say that if any Democrats are thinking this is a move of solidarity (yes, I can admit I don't know it for a fact :9) to protect an ally, all they are doing is painting a massive target on him.

Yes, I understand Biden didn't do anything improper. It doesn't matter.

With Russia, Hillary is the comeback target. Who cares. Hillary isn't on the board. Let them waste hot air on that. Great strategic play and maintains initiative.

I caught glimpses of anchor and pundit monologues on this at work today and several times they walk through the timeline. Seconds in time being the column inches of multimedia news, sure enough you get "Biden's son worked for a company in Ukraine being investigated" and "Biden pressuring Ukraine about their prosecutor" pretty close to each other (for some significant portion of Americans "as part of the Obama Administration" is, of course, immediate reminder of how to decide). Quite a few times, one right after the other. Gee, I wonder how that plays out.

That plus the "I can't really figure this out, it's hard" version of me feeling like "Biden might have used his influence to help himself (his son) personally, Trump might have used his influence to help himself personally...I need a beer."

We can either figure out this is what the board looks like or just jerk ourselves off for another *checks watch* a little over a year and a month.

 

[SezMe]

I'm not sure I know what that last sentence means. If you just mean that nations use unethical means to pressure one another regularly, yeah, I guess so. Military threats are usually an example, I guess.

More importantly, the fact that it is done by others is no reason whatsoever for us to engage in unethical behavior.

 

[phiwum]

I'll also say that if any Democrats are thinking this is a move of solidarity (yes, I can admit I don't know it for a fact :9) to protect an ally, all they are doing is painting a massive target on him.

Yes, I understand Biden didn't do anything improper. It doesn't matter.

With Russia, Hillary is the comeback target. Who cares. Hillary isn't on the board. Let them waste hot air on that. Great strategic play and maintains initiative.

I caught glimpses of anchor and pundit monologues on this at work today and several times they walk through the timeline. Seconds in time being the column inches of multimedia news, sure enough you get "Biden's son worked for a company in Ukraine being investigated" and "Biden pressuring Ukraine about their prosecutor" pretty close to each other (for some significant portion of Americans "as part of the Obama Administration" is, of course, immediate reminder of how to decide). Quite a few times, one right after the other. Gee, I wonder how that plays out.

That plus the "I can't really figure this out, it's hard" version of me feeling like "Biden might have used his influence to help himself (his son) personally, Trump might have used his influence to help himself personally...I need a beer."

We can either figure out this is what the board looks like or just jerk ourselves off for another *checks watch* a little over a year and a month.

I'm finding your thesis harder and harder to suss I'm afraid.

You're right that focusing attention on this issue may not be good for Biden. I'm fine with that, because this isn't really about Biden and his fate.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Obviously, not everyone agrees we you that the other things were even clearer instances of abuse of power, while this one is crystal clear. And if Trump's abuse of power results in reelection, a hell of lot of people besides the Bidens will be hurt. Furthermore, I fail to see your point, even if you think this is a trivial issue. Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back? You seem to be digging pretty deep to find something to criticize Democrats for.

That doesn't make that exact straw a good issue to present to a group of people who are not familiar with the weight bearing dynamics of a camel.

For evidence, I would direct you to the 9/11 subsection of these fora :9.

Nope, I didn't say you were a Trump apologist. I was specifically thinking of the clowns on the morning shows, not one of whom would answer questions honestly. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they understand what the world is.

ETA: Mods, I'm not the least bit offended by the "suggestion" at the end, and ask that you not remove the post.

I apologize for my hasty misinterpretation and have removed my regrettable remark of hostility and contempt that you did not deserve.

 

[phiwum]

More importantly, the fact that it is done by others is no reason whatsoever for us to engage in unethical behavior.

Certainly, but I'm still not sure what the previous poster's point was--I think there was a dropped word or something--so I'm not sure whether your or my comments are relevant at all.

 

[SezMe]

It is not a question of severity, it is one of clarity:

Well said.

Trump, on his own, thinking no one was listening behaves like a dictator, putting personal political power over National Interests.

No, he knew people were listening. I believe Dump when he says he did nothing wrong. He REALLY doesn't get that speaking for the USA is different from speaking for the Trump Organization. He's really that blind.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The difference between Ukraine and all the other stuff Trump has done that should have him impeached is this:

There is one single piece of evidence (the transcript), officially released by the White House, which on its own shows a textbook abuse of power.

Unless you have blinders on, it is such unambiguous, unimpeachable evidence in the absence of any "angry Democrats and Deep State".
The only thing Dems can be accused of here is to have done their job of oversight.

It is not a question of severity, it is one of clarity:
Trump, on his own, thinking no one was listening behaves like a dictator, putting personal political power over National Interests.

Ahh, but there's a wrinkle there.

This is Schrodinger's Transcript. It is hard, firm evidence of the first order when we want to punch up how airtight the case is. It is nothing but some notes scratched together by several people's recollections when we want to make hay about the White House's lack of transparency about the matter.